With whom? Our biggest customer. Our closest neighbor. The country that buys three-quarters of everything we make and could crater our economy before lunch.

And half the country cheered.

This is the dumbest strategic decision I have watched in my lifetime, and I’ve spent my life studying strategy and fighting for Canada and Canadians in the military and in courtrooms.

Watch this video of a man in a Brazilian zoo deciding he can climb into a compound with a lion.

I almost feel like he was advised by the “elbows-up” crowd in Canada about what toughness is. Puffery and words are not strength. They are overconfidence and arrogance; as soon as this man put his feet on the ground in the lion’s compound, she killed him. I fear Canadians share this man’s delusions. The crowd loves the manufactured courage right up until the predator stops being amused and kills you.

That is us: elbows up, chest out, cheered on by a crowd of salaried government employees and pensioners who go home safe while we get eaten.

Twenty years ago, Canada punched close to America’s weight in terms of GDP per capita and quality of life. Today, we have the lowest GDP growth in the developed nations and have been on a steady economic decline for the last 12 years of Liberal rule. Today, our entire economy is roughly the size of Texas. One state. Ninety percent of us live within driving distance of the border. More than three-quarters of what we make gets sold south.

And our answer to a tariff fight is to match the largest economy on earth “dollar for dollar.” Can somebody give our leaders a copy of The Art of War and The 48 Laws of Power for God’s sake?

You cannot go dollar for dollar with a thirty-trillion-dollar economy when yours is two. That’s not a strategy. That’s a toddler in a slap fight with a heavyweight. Can somebody tell Carney and Ford and the other ludicrous premiers that a UFC fight isn’t won at the press conference? It’s won in the ring when somebody’s trying to choke you unconscious.

The tough-guy act is all noise because it plays well in the polls. It is an easy way to win elections because Canadians, sadly, aren’t taking the time to understand what is really at stake. It feels good to feel tough… right up until you get punched in the nose. A crowd of angry Canadians yelling across the lake at Buffalo, convinced that is strength, looks exactly like that video.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6365269117112

Share

Strength is an aircraft carrier. Strength is the biggest economy in the world. Name-calling on camera doesn’t amount to much once the gloves are off.

So why do our leaders do it?

Because fear is the easiest thing on earth to sell, and a flag is the cheapest product on the shelf. “Elbows up” buys a poll bump for Liberal federal and provincial by-elections. Nothing buys easy votes like appealing to the TDS crowd, but it doesn’t buy a deal. Our politicians are mortgaging the future of an entire country for a good week on the news.

Individual careers over the collective good. That’s the whole game.

Then there’s Doug Ford.

Doug thinks the press conference is the fight. It isn’t. In a real fight, the guy you’re mouthing off to is already driving an elbow through your ribs while you’re still talking. Calling the most powerful man on earth a “loser” and vowing to hurt Americans isn’t strength; it is pure stupidity. It is the act of a man who has never been hit, enjoying the walk-out music at a UFC fight while letting the average Canadian take the body shots. Seeing him on CNN, so proud of himself and looking for his friends in the crowd to nod their approval, made me want to vomit.

A big sign saying Lake Ontario and outrage over a name change seems rather weak after happily changing the names of our historical institutions in Ontario.

Rule one for dealing with a bigger power: you do not meet force with force you don’t have. You use the leverage you do have. Trump is strong and he is transactional. You don’t beat a man like that by insulting him; you give him a win he can hold up, you put two points on his board, and you walk out with the deal you actually needed.

That’s not weakness… It’s how small players have survived next to big ones for a thousand years.

Leave a comment

Spare me the China fantasy.

The Trump Derangement runs so deep that grown adults will now tell you Beijing is the better partner. Understand what China actually does. It doesn’t want a friend; it wants a dependent it can hollow out and discard. It makes you need it, then it owns you. Despite how much you hate Trump, you are an absolute fool if you think the U.S. is in the same ballpark as China when it comes to exploiting less powerful countries. Just look at Venezuela.

America has been our market, our ally, and our shield for a century. If you think trading that for China is the smart move, you are a true idiot.

And where is the leader of the opposition while the country talks itself off a cliff?

Posting workout content. Pickleball in tight pants. Hitting the pads for the camera, looking more like Elliot Page than a tough guy.

Fire the social media team and find the courage to do something unpopular and strategic. You don’t have to be muscular to be tough in the world of geopolitics, Harry Truman and Winston Churchill showed that, but it’s not about posturing for Instagram. It’s about taking an unpopular stand when the country needs you and ignoring the cowardly advisers trying to protect their jobs and egos at the expense of your political mandate.

This is the biggest opening a Conservative has had in a decade: a whole country whipped into a fight it can’t win. The move is to be the one adult in the room who says it plainly:

The United States is our partner. Trump is strong. Cut the deal.

That takes guts, because the mob won’t like it for about six months. But if you hold that line, the economy speaks and people vote with their wallets. Every single time.

You don’t break a twelve-year losing streak by copying the guy who keeps beating you. You break it by saying the true thing everyone else is too scared to say.

Somewhere along the way, this country got infected with WNBA logic: the belief that being loud about your virtue is the same as being good at the job. It isn’t. Nobody buys tickets to a moral victory. The scoreboard doesn’t care how righteous you felt while you lost. Take it from somebody who gives strategic advice to a lot of powerful people: don’t fight losing battles just because your friends think it’s cool.

Virtue signaling is not a strategy. It is posturing, and right now, it is posturing at the expense of our children’s future.

Here’s my question.

When did being smart go out of style? When did we decide that feeling tough beats being strategic?

We are a serious country with a serious problem, and our leaders are ‘performing courage’ for the elbows up crowd and it will cost us billions.

If I were advising a leader in our situation, I would do what intelligent people do when dealing with people like Trump. His playbook is not difficult to understand. He wrote a book on it, for God’s sake.

• Call him handsome.

• Compliment him on his Middle Eastern policy.

• Tell him his kids are gorgeous.

• Make a deal that puts a W on his board and a smaller w on ours. Power is survival when working next to a giant. Dont let emotions get in the way of results, think about Candians before your poltiical party.

• At the press conference, say with conviction, “We’re here to get rid of the communists.

I guarantee you Canadians will be much better off in the long run.

Elbows up is a great slogan.

It’s a terrible strategy. Let’s put our elbows down and use our heads.

Subscribe now

Here’s the part nobody tells you: the algorithm isn’t the enemy. It’s a dog. It does what you train it to do. Most people train it with garbage and then blame the dog.

I spent 13 years in the military working in elite units. I’ve spent years afterwards in courtrooms and boardrooms persuading and coaching teams The one thing that carries across all of it: inputs determine outputs. You don’t rise to the occasion, you fall to the level of your preparation. Your social media feed is preparation. Right now, for most of you, it’s a slow self destruction.

We can start to fix this in twenty minutes.

The Easy Fix that will Change your Life

Open your primary platform. Not the one you think you should use. The one you actually open when you’re bored. That’s the one that owns your attention, so that’s the one worth retraining.

Run three searches. Watch three videos from each. Like each one. Leave a short comment — six words is enough. “Best explanation of this I’ve seen.” Done.

The comment matters more than the like. Engagement signals are weighted, and a comment tells the system you didn’t just scroll past, you stopped and participated. That’s the strongest vote you can cast.

Now here are your searches. Four categories. Pick three today, rotate the fourth in tomorrow. Include context in your search queries for better results

1. How to get better in your industry. Be specific. Not “business tips.” Try “how to price commercial construction jobs profitably” or “objection handling for medical device sales.” Specificity is what separates a useful feed from a motivational-quote landfill.

2. How to get better as a person. Discipline. Fitness. Being a better spouse, parent, boss. The stuff that compounds quietly and that nobody’s holding you accountable for.

3. How to get smarter and more persuasive. Rhetoric. Negotiation. Logical fallacies. Cross-examination technique. I’ll tell you as a trial lawyer: persuasion is a learnable skill, and almost nobody bothers to learn it. Which is exactly why it’s an edge.

4. How to be happier and more grounded. Roll your eyes if you want. But an unhappy operator makes bad decisions, and bad decisions cost money. This is a performance input, not a soft one.

Then the second half of the drill, which is the harder half.

Deliberately swipe past the slop when it pops up. The AI-generated nonsense. The rage bait. The eleventh video of somebody’s morning routine in a rented Lamborghini. Don’t watch it “just to see.” Watching is a vote. Three seconds is a vote. Swipe. You have to train the algorithm to serve your best interests, not feed you junk food for your brain.

Do this for a week and your feed will be materially different. Not perfect. Better. And better compounds.

