Concepts with Shawn Whatley

Christine Van Geyn captured the central debate around freedom of expression vs state control and put it into a children's book. As Interim Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Van Geyn has the deep knowledge and experience required to explain the essential elements of free expression in a short book titled, Maple's Garden: A Canadian Freedom of Speech Story. We also discuss her other books, Pandemic Panic, and Free Speech in Canada. Thanks for checking this out! Shawn Chapters and AI summary Shawn Whatley interviews Christine Van Geyn, interim executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, about her children’s picture book Maple’s Garden, inspired by the Mississauga case involving Wolf Ruck and Ontario rulings that a naturalized garden can be protected expression reflecting subjective views of beauty. They discuss how governments and bylaws can overreach by enforcing aesthetic standards, the difference between harmful invasive or dangerous plants and taste-based complaints, and why free expression protects disagreement. Van Geyn also explains her co-authored book Pandemic Panic as a documented record of civil liberties impacts, cases, and “memory-holed” incidents from COVID-19, including the Freedom Convoy and the Emergencies Act challenge. The conversation ends with a primer on Charter Section 2(b), Section 1’s Oakes test, and concerns about human rights tribunals being used to penalize speech, citing cases in BC and Ontario’s Emo flag dispute. 00:00 Parents vs State Power 00:36 Why Free Speech Matters 01:30 Meet Christine Van Geyn 04:20 Why She Wrote Maples Garden 06:23 The Garden Case Explained 09:43 Kids And The Hidden Animals 11:37 Beauty Versus Weeds Debate 18:53 Invasive Plants And Real Harm 21:25 Where The State Draws The Line 29:33 Teaching Beauty Without Force 30:46 Kids and Creativity 31:29 Who Decides Beauty 33:03 What Is Beauty 34:25 Why This Kids Book 37:56 Illustrator and AI Art 41:14 Pandemic Panic Overview 42:59 Recording Pandemic Abuses 46:44 Charter and Human Rights 48:43 Oakes Test Explained 52:00 Human Rights Overreach Cases 01:01:08 Forced Endorsement by Tribunal 01:05:34 Defending Disagreement 01:08:43 Closing and Call to Action

Professor Joshua Mitchell is courageous. He argues for his positions even when they go against the grain of politically acceptable thought. Mitchell says conservatives have done a good job at addressing the debt and tradition economies. We are strong on fiscal policy, and we stand up for the debts we owe to our fathers. But we are almost completely blind to the more profound, urgent, and critical debt of guilt. Conservatives are blind to spiritual debt. The Left understands guilt and spiritual debt. It's their main focus. Criticize them for having bad data or for emotionalizing things, but the Left addresses an inescapable issue that the Right seems to miss entirely. I'd love to hear what you think of this episode. It's deep in places but also pointed and provocative. Thanks again for listening! Shawn Links: American Awakening https://americanreformer.org/2026/03/whither-the-reformation-in-america/ Chapters and AI summary: Shawn Whatley interviews Georgetown political theorist Joshua Mitchell about his book American Awakening: Identity Politics and Other Afflictions of Our Time and his article on the Reformation in America. Mitchell argues the West’s turmoil is fundamentally a religious crisis, with identity politics functioning as a quasi-Christian, “incomplete religion” seeking purity and redemption without a Christian solution. He contrasts a “regime of competence” with a post-1989 suspension of history, critiques the feminization of public life as mercy detached from justice, and outlines three “economies” humans inhabit: payment, tradition, and spiritual debt. He contends conservatives focus on the first two while lacking language for the third, leaving the left to politicize guilt, stain, and redemption. Mitchell offers three futures—endless incomplete religions, Nietzschean rejection of Christian categories, or a return to Christianity—and emphasizes America’s covenantal Protestant imagination as key to overcoming identity politics. 00:00 Religious Crisis Frame 00:34 Show Intro Guest Setup 02:05 Is Woke Dead 03:02 Competence After 1989 04:53 Mercy Justice Feminization 07:09 Manliness Debate 09:20 Incomplete Religions Thesis 14:24 Nietzsche Tocqueville Futures 19:20 Three Economies Explained 24:00 Identity Politics As Religion 27:09 Tocqueville Self Interest 33:04 America Protestant Catholic Moment 34:53 Covenantal America Returns 35:56 Protestant Revival Warning 37:41 Host Rapid Fire Topics 41:16 Burke Simplicity Trap 43:37 Purity Stain Politics 47:43 Spiritual Economy Turn 50:20 Religion That Fits 55:00 France Religion Showdown 58:51 Aristotle Versus Plato 01:02:47 Covenant Beyond Nietzsche 01:03:45 Next Book Farewell

