French:The Corporate Logo That Broke the Internet

The usual distraction and “flood the zone” tactics by the Trump administration and its enablers:

…The process of stoking outrage has another effect: It crowds out the news cycle. Most Democrats I know would be shocked at how little the average Republican knows about Trump’s actual conduct and his actual wrongdoing. Republicans can, however, cite chapter and verse about left-wing outrages and left-wing overreactions to Trump.

That creates a reality where they simply can’t conceive of how any reasonable, rational person would vote Democratic or oppose the president and his policies.

The Sweeney and Cracker Barrel stories highlight the new right’s theory of change. It sees the social liberalization of America as primarily an elite-driven phenomenon. According to this narrative, the left seized the most powerful institutions of American life and then imposed its delusional and unnatural ideas from the top down, in part through shaming, fear and bullying.

The solution, then, is obvious. Either seize or destroy left-dominated institutions, replace them with right-dominated institutions and elites and then impose conservative values on society, if necessary, through the same intolerant means.

This is why you see some figures on the right turning even to Marxists, such as Antonio Gramsci, to inspire them to “cultural hegemony.”

In this version of the right, cancel culture is only a problem if you’re not the one doing the canceling. The conservative argument for liberty for all is replaced by a populist will to power, one so all-consuming that it exercises veto power over corporate logo redesigns it does not like.

At the moment, MAGA’s cultural power is on the rise, but it’s ultimately on a fool’s errand. Can anyone look at the history of the last 10 years and say that bullying or intolerance helped the left? Or is it more accurate to say that the worst excesses of left-wing cancel culture helped trigger the public reaction that ushered MAGA back into power?

MAGA’s intolerance won’t fare any better. Constant outrage is energizing, at least for a while, for partisans and activists. It’s exhausting for everyone else. The more that MAGA tries to bully America, the more resentment it will build. Bullies only win for a while, and when the backlash to the backlash comes, MAGA will have only itself to blame.

Source: The Corporate Logo That Broke the Internet

Brooks: The Rise of Right-Wing Nihilism

With the Trump administration arguably being the example, with its substantive weakening of public and private institutions, reversing long standing efforts to improve equality, and the consistent coarse nature of public discourse, enabled by normally more responsible Republicans, business and others:

…Other people, of course, don’t just cope; they rebel. That rebellion comes in two forms. The first is what I’ll call Christopher Rufo-style dismantling. Rufo is the right-wing activist who seeks to dismantle D.E.I. and other culturally progressive programs. I’m 23 years older than Rufo. When I was emerging from college, we conservatives thought we were conserving something — a group of cultural, intellectual and political traditions — from the postmodern assault.

But decades later, with the postmodern takeover fully institutionalized, people like Rufo don’t seem to think there’s anything to conserve. They are radical deconstructors. In a 2024 dialogue between Rufo and the polemicist Curtis Yarvin, published by the magazine IM-1776, Rufo acknowledged, “I am neither conservative by temperament nor by political ambition: I want to destroy the status quo rather than preserve it.” This is a key difference between old-style conservatism and Trumpism.

But there’s another, even more radical reaction to progressive cultural dominance: nihilism. You start with the premise that progressive ideas are false and then conclude that all ideas are false. In the dialogue, Yarvin played the role of nihilist. He ridiculed Rufo for accomplishing very little and for aiming at very little with his efforts to purge this university president or that one.

“You are just pruning the forest,” Yarvin said dismissively. He countered that everything must be destroyed: In general, Yarvin is a monarchist, but in this dialogue he played a pure nihilist. One version of nihilism holds that the structures of civilization must be destroyed, even if we don’t have anything to replace them with. He argued that all of America has been a sham, that democracy and everything that has come with it are based on lies.

The Rufo/Yarvin dialogue was sent to me by a friend named Skyler Adleta. Skyler had a rough childhood but has worked his way up to become an electrician and is now a project manager for a construction firm. He lives in southern Ohio, in a community that is mostly Trump-supporting. He himself generally supports the president. I know him because he is also a fantastic writer who contributes to Comment, the magazine my wife edits.