The Case Study

A client of mine runs a mid-size trades business. Roughly $8M in revenue, 40 staff. Good operator, terrible at delegation, and stuck at the same number for three years.

He wasn’t lazy. He was working 70-hour weeks. But when I asked what he’d learned in the last six months that changed how he ran the business, he couldn’t name a single thing. Six months. No progress, his mind wasn’t getting better, it was managing chaos.

So I looked at his phone. Over ninety minutes a day on one platform. His feed was sports highlights, political outrage, and a truly heroic volume of home renovation fail videos.

Ninety minutes a day is 45 hours a quarter. He was putting in a full working week every quarter and getting nothing back but agitation.

We ran the drill. His searches were “how to build a management layer in a trades business,” “how to hold a hard conversation with an employee,” and “how to think in systems.” He did the three-videos-and-a-comment routine for a week and swiped past everything else.

Two weeks later his feed was operations content. Not because he found a magic guru, but because he told the machine what he cared about and the machine listened. I should have charged him more honestly.

Four months on he’d hired an ops manager, built a weekly scorecard he’d picked up from a video he’d never have seen otherwise, and pulled himself out of the day-to-day. Revenue is up. More importantly, he’s not the bottleneck anymore.

He didn’t consume less content. He consumed the same amount, aimed differently.

That’s the whole play.

Why This Is Actually About Control

There’s a version of this conversation where technology is the villain and the answer is a digital detox and a cabin in the woods. Sure, but most of us can’t do that.

The phone/tool is neutral. You have, in your pocket, access to more expertise than any human being in history. Persuasion technique from experts better than me. Operating advice from people running companies ten times the size of yours. It’s all there, free, on demand.

The reason it doesn’t reach you is that you never told it to. You let the default settings run your intellectual life, and the default settings are optimized for engagement, not for you getting better.

Deciding what goes into your head is not a small thing. It’s most of the game. Everything downstream - your judgment, your decisions, the quality of your thinking under pressure - is built out of your inputs. Feed yourself outrage and you’ll make outraged decisions. Feed yourself craft and you’ll make craftsmanlike ones.

Do It Now

Not tomorrow. Now, before you close this.

1. Open your primary platform.

2. Run three of the four searches above. Make them specific to you.

3. Three videos each. Like. Short comment.

4. For the next seven days, swipe past anything that isn’t making you better.

Twenty minutes of work for a permanently better feed. That’s not a 10% improvement in your content. It’s a 10% improvement in you, and it compounds every day you’re on the platform after that.

The algorithm is going to train somebody today. Make sure it’s you doing the training.

DM me if you are interested in a short strategy session to level up.

Over the July 4th weekend of 2026, the Democratic Socialists of America blew past 120,000 members. Two hundred and twenty chapters. Largest socialist organization in American history, and they said so themselves, out loud, on Independence Day.

The number isn’t the story though. The shape is. And the shape is the part nobody put on television.

The line

Here’s the whole thing:

• 2015: about 6,200 members.

• 2017: 32,000.

• 2021: 95,000.

• 2023 into 2024: it falls, back down toward 80,000.

• July 2026: over 120,000.

Now look at that dip in the middle, because that’s where everybody got played. From 2021 to 2024 the line went down. So the coverage wrote DSA off. Spent force, Bernie hangover, kids who’d grow out of it. You can go read those pieces. They aged like milk.

They made the oldest mistake there is. They saw a plateau and called it a ceiling.

Why the flat part is the whole trick

Every hockey stick works the same way. Everybody stares at the blade going straight up and nobody looks at the long flat handle it’s bolted to. But the handle is where the work got done.

Party membership is a lagging number. It’s the last thing to move, not the first. Nobody pays dues to call themselves a socialist until the word has already stopped sounding strange to them. Somebody has to do that softening first. Somebody has to make the case, over and over, in the rooms where cases get made, until it stops landing as an argument and starts landing as just the air you breathe.

So that flat century on the chart, 1912 to about 2015? That isn’t a hundred years of nothing. That’s the foundation the blade is standing on. The vote in a booth is the caboose. The engine ran decades earlier, somewhere you weren’t looking.

Where were you not looking? The institutions. And here’s the part that should bother you: none of it was secret.

Share

They published the plan

Antonio Gramsci wrote it down in the 1930s, from inside one of Mussolini’s prisons. You don’t take the West by storming the palace, he said. The West is too rich, too comfortable, too fond of its own country for that. You take it by capturing the machinery that tells people what to think. Schools. Universities. The press. The churches. The professions.

Rudi Dutschke gave it the name that stuck: the long march through the institutions.

Follow the route. Universities first. Then the professional schools that credential everyone else. Then newsrooms staffed by their graduates. Then the HR departments. Then the foundations writing the checks. Then Hollywood. Decades of it, funded by people who wanted the West to lose and waved through by well-meaning liberals who thought they were just being kind. The useful idiots. Lenin’s phrase, not mine, and he meant it as a compliment to himself.

That’s the handle. Now the blade.

What actually changed in 24 months

Three things. All of them public, all of them on the record, none of them requiring a single conspiracy theory.

One. A card-carrying DSA member runs the biggest city in the country.

Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as Mayor of New York on January 1st, 2026, after beating Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa. His platform: freeze the rent, a $30 minimum wage by 2030, government-funded childcare for everyone. He’s already gotten Governor Hochul to put up $73 million toward the childcare piece, on the way to $425 million.

Now read that platform again and watch the label, because the label is the entire con. Nobody sold you socialism. They sold you affordability. And underneath the affordability, if you listen, it’s the oldest story in the book: the oppressor against the oppressed. That’s not a new idea. That’s Marx’s bourgeoisie and proletariat with a fresh coat of paint and a friendlier logo. It doesn’t ask the city to live up to its promises. It tells you the promises were the swindle. That’s not a liberal reform. That’s a revolutionary one, and the difference matters more than anything else in this piece.

Two. The megaphone stopped being fringe.

Hasan Piker, who calls himself an anti-capitalist and means it, streams politics on Twitch about eight hours a day, seven days a week. Roughly 3 million followers there, close to 5 million across platforms, north of 25,000 people watching at any given moment and peaks past 52,000. Fifth-biggest channel on the whole site in 2026.

Stack that against a cable news hour and cable loses. This isn’t some guy in a basement. It’s a full-time, full-workday ideological broadcast pointed straight at the exact people who’ll be voting for the next fifty years. And the pitch is about what you’d expect. Capitalism is a crime, America is the villain, and the body count of the last century’s socialist experiments is somebody else’s problem. Losers of the world, unite.

Three, and this is the one that should really get your attention. The organization now gives the politicians their orders.

In 2024, DSA’s national committee yanked its endorsement of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Why? She hadn’t met their conditions, which included publicly opposing all funding to Israel, Iron Dome and all. They didn’t see enough obedience, so they pulled the backing. Then in April 2026, once she’d gotten right with the local chapter, they gave it back.

Sit with which way that runs. The most famous progressive in America had to satisfy an organization to keep its support. Not the reverse. That is not some advocacy group begging for a meeting. That’s a machine that knows it owns a member of Congress and isn’t shy about collecting. There are now something like 216 DSA members or endorsees holding office across roughly 40 states, and that’s the conservative count.

Subscribe now

Where I’ll be fair to them, and where I won’t

Let me give the other side its best shot, because if I don’t you shouldn’t trust the rest of this.

DSA is not the Communist Party of the USA. Its members will tell you, correctly, that they run candidates and win elections, that they work inside the system, that most of them would be sick to their stomachs at the sight of a gulag, and that calling a rent freeze “communism” is a cheap way to end an argument instead of winning one.

Fine. Granted. Every word. And it matters less than they want it to.

Because the thing that actually matters was never what anyone intended. It’s what the idea asks for once it’s running. One kind of reform says the principle was right and we applied it unfairly, so fix the application. Equal treatment under the law, done honestly. The other kind says the principle itself was the lie. Property is theft. Due process is a rich man’s trick. Fairness is just power wearing a mask.

The first one repairs the house. The second one burns it down, and something has to be true whenever you burn a house down: somebody’s holding the match. Somebody gets to decide which box you go in and what you owe for being in it. That power is the whole prize. It always was. And it does not care in the slightest whether the kid who handed it over meant well.

I’m not calling these people communists. I’m telling you they’re building the same machine communists always build, and a machine doesn’t ask about your feelings before it runs.

The part we’re all supposed to forget

A hundred million dead. That number’s from the Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard, not by some guy with a flag in his profile. The Holodomor. The Great Leap Forward. The Killing Fields. The Gulag.