Tim Haggstrom doesn't just promote theory. He bears the personal scars of legal practice. He leads an organization focussed on legal theory, while fighting (personally) for free speech. This caught me off guard. I thought Tim was simply an exemplary leader of a noteworthy organization. I had no idea that he was also personally up to his neck in litigation about the legitimacy of race-based scholarship. You won't meet a nicer, more thoughtful guy. Tim goes out of his way to ring-fence his own case from the organization he represents. You need to know about the Runnymede Society. The Society appears even more worth, and necessary, when you hear about Tim's case, at the end of the episode. Let me know what you think! Thanks again Shawn Chapters and AI Summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Tim Haggstrom, National Director of the Runnymede Society, about whether freedom of speech exists in Canadian law schools and how students learn “no-go zones” on contentious issues. Hagstrom explains Runnymede’s founding in 2016 amid concerns about insufficient debate over constitutional change, citing the Supreme Court’s 2015 Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision on a Charter right to strike, and outlines the Society’s mission to promote constitutionalism, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms through debates it does not adjudicate. They discuss taboo topics, civil discourse, and competing views of the rule of law, interpretation, legal neutrality, and substantive equality (including the 2020 Fraser case). Hagstrom then recounts his personal judicial review against the University of Saskatchewan after being found guilty of non-academic misconduct following letters defending dialogue and critiquing race-based policies, linking the dispute to university commitments to decolonization and anti-racism training. 00:00 Free Speech in Law School 00:22 Meet Tim Haggstrom 04:23 Why Runnymede Started 07:10 Tim’s Path to Runnymede 09:47 Campus No Go Zones 13:42 Staying Relevant and Civil 16:28 Sacred Cows Debate Example 19:05 Tim’s Lawsuit Teaser 21:53 Why Institutions Matter 25:24 Network Formation and Skills 31:03 Rule of Law Explained 37:26 Law Without Translation 38:53 Bridge Norms Example 41:33 Courts Versus Legislatures 44:13 Thick Rule of Law 45:57 Rodriguez To Carter 48:46 Living Tree Origins 50:19 Can Law Be Neutral 51:09 Substantive Equality Debate 56:05 Runnymede Student Plug 56:59 Saskatchewan Case Begins 01:05:41 Critical Social Justice Claims 01:10:11 Campus Speech Outlook 01:13:09 Protect Legal Tradition

Jodi Bruhn offers a sobering take on Canada. Professor Bruhn is an expert on governance and constitutional thought. She says we might not appreciate the significance and potential fallout from the Supreme Court wading in the Notwithstanding Clause. We discuss civics education and whether there's an increased appetite for first principles. Thanks for checking this out! I look forward to your comments. Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Jodi Bruhn about renewed interest in first principles, civics, and regime analysis in her University of Lethbridge courses, contrasting first-year and fourth-year students’ ability to identify clashing political principles behind current events. They discuss political science versus political philosophy, including critiques of Straussian textualism, and consider thinkers such as Aristotle, Voegelin, Bergson, and Carl Schmitt. Bruhn warns that the Supreme Court of Canada hearing cases involving the notwithstanding clause signals a misunderstanding of legislative supremacy and could provoke a political showdown with provinces like Quebec and Alberta, potentially risking Canada’s dissolution. They examine constitutional change constraints, separatism’s uncertain outcomes, leadership and ethical decay under unwritten constitutional conventions, demagoguery, and Bruhn’s account of Tamara Lich’s University of Calgary talk about the trucker convoy. 00:00 Supreme Court Warning 00:52 Meet the Guest 02:52 Teaching First Principles 05:26 Civics and Regimes 07:37 Political Science vs Philosophy 15:31 Teasing Out Principles 18:03 Notwithstanding Clause Clash 21:14 Charter and Judicial Review 23:34 Can Canada Rewind 25:26 Alberta Separation Scenarios 28:41 Schmitt and Conflict Horizon 29:57 Friendship Course Spectrum 31:29 Canadian Founding Enmities 33:27 Hooker and English Middle Way 35:42 Ideology and First Principles 37:31 Alberta Separation and Reconfederation 39:47 Constitutional Mismatch and Corruption 44:51 Demagoguery and Vital Breakthrough 47:33 Reading Bergson and Courage 49:10 Tamara Lich at University 51:11 Teaching Critical Thinking Finale

