Wherein Colin Wright Takes A Victory Lap

Over in The Wall Street Journal, author Colin Wright takes a victory lap declaring that transgender youth are in fact the result of "social contagion".  

As you might expect, he's fallen all the way down the Gender Critical rabbit hole, making some of the most ridiculous claims possible, and citing material from the "Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine" (SEGM) - a notoriously anti-transgender group which is more a collection of cranks than practitioners of legitimate science.  

The dominant counterargument to the social-contagion theory, repeated endlessly by the media and activists, is that the sharp rise in transgender identification over the past decade simply reflects liberation: People today are more comfortable expressing their authentic selves. The favored analogy compares this rise to the historic increase in left-handedness once schools stopped discouraging it. As transgender activist and biologist Julia Serano put it in a 2017 article, “there wasn’t really a rise in left-handedness so much as there was a rise in left-handed acceptance” that allowed its true natural prevalence to emerge. John Oliver popularized this analogy on “Last Week Tonight” in 2022, insisting that the surge in trans identification was simply a sign that “people were free to be who they f— were.”

If transgender identity were an innate trait, like left-handedness, we would expect identification rates to rise at first when it became socially acceptable, then plateau and remain stable at a fixed level. If the phenomenon were instead driven by social contagion, we might expect a boom-and-bust pattern: a spike followed by a rapid decline once the social forces driving it weaken.

As both a transgender person and a left-handed person, I cannot tell you how completely misguided this really is.  In order for Wright's hypothesis to stand up, we have to turn a blind eye to the last 5 years or more of increasingly hate-filled anti-transgender _LEGISLATION_ and rhetoric coming from the political right, especially in the US and UK.  These laws are draconian, they are hurtful, and yes, they are profoundly damaging. 

If Mr. Wright thinks that transgender youth identities are "just social contagion", he is implying strongly that those youth are too stupid to understand the world around them - that they only follow the lead of others.  Reality is quite different.  Youth are in fact very sensitive to the social signals in their environment, and it would be hard for transgender youth not to be aware of the increasingly hostile legislative environment.  Nor can they ignore the hostility that they hear on a daily basis coming from religious leaders in church, or even their families.  

Mr. Wright has engaged in one of the most serious errors in research and analysis:  Correlation Fallacy.  He is assuming that the reduction being observed indicates a "reduction" in the number of transgender people.  This is, in my experience, likely false in the long run.  Transgender youth are clever - they know the signals they are receiving and will decide to transition later when they feel it's safer to do so.  That may mean getting out from the family home, or given current circumstances, may mean emigrating to another country where being transgender isn't being actively criminalized.  To claim as he does, without serious evidence, is sloppy at best.

Such as it is, the "evidence" for "social contagion" theory regarding gender identity is at best sparse, and most of it is so methodologically flawed as to qualify as junk science.  As an example, many "Gender Critical" arguments reference Littman's 2017 paper proposing "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria".  It was pure junk science.  Methodologically flawed, it proceeded to draw conclusions about transgender youth without even talking to a single transgender youth!  Learn to recognize junk science, people. 

Now, who the heck is Colin Wright?  The byline for him posted with his article reads:  "Mr. Wright is an evolutionary biologist and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute."

The Manhattan Institute? Oh - another conservative "think tank" - you'll pardon me while I ignore that - partisan think tanks are at best disinformation sources, and being affiliated with one doesn't help.  Being affiliated with SEGM is in my view another strike - SEGM is a key purveyor of junk science and misinformation about transgender people.

Doing a brief search on Google Scholar, I see no evidence that Mr. Wright has ever engaged in significant study of transgender people, either as a primary researcher, or as a contributor.  So, basically, we have another case of "I have a PhD, therefore, I can opine on any subject, regardless of whether I know anything about it".  This is sadly, an all too common state of affairs.  People with no actual background or study in the area manage to acquire an audience, and presto, they are "experts".  

There's a reason we don't go to a mechanic to diagnose medical issues, and we don't ask our physicians to repair our cars.  They are very different domains with different training and knowledge.  It would be nice if Mr. Wright had some actual expertise in the area of gender identity, but aside from writing opinion articles in newspapers, he has none.

Reserve Powers, The Notwithstanding Clause, and Unjust Laws

Since the Smith-led UCP government in Alberta saw fit to invoke The Notwithstanding Clause (S33) of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (The Charter) to order teachers back to work (Bill 2), I have seen some discussion in various forums arguing that once S33 is invoked, there is very little anybody can do.  

I propose that this is not entirely true.  Certainly, Bill 2 imposes onerous, if not excessive, fines for any "labour action" over the next 4 years which would make most teachers hesitant to act directly, like all of us, they have families to support and generally have to pay the bills, the penalties aimed at the ATA are clearly designed to bankrupt the ATA very quickly.  

I've argued in other posts that Bill 2 is exceptionally bad legislation, and as such presents a clear danger to Canadian democracy and our legal system.  It is not the only legislation that the UCP has passed which is of dubious value, but it finally seems to have galvanized people's attention on the potential for abusing S33.  

Broadly speaking, I contend that laws which require the government to invoke S33 should be subject to much greater scrutiny, for the government's invocation of S33 is essentially an admission that the law not only curtails rights guaranteed under The Charter, but that they acknowledge that the law would not stand scrutiny with respect to The Reasonability Clause (S1).  In other words, the application of S33 must be of the most urgent nature, and for circumstances that the government could not reasonably mitigate with other statutory tools.  

Alberta Bill 2 and The Notwithstanding Clause

So, Alberta has used S33 as part of its “Back To Work” legislation for ending the teachers strike. There will be many pixels of virtual ink spilled over this.  Much of that will go on breathlessly about how this is “unprecedented”, “shocking”, and so on.  Rest assured, none of this is shocking.  The UCP has been looking for an excuse to use S33 for quite some time - going back to Jason Kenney, if you have been paying attention.  Kenney’s Bill 1 would have become that bill - except the excuse for Bill 1 vaporized.

The UCP is being purposeful.  They started musing about S33 to buttress their anti-trans legislation a while ago, but I think they also realized that outside their base, the broader public has little appetite for such a move.  This application of it is “temporary”, and addresses events that are directly affecting families (often an easy sell for conservatives who love to spout off about family values). 