Same script every single time. A real grievance. A vanguard that claims to speak for the wronged. Power flows to the vanguard. Then come the informants, the camps, and the people who simply stop existing, because that’s what it takes to keep the vanguard on top.

And a kid can still wear a Che shirt to class and nobody blinks. Try that with a swastika. The difference isn’t an accident. It’s the finished product. Rehabilitating the brand was the mission, and it worked.

We denazified Germany. We never de-communized anything. And that unpaid bill is coming due in the classrooms, and now in the city halls.

What to actually watch

Not the membership count. That one’s public and it’s already old news by the time you read it.

Watch whether Mamdani becomes the template for 2026 and 2028. Watch whether “affordability” keeps doing its job as the wrapper around policies that would die instantly if you called them by their real name. And watch whether one single person in the mainstream press will write the sentence DSA wrote about itself, grinning, on the Fourth of July: that this is now the largest socialist organization the country has ever produced.

They told you. On Independence Day, of all days. The least you can do is believe them.

San Diego County set aside three and a half hours this year to celebrate the Fourth of July. There is a tribal blessing, a land acknowledgement, a tribal invocation, two separate national anthems, the original and one for the black community, and more than two hours parcelled out to communities by identity. Somewhere near the end, once every group has been named, they light the fireworks. At no point in those three and a half hours does anyone mention America, its history of greatness and patriotism.

That is the whole show. A birthday party for a country, and the country is the one guest who seems to be uninvited.

Stay with me on why a fireworks schedule deserves your attention, because it isn’t really about fireworks. It is the same disease that killed Boeing, turned Canada Day into an apology, and is quietly eating whatever institution you work for right now. Once you see the pattern you cannot unsee it, and you will start spotting it inside your own company while there is still time to do something about it.

The pattern is one sentence long. The people who build things lose control to the people who don’t, and the people who don’t spend the entire inheritance tearing it down with what they say is good intentions.

San Diego knows what a misfire looks like. On the Fourth of July, 2012, a software fault lit all 7,000 fireworks of its show at once. Eighteen minutes of choreography detonated in about thirty seconds. One wall of white light, a concussion in your chest, then dark sky and the smell of black powder over the bay. The crowd cheered. It is hard to call something a disaster when half a million people love it. Call it a malfunction. A machine with no sequencing does exactly that: everything it has, no order, no plan, all at once.

That was an accident. This year’s San Diego version is a choice.

Subscribe now

The actual run of show goes like this. It opens with a tribal blessing, then a land acknowledgement, then a tribal invocation. Then the national anthem, then a second, separate “black national anthem.” Then twenty-five minutes of tribal community stories. Then twenty-five minutes of Latino stories. Then ninety more minutes carved up between Asian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, LGBTQIA+, Black and African communities.

You will notice what is missing. The Declaration of Independence. The thirteen colonies. The men who signed their own death warrants to build the freest country the human species has ever produced. The one reason the holiday exists doesn’t rate a single minute, and that matters more than most people realize.

The frightening part is not the schedule. It is that you believed it instantly. Nobody reads that agenda and assumes it’s a hoax. We have reached the stage where a three-and-a-half-hour celebration of America that never once mentions America is completely believable. That is the tragedy of Western society. The lunatics are running the asylum, convinced they know how to protect a one-in-a-million civilization they had no hand in building.

There is a reason the movie Idiocracy keeps resurfacing, why people cannot stop pointing at it. Twenty years ago it was absurd comedy. Now it reads like a documentary filmed slightly ahead of schedule. People feel the drift even when they cannot name it. In Hamilton, Ontario, a candidate for mayor of a city of more than half a million launched his campaign this month by performing part of his speech through a sock puppet, telling a story about feeling disrespected. Set the puppet aside. The real signal is a political class that now treats “I have felt oppressed” as the central qualification for running a city, as though grievance were a résumé.

This is not incompetence by itself. It is a deliberate destruction of a success story.

There is a worldview that looks at the most successful civilization in human history and sees a crime scene. It looks at a shared flag and sees something that needs to be broken into grievance groups. It looks at a national birthday and decides the correct emotion is an apology. It has captured most of the institutions that plan public ceremonies, and it does its work not with a manifesto but with a committee, a run sheet, and a stack of land acknowledgements.

Call it what it is: the soft front end of socialism. The same instinct that splits a fireworks show into twelve resentful constituencies splits a country into victims and oppressors, then sells itself as the only fair manager of the wreckage. It never builds. It has never built. It redistributes, reallocates, and renames, and it calls that justice.

Everything worth defending was built by people who knew how to build. A country. A company. A military. A bridge that holds. Building is a specific, brutal competence, and the people who have it are rare. Maintaining what they built is a second competence, rarer than it looks and far less flattering on a stage.

The people now running the virtue-signalling ceremonies have neither. What they have is a theory about why the builders were bad. So they don’t burn the thing down on day one. They can’t. They don’t know where the load-bearing walls are. They redecorate and undermine the foundations. They add. They balance. Every addition is reasonable in the moment because no one wants to be called a racist or some other ad hominem label by saying, “uh, this doesnt really makes sense.’ So these small movements add up like the frog in boiling water and are utterly catastrophic over a decade.

The fireworks still go off at the end. That is the con. The lights convince everyone the thing is healthy right up until the night it isn’t.

If you want to see where the road goes, look north. I’m Canadian. Tomorrow is Canada Day, the one hundred and fifty-ninth anniversary of Confederation, and you should watch how a country has been trained to mark its own birthday. The official tone has slid from celebration to penance. “Cancel Canada Day” comes back every year on schedule. Towns scrapped fireworks. Land acknowledgements get read at the top of everything, in the same flat voice as a parking notice. A nation taught to flinch at the word that names it. To be embarrassed by its incredible success and self-flagellate to atone for it.

It’s healing as advertised it is actually a country being talked out of the will to exist by people who would be insulted if you called it what it is… Idiocracy!

Now the part every business owner needs, because the same law runs through your company, and it does not care about your politics.

Boeing. For most of a century, it was an engineering company run by engineers. The people in charge had built airplanes by hand and knew what kept one in the air. In 1997 it merged with McDonnell Douglas, and the finance culture swallowed the engineering culture. The line inside the industry was that McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money. In 2001, leadership moved the headquarters from Seattle, where the planes were built, to Chicago, where nothing was built, chasing roughly $60 million in tax breaks and putting 2,000 miles between the people deciding and the people tightening the bolts. By 2005, the CEO had no aircraft engineering background. One of the architects of the shift said it plainly: the point was to run Boeing like a business instead of a great engineering firm.

For years it looked like genius. Stock up. Costs down. Fireworks on schedule.

Then the bill arrived. Two 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019 killed 346 people, traced to a flight-control system shaped by cost-cutting and weak oversight. In 2024 a door plug blew off a MAX in midair because the bolts left the factory missing.

The takeover was 1997. The first crash was 2018. Twenty-one years. That is the number every founder and citizen needs tattooed somewhere they will see it. The decay was real for two decades before the bodies made it undeniable. An institution coasts on the competence of its builders long after the builders lose the room. By the time the failure is obvious, the rot is twenty years deep and the people who could have stopped it are gone.

Boeing’s god was quarterly earnings. The ceremony planners’ god is ideological penance. Different idols, identical mechanism: the people who build get shoved aside by people optimizing for something other than the mission, and the institution rides its old momentum straight into the ground.

So if you run anything that matters, do the work.

Guard the main effort. In the military, it is the schwerpunkt, the one objective the whole operation exists to serve. For the Fourth of July it is the founding. For Boeing it was building the safest aircraft alive. For your company it is the one thing your customer pays for. Everything else is support. The day support starts bumping the main effort off the schedule, you are already in the early, invisible stage of decline. HR and DEI committees are those support arms that take your business off course through distraction. Good leaders can take care of their people without committees.

Audit who touches the core of your brand. Mark everyone whose work directly makes the thing you sell. Then mark everyone who manages, aligns, coordinates, and facilitates around it. When the second group runs the agenda and the first group takes orders, the drift has started. It will feel like maturity. It will get measured as progress. It is the misfire.

Refuse the accusation, resist the guilt. The whole play depends on getting the competent to feel ashamed of being competent, the successful to apologize for succeeding, the builder to hand his authority to the person who resents him. Don’t. You are allowed to defend the thing you built. You are allowed to say the mission comes first. The moment you start apologizing for excellence, you have handed someone the keys to the castle.

Empires and companies don’t end in an explosion. They end in a misfire. Everything fires at once with no order and no plan, the crowd cheers at the lights, and only later does anyone notice the show was supposed to last a great deal longer.

This Fourth of July, watch who is calling the shots. Then go home and look at your ship and fix it before it is too late.