Skyler told me that in his community he is watching many people lose faith in the Rufo method and make the leap into pure nihilism, pure destruction. That is my experience, too. A few months ago, I had lunch with a young lady who said, “The difference is that in your generation you had something to believe in, but in ours we have nothing.” She didn’t say it bitterly, just as a straightforward acknowledgment of her worldview.

Faith in God has been on the decline for decades; so has social trust, faith in one another; so has faith in a dependable career path. A recent Gallup poll showed that faith in major American institutions is now near its lowest point in the 46 years Gallup has been measuring these things. But the core of nihilism is even more acidic; it is the loss of faith in the values your culture tells you to believe in.

As Skyler and I exchanged emails, I was reminded of an essay the great University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter wrote last year for The Hedgehog Review. He, too, identified nihilism as the central feature of contemporary culture: “A nihilistic culture is defined by the drive to destroy, by the will to power. And that definition now describes the American nation.”

He pointed to our culture’s pervasive demonization and fearmongering, with leaders feeling no need to negotiate with the other side, just decimate it. Nihilists, he continued, often suffer from wounded attachments — to people, community, the truth. They can’t give up their own sense of marginalization and woundedness because it would mean giving up their very identity. The only way to feel halfway decent is to smash things or at least talk about smashing them. They long for chaos.

Apparently, the F.B.I. now has a new category of terrorist — the “nihilistic violent extremist.” This is the person who doesn’t commit violence to advance any cause, just to destroy. Last year, Derek Thompson wrote an article for The Atlantic about online conspiracists who didn’t spread conspiracy theories only to hurt their political opponents. They spread them in all directions just to foment chaos. Thompson spoke with an expert who cited a famous line from “The Dark Knight”: “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

This may be where history is leading. Smothering progressivism produced a populist reaction that eventually descended into a nihilist surge. Nihilism is a cultural river that leads nowhere good. Russian writers like Turgenev and Dostoyevsky wrote about rising nihilism in the 19th century, a trend that eventually contributed to the turmoil of the Russian Revolution. The scholar Erich Heller wrote a book called “The Disinherited Mind” about the rise in nihilism that plagued Germany and Central Europe after World War I. We saw what that led to.

It’s hard to turn this trend around. It’s hard enough to get people to believe something, but it’s really hard to get people to believe in belief — to persuade a nihilist that some things are true, beautiful and good.

One spot of good news is the fact that more young people, and especially young men, are returning to church. I’ve been skeptical of this trend, but the evidence is building. Among Gen Z, more young men now go to church than young women. In Britain, according to one study, only 4 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds went to church in 2018, but by 2024 it was 16 percent. From the anecdotes I keep hearing, young people seem to be going to the most countercultural churches — traditionalist Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

They don’t believe in what the establishment tells them to believe in. They live in a world in which many believe in nothing. But still, somewhere deep inside, that hunger is there. They want to have faith in something.

Source: The Rise of Right-Wing Nihilism

    ‘1984’ Hasn’t Changed, but America Has

    All too true, even if there have been previous chilling periods:

    …Banning books doesn’t stop at the local level.This year, after Mr. Trump signed three executive orders aimed at combating “wokeness,” the Department of Defense’s education agency removed and reviewed more than 500 titles from its school system, including, according to one report, Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World,” which the C.I.A. had sent to the Eastern Bloc. Federal funding agencies have compiled a list of more than 350 banned words and phrases, including “women,” “diversity” and “ethnicity.”

    In the Cold War, the United States chose “freedom” — democratic freedom, freedom of speech, intellectual freedom and freedom of choice — as its key point of difference with the Soviet enemy. Since the end of World War II, U.S. presidents from both parties have wrapped themselves in the rhetoric of the “free world” that they led. When Ronald Reagan — who spearheaded the Cold War “freedom” agenda and oversaw an upswing in C.I.A. literary programs — spoke to the British Parliament in 1982, he invoked “the march of freedom and democracy,” which would “leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history.” It was no coincidence that George Minden, the leader of the C.I.A. book program, once described his operation as “an offensive of free, honest thinking.”