Conservatism Is Dead

Conservatism in Canada is no longer a coherent political philosophy.  It has become a hybrid of a business that sells access to power, and a collection of people who have been drawn into utterly paranoid conspiracy theories.  The slide into this place has been a long, slow process, and I don’t think it’s necessarily all intentional.

Let me explain why I think this is the case, and then we can get into how we got here in the first place.

Parasitic Capitalism (Oilpatch Edition)

I have little love for the oil & gas industry in Alberta.  Having grown up here, worked in and adjacent to the industry for years, I have become increasingly disillusioned, and then angry with both the industry and the government.  At this point in our history (2025), I'm pretty much at the point of saying that not only has the industry captured the UCP government, but it has become a parasite on the Alberta and Canadian economies.  

"Oh, but what about the billions it brings in?" proponents say.  Those billions mean nothing if they leave the people holding the bag with billions more in costs after projects are shut down.  We have a massive problem with oil companies leaving their industrial wastelands lying about and simply doing nothing to clean up after they are done with production on a site. 

Further, they refuse to pay municipal taxes to municipalities because they know they can ignore it and the government will do nothing, and they can tie any legal actions up in courts until the municipality runs out of money to pursue the matter with.  Landowners are supposed to be paid money for access to the surface area where they put wells down, and companies ignore those obligations too - often for the same reasons. 

All of this makes me quite furious - both with the government and with industry - however, my ire is focused much more on industry because they are the ones making profits off the resources, and ignoring their responsibilities beyond those profits. 

So Poilievre Doesn’t Like Birthright Citizenship

 I see that Poilievre has borrowed another page from GOP politics - this time he’s going after birthright citizenship.  

Birthright citizenship is really nothing more than “if you are born in Canada, you are deemed to be a Canadian Citizen.  It’s really that simple - in a nation that was literally built out of immigration, it makes a certain amount of sense that we might look at citizenship through such a lens.  Many of us were born here when one, or both parents, were not yet citizens themselves.  

Frankly, when the subject comes up, nobody seems to have any idea what pressing problem Canada is facing would be solved by revoking birthright citizenship.  Are there suddenly a whole bunch of citizens of Canada that are causing problems because they aren’t “Canadian enough” for Pierre’s tastes?  Or is this a revisitation of Harper’s infamous “Old Stock Canadians” nonsense? 

I’ve seen a few people whine about “anchor babies”, or “birth tourism”.  Of those arguments, I am inclined to be more than a little suspicious that the people making that argument are doing so more because they don’t like the idea of people from certain cultural backgrounds.  However, so-called “birth tourism” babies are hardly a large number of Canada’s births - some 5,000 or so annually, on a total birth rate of ~365,000 - and nobody has demonstrated that those 5,000 births are resulting in “a problem” for Canada.  

Frankly, the problem I see with this is that it creates a whole subclass of people who are born in Canada, may live their lives here, and are denied citizenship because of their parents’ circumstances at the time they were born.  

Additionally, it gives politicians with malicious intentions an easy tool upon which to make the lives of Canadians more difficult.  Removing birthright citizenship suddenly means that a person who has lived in Canada their entire lives could have to prove not only their citizenship, but also that of their parents.  

Consider some of the possible scenarios:  

Someone travels to Canada for work reasons, and for one reason or another has a child while residing and working in Canada.  Subsequently they decide to become a permanent resident.  Does the child's status follow that of the parent?  Or have we just created a situation where the child, having been born here to a person classified as "temporary" ends up effectively stateless?  

Or, let's say the child becomes an adult (18 years old) when the parent finally gains Permanent Resident status.  What then?  Do we suddenly deport that 18 year old to a country they have no experience with?  

Similarly, let's say that a child of a "temporary resident" grows up in Canada, and applies for citizenship under this new regime.  Do we then demand that they go through the same process of applying for "Permanent Resident" status, and then on to citizenship a decade later?  Do we demand that they apply through the same immigration system that they would have to apply through if they were coming from abroad, and they would have to "qualify" under the admission criteria?  Does that make any kind of sense?  

Let's consider the case of someone who has been born and grown up in Canada.  Regardless of the status of their parents, they are asked if they are citizens.  Now the question rests not on "where were you born?", but "who were your parents, and what was their immigration status when you were born?".  I dare say most adults in the country would have a very hard time proving the citizenship status of their parents - especially if their parents are deceased, or their documentation isn't readily available.  

It creates an environment where, like the US, a huge amount of energy is wasted on "finding illegal residents".  This will stratify society further, making a subclass of people who live here, and may have done so their entire lives, who have no legal status.  As we have seen in the US, that subclass of people becomes ruthlessly exploited by employers looking for cheap labour they can abuse. 

I'm not arguing that our immigration systems are perfect or ideal.  They need work - a lot of it.  There is an honest discussion to be had around what immigration to Canada should look like, and how the various streams should flow.  Stripping birthright citizenship from the equation creates problems, it does not solve them.  

Poilievre's tirade doesn't make Canada a safer place, it makes Canada a much more dangerous place for the people who live here already.  

Dear Conservative Premiers: The Charter Isn't Up For Shredding

 So the 5 conservative premiers have sent a letter to Carney demanding that the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) withdraw its filing with the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) regarding the application of The Notwithstanding Clause (S33) in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (The Charter).  

To me, this looks like a desperation maneuver on the part of the premiers: 

What this tells us is that premiers like Alberta's Danielle Smith already know that their intentions for the use of S33 are in fact intended to erase rights entirely, and if the SCC were to adopt even partially the AGC's position, their use of S33 would come to a screeching halt. 

It is not lost on me that it is conservative premiers who are making this argument - because collectively, conservative legislators have been looking for a way to undermine The Charter for years.  Once Ontario started using it to buttress back to work legislation, they started the process of a slow boil - get people used to the idea of S33 being used on issues with relatively minor impact on them, and by the time that they start using it to erase The Charter as Danielle Smith in Alberta is trying to do using Transgender people as a target, it will be "too late" and The Charter is rendered moot. 

I explore the filings in more depth in another post.  However, the tactic of sending a letter to the Prime Minister tells us a couple of things:  

First, it's a tacit admission on the part of the premiers that their own arguments do not address the issues raised in the AGC's filing.  They can argue indefinitely about "the agreement that allowed The Charter to come into being", and the importance of Parliamentary Sovereignty, but that doesn't address the problems that the AGC's position raises (and solves). They have been outmaneuvered and they're admitting it. 