Evan Menzies shows why Albertans should be furious. As an Albertan himself, he understands. And as a political consultant, he sees even more reasons to be upset than most Albertans have heard of. He is frustrated and doesn't hide it. In spite of powerful reasons to be upset, he still thinks Alberta should stay. The rest of Canada isn't paying enough attention to this. Alberta separation wouldn't be an issue if Canada was well governed. It will continue to be an issue until our governance is fixed. Here's the article we discuss: An argument for Canada from an Alberta conservative. Thanks for listening! Let me know what you think. Chapters and AI summary: Alberta Separatism Debate: Evan Menzies’ Argument for Staying in Canada Host Shawn Whatley interviews Evan Menzies, VP at Crestview Strategy and former Wildrose/UCP staffer, about his Substack article “An Argument for Canada from an Alberta Conservative” and the rise of Alberta separatism. Menzies explains why many Alberta conservatives feel exhausted and unheard—citing issues like equalization, Senate and House of Commons representation, pipeline barriers, and judicial “constitutional adventurism” (including MAID, mandatory minimums, and debates over the notwithstanding clause). He argues separatism is a risky, non-conservative “tear down to the studs” revolution that promises a utopia while forcing Alberta to rebuild institutions and constitutional order from scratch. Instead, he urges reform within Canada, appeals to patriotism and gratitude, warns against victimhood politics, and predicts Alberta’s growing demographic and economic weight will keep shifting Canada’s power westward. 00:00 Alberta Separation Stakes 01:07 Show Setup and Guest Intro 05:05 Why Albertans Feel Exhausted 08:02 Who Supports Leaving 11:50 Senate Imbalance Debate 15:40 House Seats and Time Zones 18:21 Equalization and Quebec Hydro 20:43 Courts and Constitutional Drift 25:04 Charter Pragmatism vs Principle 28:03 Why Stay In Canada 28:35 Three Reasons To Stay 31:05 Blank Slate Constitution Risks 33:04 Revolution Not Devolution 35:41 Communicating Conservatism Again 39:26 Patriotism Over Victimhood 45:05 Gratitude And National Story 49:39 Alberta Story Is Canadian 51:28 Make The 21st Century Canada 51:59 Closing Thanks And Moral Ground

I asked Dr. Matthew Rowley for help with questions on political theology. It turns out he's another big supporter of independence for Alberta. The current Supreme Court hearings last week are pouring fuel on the Alberta separatist movement. The Mark Carney Liberals are intervenors on the SCC hearing about Quebec's Bill 21 and use of the notwithstanding clause (s.33). Carney is asking the Supreme Court to do an end-run around the constitution bypassing the amending formula. Regardless of how the court rules, the fact that it had the gall to hear the case fuels Alberta's frustrations. We do discuss Dr. Rowley's insights on political theology, but most of our time focussed on the revolutionary nature of the SCC this week. Please let me know what you think! Thanks for listening, Shawn Chapters and AI summary Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Matthew Rowley about the Supreme Court of Canada hearing Quebec’s Bill 21 and whether limits can be placed on the Charter’s notwithstanding clause (s.33), which Rowley argues would further politicize the Court and trigger a constitutional crisis. They discuss federal intervention, the Charter’s impact on legislative supremacy, court power, secularism, and how differing regional cultures and views of government fuel Alberta’s separatist momentum. Rowley contrasts Alberta’s self-reliant ethos with Eastern Canada’s greater trust in government, critiques legal instrumentalism and the loss of duties tied to rights, and emphasizes internal justice and external defense as core governmental roles. The conversation also addresses political theology, the foundations of Western civilization, declining legitimacy and honor in politics, and the need for deeper, honest public debate. 