    Mr. Trump, JD Vance, Ron DeSantis and their fellow travelers expound the virtues of the First Amendment while dismantling guardrails against disinformation and working to suppress political ideas they oppose. Book bans aren’t their only tool. They also block access for independent journalistsintimidate news organizations and defund outlets they perceive as hostile to the MAGA agenda, including NPR, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and Voice of America.

    There are two lessons from the history of the C.I.A. book program that the book banners would do well to heed. One is that censorship — whether by Communists, fascists or democratic governments — tends to create demand for the works it targets. (That, and Mr. Trump’s Orwellian tactics, may explain why “1984” has been surging up the book charts in recent years.)

    The other is that the totalitarians lost the Cold War, and freedom of thought won the day. The former Polish dissident Adam Michnik, whose own works were promoted by the C.I.A., presumably without his knowledge, said: “It was books that were victorious in the fight. We should build a monument to books.”

    Charlie English is the author of, among other books, “The CIA Book Club: The Secret Mission to Win the Cold War with Forbidden Literature.”

    Source: ‘1984’ Hasn’t Changed, but America Has

    Saunders: No, politics haven’t become polarized. Only one side has moved to the extremes 

    Indeed:

    …What has especially caused Ms. Harris – and other moderate leaders after her – to be falsely associated with the far left is the constellation of issues and hysterias known on the right as “gender,” as well as the memory of mass protests and riots against police violence during the pandemic years. Although there definitely are far-left activists on both subjects, Mr. Harris had absolutely nothing to do with them; instead, she said little about either, and quietly took mainstream positions on both issues.

    But the mainstream has become measurably more tolerant. Same-sex marriage, for example, has become so acceptable to the majority of voters that even Mr. Trump doesn’t publicly attack it. It’s moderate, centrist views, not far-out radical ones, that have come under attack.

    This week a study by Vancouver-based polling firm Research Co. asked Americans and Canadians what they thought about “political correctness.” They weren’t asking about Mr. Trump’s ultra-PC desire to, for example, consider removing mentions of slavery from national parks; rather, they asked about “language and/or behaviour that seeks to minimize possible offences to racial, cultural and gender identity groups.”

    The results were very pro-PC: Six out of 10 Canadians, and a majority of Americans, said they support political correctness – and in both countries, the pro-PC proportion of the population has increased since 2022.

    That doesn’t mean that middle-of-the-road voters are drifting to the far left. It means that moderate, mainstream political views have become more open and tolerant – and therefore hated by Trump-like figures on the rightward extreme. For all the noise they throw at these normal views, it’s worth remembering that they’re the only ones who are polarized.

    Source: No, politics haven’t become polarized. Only one side has moved to the extremes

    Nicolas: De Los Angeles à Kananaskis

    Discomforting possible parallel. We will see this upcoming weekend:

    ….Ce qui se passe à Los Angeles représente un tournant, sur deux principaux aspects.

    Premièrement, sur le fond, soit la violence politique envers les personnes immigrantes. Les agents de contrôle de l’immigration (ICE) arrêtent des parents sur leurs lieux de travail pendant que leurs enfants sont à l’école et tentent de se déployer dans des écoles primaires pour y interroger des enfants. On a vu d’autres enfants être privés de leur droit à être représentés par un avocat et être interrogés seuls par les autorités. On a déjà vu aussi, un peu partout au pays, des gens être « déportés » vers des prisons du Salvador et à Guantánamo. J’utilise le mot « déportés » entre guillemets, puisqu’il n’est pas question de retourner les gens vers leur pays d’origine : il s’agit plus de kidnappings. Dans une ville comme Los Angeles, s’en prendre à la population immigrante au statut irrégulier, c’est s’en prendre au tissu social, économique et communautaire de la métropole. La population résiste, parce que les personnes qui sont ciblées par ICE sont indissociables de la population même.

    Si l’on considère que les personnes qui ne possèdent pas la citoyenneté d’un pays n’ont pas de droits fondamentaux, la démocratie est déjà mise à mal.

