Archives for category: Politics

In 1933, the population of Jews in Germany numbered around 505, 000. Across Europe, it was around 9.5 million. The Nazis quite infamously thought those numbers were too high, and perpetrated a crime so barbaric that it has forbidden comparison to Nazis ever since because no other crime could ever equate to its astonishing horrors. 6 million of those Jews across Europe were systematically eliminated in industrialized slaughter. The thing is, the Nazis didn’t start with genocide. Despite the long-entrenched dehumanization and vilification of the Jews embedded in German culture at the time, the Nazis were people too, and as a species, people try to avoid murder as best they can. The Nazis wanted to approach the final solution to the Jewish question in a humane way that was a win/win for everyone, so their first attempt was to institute what they called the Madagascar Plan.

That sounds delightful! I’m sure it’s not anything horrible or depressing!

The Madagascar Plan was developed to forcibly relocate European Jews to the island of Madagascar where they could live out the rest of their Jewish lives in nasty, brutish, and short conditions under the watchful and compassionate gaze of the SS. The plan ultimately failed because the Nazis didn’t have the logistics or resources to deport millions of people from the European continent, and decided to try another approach. The elimination of Jews from Europe was the goal, and there were many methods under consideration to achieve that goal. The Holocaust happened through process of elimination since it was the most feasible “solution” under the circumstances provided. The problem is that the goal of ethnic cleansing is always impossible outside of genocide since it is driven by a hateful ideology that does not care for things like reason or logistics, so whether the Nazis could have had enough resources to afford a mass deportation, the result would always have been the same.

Today, Donald Trump has promised to deport 21 million “illegal aliens.” To be clear, the estimates show only around 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States, but it seems that logistics are not under heavy consideration this time around either. He is currently trying to ship all those “illegals” off to El Salvador to live under the watchful and compassionate gaze of the “world’s coolest dictator.” The Republican party seems rapaciously intent on repeating the objectively worst part of history. The absurdity of Trump’s comments about Haitians eating cats and dogs ape the cartoonish depictions of Jews in Nazi propaganda. He mimics the language of Mein Kampf directly when he says that immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country. The parallels to the rise of the Nazi party in the 1930s and the rise of Donald Trump today are not trivial, and portend horrifying disaster.

Now imagine if they had AI making these up!

Trump and his sycophants would say this is about justice; illegal aliens are by definition criminal, and they are responsible for horrific violence against old grandmothers and other symbols of American pristine innocence – just don’t ask for any evidence. But, per this administration, the definition of “criminal” is someone with tattoos. Or the Trump administration might just deport someone by accident, and then laugh it off when they’re called out on it. Or they’re deporting legal residents with green cards or international students because of charges of “antisemitism.” The party that “brought back free speech,” and aligns itself with someone who openly Sieg Heils at the president’s inauguration are worried about antisemitism on university campuses? This is clearly not about justice because Republicans and their devotees are pooh-poohing due process as an impediment to their agenda. They’re telling citizens to self-deport, ominously telling them, “the federal government will find you.”

Trump does not seek justice for Americans, he’s advancing the goals of white nationalism. Look at the names of the green card holders that are at risk of deportation, or the demographics of the students being kidnapped out of their universities. Pro-Palestinian protest is useful because targeting that group allows you to grab a lot of Muslims. If a white person was accidentally deported to El Salvador, do you really think that Donald Trump would hesitate in bringing them back? Do you really think that ICE would have even grabbed them in the first place, wearing masks and chucking them into a panel van? I’m not alone in recognizing this pattern. They’re not being subtle.

Oh yeah, I’m sure they would do this for white folks

I don’t think the 21 million deportations that Trump promised during his campaign was an exaggeration of undocumented immigrant numbers; I think he was suggesting even at that time that he was going to use deportation as a tool of repression of religious and ethnic minorities, and that that number was more what he had in mind as to what was needed to be purged from his country in order to make it pure. The criminality and immigration status were the veneer he was using to sell his ethnic cleansing to the rubes.

Donald Trump wants to deport more than double the amount of Jews that were in Europe at the time of the Holocaust; what happens next if the logistics of his plan fail? What if El Salvador can’t accommodate 21 million people being abducted and shipped off to its torture prisons? What happens when America’s Madagascar Plan fails? Elon Musk wants to “save” civilization by abandoning empathy, just as Hitler said that his followers need to “close [their] hearts to pity” in order to achieve their own ideological goals. Why would we need to harden our hearts in order to tolerate what is come?