00:00 Charter More American 01:26 Supreme Court Showdown 02:03 Bill 21 and Section 33 06:14 Court Power Grab Fears 10:35 Alberta Separatism Case 11:54 Prairie vs East Cultures 14:05 Charter Control and Courts 17:32 Rural Life and Tools 20:09 Where Rights Come From 22:28 Rights Need Responsibilities 26:21 Too Many Laws Problem 30:38 Government Role and Good 34:27 Law as Moral Boundary 37:14 Political Theology Setup 39:37 Behavior Versus Intentions 40:15 Where Evil Really Lies 41:19 Free Church And Mainline 42:25 Faith Shown By Works 43:59 Christian Roots Of The West 45:51 Conservatism As A Living Tree 49:12 Canada Loses First Principles 51:36 State Replacing God 54:10 Legitimacy And Stoplights 55:07 Crisis Of Secular Confidence 57:43 Young People Return To God 01:00:37 Responsible Government And Honor 01:05:07 Rebuilding Ancient Paths 01:08:33 Civitas And Honest Dialogue 01:10:45 Ralph Klein And Telling Truth 01:12:30 Closing Reflections And Farewell

Dr. Paul Gottfried packages his writing in dynamite and grit. He uses an academic style which is now almost extinct on the political right. No one tries to provoke in order to make a point anymore. The Left still uses it all the time, but not the Right. You cannot listen to Gottfried with modern antennae tuned to gasp at every offence. If you do, you will miss the impact of his next three punches. I lack the courage to match Gottfried's approach. I'd like to think it's because he's old enough to not care anymore, but he was doing the same things 30 years ago. Perhaps he's spent so much time reading historical writers that he adopted their approach? Whatever the means and ways of Dr. Gottfried, you really need to know about his thought and content. Books discussed: After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State The Essential Paul Gottfried: Essays from 1984-2024 Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt Let me know what you think! Thanks again, Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Paul Gottfried, editor-in-chief of Chronicles Magazine, about his claim that “liberal democracy” no longer exists and functions as a self-justifying label for the welfare/managerial state and its hegemonic class. Gottfried argues liberalism was a 19th-century bourgeois worldview favoring constitutional limits, civil society, markets, property, nation-states, and restricted suffrage, and that it largely died in the early 20th century as mass democracy and collectivist ideologies replaced it. He critiques Straussian influence on U.S. conservatism, rejects natural rights as a fiction rooted in communities, and disputes claims that progressivism was imported from German philosophy. Discussing Carl Schmitt, he emphasizes intensifying friend–enemy conflict and collapsing common ground, calling the U.S. Constitution’s original design effectively a “dead letter” absent a supporting cultural tropos. He also promotes Chronicles’ 50th anniversary dinner at the Willard Hotel on April 9. 00:00 Does Liberal Democracy Exist 00:43 Meet Paul Gottfried 05:30 Lukacs Quote And Thesis 07:22 Mass Democracy And Welfare State 11:06 Defining 19th Century Liberalism 13:57 Liberalism Family And Stability 17:27 Roots From Greeks To Hegel 19:45 Strauss And The Neocons 22:55 Jaffa Marini And Natural Right 26:42 Grant And Universal State 29:08 Conservatism Incorporated Critique 33:12 Provocation And Dead Letter Constitution 33:45 Constitution Under Threat 34:34 Original Design vs Judges 35:24 Tropos and Postliberal Age 36:59 Protestant Roots of Republicanism 41:38 Welfare State and State Churches 47:34 Schmitt and Friend Enemy Politics 53:24 Managerial State and Control 55:53 Universalism vs Particularism 01:01:30 Closing Reflections and Plugs