    Deuxièmement, sur la résistance politique qui se déploie face à ICE. Lorsque des citoyens décident de dénoncer le fait que des parents soient séparés brutalement de leurs enfants, ou que des enfants soient séparés brutalement de leurs parents, ils exercent leur liberté de conscience politique, leur liberté d’expression et leurs droits civiques. En déployant des agents militaires sans le consentement du gouverneur de l’État, et sans que la situation le justifie, Trump franchit encore une autre ligne. La question grave qui se pose désormais, c’est : existe-t-il dorénavant une possibilité que les élections de mi-mandat ne soient pas des élections libres ? Parce que lorsqu’on commence à gérer le débat politique par l’intimidation armée, où et quand s’arrête-t-on, et pourquoi ?

    Revenons au Canada, et à la tentation, qui remonte par soubresauts, de « normaliser » nos relations avec États-Unis. Bien sûr, vu que notre économie est en jeu, ça se comprend tout à fait. Mais il existe un risque sérieux, vu le rythme où Washington s’enfonce, que nos liens avec nos voisins nous entraînent aussi vers l’abysse avec eux. Et par abysse, j’entends ici une forme d’abysse morale. Si la démocratie est précieuse pour les Canadiens, on ne peut s’attacher aussi intimement à un régime déterminé à la fragiliser, chez nous comme chez eux.

    Alors que le G7 s’ouvre à Kananaskis, en Alberta, j’ai certaines appréhensions. L’Histoire ne se répète jamais, mais je crois que l’on peut tout de même tirer certaines leçons de l’échec monumental des Accords de Munich de 1938. J’espère que les chefs d’État seront plus rapides, cette fois-ci, à reconnaître en leur sein l’acteur qui affiche un mépris ouvert pour la règle de droit.

    Source: De Los Angeles à Kananaskis

    …. What is happening in Los Angeles represents a turning point, on two main aspects.

    First, on the substance, either political violence against immigrants. Immigration Control Officers (ICE) arrest parents at their workplaces while their children are in school and try to deploy to primary schools to interview children. Other children have been deprived of their right to be represented by a lawyer and questioned alone by the authorities. We have also seen, all over the country, people being “deported” to prisons in El Salvador and Guantánamo. I use the word “deported” in quotation marks, since there is no question of returning people to their country of origin: it is more about kidnappings. In a city like Los Angeles, attacking the irregular immigrant population is attacking the social, economic and community fabric of the metropolis. The population resists, because the people who are targeted by ICE are inseparable from the population itself.

    If we consider that people who do not have the citizenship of a country do not have fundamental rights, democracy is already being damaged.

    Secondly, on the political resistance that is unfolding against ICE. When citizens decide to denounce the fact that parents are abruptly separated from their children, or that children are abruptly separated from their parents, they exercise their freedom of political conscience, their freedom of expression and their civil rights. By deploying military agents without the consent of the governor of the state, and without the situation justifying it, Trump crosses yet another line. The serious question that now arises is: is there now a possibility that midterm elections are not free elections? Because when we begin to manage the political debate through armed intimidation, where and when do we stop, and why?

    Let’s go back to Canada, and to the temptation, which is rising by ups, to “normalize” our relations with the United States. Of course, since our economy is at stake, it is quite understandable. But there is a serious risk, given the pace at which Washington is sinking, that our links with our neighbors also lead us to the abyss with them. And by abyss, I mean here a form of moral abyss. If democracy is valuable to Canadians, we cannot be so intimately attached to a regime determined to weaken it, both at home and at home.

    As the G7 opens in Kananaskis, Alberta, I have some apprehensions. History never repeats itself, but I believe that we can still learn some lessons from the monumental failure of the 1938 Munich Agreements. I hope that the Heads of State will be quicker, this time, to recognize within them the actor who displays an open contempt for the rule of law.

    Visible minorities in the GTA increasingly supporting Conservatives: U of T study

    Interesting and relevant study. Think the shift largely reflects economic concerns and affordability, particularly among younger voters, whether visible minorities or not, and the effectiveness of Conservative outreach and engagement:

    Federal and provincial Conservatives are winning over more visible minority voters in the GTA, a new study has found.

    According to researchers at the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, visible minorities in the GTA, who make up more than half of the population, are increasingly backing Conservative candidates in federal and provincial elections. The study, out Wednesday, considers anyone, besides Indigenous people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour as a visible minority, as defined by Statistics Canada.

