KaBOOOOOM!

Except this wasn’t a “Freudian slip”, it was part of his script awkwardly presented, then passed off as a joke by a person who has no sense of humor and no comedic timing.

It has been awhile since I’ve taken psych, but essentially all of Freudian psychology is wrong.

IIRC in this case neither idea was related to each other. It’s related to the idea of a “two track mind”.

Unless of course he said it on purpose because he’s a couch fucking coward, which is entirely possible.

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I do not subscribe to Canadian nationalism, and I do not think that Canada should exist by merit of it being a genocidal, white supremacist enterprise fundamentally as a settler-colonial state. Grant would not agree with or even like me.

My criticism of Canada’s subordination to the US is out of concern for the harm this will cause to the most vulnerable among us, not the wellbeing of a self-perceived national identity or groups of people who materially benefit from this system. Canada is an extractive enterprise, its settlers have been subordinated under imperialism for its entire existence, but they have been complacent with that so long as they benefitted by being a white settler nation, and especially after being a white settler nation in the US metropole. The Canadian state has supported imperialistic US campaigns all over the world not because it is subordinated, but because it benefits from them.

Grant’s criticism of the PC and Liberal parties is honestly quite ignorant in reality, not even informed by the decolonial and anti-imperialist arguments of his time. It refused to interrogate why Canadian and US interests intersected, and instead resolved to construct some idealized, immaterial past where Canada somehow existed without global imperialism and liberal capitalism. Obviously, this is untrue, Canada has always been a liberal-capitalist state and its entire existence hinges on the continued genocide of indigenous peoples and extraction from the land they live on. He even saw the Agrarian Socialism of the CCF and how readily the state appropriated those policies into a capitalist economic framework, and still concluded that it was the bad actors of a vague, wealthy elite that threatened Canadian national identity and not that this system inevitably benefits capital and capital alone.

I’m not surprised to hear if someone finds his writing appealing in 2026, as we are in a particularly energized fascist moment now that liberal capitalism is meeting the material limitations of reality. White Canadians are having to contend with the negative consequences of participating in empire for the first time in their memory, and they’ve responded by attempting to salvage some ideal, more “pure” form of national identity that maintains those core values but pathologizes the “Americanness” of their imperialism in the same way he did. It’s disturbing, and I can guarantee many of them would not care about the genocides that would be required for that identity to exist.

…neoliberal doesn’t mean, “Federal Liberal Party of Canada.” It is a set of politics that emerged in the late 20th century which rearticulates the classical liberal, “laissez-faire” rationalizations for massive wealth stratification and privatization of public works as an attack on the more welfare liberal policies and programs of the post-depression era. Reagan is the most famous advocate for this form of economic policy and is often (wrongly) credited for its formulation. It is characterized not by “small government” as many of its advocates say, but by the privatization of previously state-owned or operated programs and services. Canada’s “mixed” economy is a great example of this form of policy exactly because it follows the philosophy that public capital is more efficiently spent through private hands, or at the very least through the logics of capitalist efficiency. So, when you see Conservative and Liberal governments defunding say, education or medical in favour of privatized “efficiency,” that is an element in neoliberal politics. Or, when you consider that Carney’s “sovereignty” fund is essentially a funnel moving public wealth into privately owned fossil fuel and mining corporations. With that in mind, it means that even policies related to business are subject to the capitalist imperatives of profit maximization, infinite growth, and simply the private wealth interests of individual policy makers.

So, I’m not sure why the Avro Arrow project failed, but I know it was cancelled in 1959, roughly a decade and a half before the neoliberal era that I am describing. From what I recall, the second proposal during the Harper admin was cut due to to concerns over cost, which would potentially reflect neoliberal rhetoric, but I don’t know enough about aircraft design to speculate on whether that was a realistic estimate of it. But, the fact that Canada does supply its airforce with an assortment of privately owned companies for British-, Euro-, and American-made planes exemplifies how investment in those companies also creates an incentive for any investors in the admin to vote against a nationalized project.

Look up terms before you say shit like this or presume to know better than others when you clearly should be questioning how you understand these things.

Edit: Notice how they didnt comment under this one, but rather my response to a different commenter.

Which book was that?

TBF for the USA’s enemies Trump is the best thing to happen. The only question is do you eat popcorn or poke it with a stick?