*We know the old order is not coming back.* ***We shouldn’t mourn it****. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger,* ***more just****.*
Asleep-Ad1182 on
Trump will be gone in a few years. Gavin Newsom will become president, and things will pretty much go back to normal.
The real threat to democracy and the west is China and, more generally, the axis of authoritarianism.
Bubba_Pilks on
His whole speech was fantastic and what the World needed to hear.
Definitely Proud as a Canadian.
GlitchedGamer14 on
Sorry, I know this article is about things that the Canadian Prime Minister said, but I think it’s really relevant here too.
>In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. And in it, he asked a simple question: How did the communist system sustain itself?
>And his answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world, unite!” He doesn’t believe it. No one does. But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.
>Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
>Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.
>Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.
>For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
>We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
>’You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination,’ Carney said.
>This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
>So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
>This bargain no longer works.
[…]
>You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
>The multilateral institutions on which middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP — the very architecture of collective problem solving, are under threat.
>And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions — that they must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.
>And this impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
>But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.
[…]
>Middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.
>But I’d also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.
>This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
>In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact.
>We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield them together.
>First it means naming reality. Stop invoking “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.
>It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
>It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, it means creating institutions and agreements that function as described.
>And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s immediate priority. And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence — it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
[…]
>We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.
>But we believe that from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, more just.
>This is the task of the middle powers. The countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine co-operation.
>The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.
>That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently.
>And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.
metallicadefender on
N… W… O…
Connect_Grocery6639 on
“compliance won’t buy you safety”
a_electrum on
Excellent and historic speech. We are entering a new era of imperialism.
seataccrunch on
The middle countries must find the will to stand together …. I pray 🙏 this can happen
IsmaelRetzinsky on
Between Carney and Malhuret, it’s been a refreshing week of clearheadedness.
Any-Original-6113 on
So, essentially, the Canadian Prime Minister is calling for a revival of the Non-Aligned Movement at a new level, a movement that existed during the Cold War.
An alliance between Canada and Europe is mutually beneficial, but how exactly could Europe help if the US were to launch a campaign to break Canada apart (I’ve read that the US supports Alberta separatism)?
Ok_Photo_865 on
He’s correct
Sharp-Mountain1841 on
This is what leadership looks like.
WM_ on
MAGA foliohats got their NWO
Hefty-Station1704 on
Well, since now genocide seems to be alright with more countries than ever before I’d say he’s not wrong.
Rocky_Road_To_Dublin on
He’s a bit more conservative than I’d prefer, but he’s really made me proud since he was elected. In a world of dumb leaders, we chose a smart one.
TheDungen on
We may be able to build something better if the US repairs its system.
17 commenti
He’s not wrong
Why is the BBC censoring Carney?
*We know the old order is not coming back.* ***We shouldn’t mourn it****. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger,* ***more just****.*
Trump will be gone in a few years. Gavin Newsom will become president, and things will pretty much go back to normal.
The real threat to democracy and the west is China and, more generally, the axis of authoritarianism.
His whole speech was fantastic and what the World needed to hear.
Definitely Proud as a Canadian.
Sorry, I know this article is about things that the Canadian Prime Minister said, but I think it’s really relevant here too.
[Here’s the full speech + Q&A.](https://www.youtube.com/live/uStuQ-TbL9k?si=kFyL1PTdRem4E2F0) And, here [are some relevant bits from the transcript.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-speech-davos-rules-based-order-9.7053350)
>In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. And in it, he asked a simple question: How did the communist system sustain itself?
>And his answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world, unite!” He doesn’t believe it. No one does. But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.
>Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
>Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.
>Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.
>For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
>We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
>’You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination,’ Carney said.
>This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
>So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
>This bargain no longer works.
[…]
>You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
>The multilateral institutions on which middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP — the very architecture of collective problem solving, are under threat.
>And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions — that they must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.
>And this impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
>But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.
[…]
>Middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.
>But I’d also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.
>This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
>In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact.
>We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield them together.
>First it means naming reality. Stop invoking “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.
>It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
>It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, it means creating institutions and agreements that function as described.
>And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s immediate priority. And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence — it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
[…]
>We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.
>But we believe that from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, more just.
>This is the task of the middle powers. The countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine co-operation.
>The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.
>That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently.
>And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.
N… W… O…
“compliance won’t buy you safety”
Excellent and historic speech. We are entering a new era of imperialism.
The middle countries must find the will to stand together …. I pray 🙏 this can happen
Between Carney and Malhuret, it’s been a refreshing week of clearheadedness.
So, essentially, the Canadian Prime Minister is calling for a revival of the Non-Aligned Movement at a new level, a movement that existed during the Cold War.
An alliance between Canada and Europe is mutually beneficial, but how exactly could Europe help if the US were to launch a campaign to break Canada apart (I’ve read that the US supports Alberta separatism)?
He’s correct
This is what leadership looks like.
MAGA foliohats got their NWO
Well, since now genocide seems to be alright with more countries than ever before I’d say he’s not wrong.
He’s a bit more conservative than I’d prefer, but he’s really made me proud since he was elected. In a world of dumb leaders, we chose a smart one.
We may be able to build something better if the US repairs its system.