    The findings are based on federal and Ontario election results over the past two decades, including the two most recent national and provincial elections earlier this year.

    “What used to be a weak spot for the right is now a growing base,” Prof. Emine Fidan Elcioglu and research assistant Aniket Kali wrote in the study, noting the Conservatives have historically been seen as the party of the white and wealthy, at least until recent years.

    “The more diverse the riding, the stronger the Conservative numbers.”

    The researchers point to the federal election in April as an example.

    Ridings where visible minorities make up the majority shifted rightward by 10 to over 20 percentage points compared to the 2021 federal election — higher than the Conservatives national gain of 7.6 percentage points in the vote count. Most of these ridings are located in the 905 belt around Toronto, which the Star previously reported denied Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals a majority government thanks to a blue wave.

    While the researchers had a sense that some visible minorities have shifted to the right when it comes to voting, the findings still had some surprises. 

    “It was quite stark to see just how consistent the polls were over time,” Kali said in an interview.

    There are multiple reasons for this shift in voting behaviour, according to the researchers.

    First is a decades-long, concentrated attempt by the Conservative party to reach racialized communities through efforts such as multilingual ads and attending religious festivals. Conservatives have also recruited a lot of visible minority candidates — including more than the Liberals and NDP in the April federal election, according to a separate study.

    All this, Elcioglu and Kali said, came as the Liberal party was increasingly being seen as “a party of broken promises” around affordability, housing and other issues.

    “The Liberal arty and the sort of disenchantment with (Justin) Trudeau is certainly part of the puzzle,” Elcioglu said, “but it doesn’t explain everything.”

    Another reason for the shift to the right is changing attitudes among second-generation Canadians.

    In interviews with 50 second-generation Canadians around the GTA — most of whom were either South Asian or Chinese — Elcioglu said she heard that people thought voting Conservative meant becoming more “Canadian.”

    “It’s a way to say, ‘I made it. I belong. I’m not voting like my Liberal party immigrant parents,’” Elcioglu said of the responses she heard in the interviews.

    Although the study shows growing support among visible minority voters for the Conservatives, the researchers stressed that this group of people is not a monolith.

    “Immigrants and minorities are a serious political constituency in the GTA.  They have serious issues and the party that organizes them on those issues and speaks to those issues is going to win some loyalty.”

    Elcioglu said this understanding will be important for the Liberals and NDP if they want to win seats in future elections.

    “Progressive parties shouldn’t assume that they have the support of racialized voters,” she said. “They need to do more listening and speak to the real issues.

    “They need to go out into the suburbs.”

    Source: Visible minorities in the GTA increasingly supporting Conservatives: U of T study

    MPs revive bid scrapping requirement to swear oath of loyalty to the King 

    Hard to see this as a priority:

    MPs are reviving a bid to end the centuries-old requirement to pledge loyalty to the monarch before they take their seats in Parliament, with many favouring an option to swear allegiance to Canada instead. 

    The Bloc Québécois is preparing to table a private member’s bill scrapping the obligation, which dates back to the Constitution Act of 1867.

    MPs, including Prime Minister Mark Carney, have this week been swearing the oath to King Charles III so they can take their seats in the new Parliament afterthe election. They are barred from doing so unless they pledge allegiance to the monarch. 

    The initiative by the Bloc comes as the King and Queen Camilla prepare to visit Ottawa next week, where the King will open Parliament by reading the Speech from the Throne. 

    The King’s decision to read the speech is being seen in Ottawa as bolstering Canada’s sovereignty, after U.S. President Donald Trump’s stated wish to annex the country.

    But Bloc MPs plan to boycott the Throne Speech in the Senate, as they do when it is read by the Governor-General, the monarch’s representative in Canada. Their bill to update the oath is expected to be tabled within weeks. 

    “As usual, we will not be attending the Throne Speech, neither in the Senate or in the House, where the speech is broadcast,” said Bloc Québécois spokesperson Julien Coulombe-Bonnafous. “We plan on tabling a bill to revise the oath-taking process for MPs.” 