Professor Barry Cooper is an Albertan. This fact transcends location. It speaks to a prairie self-understanding, a prairie myth, that stands apart and distinct from the Laurentian myth. For example, Cooper says bilingual Canada is a "huge myth outside Laurentian Canada." Professor Cooper argues that George Grant did not understand the prairie mindset. He was a Laurentian, and as such, Grant was clueless about Alberta. He reflects the Garrison mindset of the Laurentians: Alberta is a place you go to get stuff. Cooper thinks Alberta independence is an inevitability. He cannot see any way to meld the two myths (mythoi) together. They are chalk and cheese. We touch on education, technology, and political ideologies. Professor Cooper promotes a non-ideological stance. Perhaps in the future we can tackle whether this is even possible. It seems to assume a fact-value distinction, value relativism, which assumes what it seeks to avoid. But again, we will have to pursue this another day. Professor Cooper points us to prairie history written by historians who actually understand the west. Stop reading only history written by Laurentians who do not understand their subject. Barry Cooper's influence on Canadian political thought has been huge. Don't miss this episode! Looking forward to hearing what you think. Thanks again! Shawn Chapters and AI summary Host Shawn Whatley interviews political scientist Barry Cooper, a fourth-generation Albertan and senior fellow at the Frontier Centre, about how technology shapes consciousness (“technology is its use”), the impact of screens and AI, and why we often misunderstand technology as something we control. Cooper contrasts a Laurentian “garrison mentality” with a Western pioneer mindset, arguing that central Canada misunderstands Western Canada—a gap he says even George Grant exemplified despite Cooper’s friendly acquaintance with him. They discuss myth as a lived self-understanding, Canada’s east–west versus north–south alignments, COVID-era authoritarian responses, and Cooper’s view that Canada is not truly bilingual outside parts of Ontario and Quebec. Cooper concludes Alberta independence is “not if, but when,” unless central Canada addresses core policy grievances like pipelines and transfer payments. 00:00 Tech Shapes Us 00:34 Alberta Independence Myths 01:13 Meet Barry Cooper 05:38 George Grant And The West 08:04 Prairie Experience Vs Laurentian Vision 13:42 How Cooper Was Educated 17:15 From Farmers To Thinkers 18:40 Teaching Ideology And Wokeness 22:56 Technology Is Its Use 27:42 Myth And The West As Resource 28:57 Myth and Selfhood 31:22 Prairie Pioneer Mindset 32:56 Pipelines and Leverage 37:14 Garrison COVID Politics 40:41 Reading the West 41:56 Bilingualism Myth 47:13 Alberta Future and Independence 49:07 Beyond Left Right Labels 51:46 Local Historians and Wrap Up

Mia Hughes has no qualms about saying the Emperor has no clothes. She says what the rest of us cannot say, because we must stay within the boundaries of what our licences require. Transgender medicine strikes at the core of what medicine is; at what it means to care for patients. Should doctors do whatever patients want, or should doctors do whatever saves life and limb? There could not be a greater debate. Should technology determine what we can and should do or should technology submit to something else? Powerful, powerful discussion. Please take a moment to absorb it. Reflect. Tell me what you think. Thank you so much for listening! Shawn https://genspect.org/international/genspect-canada/ https://nationalpost.com/opinion/shawn-whatley-doctors-have-gone-silent-on-gender-dysphoria-thats-not-good-for-patients Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Mia Hughes, director of Genspect Canada, about what she calls the ideology-driven culture of gender medicine and her reporting on leaked internal WPATH communications (“WPATH files”). Hughes describes WPATH’s evolution from the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association into an activist-influenced organization, arguing its guiding principle became “de-psychopathologization,” prioritizing patient autonomy and access to hormones and surgeries over evidence and clinical safeguards. They debate medical ethics, consumerist medicine, differential diagnosis, and how harm should be defined, including comparisons to anorexia and apotemnophilia. Hughes presents her framework of transgender identification as an “extreme overvalued belief,” criticizes self-report outcomes as proof of benefit, and discusses detransition experiences. The episode ends with her account of confronting evidence-based medicine pioneer Gordon Guyatt over McMaster’s statement calling pediatric gender interventions “medically necessary.” 00:00 What Guides Gender Medicine 00:34 Meet Mia Hughes 05:52 Courage and Whistleblowing 07:14 Inside the WPATH Files 12:57 How WPATH Changed 15:19 Activism Takes Over 19:41 Devils Advocate Ethics 23:10 Overvalued Idea Theory 29:23 Contagion and Guardrails 31:52 Measuring Success and Harm 36:29 Evidence Limits and Harm Redefined 39:32 Paraphilias and Body Fixation 40:22 Patient Blackmail Ethics 41:08 Consumer Medicine Debate 43:00 Gender Care Lifesaving Claim 46:44 Liberalism Versus Medical Limits 49:57 Detransition And Overvalued Belief 54:40 Demanding Differential Diagnosis 56:46 Repathologizing And Root Causes 01:03:52 Gordon Guyatt Controversy 01:11:50 What We Missed And Wrap