Second, their argument that this "violates the agreement around The Charter" ignores the implicit fact that the same agreement presupposed that the legislatures would act prudently with regards to S33 and not use it as a weapon against the people of Canada.  

It is this latter point which is more significant - Scott Moe and Danielle Smith wish to use S33 to extinguish the rights and validity of Transgender Canadians in their provinces.  Unlike Ontario's use of S33 to save back to work legislation from court challenges, where the situation around that legislation is clearly temporary and naturally resolves itself in time, the legislative use of S33 in Saskatchewan and Alberta addresses issues that are not temporary, and the laws themselves are intended to stand not just for 5 years, but indefinitely. That is a far different use of S33, and one without legitimate legal or cultural justification to support it. 

[Update:  Oct 8, 2025]:  The federal government just told the premiers to go pound sand.

Of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Notwithstanding Clauses

Something that has been bugging me ever since various conservatives started yammering about (ab)using the Notwithstanding Clause (S33) in the Charter has been the phrase "Parliamentary Sovereignty".  

Neither The Constitution Act, 1867 (The Constitution), nor The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK) (The Charter) make specific mention of the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty.  This is important simply because it tells us that we are dealing with a legal convention, rather than a structure within Canada's constitutional laws.  That doesn't minimize the importance of it, but it tells us that the idea itself exists in practice rather than in writing. 

Of Structure, Hierarchy, and Balance of Power

 In the submission of the Attorney General of Alberta (AGA) to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. there is a phrase used that I want to explore further, especially with regards to S33 (The Notwithstanding Clause) of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (The Charter).  

That phrase is "parliamentary sovereignty", and I think the Alberta submission embodies a very flawed understanding of it.  

Deep Dive: Intervenor Arguments Regarding S33

 With some 60 or more intervenors in English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), there is a ton of material to delve into - that's far beyond this writer's time and scope of knowledge.  However, there are lines of reasoning that I do wish to explore in some more depth - especially as regards the nature of S33, and how its application might be limited in the future.  

In particular, I want to examine arguments put forward by: 

• The Attorney General of Canada
• EGALE
• The Attorney General of Alberta

This is, of course, far from a complete list of interesting submissions, but a representative sampling of the ones I found the most relevant to the issue of legislatures applying S33 (The Notwithstanding Clause) pre-emptively to shield legislation from scrutiny.  Let's dive in. 

An Argument For Limiting S33 Of The Charter

S33 (The Notwithstanding Clause) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (The Charter) is a "nuclear weapon" that can be used to override the guarantees in the rest of the Charter.  The original purpose and intent of it was to provide a tool that legislators could use when the conflict between the common good and individual rights was so intractable that there was no other real option other than to limit the Charter Rights of individuals in a way that exceeds the boundaries of "reasonableness" set out in S1 of the Charter.

In my lifetime, I have only seen one instance where the application of S33 has had a solid and ultimately reasonably justified application, and that is with respect to Québec's language and culture law (known at one time as Bill 101 - decades ago).  The justification for that law and the use of S33 to shield it was fairly straightforward:  The province of Québec exists as a unique linguistic and cultural island surrounded by an otherwise overwhelmingly anglophone cultural mosaic in the rest of North America.  Therefore, it was deemed "reasonable" to allow Québec to limit the use of English and other languages within the province.  Given the circumstances, I can actually agree with that reasoning even though it does place non-francophone Québecers in a more difficult situation in a number of respects.  (Note:  This does not mean that I agree with all of Québec's applications of S33, merely that the reasoning in this particular case made sense)

Dear Skeptic Mag: Kindly Fuck Right Off

 So, over at Skeptic, we find an article criticizing "experts" (read academics, researchers, etc) for being "too political".  

Put kindly, this is complete stupidity - from people who should be much more adept at delving into the psychosocial history involved. Instead, they descend into the usual tropes of accusing academics and researchers of "being condescending", and "not listening to the concerns", blah blah blah.  Of course, this is all the fault of those meanies who call themselves "progressive", right?  Wrong.

Premier Smith Blinks On Banning Books

 So, late yesterday, Premier Sith Smith blinked on her ban of 2SLGBTQ books from schools.   I have opinions.  This follows on the heels of the Edmonton Public School Board (EPSB) publishing a rather lengthy list of books that would have to be banned based on the province's guidelines. Of course, Premier Smith got upset that not only did the book include 2SLGBTQ titles, but also included Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" (among others).  Clearly, she says, the school boards didn't understand the intent of the Government's guidelines.  

About Free Speech and That Nurse In BC

So, apparently Pierre Poilievre thinks that a certain nurse's comments about transgender people are an example of "free speech and free thought".   

Let's talk about that for a moment.  Ms. Hamm belongs to a regulated profession (voluntarily), and she made these comments very publicly while citing herself as an "authority" because she is a nurse. 

Skeptic.com: The Contradiction at the Heart of Gender Debates

Over at Skeptic.com(*), we find an article titled "The Contradiction at the Heart of Gender Debates".   This is one of those cases of the author writing something which is so far out of their expertise that they completely mischaracterize things.  To be fair to the author, their bio states that they are a PhD Geologist - that's nothing to sneeze at.  But, it doesn't exactly make them overly qualified to opine on the issues around gender dysphoria and its treatment. 

*Skeptic.com wants you to be a paid subscriber to comment.  

Understanding Trans People in Sport and the Panic Legislation Over It

Much has been made about transgender women (trans women) participating in sports - competitive and recreational.  Unfortunately much of the panic is unjustified, and efforts such as those of the Alberta Government to ban trans women from sports is horribly misguided.  

The expressed fear is that because a transgender woman is assumed to have male characteristics that would provide an "unfair advantage" in sports (or in some contexts, might actually present a danger to other athletes in the field. 

In this essay, I will explore the research literature and its current limitations, as well as the policy objectives related to government involvement in sports and recreation.  Spoiler:  It's not simple, and anyone who tells you that based on one attribute or another that a ban is justified, is kidding themselves. 

Trying To Understand The Carney Government’s Actions

Online, I am seeing a ton of reactions to what the current Liberal government in Ottawa is doing.  These range from outrage over a perceived non-reaction to Trump’s latest temper tantrum, to anger over cuts to various parts of the civil service.  