    A 2023 attempt by former Liberal MP René Arseneault to reform the swearing-in process did not get enough support to progress in Parliament. 

    His private member’s bill sought to give MPs and senators the option of swearing an oath to the monarch or to pledge to carry out their duties “in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.” The bill received the backing of Bloc, NDP and Green MPs, as well as some Liberals – including current ministers Joël Lightbound and Julie Dabrusin – and several Conservatives, including newly promoted mental-health critic Mike Lake. 

    Mr. Lake said that, although he personally supported swearing an oath to the monarch, MPs should have a choice of whether to do so. 

    Source: MPs revive bid scrapping requirement to swear oath of loyalty to the King

    Cabinet diversity 2025

    While media coverage and commentary has understandably focused on gender parity, regional representation and the balance between old and new faces, the table below broadens this analysis to include visible and religious minorities, immigrants, Indigenous and LGTBQ.

    In terms of visible minorities, there are 6 South Asians, one Black, one West Asian/Arab and one Filipino. Religious minorities or background include three Sikhs, two Jews, one Muslim and one Hindu.

    Proportion of women in the House of Commons dips, with slight rise in minority MPs

    Latest article with preliminary analysis of 2025 election results in terms of MP diversity:

    …In Canada, Indigenous representation in the House also dipped slightly, according to an analysis by Andrew Griffith, a fellow of the Environics Institute and a former director-general in the federal immigration department. He found that 3.3 per cent of elected MPs are Indigenous after this election, down from 3.5 per cent in 2021. 

    However, there was a slight rise in the number of visible minority MPs. Mr. Griffith found that their representation stands at 18.1 per cent now, compared with 15.7 per cent at the last election. 

    “We appear to have reached a plateau with respect to women and Indigenous peoples MPs,” he said in an e-mail.

    “On the other hand, the combination of growth in immigration and visible minorities, matched with most political party candidates being visible minorities in ridings with high numbers of visible minorities and immigrants, continues the trend of increases in their representation.”…

    Source: Proportion of women in the House of Commons dips, with slight rise in minority MPs

    Elcioglu: Why are so many second-generation South Asian and Chinese Canadians planning to vote Conservative?

    Striking that this analysis does not compare outreach efforts of the Harper government, that the same immigrant and visible minority ridings switch between parties in both federal and provincial elections, nor acknowledge that in general, ethnic communities tend to follow the overall electoral changes and demographics. The general trend in this election until recently showed younger voters whatever their group, increasingly conservative given housing and other basic concerns. Would also have been nice to see some gender analysis as the overall shift is more with men than women.

    Hard economic realities more influential IMO:

    …In Canada, ideas about who belongs are often shaped by race, class and respectability. Racialized people must not only prove they are hardworking and law-abiding, but also demonstrate that they’ve “fit in.” For some, voting Conservative becomes a way to show they’ve done just that — a way of saying: “I’m not like them. I’m one of you.”

    But this strategy comes at a cost. In reinforcing the very structures that marginalize them, racialized voters may gain individual recognition while deepening collective exclusion. And in rejecting equity-based platforms, they may forgo the policies that could build a more just society.

    This dynamic isn’t limited to the second generation. A recent CBC survey found that four in five newcomers believe Canada has accepted too many immigrants and international students without proper planning. 

    Some immigrants are increasingly expressing exclusionary views, often toward those who arrived more recently. This, too, is a form of aspirational politics. And it shows just how deeply race, precarity and belonging are entangled in Canada today.

    None of this means that racialized Conservative voters are naïve. Their decisions often reflect a clear-eyed understanding of how power works. 

    But if we want a fairer political future, we must reckon with the ways race, class and nationalism shape belonging — not just at the ballot box, but in the stories we tell about who gets to be “Canadian.”

    As sociologist Ruha Benjamin reminds us, inclusion shouldn’t be treated as an act of generosity. It’s not about “helping” the marginalized — it’s about understanding that we’re all connected. When fear shapes policy and public goods are stripped away, everyone suffers.

    Source: Why are so many second-generation South Asian and Chinese Canadians planning to vote Conservative?