Do ideas determine elections? Or should we forget about ideas and focus on issues? Dan Pitt has experience with both theory and practice. He teaches and writes books about political theory. And he's been involved with several election campaigns, including serving as a candidate in a recent by-election. Power rests with ideas. Unless we shape ideas, forming government can mean you are simply in office but out of power. Check out Dan's book he co-edited with Ferenc Hörcher: Intellectual Conservatism from Burke to Scruton And tell me what you think of this episode! Thanks again, Shawn Chapters and AI summary Host Shawn Whatley welcomes back Professor Dan Pitt, a research fellow at the University of Buckingham and member of the Centre for Heterodox Social Science, to discuss bridging political theory and practice. Pitt reflects on a busy 2025—publishing articles, promoting his book Intellectual Conservatism (from Burke to Scruton), running as a Conservative candidate in the Long Eaton North council by-election (finishing second, 23 votes behind after starting third), and welcoming a newborn daughter, Marigold. The conversation centers on Pitt’s argument that conservatives must fight on both the intellectual/cultural level and the practical electoral level, because losing the battle of ideas leads to losing elections (“in office but not in power”). They discuss his campaign slogan—sound economics, cultural revival, and flourishing local communities—and how these themes connected with voters through everyday concerns like household budgeting, passing culture to children, and strengthening local “little platoons.” Whatley and Pitt explore the tension between conservatism and the Conservative Party, including the idea that conservatism is broader than party politics (cultural, theological, and rooted in views of human nature) and that the British Conservative Party contains a liberal strand due to historical mergers, meaning it is never purely conservative. Pitt rejects the claim that conservatism is simply liberalism, arguing that liberalism itself is diverse and that conservatism and liberalism have influenced each other while remaining distinct in views of the person, knowledge, markets, law, and custom. They discuss Stanley Baldwin’s legacy—his unifying “one nation” vision, his Christian-inflected rhetoric, his electoral success, and his emphasis on national greatness and social cohesion—along with questions of assimilation, multiculturalism, and how to build unity through education, shared history, heroes, and a national story that invites newcomers without erasing their identities. Pitt also addresses conservative views of property as responsibility, identity, and character-building, Baldwin’s approach to industrial relations aligning labor and capital, and Baldwin’s anonymous voluntary financial contribution to help pay war debt. The episode closes with Pitt on gratitude, the challenge of criticizing government policy without repudiating one’s country or people, and a preview of his upcoming June book, The Conservative Party in the Constitution (Manchester University Press), covering topics from local government and devolution to Northern Ireland and the constitutional outlook up to Rishi Sunak. 00:00 Do Ideas Still Matter? Culture, Politics, and ‘In Office but Not in Power’ 00:43 Meet Professor Dan Pitt: Book, Baby, and a Run for Office 04:35 Why ‘Intellectual Conservatism’ Tries to Bridge Theory and Practice 06:41 Two-Level Politics: Winning Elections vs Winning the Battle of Ideas 09:42 Doorstep Conservatism: Sound Economics, Cultural Revival, Local Flourishing 12:57 Conservatism vs the Conservative Party: Untangling Big-C and small-c 17:36 Is Conservatism Just Liberalism? Where They Overlap—and Where They Don’t 22:31 New Conservatism & Stanley Baldwin: One Nation, Unity, and National Greatness 29:08 Christian Politics Today: Unity in a More Secular Age 31:04 Baldwin’s Big Tent: Courting Methodists & the