I get it - a lot of people are thinking “this isn’t what I voted for!”, and to some extent they are right to criticize the government’s actions.  There’s a very visceral desire to punch back every time Trump does something so utterly bone-headed, and while doing that hearing Carney talk about tax cuts and cuts to the government seems like we elected Poilievre with a better personality.

I’m not going to spend a lot of time here talking about specific details, or directives given to ministers.  What I want to do is tease apart the big picture of what we are facing and highlight how this all fits together.  

Make no mistake about it, Canada is very much in the Trump administration’s crosshairs.  What exactly their intentions are is hard to say, but it’s clear that the US government has started a trade war with Canada, and in doing so has made it very clear that our current relationship with the US is no longer a thing going forward. 

Second, on the world stage, Trump has pulled back from its traditional allies and role.  This includes all but walking away from NATO, the G7, and the UN.  This makes the world as a whole a lot more unstable, and dangerous for traditional “middle power” nations like Canada. 

Canada’s place in the world is now much more precarious than it was before January 20, 2025.  The country we traditionally relied upon both as a key customer for our economic activity and as a key partner in defence has turned against us, potentially with territorial ambitions. 

In normal circumstances, the negotiations currently going on with the US over trade and defence relationships take place behind the scenes with diplomats and policy specialists doing the heavy lifting.  Normally, national leaders don’t say anything much until those efforts are mostly concluded and an agreement is imminent.  This time, Trump is routinely making extreme, if not outrageous, statements that likely undermine those negotiations entirely, or make the job of the diplomats exponentially more difficult. 

Like it or not, Carney has taken a “I’m not going to react to Trump’s bellicosity in public” approach.  In some respects, this is appropriate.  Trump is a bully.  If you react to his provocations by coming out swinging, you’re playing his game.  He’s stated many times, “you hit me, I’ll hit you back twice as hard”.  So, yeah, while punching back would feel momentarily satisfying, the escalation it would produce would not be helpful. 

Meanwhile, Carney has stated that he is planning to re-orient Canada’s economy in a big way.  Not only is he committing to a much bigger military than we have traditionally managed, he is wanting to change procurement so that our military purchases aren’t automatically from the US.  That’s no small matter at all - putting our military on track for a spend at 2.5% of GDP, escalating to 5% of GDP over the next decade is an enormous change all by itself.  (We’ll come back to this) 

Then there is what Carney is clearly doing behind the scenes with other trading partners and allies, in particular the EU.  He’s in the process of starting to diversify our trading relationships with the longer term aim of reducing the enmeshment with the US we currently have.  This is a huge project in its own right - we can’t just “slam the doors shut” on the US border (nor can they, realistically).  Canada’s economy is big enough to make us part of the G7 - you cannot change the direction of something that size “on a dime”.  Doing so is a complex and difficult process.  I applaud Carney’s approach here where he is reworking trade relationships with Europe first (which is collectively a huge economy as well), while continuing to negotiate “in good faith” with the US.  

On top of that, Carney has to do this in the context of a minority parliament, which is almost guaranteed to be fractious once Poilievre returns to the house in a few weeks’ time.  He also has to (one way or another) get enough buy-in from the various provincial premiers to be able to move major policy goals forward such as dismantling inter-provincial trade barriers that make it easier to sell to the US than to our neighbouring provinces (and yes, that includes somehow finding ways to keep Danielle Smith from going completely rogue).

I don’t know how many people realize that doing this relatively quietly so as to not immediately anger Trump’s administration is a very careful balancing act.  This is “diplomatically threading the needle” stuff.  It’s hard to do, and even harder to communicate to the average person on the street who is sick of hearing Trump go off every few days on some incoherent rage-filled tirade.    

Trump’s rambling about tariffs and threats to annex Canada united a lot of people behind Carney who made it clear that he wasn’t going to be Trump’s patsy, while the conservatives under Poilievre continued a campaign that basically said “look at me, I’m mini-Trump”.  As much as I loathe nationalism, it made Canadians stand up and take notice of what was going on.  

We have to put Canada onto a “war footing”, and that’s going to be a monumental task because this isn’t just a bunch of military posturing, like the Cold War, its real impacts and tactics take place in the realms of the economic and diplomatic.  I don’t think a lot of people have thought about it in those terms - it will mean decisions that people won’t like for one reason or another, and it will mean that our “comfortable lives” may well get turned upside down.  

This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t criticize Carney and what he’s doing.  But it would be worth your time to think about how all of these things fit together and how a given action fits into the picture before going off. 

A Week In Alberta Politics

 Alberta’s politics are an awful mess right now, and this past week has been quite a spectacle even for Alberta. 

Devin Dreeshen kicked things off by making a fuss over bike lanes in Calgary (and Edmonton, no doubt). To put it bluntly, Dreeshen is a privileged little twit that lives out in rural Alberta - he has no experience with urban planning whatsoever, much less has he ever lived in a major urban area for any length of time.  He has no clue about what it takes to get around in Calgary or Edmonton.  He needs to leave the municipalities alone on this one. 

Then we move to newly-minted “Municipal Affairs Minister” Dan Williams, who saw fit to come out with guns blazing over city hall implementing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies.  Ah yes, the wonderful world of “merit hiring” - which is really a code phrase for there being a shocking number of fragile white men who are utterly terrified that someone who is not white might actually be their equal.  We’ll come back to this in a bit, because just when you think the week’s done, the UCP gets worse.

Yesterday, Education Minister Nicolaides decided it was a good time to roll out what amounts to a book ban in school libraries. In spite of the minister's claims to the contrary, this is really a ban on 2SLGBTQ material in school libraries.  Back in May, when the minister foreshadowed this action, it was pretty clear that this was based on a bunch of "Parents Groups" borrowing from a moral panic strategy that has already played out in the United States.  Of course, the proposed list of books comes from a number of US conservative aligned sources. 

None of this should surprise us - the Canadian Social Conservative movement is tightly enmeshed with its American counterpart, and at least in Alberta, they are practically drooling over the prospect of having a government so cowed by the fact that they ejected former Premier Jason Kenney a couple of years ago that they think they can push their extreme agenda even further.  It doesn't matter what Danielle Smith thinks or believes - she's shown that she kowtows to the loudest, most obnoxious voices in her party. 

Where is all this going?  Backwards for the most part.  Like her attack on transgender people started in January 2024, this is all about rolling back rights, access, and equity.  The UCP wants all them damned queers back in the closet.  The smaller the closet, the better, and they don't care who they trample in the process.  