Utilitarians have long debated whether it would be ethical to travel back in time to kill Adolf Hitler as a baby, positioning the moral scales as a balance between the Holocaust and World War 2 against the murder of a helpless infant. This is of course absurd because why wouldn’t the time traveler kill Hitler after World War 1 when he was an adult and in jail, as if one needs to murder an infant when a well-placed shank in a prison yard would be equally easy and efficient, and a genocide is prevented either way.

Do they puzzle over the means to do it? Like putting baby Hitler in an oven for the sake of Morissettian irony versus just shaking him until he stops crying?

When we ask the question about what happens next, when the economic war Trump declared on the world fails, when misery exacerbates at home, when everyone is more angry than they’ve ever been before and is looking for someone to blame, we also have to ask what is needed in order to prevent the worst from happening. There are those who believe murdering a baby would be worth it to prevent what happened after the failure of the original Madagascar Plan. Perhaps our modern time traveler only managed to graze an ear.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for more assassination attempts against Donald Trump. Personally, I think violence tends to beget more violence, and a successful assassination could precipitate a civil war – that’s bad! What I am suggesting is that holding up a sign saying you disagree or trying to align with the “good” billionaires is embarrassingly far from what dissidents need to be doing to in order to repudiate the very real potential for an American genocide. YouTube’s first and only News Man Cody Johnston facetiously suggests that Democrats need to start taking shits on the congressional house floor, and while this is clearly a joke, his and my point are essentially the same: resistance needs to be extreme. I’m also suggesting that Republicans need to recognize that the team they’re on is well-past the point of being comparable to actual Nazis, “Roman” salutes and all. As a Canadian, I worry about my own country’s ambivalence toward helping refugees fleeing Trump’s America, as if denying the MS St. Louis entry into our country was a time in our history we ought to emulate. We all need to do better, regardless of our nationality, in how we respond to refugees and immigrants. Fascism is on the rise globally, built predominantly on the vilification of invading immigrants. We all have our part to play, and really, it’s easy enough to start by just being honest in our language about what it is that we’re facing: this is the beginning of an ethnic cleansing driven by the agenda of white nationalism.

Hannah Arendt didn’t write about the banality of evil as it was applied in the context of the Holocaust; Adolf Eichmann was in charge of the Madagascar plan. This is where going through the motions, following the rules, and punching your time card in and out at the murder factory has already brought us. What needs to be disrupted is the very normalcy that engendered this situation before we need another Nuremberg Trial to sift through the ashes once it’s all over. With hindsight, how do we wish the Germans had responded to their government’s crimes against humanity? What level of extremity do you think we would have tolerated? What needs to be done to prevent an American holocaust?

The Todd Phillips Joker-verse and HBO’s The Penguin create their respective monsters out of very similar clay. The world is unfair: society is heavily stratified, inequality is high, and the odds of transcending the hell of your poverty are grotesque – or laughable, depending on your rogue. These two pieces of entertainment understand the tragedy of modernity, and portray us with depressing accuracy. Our world is dying, and the thoughts of too many are perseverating only on how to profit off our deaths. We vulgar plebeians are damned, cogs in the machine generating our own demise. The West and its contradictions are primed for villainy, and there is no Batman to crash through the sky light. No one is coming to save us. How these two DC antagonists are manifested in their barely-fictional worlds is probably one of the better lenses to understand the monsters in our own.

And no Kevin Conroy to save us! RIP Best Batman…

The Joker begins his foray into villainy in a way that I’m fairly confident was not intended by the creators of the film. Arthur Fleck is a man struggling in poverty, loneliness, and despair. He has a shitty job and worse prospects. His arc culminates in violent anarchism, rebelling in fury against his condition. Arthur lashes out as The Joker against an elite that has only ever looked down on him, smug in the certainty of their position as arbiters of the structures of the world; banker bullies whose material success has come at Arthur’s expense, and Murray Franklin, the talk-show media figure who laughs at and degrades him.