Phillip Millar is a commentator, former combat arms officer, nationally recognized trial lawyer and business and brand consultant.

Venture capital, he argued, operates like a cartel.

Not metaphorically. Structurally. The early-stage capital market is designed to look like a meritocracy while functioning as a closed-access system controlled by a small group of gatekeepers who decide, largely among themselves, who gets funded and who doesn’t.

Before you dismiss this as bitterness from someone who didn’t get invited to the right dinners, consider Chamath’s biography. He was a senior executive at Facebook during its most explosive growth. He ran Social Capital, one of the more prominent venture funds of the last decade. He has been inside the system at the highest level. When someone with that vantage point calls it a cartel, the argument deserves to be heard on its merits.

And the merits are harder to argue with than most founders realize.

The Warm Intro Racket

Let’s start with the mechanism that sustains the whole structure: the warm introduction.

The standard VC intake process requires a referral from someone already inside the network, a portfolio founder, a partner at another firm, a known angel. Cold outreach, even exceptional cold outreach, almost never converts. The warm intro requirement is presented as a quality filter. In practice, it functions as an access filter.

What it actually screens for is not the quality of the idea or the capability of the founder. It screens for proximity to people who are already inside. You need to know someone who knows someone. Which means your addressable investor pool is a direct function of your social capital, which is a direct function of where you went to school, who you worked for, what city you live in, and what your last name opens.

The system calls this pattern recognition. A more precise term is network capture.

Even SpaceX Couldn’t Get a Meeting

Here is the fact that should stop every founder cold.

Elon Musk founded SpaceX in 2002. He funded it almost entirely out of pocket, roughly $100 million from the PayPal sale. The institutional venture capital community largely wouldn’t touch it. Aerospace was considered uninvestable. The regulatory complexity was too high, the capital requirements too deep, the timeline to return too long. The warm intro network had no template for it, so the template didn’t get funded.

Tesla’s early history is even more instructive. The Series A in 2004 was assembled through a small group of angel investors, with Musk providing the majority himself. The company nearly ran out of money in 2008. Multiple VCs passed. The conventional logic was that an electric vehicle startup going up against Detroit and hundred-year-old supply chains was a charitable donation, not an investment.

These are not obscure failures. These are the two most valuable companies Elon Musk has ever built, one that put humans back in space and one that restructured the global automotive industry. The cartel passed on both.

If the system were actually meritocratic, if the best ideas won regardless of who brought them, SpaceX and Tesla would have been funded in the first round by the top firms who would have competed aggressively for the allocation.

That’s not what happened.

Subscribe now

How a Cartel Works

The word cartel has a specific meaning and it’s worth applying it precisely.

A cartel is a group of ostensibly competing firms that coordinate behaviour to control market outcomes, typically access, pricing, or both, in ways that benefit members at the expense of outsiders. The coordination doesn’t have to be explicit. It can emerge through shared norms, informal networks, and the mutual reinforcement of practices that happen to benefit everyone inside the room.

Look at early-stage venture through that lens.

Terms are largely standardized. The SAFE note, the standard liquidation preference, the pro-rata rights structure, across firms that supposedly compete for deals, the core economic terms show a remarkable degree of consistency. That’s not coincidence. That’s coordination, whether it’s deliberate or emergent.

Deal flow is shared inside the network. Firms co-invest with each other constantly. A pass from one major firm triggers passes from others, because no partner wants to be the one who backed something that Sequoia or a16z declined. The information asymmetry between insiders and outsiders is actively maintained.

Access is controlled through social gatekeeping. The warm intro requirement ensures the population of fundable founders remains heavily skewed toward people already adjacent to power.

Call it what you want. The structure maps cleanly onto the definition.

The Narrative Cover

What makes this particularly worth studying, especially for founders who are also building brands, is how effectively the cartel has maintained its public narrative.

Venture capital presents itself as the engine of meritocracy. The story is: the best ideas win. We fund moonshots. We back founders nobody else believed in. The mythology around early Google, early Apple, early Amazon is deployed constantly to reinforce the idea that the system surfaces the best and funds them.

What the mythology obscures: Google had connections to Stanford’s computer science department, which had deep relationships with the Valley’s top firms. Amazon was Jeff Bezos, who had spent years at D.E. Shaw building the kind of Wall Street credibility that opened doors. The “nobody believed in us” founders who got funded almost universally had some form of insider proximity that made the warm intro possible.

This is the Rockefeller problem in reverse. Standard Oil let Ida Tarbell write the story. Venture capital wrote its own story first, and wrote it so well that criticizing the system reads, to most people, as sour grapes from founders who couldn’t get funded.

Chamath is one of the few people with enough credibility inside the system to say it plainly without being dismissed. Which is exactly why his framing is worth taking seriously.

Share

What This Means If You’re Building

Here’s the practical read for founders who aren’t operating in Palo Alto and don’t have a Stanford network to leverage.

The cartel is not going away. It is deeply entrenched, enormously profitable for its members, and protected by the narrative it has constructed around itself. You are not going to dismantle it.

What you can do is stop expecting it to behave like something it isn’t.

Founders who treat venture capital as a meritocratic system, where the quality of the idea will eventually find its funder if they just keep pitching, waste years on a process that was never designed to serve them. They take the rejections personally. They iterate on their pitch when the problem isn’t the pitch. They burn time trying to break through a gate that only opens from the inside.

The strategic response is not to improve your pitch deck. It is to understand the actual entry requirement, insider proximity, and build that asset directly and deliberately, or build a capital strategy that doesn’t require it.

That means revenue-based financing. Strategic angels with specific domain credibility who can provide the warm intro you need. Bootstrapping to a revenue number that makes you fundable without depending on network access. International markets where the US cartel’s reach is weaker.

Most importantly, it means understanding your leverage. The cartel’s power is greatest when founders have no alternatives. Build alternatives first.

The Larger Lesson

Chamath’s cartel observation is a specific application of a principle that runs through every entrenched industry: the system that claims to reward merit is usually rewarding access.

This is as true in law as it is in finance. As true in politics as it is in business. The question worth asking about any system you’re trying to enter is not “what do I need to be good enough” it’s “who decides what good enough means, and why would they let me in?”

That second question changes your strategy entirely.

The founders who scale fastest are rarely the ones who were the most talented in the room. They’re the ones who understood the actual rules of the room early and built their position accordingly.

Understand the actual game. Then decide if you want to play it, change it, or route around it entirely.

Subscribe now

The Deep Dive

Gone at least for now, because Canada’s Prime Minister decided that performing sovereignty for a domestic audience was worth more than the relationship that actually keeps Canada safe, solvent, and relevant.

This is not a story about Donald Trump being unreasonable. That conversation can happen separately. This is a story about strategic malpractice, about a country that has confused posturing with power and is now receiving the bill.

What Actually Happened

US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby announced the pause on social media, writing that his department would halt involvement in the Permanent Joint Board on Defense to “reassess” the forum’s benefits. “A strong Canada that prioritizes hard power over rhetoric benefits us all. Unfortunately, Canada has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments,” Colby wrote. Al Jazeera

Read that sentence twice. Hard power over rhetoric. That is not a diplomatic communiqué. That is a direct assessment of how the most powerful military institution in human history views Canada’s current government.

Since taking office in March 2025, Carney has been an outspoken supporter of lessening Canada’s dependence on the US’s military and economy. In a speech this year, he outlined a vision in which “middle powers” like Canada banded together to sidestep the current era of great power rivalry, a veiled reference to countries like the US. Al Jazeera

This is the strategic error laid bare. Carney is telling the country that shares the world’s longest undefended border with Canada, that accounts for roughly 75% of Canadian exports, and that underwrites the continental defence architecture Canada depends on, that Canada’s plan is to route around it.

That is not independence. That is magical thinking dressed up as foreign policy.

The Geography Problem

Here is the reality that no amount of political posturing changes.

Canada is a country of 40 million people sharing a border with a country of 340 million. Canada’s GDP is roughly one-twelfth of the United States’. Canada’s military, by any objective measure, is a regional force that depends on US strategic assets for its actual continental defence capability. NORAD, the joint aerospace and maritime warning system, is the architecture under which Canadian airspace is actually protected.

Canada does not have the military capacity to defend itself without the United States. This is not an insult. It is a geographic and economic fact that has shaped Canadian strategic policy for over a century.

The question every Canadian Prime Minister has had to answer, in every era, is not whether to be allied with the United States. The geography makes that mandatory. The question is how to manage that alliance intelligently, how to maintain sovereignty and dignity within a relationship where the power asymmetry is total and permanent.

