Lyrics 💯

Wait until they find out it was a genocide, not a war.

'Jail awarded to Gal Gadot for her generous genocide-time support!'

And then Trump can get the ethics-free FIFA Peace Prize for his Assisted vision of an ethnically-cleansed 'Gaza Ritz Riviera on the Mediterranean' www.npr.org/2025/02/26/n...

On further thought, I am curious of what your thoughts are on which "successful movement" examples you're thinking of and which leaders of them you are saying are central to their success.

Maybe it's in the podcast and I'll find out.

In some ways I don't think movements have been overall successes

I already looked on your youtube to see if it was up and I could look at the auto-transcript. It'll be a while until I put an hour into listening to it though.

Engler seems to be the one who's actually connecting with and building buzz with people who are outside of regular political circles.

Interview I did with Chris Dixon on 'leaderful' movements - aka anarchist-aligned elements of leadership.

From 2012, b4 he published his book "Another Politics: Talking Across Today's Transformative Movements" (which I also interviewed him on, and wrote review) equitableeducation.ca/2012/anti-au...

"figureheads and celebrity leaders" is quite a different thing than leadership.

Ella Baker was leadership and didn't need to be on TV or in the newspapers.

Today a lot of things are individualist-focused and it works very well with what social media conditions us to/for.

Also if you discussed Yves Engler, i hope you did it more responsibly than The Breach podcast.

maybe we don't need figureheads and celebrity leaders, maybe politics like that is the opposite of what we need.

but of course with our political system, it is a question that goes to the forefront: "Who will save us?!"

also in the news today: OpenAI is going to the government cap in hand asking for some socialist subsidy ('government investment')

They sound like the mafia lol with the hand shake at the end.

Comedy gold from the Conservative Party "frat house"

'First, let us demonstrate our "negativity" and "beating up on someone else" behaviour. Then let us say how "calmly" our people walked in, how "calm and measured" they were in calling him a snake, and how "quietly" they exited and shook his hand'

They call them "party whip" for a reason.

PPS when I went to get alt-text for the above excerpt you used, I learned it's not in the NDP rules www.ndp.ca/sites/defaul... so it is Elections Canada rules? Which like I said, you knew/know from the mainstream media articles what EC was on record as saying, but you are insinuating something else.

PS reading it again, I guess accepting donations doesn't automatically make him considered a leadership candidate - it only means that *if they accept him* then they'll consider him to have been a candidate from when he started fundraising.

So Martin saying he got 2-month head start, isn't valid.

Then it's their problem they wouldn't allow his candidacy, and they'd be on pretty weak grounds to say they get to have 25% of the money.

For such a situation with the potential for party admin to disqualify candidacy on questionable grounds, this seems IMHO like a decent (not unethical) strategy.

from the mainstream articles you referenced, they quoted Elections Canada spokesperson saying EC didn't have problem with what he's doing. I think in your podcast, you or Martin insinuated he was avoiding EC scrutiny?

So I think he can fit within all the NDP rules too, if they accept him. If not 3/

and he has clearly indicated he will register (most recently he'd said "in three days" which may be today?).

I guess *if he's accepted* all the donations he's collected will then be processsed through the party and they'll take a 25% cut.

About your podcast, I don't think you mentioned ... 2/