In short, this is Trump’s story of America. The establishment has taken advantage of you; liberal elites look down their noses at you, laugh at you. Any kind of systemic reform is secondary to simply turning it all to ashes. As an Alfred once said, “Some men just want to see the world burn.” Arthur Fleck is representative of the so-called Basket of Deplorables who are judged by the mainstream, and this is their response to it: fuck you. The only reason that I’m confident that the creators didn’t intend to celebrate Trumpism’s bloody revolution is that Arthur is an unreliable narrator, and the scenes that consistently show his delusions are the ones in which he’s connected to others, where he’s loved. The devoted crowd cheering at Joker’s murderous performance is not real. I believe the original intention of Joker was not to valorize a Trumpian antihero, but to show and empathize with the unhinged mind of a school shooter. Joker is canonically a villain. The appropriate response to a broken world is to fix it, not to break with it. Somehow that villainy was missed, and my interpretation has not been the popular response to the film. A sequel was required.

Clearly a man to be emulated

Joker: Folie à Deux has been universally panned, and for good reason. It’s a bad movie! But also for very bad reasons because some people seem to think that it is a rejection of the first film, and that’s simply not true. Arthur as a character rejects the lessons of the first film, but it’s ambiguous if the film does so as well. The second film canonizes the celebratory mob at the end of the first film as real, and, fine. Sure. Arthur gets caught up in the fantasy of his own greatness in response, but ultimately rejects that fantasy because he recognizes that his homicidal approach was incredibly traumatizing to his only friend, Gary Puddles. Joker isn’t a revolutionary, he’s a bully too. His approach to the broken world is to embrace what broke it in the first place: cruelty, degradation, and all of it at the expense of vulnerable populations. It’s this insight that enlightens Arthur to the meaninglessness of his crusade, that he is reinforcing the harms of society rather than rebelling against them. But being the Joker is out of his hands now. His corruption had already infected the populace, and Joker’s revolution continues without him. Viewers are confused that perhaps the minor character Ricky was supposed to be the canonical Joker all along, but in truth, all of the clowns dressed in their makeup who blow up the court house are the Joker. His ideology has won, even if he himself now sees it as folly. The explosion at the court house is indicative of this new ideology’s rejection of establishment institutions, highlighting their dystopic vision of a new America. Trump parallels continue to abound.

Accountability for crimes!? I thought this was America!!

Folie à Deux is a psychiatric condition where two people with mental illness are enmeshed together who begin to share the same psychotic delusions about the world. While it is assumed that Harley Quinn is the second ill person in this dyad, she is only an individualized symbol of the broader delusional support for Joker’s Robespierrean justice; the delusion that this savagery is a worthwhile response to systemic oppression. They are all of them enmeshed into this cult of vengeful destruction.

This is why the second film is not a rejection of the first. It does what any sequel is supposed to do and expands on the themes of the first one. Joker’s Trumpian philosophy has broadened in appeal, and regardless of its instigator’s opinions, it will continue without him. Trump’s chaos is here to stay. The film is also just as ambiguous of its support for this ideology as the first one. The singing in the film is an obvious metaphor for the mania that drives Joker’s methods. In the end when Arthur confronts Harley (I refuse to call her Lee), he asks her to stop singing, to come back to earth, and she refuses. Whether the singing was any good or not is irrelevant; singing is always more fun! Joker’s revolution, however violent, however cruel, has a mischievous joy to it. The memes about cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio are fun, and who cares about any school children who receive bomb threats along the way?

It’s just a joke! Don’t get so triggered, liberals! Why so serious?

The Penguin begins his own journey along more antiheroic tropes. He is an underdog, and while it’s clear that his lies are ubiquitous and sociopathic from the beginning, we root for him because he comes from a similar background to Arthur. He’s easy to applaud as the antithesis to the opulence of the Falcone family. He’s dirty in a way that poverty dirties everyone it touches; his grimier aspects are not something our modernity rejects, but something it connects to and empathizes with as we too scrounge in the dirt in envy of the wealthy. Oswald also loves his mother and takes as his ward the young Victor, allegedly sharing a journey to transcend their lot as all of us yearn to. He could easily have been a nuanced hero.