Some prime ministers have managed it well. Chrétien said no to Iraq while keeping NAFTA and NORAD intact. That was sophisticated. He understood the difference between an issue where Canada had genuine disagreement and enough public weight to absorb the cost of the disagreement, and the foundational relationship that could not be sacrificed for domestic applause.

What Carney is doing is different. He is treating the foundational relationship as a campaign prop.

The Domestic Audience Trap

This is the strategic pattern that destroys governments and countries alike, and it runs far beyond Canadian politics.

Leaders who are weak domestically, who lack a commanding mandate, who face internal party pressure, who need to consolidate a voter base, often reach for external confrontation as a substitute for actual strength. The external adversary is useful because it generates a rally-around-the-flag response that obscures the absence of a coherent domestic agenda.

Carney came to power in circumstances that required him to look strong fast. The posturing toward the United States served that purpose. It generated headlines. It produced the kind of defiant sound bites that get replayed on domestic media and build a temporary sense of national solidarity.

The problem with this play is that it has real-world consequences that the domestic audience does not immediately see. The costs arrive later, in the form of lost defence partnerships, strained trade relationships, diminished diplomatic access, and a gradually worsening structural position relative to the country you were performatively defying.

Those costs are now arriving.

Trump has long accused Canada and other NATO countries of spending too little on their own militaries, arguing that the US shoulders too much of the defence burden. Tensions with Canada are also simmering over tariffs, an expiring North American trade pact, and a feud between Trump and Carney. WSLS 10 News

That is not one problem. That is three simultaneous pressure points, defence, trade, and diplomatic relations, all deteriorating at the same time. That is what strategic malpractice looks like from the outside.

What Smart Looks Like

Smart is not the same as weak. This is the false choice Carney’s posture implies, that the only alternative to defiant rhetoric is capitulation.

That framing is wrong, and leaders who accept it make worse decisions because of it.

Smart in Canada’s position looks like this: you negotiate hard on specific issues where you have genuine leverage, supply chain integration, energy exports, border security cooperation, while protecting the foundational architecture of the relationship at all costs. You do not conflate a trade dispute with an existential confrontation. You do not publicly frame your largest trading partner and defence guarantor as a threat to be routed around.

You keep the 86-year-old defence board intact while you fight about softwood lumber.

The military model for this is clear. In any asymmetric relationship, whether it’s a coalition operation or a bilateral alliance, the smaller partner’s leverage comes from being indispensable on specific capabilities, not from threatening to walk away from the entire alliance. You build value. You make yourself harder to ignore. You pick your fights carefully and win them on the merits.

What you do not do is announce that your strategy is to sidestep the senior partner entirely and then act surprised when the senior partner reassesses the value of the relationship.

Even US Republican Representative Don Bacon criticised the decision to pull out of the defence forum, writing: “Cooler and wiser brains are needed to preserve a close alliance with our neighbor. This all started with taunts of ‘Canada will be the 51st state.’ The insults gained us nothing but animosity that cost us economically and now militarily.” Al Jazeera

When the American politician defending Canada’s position is framing it as a mutual failure of leadership on both sides, that is the signal that this has gone further than political friction. This is structural damage.

Share

The Cost Canadians Will Pay

The Permanent Joint Board on Defence pause is symbolic in the immediate term. Suspending participation does not mean fighter patrols stop or NORAD vanishes. The infrastructure of the alliance is still running. The Deep Dive

But institutional damage is cumulative, and the symbolism matters precisely because of what it signals about trajectory. When the United States begins publicly reassessing the value of every forum and mechanism that ties the two countries together — defence, trade, regulatory coordination — Canada is no longer in the position of a trusted partner navigating a difficult moment. It is in the position of a country being evaluated.

That evaluation will eventually touch things that are not symbolic.

The trade relationship. The energy corridor. The exemptions and accommodations that Canada has historically received because of the depth of institutional trust between the two governments. All of that is relationship capital, built over decades, that gets spent when the relationship deteriorates and does not automatically replenish when political winds change.

Canadians will pay for this in slower border crossings, in reduced market access, in a defence posture that is more exposed than it needs to be, and in the compound interest of a relationship that will take years to rebuild to the level it was at before the current government decided that looking strong for a domestic audience was worth the cost.

It was not worth the cost. It never is.

The Bottom Line

Canada’s success is structurally tied to its relationship with the United States. This is not ideology. It is geography, economics, and military reality, and no political speech changes any of those three facts.

The leaders who have served Canada well understood this and operated within it with skill. They pushed back where they could afford to. They protected the core where they had to. They never confused performing sovereignty with exercising it.

What Carney is demonstrating is the difference between those two things, at Canada’s expense.

Smart countries don’t poke their landlord. They negotiate the lease.

There was a time when walking into a Tim Hortons meant something. Not because the coffee was exceptional, it never was, but because it was ours. It was a common ground that required no explanation. Trucker or teacher, Bay Street or back road, you walked through that door and you belonged.

That is gone.

The logo is the same. The cup is the same. The name of the man who built it is still on every building.

But the soul? The soul has been gutted, packaged, and sold off to a private equity firm in New York that has never once cared what a double-double meant to a country.

“The logo is the same. The cup is the same. But the soul has been gutted, packaged, and sold off to a firm that has never once cared what a double-double meant to a country.”

I am going to tell you exactly how it happened. Not the corporate version. The real version.

And I am going to tell you why it matters… not just for a coffee brand, but for Canada itself.

Because Tim Hortons is not just a business story. It is a symptom.

This Was Never About Coffee

Tim Horton Did Not Build a Coffee Chain. He Built a Cultural Institution.

Tim Horton was a hockey player. He opened his first restaurant in Hamilton, Ontario, in 1964. This was not a boardroom idea. There was no MBA behind it, no brand consultant, no focus group.

It grew because it fit the country perfectly.

Simple food. Consistent experience. Affordable. Open early. The same everywhere you went.

It became the default ritual of Canadian life. The coffee before the job site. The hot chocolate at the rink. The drive-through on the 400 at 6 a.m. The place where you could sit for two hours on a medium coffee and nobody made you feel like you were in the way.

That was the product. Not the coffee. The belonging.

And here is the critical thing that every private equity analyst who touched this company failed to understand: you cannot put belonging on a balance sheet. Which means you cannot protect what you cannot measure. And when you cannot protect it, you destroy it trying to optimize it.

Tim Horton died in a car crash in 1974. Ron Joyce built the empire. By 1995 there were over 1,000 locations across Canada. It was not fast food. It was infrastructure.

The Takeover Nobody Talks About Honestly

Subscribe now

In 2014, Canada Sold One of Its Most Valuable Cultural Assets for a Tax Advantage and Called It Growth.

Here is what actually happened in 2014. Tim Hortons was absorbed into Restaurant Brands International, a holding company backed by 3G Capital, the same Brazilian private equity firm that owned Burger King and would later acquire Popeyes.

The headquarters moved to Oakville, Ontario, for tax purposes. Canadians were told this was an “expansion.” Politicians were largely silent. The business press called it a savvy deal.

It was not an expansion. It was an acquisition. There is a difference.

3G Capital has one playbook and they apply it everywhere without variation: identify an asset with strong brand value and high operational cost, strip the cost structure to the bone, standardize everything that can be standardized, and extract margin until the brand either recovers on its own goodwill or slowly hollows out.

This model works. In certain industries, it works extremely well. You want to know where it does not work?

Cultural brands.

You cannot apply a commodity extraction model to something people love. The moment you start treating affection as inefficient, you have begun killing it.

“You cannot apply a commodity extraction model to something people love. The moment you start treating affection like inefficiency, you have already begun the process of killing it.”

Nobody in Ottawa stood up and said: wait. This is a national institution. What protections are we putting in place? What conditions are attached to this deal?

The answer is none. Because in Canada, we are very good at identifying what we cherish and very poor at protecting it until it’s gone.

Death by Spreadsheet

They Did Not Destroy Tim Hortons With One Decision. They Did It With a Thousand Small Ones.

The degradation did not happen in a single announcement. It happened quietly, incrementally, in ways designed to be just below the threshold of public outrage.

Fresh baking disappeared from stores. The smell that used to hit you at the door, that honest, simple smell of something actually being made, was replaced by the smell of reheated product shipped in frozen from centralized facilities.

Menus expanded. Not because customers wanted more options, but because each new item is an opportunity to create an additional revenue stream. The problem is that a bloated menu is the enemy of execution. Complexity kills consistency. And consistency was the entire point.

Quality controls loosened. Service slowed. The coffee that Canadians had defended with surprising passion against Starbucks loyalists started losing those arguments more often.

They saved money. They saved money by making the experience worse. And then they acted confused when the experience got worse.