Franco Terrazzano knows taxes. As Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, he's the one in front of media calling on government for accountability on tax spending. But behind the pizzaz lies a deep thinker. Franco loves the nerdy arguments buried in books few people read. They inform his tirades on social media. So don't be fooled, he's not just a talking head. I kept trying to pull our discussion into the ideas behind the nonsense. However, Franco's outrageous examples of waste make ideas seem irrelevant. How can we even get to a theoretical discussion given so many examples of taxation lunacy? Be sure to check out The Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Franco's new book: Axing the Tax-The rise and fall of Canada's carbon tax. Chapters and AI summary: Unveiling the Hidden Costs: A Deep Dive into Canadian Taxes with Franco Terrazzano In this episode of Concepts with Shawn Whatley, Franco Terrazzano, the director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and author of 'Axing the Tax,' delves into the intricate world of Canadian taxation. Terrazzano discusses why taxes are a significant issue for the average Canadian family, far beyond just the financial burden. The conversation touches on wasteful government spending, the philosophy behind taxation, and the accountability (or lack thereof) in how tax dollars are spent. Together, they explore examples of extravagant expenditures by the government, the role of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, potential tax reforms, and the deeper ideological considerations behind tax policies. The episode also offers insights into the broader implications of government intervention in various sectors, emphasizing the need for prudence and accountability. 00:00 Introduction: The Importance of Taxes 00:17 Meet Franco Terrazzano: Tax Expert and Advocate 02:25 Highlighting Government Waste 05:19 The Role and Achievements of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation 08:13 Debating the Nature of Taxation 13:04 Government Spending and Accountability 15:13 Historical Context and Current Challenges 23:39 Legal Battles and Victories 26:09 Philosophical Underpinnings and Influences 29:14 Introduction to Professor Flanagan and Canadian Taxpayers Federation 30:41 Balancing Seriousness with Humor in Advocacy 32:50 Healthcare and Government Spending Issues 37:01 Central Planning and Economic Policies 40:10 Taxation and Government Accountability 52:36 Personal Reflections and Final Thoughts

Barbara Kay has written professionally about issues on the non left since the 1960s. We might want to say she had a 'front-row seat', but that would be wrong. Her writing went beyond simple observation. She helped shape conservative opinion in Canada for half a century. Barb wrote a piece on Norman Podhoretz, when he passed in December. She mentions reading everything he had ever written: books and articles; editorials in his role as senior editor of Commentary Magazine, everything. Podhoretz was one of the brilliant Jews from New York who left the 1960's liberalism and discovered conservatism. Irving Kristol, the 'godfather of neoconservatism', said neoconservatives were "liberals who have been mugged by reality." Of course, most neocons weren't Jews; they included a broad swath of Catholic and Protestant thinkers. But the Jews stood out, in part, because they brought their bellicose, New York attitude into right-wing politics. They applied revolutionary zeal from their former communist and Trotskyite experience to conservatism. They transformed the old conservatism of the American Republican party into something new in North America: neoconservatism. After the Iraq war, neoconservatism became a term of derision. It became re-interpreted as nothing but a blend of zionism -- Christian and Jewish -- with hawkish foreign policy. This redefinition was a profound mistake. It dismisses a whole political mindset, while at the same time shielding it from serious discussion. Like so many other words silenced by political correctness, neoconservatism can no longer be critiqued for its strengths and weaknesses. We need to celebrate the brilliance of Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, while also critiquing where neoconservatism failed. Neoconservative thought remains a central part, perhaps even the embodiment, of modern political conservative opinion. If we want to understand how best to apply conservatism to current issues, we need to dig deep into the neocon mindset. Please let me know what you think! Barbara Kay: 60 years ago, Norman Podhoretz's writing led me to conservatism AI Summary In this episode, Shawn Whatley engages in a thought-provoking discussion with Barbara Kay, a renowned columnist and author. They delve into the origins, evolution, and nuances of neoconservatism, exploring the influential works of Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. Barbara shares her insights on conservatism, its philosophical underpinnings, and its enduring relevance in today's political landscape. They also touch on various contentious issues such as the limitations of human nature, the impact of anti-Americanism, and the evolution of liberalism. Tune in for a deep dive into the intellectual journey that shapes conservative thought. 