But Oswald Cobb(lepot) is a villain. He murders his brothers. He murders his ward. He feels nothing for other people, even the ones he’s convinced us he does. He keeps his mother alive in her vegetative state despite her wishes in order to fulfill the dream that he has projected onto her. It’s always been his dream, not hers. The Penguin does not understand how to connect to other people, only how to fake it well enough for the cameras. We are comfortingly assured otherwise because he is a very convincing grifter, and the pathway to power that he sees as the most efficient is the one where he aligns himself with the working class. There is not a single revolutionary bone in his body, only frigid calculus. His populist deed to restore power to Crown Point was done only for his own ends and adjacent benefits toward others were not considered; Victor’s enthusiastic gratitude appears to genuinely confuse him before he catches himself and finds a way to take advantage of that edge. There is no ambiguity to The Penguin. He is clearly an unapologetic monster, and Sophia Falcone’s sarcastic scoff at him being a Man of the People is illuminating in how obvious it is in its falsehood.

The kind of guy you’d want to have a beer with!

Where Joker is a representation of Trumpism and its followers, The Penguin is emblematic of the man himself. Trump was certainly never working class, nor has he had to work hard to elevate himself above his station, but the sociopathic exploitation of working class consciousness to raise himself to grotesque power is clear. Oswald Cobblepot in the comics is an established elite, as wealthy as Bruce Wayne, but he doesn’t need to be in the show to be comparable to the president-elect because his methods are identical, regardless of his background. A grifter by any other pedigree would sound as sweet. In a broken world, the Penguin takes advantage in a way that people are desperate for. They want him to be what he’s pretending to be because they see his elevation as their own. If Oswald wins, then Victor wins – the grift only becoming obvious when the life is strangled out of him. Trump’s own escalating lies put Penguin’s to shame, but despite their obvious contradiction to reality, people cling to them as a life preserver on a sinking ship. The delusion of his proffered transcendence is a siren’s song. But they are villains; they’re both only in it for themselves.

What’s not to trust?

Villainy has certainly evolved over time. Nowadays, damsels can manage their own distress, and devils only exist in fantasy. But monsters still exist, and understanding our world means understanding the monsters that it creates. We live under the exploitation of the elites. We are, as individuals, powerless to stop them. How will we choose to respond to this? Will we gaze too long into the abyss and become monsters ourselves? Or will we settle into passive reverence at the feet of the devil, spellbound by his honeyed lies?

How do we resist in a world without heroes?

I wrote something for the BC election, and had it published by a small independent online news outlet. You can read the published copy here:

I’d also like to include the original article. A lot of the vitriol was removed from the piece, and I’d like to share my anger with my sweet Chumps. Cheers!

There appears to be a surreal and growing consensus between the two poles of British Columbian politics. Presumably as a preamble to fully dissolving the party and endorsing the Conservatives, the NDP has embraced a series of regressive policies that leaves one wondering if the party of the radical woke Marxists is truly living up to the moniker. This whiplash shift in the Overton Window began when the NDP caved to political pressure and ended their decriminalization pilot project halfway through its run time, then caved to pressure and abandoned the life-saving harm reduction vending machines providing discreet access to disease-free supplies, then caved to pressure and pledged to withdraw from the carbon tax at the earliest possible convenience, and then finally the latest surrender to conservative pressure has been the promise to, once again, force people who use drugs into treatment. If it is not consensus, it is – at the very least – brazen cowardice.

As mentioned, the latest endeavour of this Craven Coalition is to snatch all the people off the street who use drugs and jail them, allegedly for their own good. It’s “treatment,” after all! Of course, they can’t send anyone to actual drug and alcohol treatment centres because there aren’t even enough beds for the voluntary clients, nor can they place them in dedicated mental health facilities or hospitals because those are all spilling over too! I suppose jails were chosen through a process of elimination. The NDP will retort that it won’t be prison guards or wardens administering these units but licensed medical professionals – as if that somehow changes the facility this all takes place in or the dearth of licensed medical professionals in the hiring pool. It will be a locked unit with many security personnel, and it sure won’t be an ambulance bringing in the new inmates! Following the trend of recriminalization, the NDP is choosing to meet the Public Health Crisis that was declared in 2016 with the full force of the carceral system.

Perhaps I’m being unfair. This is a deadly serious problem, and there is a treatment for it! It’s literally in the name! If we can overcome the logistical impossibilities of this kind of program and force these recalcitrant sticks-in-the-mud to just get a little help, then so many lives will be saved, so many families will be happily reunited, and so many people will continue to vote for the incumbent government. Is that not something noble worth striving for?