This is not a business mystery. This is what happens when your primary decision-making metric is quarterly margin and your secondary metric is also quarterly margin.

Between 2015 and 2019, franchisee disputes escalated dramatically. A group called the Great White North Franchisee Association was formed specifically to fight corporate decisions they believed were damaging the brand. This is not a sign of a healthy system.

The Franchisee Betrayal

Share

The People Who Actually Ran the Stores Were Treated as a Cost Problem, Not a Brand Asset.

One of the most under-reported aspects of the Tim Hortons collapse is what happened to franchisees.

These were the people who actually delivered the brand. The ones who opened at 4 a.m. who knew the regulars by name, who understood their communities in ways no corporate deck ever could. Many of them had invested their life savings into their locations.

What they got in return was escalating costs, centralized decision-making that removed their autonomy, and a corporate structure that increasingly treated them as distribution points rather than partners.

When operators stop believing in the brand, they stop protecting it. They do what they must to survive, not what they would choose to do if they felt supported and respected. Customers feel that immediately. You cannot fake genuine ownership.

The brand experience does not live in the corporate handbook. It lives in the 300 small decisions an operator makes every single day. Strip their ownership of those decisions and you have removed the engine.

The Conversation Nobody Wants to Have

Tim Hortons Replaced Its Workforce Model, and Canadians Felt It Even When They Couldn’t Name It.

I am going to say something now that will make some people uncomfortable. Good. Discomfort means you are thinking.

Tim Hortons leaned aggressively into the Temporary Foreign Worker Program as a labour strategy. The stated rationale was a labour shortage. The actual rationale was cost control and workforce compliance.

I am not here to debate immigration policy. That is a different conversation, and I will not let it become a distraction from the point I am making, which is this:

When you replace a workforce built on community connection… local people who lived near the stores, whose kids went to the same schools as the customers, who had a stake in the reputation of the location they worked at, with a transient workforce managed for compliance and cost efficiency, you change the character of the experience.

Customers felt it. Not always consciously. But the warmth dropped. The familiarity dropped. The sense that you were walking into something that was part of your community dropped.

“You changed the character of the experience. Customers felt it. Not always consciously. But the warmth dropped. The sense that you were walking into something that was part of your community dropped.”

Brand is perception. Perception is shaped by experience. Experience is delivered by people. When you engineer the people out of the equation, you engineer the soul out of the brand.

If you think I am being harsh, ask yourself this: when was the last time a Tim Hortons employee remembered your order?

They used to.

The Bigger Problem

This Is Not Just About Coffee. This Is About What Canada Does to Everything It Claims to Value.

Here is where I am going to step out of the business analysis and say what I actually think.

Tim Hortons is a mirror.

Canadians will talk endlessly about how much they value community, identity, shared culture, the things that make this country distinct from the country to the south. And then, when the actual moment comes to protect those things, when a foreign private equity firm shows up with a cheque and a plan to extract value from something that belongs in some real sense to the culture, we say nothing. We vote for politicians who say nothing. We write a few op-eds and move on.

And then, five years later, we are genuinely confused about why it feels hollow.

This is the pattern. It is not unique to Tim Hortons. We did it to our manufacturing sector. We are doing it to our media. We have done it to our housing market, our healthcare system, our public institutions one budget cut at a time.

We optimize everything until there is nothing left to be proud of, and then we put a maple leaf on it and call it Canadian.

“We optimize everything until there is nothing left to be proud of, and then we put a maple leaf on it and call it Canadian.”

Tim Hortons did not die because of bad management, though the management was bad. It died because Canadians were never taught that cultural assets require active defence, not passive nostalgia. You do not get to feel sentimental about something you allowed to be sold.

And the truly uncomfortable version of this argument is that Tim Hortons is a preview.

There are other institutions, other symbols, other things Canadians say they care about, that are being slowly optimized and hollowed out right now. And most people will not notice until they’re already gone.

The Lessons, Stated Plainly

Five Things This Story Should Teach Every Business Owner, Every Executive, and Every Canadian Who Pays Attention.

1. Cultural brands are not commodities.

You cannot apply financial engineering to something built on trust and identity without destroying what made it valuable. The moment you start running culture like a spreadsheet, you have already lost.

2. Experience is not a line item you can cut.

Every time a cost-saving measure degrades the customer experience, you are borrowing against the brand’s future. There is a limit to how much you can borrow. Most companies find that limit by crossing it.

3. Alignment with the people delivering your brand is not optional.

Franchisees, employees, operators, when they stop believing, customers feel it immediately. You cannot mandate pride. You either earn it or you don’t have it.

4. Labor strategy is brand strategy.

Who is serving your customer, under what conditions, with what sense of ownership, is not a back-office HR question. It is a front-line brand question. Treat it accordingly.

5. Nostalgia is not loyalty.

Customers who ‘remember when it was good’ will return out of habit for a while. Then they will stop returning. And they will not make a dramatic exit. They will simply drift away quietly. By the time you notice the data, the relationship is already over.

The Verdict

Tim Hortons still exists. There are still thousands of locations. The stock still trades. The press releases still call it a Canadian icon.

But ask yourself the honest question.

When was the last time you walked into a Tim Hortons and felt something? Not just habit. Not just convenience. Actually felt something.

That feeling is the product. Not the coffee. Not the Timbits. Not the RRSP promotion on the cups.

The feeling.

They sold it. We let them.

And if we keep applying the same model, the same short-term extraction logic, the same indifference to what things actually mean versus what they are currently worth, to the rest of what makes this country distinct, we are going to keep waking up confused about why nothing feels like it used to.

“They sold it. We let them. And if we keep applying the same extraction logic to the rest of what makes this country distinct, we are going to keep waking up confused about why nothing feels like it used to.”

Think about that the next time you reach for the familiar cup out of habit.

And then think about what else you are reaching for out of habit that has already been quietly gutted.

Elbows up is not enough.

The recent $750,000 fine leveled against a British Columbia school board trustee for stating there are only two genders is not a legal correction—it is a financial execution. It is a modern “excommunication” designed to silence dissent toward imposed thought guidelines. This is the 21st-century equivalent of the “vehement suspicion of heresy” that led to Galileo’s house arrest.

The Dogma of the Day

In 1633, the “settled science” was geocentrism—the idea that the Earth was the unmoving center of the universe. This wasn’t simply an astronomical theory; it was a moral certitude. To challenge it was to threaten the social order and risk being labeled an outcast.

In 2026, we find ourselves in a “Human Rights” laboratory where objective biology is subservient to a subjective, metaphysical “truth.” When Barry Neufeld reiterated a biological fact that has been the bedrock of human understanding for millennia, the tribunal didn’t just disagree; they sought to erase him. They argued that his words created a “poisoned environment,” a legal sleight-of-hand that substitutes “atmosphere” for “conduct.”

Subscribe now

The Architecture of Administrative Blasphemy

We have reached a point of collective insanity where a man is fined three-quarters of a million dollars for “hurt feelings” arising from a biological truth—a sum vastly higher than what is often awarded in civil courts to victims paralyzed by drunk drivers. This “Canadian Model” of speech control is built on three chilling pillars:

• The Poisoned Environment: You no longer need to harm a person; you only need to “offend the air.”

• Inverted Protection: “Anti-SLAPP” laws, designed to protect the “little guy” from powerful interests, have been turned on their heads to shield institutions while stripping individuals of any “sword” to defend their reputations. Public interest in debate has been replaced by the labeling of disagreement as “hateful.”

• Financial Excommunication: By labeling a fine “compensation for dignity” rather than a penalty, tribunals bypass legal limits to impose life-destroying debt.

The Verdict of Time

We look back at the 17th-century cardinals who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope with a mixture of pity and derision. The historians of 2100 will do the same to us. They will read of a time when biological reality was treated as “hate speech” and state-sanctioned ideology overrode the fundamental observations of the natural world.

The “Two Genders” controversy is the “Heliocentrism” of the 21st century. It marks the moment where institutions became so detached from reality that they resorted to financial violence to maintain their authority.

Galileo famously muttered “Eppur si muove” (”And yet it moves”) after his forced recantation. The Earth did not stop spinning because a group of powerful men in Rome signed a decree. Similarly, the biological binary of the human species—the very mechanism of our survival—does not vanish because a tribunal issues a fine.

The message is clear: Disagree and we will bury you. But for the leaders and shareholders who value truth over dogma, the choice is simple. You cannot navigate a complex world while flying blind amid delusional distractions. Surround yourself with those who prioritize the telescope over the decree.

Share

In 1955, he published his observations in The Economist. In 1958, they became a book. And in the 70 years since, every government that ignored his findings has proven him right with our money.