But, it doesn't stop there.  There is a whole host of "SoCon" hobby horse issues - and it doesn't stop at abortion either - although LaGrange is obviously chuckling with glee as she tears our healthcare system apart at the seams - breaking it so badly that I suspect healthcare in Alberta will look increasingly like "if you aren't wealthy, you're screwed" - Alabama will look amazing.  

Going after trans youth was the "thin edge of the wedge" in the UCP's strategy.  Trans youth have the least voice politically, and even less resources to fight back with.  The government engaged in performative "consultation", but excluded voices of trans kids, their parents, and the people who actually provide treatment.  

Then they came along with a ban on trans women in sports.  Again, they listened to a small group of people who loudly proclaim that having trans women in sport is somehow "unfair", but ignored the voices of trans women, and any evidence that challenges the assumption that trans women have "automatic advantages" athletically because at some point their bodies may have produced testosterone.  The resulting policy is far reaching, and unreasonable to say the least. 

The recent "book ban" policy is clearly built on similar grounds.  When you look at it objectively, it's about erasing 2SLGBTQ voices from school libraries.  Did the government engage in meaningful consultation?  No.  They consulted with Action4Canada and a couple of other known anti-2SLGBTQ groups who helpfully provided them with book lists from similar campaigns in the US.  The "public consultation" was such an obvious "push poll" designed to provoke outrage it wasn't even worthy of being considered a fig leaf of consultation. 

Can you see the wedge being hammered in even further?  

If you think this government is going to stop at attacking trans people and library books in schools, I have news for you.  Williams' shot at "DEI" is a warning - they are coming after everything.   Think that you lost out in a job hiring process to a "diversity hire"?  Cool, they'll back you.  Do I expect them to go after the Alberta Human Rights Commission?  Absolutely - they are going to make it just about impossible to make a successful complaint if you aren't white, male, Christian, and wealthy.  

As for women's issues?  Well - get used to having to fight for everything from health care to voting, because that's on the agenda too. There is no shortage of religious hardliners who want to make it impossible for women to vote, and the fight over abortion is always about bodily autonomy. 

The point here is that Alberta is the beachhead in Canada for this extremist influence coming up from the US.  If we don't stand against it now, we're all screwed.  

It's Not So Simple ...

 I hate seeing headlines like CBC's this morning in the wake of the US attack on Iran:  "In Wake of US Attacks, Iran Faces Pivotal Choice: Dash to Build a Weapon or Negotiate".

Very little in the world of foreign affairs can be characterized in such simplistic terms.  It's not "either/or", and in fact Iran has a number of options open to it that this ignores.  

Does Iran already have a nuclear weapon?  Officially the answer is "no", but that's inference based on the fact they have never openly tested such a device.  On paper Israel hasn't tested nuclear weapons either, but it is broadly understood to have a cache of nuclear warheads.  I don't have access to sources that could confirm or deny Iran's possession of nuclear assets.  At this stage, they could easily run a "test fire" to augment their "negotiating position, or just to make themselves less desirable as a target. 

The other aspect of Iran's nuclear capability is the ability to create so-called "dirty bombs" (basically a conventional warhead with a "surprise package" of nuclear waste wrapped around it).  Those are trivial for any country with a handful of reactors used for power generation to create, and are potentially just as deadly - especially if detonated high in the atmosphere. 

We also should not ignore the probability of Iran having covertly purchased nuclear weapons from other states.  It's quite possible that they have weapons purchased from elsewhere.  

Iran has many paths through which it could acquire nuclear weapons capability, not merely through its own program of development.  

Much has been made of "we must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons", but like North Korea, such threats do little to stop a country that is determined to develop that technology for itself. 

Is this a "negotiate or else" situation?  Not even close.  Iran has many paths forward - it may choose to "negotiate", while concurrently "sprinting to build a bomb", or it may choose to reveal weapons it has already in its hands to make its "hand" stronger at the negotiating table.  

Similarly, because there are significant religious components to this situation, we can also suspect that they may choose to go "scorched earth" and simply unleash the most destructive weapons they have on hand.  

Of course, all of this is speculative on my part - I don't have any information not in the news media, and I merely infer from what I do see.  By no means should we assume that Iran is "cowed" by recent events, nor do I see a willingness on the part of Israel's government to engage in any kind of good faith negotiations. 

Recognizing Bias and Deceptive Journalism

The Telegraph published this piece of drivel decrying the number of "biological males" who undergo gender reassignment surgery (GRS) in the UK.  It's trash journalism at its worst, but it is a good example of what to look for in detecting bias because it's loaded with all kinds of "weighted wording", dubious narratives, and sources that are not in the least bit authoritative on the subject. 

Structure and Wording

The structure of the article is itself an interesting example to consider.  It starts off with a review of some statistical information drawn from the UK's NHS.  From there it dives into arguments about de-transition, the claimed lack of evidence that GRS helps with Gender Dysphoria, and winds up with talking to the founder of a known anti-transgender organization.  

Note that in the entire article, there is absolutely no effort whatsoever to describe the scope of what transition means and the role of GRS in that much bigger picture. 

Just for fun, the article is full of scare wording designed to portray GRS in the worst possible light:  "penis cut off" is one such phrase (which is a crude and inaccurate description of the most common surgical technique used).  Add to that a focus on the surgery being "irreversible" (most surgeries are like that), and "causes infertility" (well - duh - although I do need to point out that by the time most transgender women have surgery, they've been on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) long enough that they aren't producing sperm anymore, and won't if they stop HRT either).  

Bogus Arguments

The article then leaps into a series of utterly bogus arguments.  The first is, of course the "what about regret / detransition" trope.  Yes, some people attempt transition, and discover that it's not for them.  That's been true for a very long time.  However, the portrayal of things is troubling - as it implies that the person was "railroaded" into having surgery, and I know that isn't how things work.  The NHS is particularly notorious for delays and extended waiting periods that render any accusation of "I didn't have a chance to back out" utter nonsense. 

They then claim that "there was never an opportunity to deal with other mental health issues".  Okay - but that raises the very clinical question - did those issues come up in discussion during assessment?  Clinicians aren't telepaths - if there is no indication of other mental issues, why would they assume that those issues exist? 