00:00 Introduction to Neoconservatism 00:09 Defining Conservatism and Classical Liberalism 01:32 Meet Barbara Kay 01:40 Norman Podhoretz: A Legacy in Neoconservatism 02:10 The Jewish Connection to Neoconservatism 02:54 Barbara Kay's Tribute to Norman Podhoretz 05:27 Podhoretz's Intellectual Journey 07:32 The Role of Intellectuals in Conservatism 10:14 Neoconservatism and Universalism 17:32 The Balance Between Universalism and Particularism 32:02 The Importance of Moral Clarity 36:54 Modern Neoconservatism and Its Challenges 39:10 The Banality of Evil and Rationalization 40:29 Calvinism and the Rejection of Scholasticism 41:38 Jewish Perspectives on Evil 43:01 Conservatism and Human Nature 48:38 Neoconservatism and Its Critiques 01:06:04 The Role of Education in Society 01:10:18 Concluding Thoughts on Conservatism and Hope

Cole Hogan is a political strategist who played key roles in the elections of Premier Doug Ford and Premier Jason Kenney. He's a student of Canadian politics past and present and frequent pundit on major media outlets in Canada. Cole explains how Pierre Elliott Trudeau focussed on reshaping Canada. Economic issues seemed to bore him. PE Trudeau reshaped the Canadian constitution in his own image in the 1980s. Conservatives have been off balance ever since. Having lost ceded the platform to Trudeau's priors, conservatives have tried to argue within the framework Trudeau built. A new, younger batch of conservatives want to change the framework. They are tired of losing by rules set by the opposing team. They want to play offence. Cole explains how the New Right wants conservatives to win on culture, national identity, and social concerns, not just pocket-book issues. He calls younger voters to get involved. "Participation is a solution in itself," he says. Whether you agree with Hogan or not, you have to admit conservatism is changing shape in Canada. Fascinating to see what emerges! Check out Cole's articles and website below. And remember, Patreon members get to see the content a bit early. I respond to comments there first. (Everything is free, but you need to subscribe). Thanks for checking this out! Shawn If conservatives shun Canada’s institutions, how can we possibly reform them? Red Tory? Blue Liberal? These terms mean nothing anymore The right can no longer hide from Pierre Trudeau's legacy ColeHogan.ca Summary + Chapters (AI) Dive into the world of Canadian politics with Shawn Whatley and guest Cole Hogan, a political strategist and communications expert. This episode explores the lasting impact of Pierre Elliot Trudeau on Canada's identity, the challenges faced by the conservative movement, and the necessity of engaging with national institutions. Learn about the significance of participation in politics and the evolving landscape of Canadian conservatism. Discover why young Canadians are crucial to shaping the future and how the conservative movement can navigate contemporary social and cultural issues, shedding light on the importance of being involved and informed. 00:00 Introduction to Pierre Elliot Trudeau's Impact on Canadian Politics 00:21 Guest Introduction: Cole Hogan 00:33 The Conservative Movement and Trudeau's Legacy 01:51 The Right's Shift in Focus: From Economics to Social Issues 03:22 The Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A Defining Document 04:40 Conservative Strategies and Historical Context 10:43 The Role of Canadian Institutions and Young Conservatives 19:21 Challenges and Opportunities for Young Conservatives 23:24 Encouraging Civic Participation 27:28 Getting Involved in Civic Committees 29:41 Conservative Perspectives on Policy 30:41 Challenges of Federal Programs 32:10 Humility in Policy Making 35:50 The Role of Opposition in Governance 40:05 Red Tory vs. Blue Tory 44:19 Engaging the Public in Politics 50:28 The Impact of the Pandemic on Trust in Government