The core law is deceptively simple: Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.

But that’s just the headline. The real content of Parkinson’s work is a surgical dissection of how institutions, government agencies, ministries, and large corporations grow themselves into uselessness. Not through malice. Through a set of predictable, almost mechanical incentives that reward expansion over performance.

The Three Iron Laws Parkinson Identified

Law 1: Officials multiply subordinates, not rivals.

When an official feels overworked, they have three options: resign, share duties with a colleague, or hire two subordinates. They almost never choose option one or two.

Why? Sharing duties with a peer creates a rival. Hiring two subordinates creates a power base. The incentive structure makes the answer obvious every time. Two subordinates require coordination, so the original official now writes memos organizing their work, generating more work, which justifies more hires.

Parkinson called this the “coefficient of inefficiency.” He calculated that once a committee or department reaches a certain size, actual decision-making ceases and the group exists primarily to perpetuate itself.

The math he observed: British Colonial Office staff grew by 5-7% annually between 1935 and 1954, the exact period when Britain’s colonial territories were shrinking. Fewer colonies. More bureaucrats are managing them. The work had nothing to do with it.

Law 2: Officials make work for each other.

The second law is darker. Officials don’t just hire subordinates; they create interdependencies. Document A requires sign-off from Department B before it can go to Department C, which generates a response requiring Department A’s acknowledgment. None of these steps produces value. All of them require people.

Parkinson illustrated this with what he called the “A-factor analysis”: a senior official receiving a document that requires action will, in a sufficiently bureaucratized system, forward it four times before it returns to a person capable of deciding. Each forward creates delay, generates correspondence, and justifies the creation of two or three additional staff positions to manage the volume.

I saw this firsthand in the military. Career officials pride themselves on adherence to workflow. The people involved often work extremely hard, producing documents that others work just as hard to process. The result is activity without impact.

Law 3: The organization’s internal concerns eclipse its external purpose.

This is the most disturbing law in an era of expanding DEI bureaucracies and administrative growth. Parkinson observed that as organizations grow, they become increasingly preoccupied with internal matters: compensation disputes, jurisdictional conflicts between departments, procedural compliance, and committee formation, at the direct expense of whatever they were created to do.

He noted that a government ministry with 1,000 employees spends a calculably larger percentage of its time on internal administration than a ministry with 100 employees handling the same mandate. The ratio of administrative overhead to productive output worsens with scale.

The institution becomes the mission. Its administrators, consciously or not, begin to believe they know better than the people they serve and end up working to perpetuate their own empires at great cost to the country and great loss to efficiency. The citizens footing the bill get treated like a nuisance.

Share

Why This Matters Right Now: The Numbers Are Damning

Canada’s federal public service employed approximately 216,000 people in 2015. By 2023, that number had grown to over 357,000, a 65% increase in eight years. There is no sane citizen who believes the country saw a corresponding improvement in services. Federal spending over the same period rose over 80%. Outcomes in healthcare wait times, housing affordability, immigration processing, and infrastructure delivery worsened across every metric.

The United States federal civilian workforce grew from approximately 2.1 million in 2010 to nearly 3 million by 2023. The VA went from roughly 280,000 employees in 2009 to over 400,000 by 2023. Average wait time for disability claims during that same period increased.

Every single one of these governments responded to performance problems by hiring more people to manage the existing people who weren’t producing results. Parkinson documented exactly this pattern in 1955. The governments ignored him and proved him right with our money.

The question worth asking is how you fix expansion in organizations so well-entrenched that they actively undermine attempts to reduce the empires their staff build identities around. The establishment, with the confidence of experts who are part of the problem, insists it cannot be done. Experience shows otherwise. Elon Musk eliminated roughly 80% of Twitter’s workforce. The platform not only survived, but it also became more profitable. Massive disruption is painful to the people inside the system. It tends to benefit everyone outside it.

There is also a longer-term arithmetic problem that receives far too little attention. When the percentage of a population dependent on government funding approaches 50%, the political incentives to protect that dependency become almost impossible to override. At that threshold, socialist expansion becomes self-reinforcing and the destruction it brings is inevitable. That is exactly why dealing with it now, before that threshold is crossed, matters far more than most political commentary suggests.

Case Study: The Pentagon’s $125 Billion Lesson

In 2015, the Department of Defense commissioned an internal study to identify waste in its administrative structure. The study itself took three years to complete and cost millions. It identified $125 billion in administrative waste over five years.

The response? The study was buried. Not because it was wrong. Because the proposed solution, eliminating administrative positions, threatened too many people in positions powerful enough to kill the report.

The Washington Post broke the story. The Pentagon’s response confirmed Parkinson’s observation more eloquently than he ever could: the institution’s survival instinct is stronger than its mandate. Officials who had built departments around managing other departments had no interest in evidence that those departments were unnecessary.

The $125 billion figure was never disputed. The jobs were simply more important than the mission.

The Business Application: Where Founders Make the Same Mistake

Parkinson’s Law is not a government problem. It is a scale problem. Founders creating bureaucracy inside their own companies at $5M, $10M, $15M in revenue are replicating every failure pattern Parkinson documented.

The hiring-as-solution reflex. HR is often where this starts. It replaces leadership with management and continually expands its mandate. A founder encounters an operations bottleneck. The instinct is to hire an operations manager. The operations manager, once hired, identifies inefficiencies requiring additional hires. Within 18 months, you have a department producing reports on operational efficiency, while the original bottleneck has morphed and migrated elsewhere.

I have watched companies burn $800,000 in 12 months on a “strategic growth team” of 4 people that produced a 47-slide deck recommending they hire a VP of Strategic Growth. The deck was excellent. Nothing changed. The bottleneck was never a staffing problem. Adding staff slowed the decision-making process.

The committee formation trap. Parkinson documented that no committee of more than 20 people ever makes a real decision. The work gets done by a subcommittee, reviewed by the full committee, approved in a follow-up meeting, and then implemented by someone who wasn’t in any of the meetings. You see this in government, large corporations, universities, and charitable organizations: burning cash while almost nothing is delivered on schedule.

A manufacturing client I worked with had a seven-person leadership team requiring unanimous sign-off on any expenditure over $10,000. They had 23 pending decisions sitting in various stages of committee review when we started working together. Some were six months old. None were complicated. All had an obvious correct answer that one competent person could have made in an afternoon.

We eliminated the committee structure for operational decisions under $50,000. Put single owners on each decision. Cleared the backlog in three weeks. Revenue impact from recovered capacity exceeded $1.4 million the following quarter.

The internal focus displacement. The most dangerous Parkinson pattern for growing businesses is when leadership spends more time managing internal dynamics than external customers. When Monday meetings are primarily about what happened inside the company last week rather than what the market did, you have crossed the threshold.

Track it for one month. Record every leadership meeting. Calculate the ratio of time spent on internal process versus customer behaviour, competitor moves, and market signals. If internal processes consume more than 40% of leadership’s attention, you have a bureaucratization problem, regardless of headcount.

The Military Framework: Commander’s Intent vs. Process Compliance

In special operations, we operated on Commander’s Intent: a clear articulation of the mission objective that allowed subordinates to make independent decisions in pursuit of that objective without requiring upward approval for every action.

The opposite of this is process compliance, requiring sign-off, documentation, and procedural adherence before any action can be taken. Process compliance is how you get soldiers calling headquarters for permission while the situation changes around them.

Bureaucracies default to process compliance because process compliance is measurable and defensible. You can demonstrate that you followed the process. You cannot always demonstrate that you achieved the mission. Process compliance protects individuals. Commander’s Intent protects the mission.

Every government expansion Parkinson documented, and every one we’re watching in real time, represents a shift from mission clarity to process compliance. More people are added not to achieve better outcomes but to add checkpoints in the process. The checkpoints become the product.

The fastest-moving organizations I have watched under $20M in revenue operate on Commander’s Intent. Leaders define the objective with precision. Individual contributors make tactical decisions. Accountability runs to outcomes, not procedures. When founders start adding process in response to growth — which feels like professionalization but often isn’t — they make the same mistake. The process was designed to produce the outcome. When the process becomes the focus, the outcome gets lost.

Subscribe now

What the Move Toward More Government Employment Actually Signals

When a government announces it is hiring 50,000 new public servants to improve service delivery, it is telling you something important: it has no theory of the problem.

Hiring is the answer that requires no diagnosis. It is visible, politically defensible, and immediately actionable without requiring anyone to understand why the existing system is failing. It creates the appearance of response without the accountability of results.