Then they go on to talk to someone who asserts that "there's no evidence that those surgeries do anything to alleviate gender dysphoria".  Of course that claim is false on its face.  The regret rate for people who pursue transition and do undergo GRS is low - much lower than that for most other kinds of surgery. 

Lastly, they talk to a founder of TransgenderTrend, a known anti-transgender lobby organization who makes a number of misleading statements.  

Missing

What is missing from this article?  Credible, unbiased sources.  It's riddled with anecdotes cast in a particular light, and utterly devoid of any attempt whatsoever to engage with sources with actual expertise in the matter. 

Did they portray transition journeys accurately? No.  Did they portray GRS accurately? No.  Did they even go so far as to cite a standard of care document?  No.  

This is an article that should be dismissed for being utterly inaccurate.

Alberta “Separatism”

 I’m old enough to have lived through both Quebec referendums (to date) on sovereignty, and I’ve watched the sleazy grievance politics of “Western Alienation” attempting to ape Quebec’s situation.  I remember Elmer Knutson and Doug Christie running around western Canada in the late 70s yammering on about how “Ottawa was so terrible to Alberta, and things would be so much better if …”.  More recently, the Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan have taken up the banner, mostly at the behest of groups like “Take Back Alberta” and a handful of “oilbros” who see their fortunes as threatened by the upsurge in patriotism in the wake of Donald Trump’s return to power. 

Dealing With MisInformation and Bias In The Media Sphere

One of the bigger takeaways in the 2025 election cycle is the difference between journalism and the partisan slop that is served up by various obviously partisan “news” orgs.  This needs to be brought to heel now.  

The antics of Ezra Levant’s “The Rebel” at the leader debates were disgusting.  They ultimately denied Canadians of the Q&A back and forth that was desperately needed.  

How To Respond To the UKSC Ruling On Trans People

 This week, the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) issued a ruling that on the face of it invalidates transgender women’s rights under the law.  I haven’t finished reading through the entirety of the ruling (I’m also not a lawyer - so reading this stuff is often slow going for me!), and I’m sure that others will have more clear headed things to say about the ruling itself.

However, my objective here isn’t to perform a deep dive into the ruling.  This is more about how a ruling like this can be turned back on itself.  The objective of these cases is clearly to shove transgender women (in particular) out of public life.  To do so, proponents of these suits often dive behind what they think of as “scientific wording” - in this case, the phrase “biological woman” comes to the fore very quickly. 

In a sense, such simplistic phrases are perfect for weaponizing, and they can be weaponized very effectively by transgender people and their allies.  Even the UKSC ruling, while it adopts this language doesn’t attempt to provide any kind of meaningful definition of what this means.  

A trivial version of taking it apart is a bit like the snarky quip about “organic vegetables”:  It’s clearly a vegetable, and by definition it is organic in that no human being assembled it.  Similarly, a transgender woman might well say “I’m biological, and I’m a woman - I don’t see a problem here”.  It’s a bit facetious to do so, but given the approach being taken by the anti-transgender panic brigade, not entirely wrong. 

The other end of it is when cases get before the courts, (and they inevitably will), we start off with bringing in biologists and have them give lessons to the court on the complexity of human biology when it comes down to reproductive biology and sex development.  It’s strange - oh so strange - and efforts to treat it as some kind of rigid dichotomy are hugely problematic.  

Pretty much every time you hear “biological woman”, you know you’re talking to someone who has absolutely no idea what they’re saying - biology isn’t simple, and it’s beyond laughable to try and reduce any human being to “the bits between their legs”.  Every time the antis bring up transgender people as some kind of abhorrent problem, slap them down with all of the exceptions that already exist even if transgender people didn’t.  

The logic they’re using is so rigid it’s brittle.  Twist it on them until it breaks at every turn. 

Will it be easy?  Nope.  But it needs to be done.  Every single argument the “antis” are making to justify shoving transgender women out of public life is based on falsehoods.  Their suppositions about transgender people are rigid and false, and that makes them vulnerable to attack - even when they think they’re backed up by the highest courts in the land. 

Pierre Wants To Eradicate “Woke Ideology”

 So, back in late March, Poilievre was unveiling his platform for Quebec, and in that speech he talked about eliminating “woke ideology” from university research. At first glance, you might look and say “meh, so what?”

The problem, of course, is that this puts the politicians in the position of being the arbiters of what is “worthy” of being studied.  As we have seen with Trump’s “campaign against Woke”, this goes much further than merely attacking research that involves transgender people.  No, in fact the Trump administration has published a list of words that it has now banned.  It is quite extensive - pretty much covering every area of discourse that conservatives have decided that they don’t like - climate change, equality, women, diversity, allergies, and even the analysis of applying science to either policy or medical treatment.  

At its core, the conservative assault on “Woke” turns out to be little more than re-litigating every rights and politics issue that they have lost the argument over in the last century.  “It’s gone too far!”, they declare.  They complain that the research itself should not be done because it offends their “feelings” about the subject.

But what price do these bans on certain subjects exact from society?  Well, in Trump’s America, it’s now next to impossible to study how drugs affect women versus how they work in men.  We have known for some time that women have very different responses to treatments than men do, and that’s in a wide range of topics including cardiac care.  But now that research is effectively halted in the US.  When Harper was Prime Minister, we saw him engage in overt suppression of climate science, even going so far as to prohibit scientists from speaking on the subject without political authorization. 

To posit a bit of a straw man, you might assert that Poilievre wouldn’t go as far as Trump has done on this file.  But what does that even mean?  Poilievre hasn’t shown us any evidence that he would moderate his behaviour, and in fact his willingness to emulate Trump on so many points suggests that in fact he would lift heavily from Trump.  

But think about it from a government policy perspective.  Do you think that a government should ignore science when forming policy?  Or should policy at least consider the scientific evidence in that domain?

To make a somewhat extreme example, consider the legislature deciding to pass legislation governing the treatment of heart attacks.  The evidence today around heart attacks is clear - treatment is urgent, and requires a combination of medicine and surgical interventions.  Long term follow-up is necessary, and the patient is encouraged to make major lifestyle changes, including exercise.  All of this has decades worth of research backing it up.  

Now consider the government decides in drafting its legislation that in fact all that research is wrong, and because the politicians believe that a heart attack is an event that the victim should “tough out”, they ban ambulances from responding to calls that are possible cardiac events. 