I worry that when people hear the word “treatment” when it refers to addiction, they think it works like an antibiotic: you party too hard over the weekend, catch a smidge of an addiction, you take some penicillin as prescribed, and it clears right up! Forcing someone into treatment under those circumstances might make some sense; if someone stubbornly refuses their dialysis, they’re often assessed as incapable, forced into the medical procedure, then sent back into the world until their organs start failing again. The coercive dream seems to be a brief intervention that measurably prolongs a life through medically-sound practices.

This is not, however, what drug and alcohol addiction treatment looks like. I worked for a couple of years in a licensed treatment centre, and continue to work as a social worker with people who use drugs. In my experience with treatment centres, they typically have programs like art therapy, music therapy, trauma-informed yoga, group therapy, one-to-one counselling, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to help establish healthier links between thoughts, feelings, and actions, Dialectical Behavioural Therapy to help regulate overwhelming emotions, and so on. A pattern is beginning to emerge here! Even 12 Step-based programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous and the facilities that embrace it) function along the lines of non-judgemental and accepting communities that provide a caring environment for residents who typically feel isolated and stigmatized out among the rest of society. I believe if John Rustad ever learns how much Social and Emotional Learning goes into addiction treatment, he would abandon the whole project.

Going into a bed-based treatment centre means going into a 90 day therapy session. The reason for this is that addiction arises from trauma. In fact, all the people who use drugs that I’ve worked with use them to cope with that trauma. Drugs are the treatment for trauma. I will say it again: drugs are the treatment that people with addiction use to help them live with their debilitating trauma. These facilities exist as 90 day therapy sessions to provide alternative coping skills to the numbing and euphoric effects of drugs – quite tempting when sobriety is a living hell. The reason these facilities aren’t always effective is because addiction manifests itself over years or potentially decades, accumulating compounding trauma throughout the process, and three months of therapy before returning to the same environment that spawned all that trauma and drug use in the first place is unfortunately not the “cure” that people want it to be. Remember, if they have them, people have to go home when they’re done. If people are being taken off the street, where does the NDP intend to send them once their “treatment” is complete?

If the NDP thinks forcing people who use drugs into therapy is a good idea, I would invite David Eby to tell his wife, “Just calm down!” the next time they’re having an argument and report back on how well it went. There is a reason that 99% of treatment facilities are unlocked: people need to want to be there. The idea is to regain control of your life, and taking away that control at the outset is so obviously counterintuitive to the therapeutic process that it makes me wonder if the NDP actually knows any more about addiction treatment than John Rustad. Abducting people off the street, forcing them into jails, telling them this is for their own good, all of this is going to add to their trauma, not reduce it. Calling this “treatment” in line with the other resources that are available is going to terrify people struggling with addiction away from getting any kind of legitimate help. Rather than force people into addiction recovery, the results from this would have the NDP forcing people away from it.

Who is this for? This anti-therapeutic model was clearly not designed with people who use drugs in mind, so what is the NDP’s goal here? The reason this disaster of a policy was introduced was because a 13 year old girl fled her foster care and overdosed in a homeless encampment. Why not promise improvements to the foster care system? Why not promise additional supports for families so that kids don’t end up in care? Why not promise additional funding to Child and Youth Mental Health services to cut down on wait times? Why resort to this asinine model? Unsurprisingly given the NDP’s sea-change from orange to yellow, we’re following the traditional conservative trope of being Tough On Crime: ignore all the complex reasons that the scary thing is happening and warehouse the scary people so that they’re out of sight and out of mind. If we can stoke people’s fears and promise simplistic solutions to resolve them, we’re sure to win!

This provincial election is an embarrassment. With Kevin Falcon having sabotaged his own party into oblivion, the two surviving contenders appear in lockstep to dehumanize and discard people who use drugs. I’m not so naive to think that the Conservatives will provide any kind of reasonable or humane drug policy, nor any kind of other policy, so as a progressive voter, I will likely swallow the caustic bile festering in the back of my throat and vote NDP – only because the Greens are not viable in my riding. We desperately need to do better. We desperately need to actually look at the evidence when trying to address addiction, and start addressing trauma. If there are any politicians remaining who are capable of feeling shame, I hope they’re crippled by it.