I would hope you would be outraged by such legislation, and you would be calling on the politicians to pay attention to the scientific literature on the subject.  Yet, that is exactly what we are seeing on so many levels with conservative politicians writing legislation on other matters - they are ignoring any kind scientific evidence in favour of their “feelings” about the subject.

To be clear, science doesn’t write policy, but science produces information that should be used to guide policy.  If a subject makes you uncomfortable, that doesn’t mean it should not be studied - in fact to me that makes it more important that it is studied actively.  Similarly, politicians should write policy, but not direct what _cannot_ be explored in research.

But what is this conservative “war on woke” really about? When I look at it broadly, it seems to boil down to unwinding equality because a bunch of white dudes are all butt-hurt that they aren’t the only ones with a say any more.

DEI - which is in many respects about dismantling the legacy of racism and marginalization that was pervasive in society even after the civil rights era supposedly made us all equal (it didn’t, it just knocked over the legal impediments to equality).  

Immigration - oh yes, the problem of “the immigrants”.  Whether this is “great replacement theory”, or other aspects of immigration like temporary foreign worker permits, at the end of the day it boils down to this existential fear that “white males” won’t be able to compete.  They might wrap it up in respectable looking terms, but it’s really just racism with a thin gauze of “concern” wrapped around it. 

Women’s reproductive rights - at its core, this is a matter of bodily autonomy.  The whole abortion fight has always been about regulating women’s bodies - a matter rooted in a myriad of ancient fears about the female body.  Medicine has gradually dismantled the superstitious beliefs that those fears once buttressed, but far too many still view women, sexuality, and pregnancy with deep mistrust.  But, as a central theme in conservative thinking, fighting abortion remains stubbornly consistent - even when the logic behind their claims is no longer relevant. 

Transgender people - like female reproductive rights, this is all about bodily autonomy.  The idea that transgender people exist poses a huge, complex problem for the conservative mind.  Not only does it connect back to women’s rights in general (because so much of women’s oppression in the past has to do with reproduction), but in fact transgender rights are inextricably connected because the transgender person represents a radical form of both bodily and social autonomy that centres on the individual. Conservatives tend to value conformity, and transgender people are the opposite of conformity.  In fact, transgender people push back on all the social pressures that they experience in the process of actualizing themselves as human beings.  

All of this connects back to an underlying fear on the part of conservative men that somehow these social changes make them “lesser” in society.  They don’t, of course - we still live in a society where being a white male carries an enormous amount of power and privilege.  Look at the people who are the biggest opponents of “woke” - almost inevitably they are anything but the “prime specimens” that they think themselves to be.  Donald Trump, Jordan Peterson, Pierre Poilievre - none of them are ideal, and frankly if it weren’t for money or notoriety, any of them would be ignored as simply snivelling twits. 

The “war on woke” is really about restoring a social hierarchy that died out decades ago - and it’s being conducted at the cost of the rights and freedoms of real people. 

Why Dems Can’t See Through Fascism

This morning, I awoke to hearing an interview of Senator John Fetterman on the radio.  It was this interview:

 https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/john-fetterman-on-trumps-raw-sewage-and-what/id1050430296?i=1000694829127

To be clear, I don’t know Fetterman from any other US senator, and I have no engagement with him politically.  What I heard in this interview was a case study of why the Democrats have been so utterly ineffectual in countering Trump - they still think this is “normal politics”, and are treating Trump as “just a minor political disagreement”. 

Several times in the interview, Fetterman said “well - Trump can’t run again in 2028”.  I wanted to scream when I heard that.  Seriously - he said that … out loud … after so many clear signals from Trump that he doesn’t give a damn about the law, conventions, or other factors that represent a limitation on his personal powers.  

Then he walked through a whole bunch of issues - and he correctly identified that Trump has “filled the zone with 3’ of sewage”.  Sure he has.  What the good senator is overlooking is, of course, that the issue is in fact not the sewage, but the willingness of Trump and his allies to spew it. It is another variation on Goebbels’ “big lie” - pure propaganda and a smokescreen for their real objectives.  To borrow from the work of Paul Ekman, lies succeed because nobody does the work to identify them - Trump lies constantly, and the Democrats in particular haven’t bothered to even so much as call them out.

Democrats have convinced themselves that what we are seeing right now as little more than a “kindly argument over the height of the hedge”.  It isn’t.  The Trump Administration is actively moving to break the system of checks and balances that have held the abuse of power by any one branch of government in check. 

DOGE isn’t going to “make a more efficient bureaucracy”, its sole job is to break the bureaucracy and render the administrative aspects of government so ineffective that whatever privatized hellscape Musk is dreaming up will seem like a good idea.  Public health - nah - don’t need that (until the next outbreak of major disease…); food inspection?  - who needs that?  Vehicle safety?  Has anybody else noticed that Musk’s “CyberTruck” is basically a return to the standards of the 1950s, where looks and mass were the solution to things, and well if you got in a crash, good luck to you. 

Democrats need to realize that what is being installed in Washington is not “a neighbourly disagreement”, it’s closer to the arrangement that Putin has with his oligarchs than it is to any kind of recognizable democracy.  _IF_ there is any kind of election in 2028, it will not in any way be a “fair” election - it will be an election where every kind of cheating will be rampant - all in the name of ensuring that whoever is elected will be a willing accomplice to Trump.

If you think I’m joking, just remember that in the days following his loss in 2020, Trump was calling up governors and other state level officials demanding that they twist the results in his favour.  You think that’s gone away?  I don’t.  

Senator Fetterman argued that going after Trump for his conduct “didn’t work”.  Democrats DIDN’T go after Trump for his conduct.  They were too busy worrying about alienating Trump’s supporters.  Trump’s supporters are the people who needed to have the stinking pile of Trump’s misdeeds dumped on their front lawns at every turn.

Democrats LET Trump win by not calling out his misdeeds at every fucking turn.  While he was playing duck and weave to avoid being held criminally responsible for his actions, what were Democrats saying?  NOTHING.  They held their tongues - on the basis of “it’s before the courts”.  Yes, it’s before the courts - that is true.  That doesn’t stop the Democrats from calling it out for what it is.  Trump had no regard for the rule of law - in fact his game playing itself demonstrated that.  

Trump said during the campaign “you won’t have to vote again”.  Did the Democrats take that and run with it?  Nope.  They sat there worrying about offending his supporters.  

Democrats have themselves tied in knots over the idea that if they take a hard line on something, they’re going to “offend” their opponents. The Democrats are worried about offending someone if they complain about DEI, Critical Race Theory (CRT), or Gender Ideology.  Most of Trump’s supporters haven’t read a book in decades - they have no idea what these things are. The comeback for all of them is “So, you support oppression and discrimination against those you don’t understand?” 

A guy like Trump will weaponize everything in sight.  Democrats need to realize that it doesn’t matter what they say, a chronic liar will always find a way to turn it around on them.  They need to take a hard line and call Trump’s actions and words out at every turn. Not “oh, he’s just exaggerating”, or “it sounds bad, but he probably won’t do it”.  No.  If he says it, assume he’s going to do it in the most detrimental way possible and hammer him with it.  

In the legislature, use every legislative delaying tactic you can find - don’t worry about being painted as obstructionist - the GOP has been doing exactly that at every turn since Obama was elected in 2008.  Every stunt they have used, you can use too.  

Get mad. Show some emotion. This isn’t a dispute over the height of the hedge.  It’s far worse than that - and Americans deserve far better than the half-assed “well… maybe his supporters have a point” nonsense we’ve been getting.  His supporters don’t “have a point” - they’re either just as conniving and malicious as Trump himself, or they’re willing fools conned into believing Trump’s version of “The Big Lie”.  

Nothing less than democracy and freedom are on the line now.  It’s time for the Democrats and other parties in other countries to wake up to that reality and play hardball. 

What If Trump's Health Is Failing?

There's a bundle posts on YouTube and other places on the Internet speculating wildly about Trump's health, and whether or not he will live through the entirety of his second term as President of the United States.  I get it - he's such an awful person that any little straw of hope is better than nothing.  

But, frankly it doesn't matter, and here's why.  It's no longer about Trump - at this point, he's the pitch man and that's about it.  He'll do what others tell him to do as long as someone funnels another million into his bank accounts somewhere that it can't be touched - and that kind of transactional stupidity is straight up oligarchy. 

Look at Trump's nomination for various cabinet and other high in the government positions.  They are all obscenely wealthy, and frankly utterly unqualified for the positions they hold.  There are so many probably and overt conflicts of interest in these appointments it's bonkers.  Then we get to the half dozen or so utterly looney appointments like RFK Jr. - a man whose cheese slid off his cracker a long time ago. 

Most of these people are the types who think along the lines Ayn Rand did - if you aren't ridiculously wealthy, you are a parasite leeching off other "more productive people".  The reality is, of course, quite the opposite - most of these people got ridiculously wealthy by a combination of family wealth, scamming the hell out of people, and lastly off the backs of honest workers that they see as patsies for their schemes. 

Trump's cabinet is a veritable "rogues gallery" of people who are setting up for a smash-and-grab theft on a scale that the world hasn't seen since Putin and his oligarchs pushed Yeltsin out of office.  They aren't moving to make a "smaller, more efficient government", they're going to break it up and sell it to themselves.  The level of self-dealing that is going to happen will be stunning, and every one of them will walk away with their wallets bulging just a little more than they already do - and you the taxpayer will be paying more in fees as they try to monetize every single transaction.

Now, let's say Trump falls over dead tomorrow.  JD Vance steps in and takes over as President.  Do you think Vance is going to do anything to slow down what has already begun?  The odds are very good he won't - as long as the oligarchs pass a few million each to keep their posts.  

What we have been witnessing since January 20 is the installation of what will become an oligarchy government.  Even if there is an election in 2028, it will be at best a show process, and there may be a turnover in the cabinet, but by then the senior layers of the bureaucracy will one way or another be beholden to the oligarchs either through direct ownership of government agencies as "free enterprise businesses", or plain old corruption. 

Trump is an old man now - he will be Theodin to Musk's Grima Wormtongue.  Whether he survives or not really doesn't matter.  

“Archbishop Bannon” versus “Unelected President Musk”

 If you had any illusions about MAGA having taken on cult-like traits, you only need to read some of Bannon’s statements in this article.

He instructed Musk to “sit back and study” to understand MAGA’s - and what supporters believed was Trump’s - America First stance to keep U.S. jobs for Americans.

“They’re recent converts,” Bannon saidTuesday on his War Roompodcast, referring to Musk and other tech-world Trump supporters.

“We love converts,” Bannon noted. “But the converts sit in the back and study for years and years and years to make sure you understand the faith and you understand the nuances of the faith and understand how you can internalize the faith.”

This is Bannon putting himself in the place of being the high priest of MAGA, and setting up for quite the “palace power struggle” once Trump is sworn into office.  Interesting stuff.  

While it’s been clear for quite some time that MAGA is very cult-like, deliberately avoiding facts for whatever conspiracy theory of the day has been ladled out to them through the disinformation networks.  The idea that Trump has been “persecuted” by the Biden administration because of the criminal prosecutions that stem from his actions both before becoming President in 2016, and leading up to the Jan 6 storming of the capitol.  

Bannon talking about “new converts” is very interesting all by itself - speaking quite directly to the quasi-religious nature of MAGA as a system of beliefs.  I might disagree that there is anything systemic about MAGA beliefs, but then Bannon goes on to talk about “studying” the faith for “many years”.  That itself is also very intriguing language.  

MAGA is, at best a collection of conspiracy theories and counter-factual narratives - it hardly has a coherent narrative that one would expect from a formal religion.  However, Bannon seems to be positioning himself as the “Speaker for MAGA” in Trump’s circle - and that all by itself is interesting.  Clearly he sees himself in the role of the cleric at the shoulder of the king, advising the king on how to keep the peasants happy.  

To the extent that he can do that, it makes Bannon potentially quite politically powerful - and certainly a rival to players like Musk and Ramaswamy in the Trump White House.  However, it’s also a dangerous conceit for Bannon to think that a volatile rabble like MAGA is going to obey his word.  The issue will come to a head when Trump and Bannon disagree on something that Musk / Ramaswamy want to do.  

At its most fundamental level, MAGA is about self interest and deifying ignorance and feelings over knowledge and evidence.  Musk is ultimately about his own self-interest, but his self-interest is not going to align with that of most individual MAGA followers - the ones who currently believe Bannon - but will they believe Bannon when Trump aligns himself with Musk?  Or will they pivot to following Trump’s word?  

Bannon might be the high priest, but Trump is their putative saviour …