Parkinson observed this in 1955 with clinical precision. The British Admiralty reduced its fleet by 67% between 1914 and 1928 while increasing its shore-based administrative staff by 78%. Fewer ships. More people administering ships. The administration had become self-referential: it existed to administer the administration.

The correct response to a failing government program is almost never more staff. It is clearer mission definition, sharper accountability, and ruthless elimination of processes that don’t produce outcomes. Every successful government reform in modern history, New Zealand in the 1980s, Canada’s program review in the 1990s, Sweden’s public sector restructuring, reduced headcount while improving delivery.

The bureaucracies being expanded right now will be the reform targets of the next government. The only question is how much gets spent in the interval.

Three Protocols for Business Owners

The Headcount Audit. Before any new hire, document with specificity what outcome the hire will produce, measurable within 90 days. Not activities. Outcomes. If you cannot define the outcome with a number attached, you are adding administrative capacity, not productive capacity. This forces honest thinking about whether the problem is a staffing problem or a systems problem.

The Meeting Ratio Test. Calculate what percentage of your total leadership meeting time addresses internal process versus the external market. If internal process exceeds 40%, cancel one internal meeting per week and replace it with a direct customer conversation. Run this for 60 days and measure what changes in decision quality.

The Elimination Round. Quarterly, identify three approval processes or reporting requirements that exist inside your organization. Ask one question about each: what decision does this enable? If the answer is “it ensures people are informed” rather than “it enables decision X,” eliminate it. Information that doesn’t produce decisions is administrative overhead. Overhead is Parkinson’s Law taking hold.

The Bottom Line

Parkinson wrote a beautifully entertaining book that should be required reading for every student of leadership. He deployed irony and understatement the way the British do when they are documenting something genuinely alarming. The data underneath the wit was rigorous and the predictions were precise.

Every government currently arguing that its services need more employees to function better is making an argument Parkinson demolished seventy years ago. The employees don’t improve the service. They improve the appearance of response while the service continues to fail, now supported by a larger administrative apparatus that makes reform harder and more politically costly.

For business owners watching this and wondering what it means for their companies: the question is not whether Parkinson’s Law applies to you. It does. The question is how far along the curve you are and whether you have the discipline to reverse it before the overhead exceeds the output.

The organizations that win — military units, lean firms, the rare government agency that actually delivers — share one characteristic. They maintain obsessive clarity about the mission and ruthless skepticism toward any activity that doesn’t connect to it.

That’s not culture. It’s structure. You can build it deliberately, or watch Parkinson build its opposite for you automatically.

The Rogue Lawyer | Business Strategy for Founders Who Want to Win

Your top salesperson used to close 30% of qualified leads. Now he’s at 18%. His call notes have deteriorated. His follow-up is sloppy. He’s exhausted by 2pm every day.

Your operations manager—the one who used to see three moves ahead—now needs everything repeated twice. Makes unforced errors on basic logistics. Snaps at team members over minor issues.

Same pattern across different people: competent professionals becoming less capable. Not from lack of effort. From cognitive depletion.

They’re addicted to outrage. And it’s stealing their ability to create anything that matters.

The Mechanic: How Outrage Destroys Cognitive Capacity

In special forces, we had a term for operators who couldn’t regulate their emotional state: “combat ineffective.” Didn’t matter how skilled they were. If they couldn’t control their nervous system under pressure, they were a liability.

Outrage addiction produces the same result in civilian life. The person isn’t stupid. They’re dysregulated.

Here’s what’s happening neurologically:

Every time you engage with outrage content, your amygdala fires. Your body produces cortisol. Your prefrontal cortex—the part responsible for planning, creativity, and complex problem-solving—gets suppressed.

One exposure? No problem. You recover in 20 minutes.

But social media platforms are designed for continuous exposure. The algorithm learns what triggers you, then serves you variations of that trigger every 90 seconds.

You’re not having one cortisol spike. You’re having 40-50 per day.

The result is the same as chronic stress: executive function deterioration, decision-making impairment, reduced working memory, increased irritability, and creative paralysis.

Your employee isn’t lazy. Their brain is running on a depleted operating system.

Share

Case Study: The $340,000 LinkedIn Addiction

I walked a client (manufacturing company, 85 employees) through a cognitive cost analysis of one senior manager’s social media habits.

This guy was their best problem-solver. Could see operational inefficiencies nobody else noticed. Three years ago, he saved the company $800K by redesigning their inventory flow.

By 2023, he was producing about 30% of his previous output. Quality of work had deteriorated. Missing deadlines. Defensive in meetings.

The owner thought he was burned out. I thought different.

We tracked his time for two weeks:

• 12 hours per week on LinkedIn (mostly political debates)

• 8 hours per week on Twitter

• 5 hours per week reading outrage-generating news

• Total: 25 hours weekly in reaction mode

At his $65/hour rate, that’s $84,500 annually in direct cost.

But the real cost was opportunity cost. The problems he used to solve that saved hundreds of thousands? Not getting solved. Because his brain was too fried from arguing with strangers to see three moves ahead anymore.

Total calculated cost: $340,000 annually.

One guy. One addiction.

The Pattern: Professionals Who Confuse Awareness with Agency

The cruelest part of outrage addiction is it feels like consciousness.

Your employee isn’t scrolling mindlessly. They’re “staying informed.” They’re “being a good citizen.” They’re “using their platform for good.”

Meanwhile, they’re:

• Late on every deadline

• Producing lower-quality work

• Creating conflict with coworkers who disagree

• Exhausted before lunch

• Increasingly anxious and irritable

I see this pattern most clearly in high-performers who’ve gotten worse over the past five years. Engineers who used to solve complex problems now get stuck on basic implementations. Salespeople who used to read people perfectly now miss obvious buying signals. Project managers who used to juggle twelve initiatives now struggle with three.

The common denominator isn’t age. It’s 2-3 hours daily in fight-or-flight mode responding to things they cannot affect.

What Employers Are Missing: The Distraction Tax

Most business owners see declining performance and think:

• Motivation problem → Needs management intervention

• Skill degradation → Needs training

• Burnout → Needs time off

They’re missing the actual cause: continuous partial attention on emotionally violent inputs.

Your employee isn’t present because they’re not actually fully anywhere anymore. Part of their brain is always monitoring the outrage feed. Checking for notifications. Preparing rebuttals to arguments that haven’t happened yet.

This is expensive.

A 2023 study from UC Irvine found that after a single interruption, it takes an average of 23 minutes to return to full cognitive capacity on the original task. If your employee is checking their phone every 12 minutes (average for US adults), they never reach full capacity.

They’re working at 60% efficiency all day. Every day.

Multiply that across your entire team, and you’re running a company on partial brainpower while paying for full salaries.

What Actually Works: Protocols, Not Policies

Most companies that try to address this fail because they implement controls instead of building capacity.

“No phones in meetings” creates resentment. “Limited social media access” drives people to personal devices. “Mandatory breaks from news” feels paternalistic.

The military approach is different: build operator capacity to self-regulate under adverse conditions.

Here’s what actually works:

Subscribe now

1. The Monday Morning Intelligence Brief

Start each week with a 15-minute team meeting. Not about work. About information environment awareness.

The format:

• “What’s generating outrage this week?”

• “Can any of us affect this through our work?”

• “If not, what’s the protocol for maintaining operational focus?”

This creates team-level awareness without dictating behavior. People start recognizing their own reaction patterns.

One client implemented this in their 30-person marketing agency. Within six weeks, they noticed:

• 40% reduction in internal political arguments

• Better meeting focus

• Faster project completion

• Less defensive behavior in feedback sessions

Cost: 15 minutes weekly.

2. No-Phone Thursdays (Pilot Program)

Don’t mandate. Test.

Pick one day. Make it voluntary. See who joins.

The rule: No phone access from 9am-5pm except for client emergencies (defined specifically). Phones go in a drawer, not on the desk.

Track output on those days versus other days.

One client (software company, 45 employees) ran this for a month. Twenty people participated.

Results:

• 62% more code commits on no-phone Thursdays

• 35% fewer bugs in code reviews

• Participants reported feeling “exhausted but accomplished” instead of “tired and scattered”

The data convinced skeptics. Participation increased to 38 people by month three.

3. The 48-Hour Action Test (Team Standard)

Make this an explicit cultural expectation:

“If you can’t take meaningful action in response to something within 48 hours, reconsider whether it deserves your cognitive energy during work hours.”

This isn’t about political suppression. It’s about resource allocation.

Your employees can believe whatever they want. But if they’re going to be effective operators, they need to separate “things I care about” from “things I can affect” from “things that should occupy my attention right now.”

The military teaches this constantly. You care about geopolitical strategy, but your job is to execute the mission in front of you with available resources.

4. Create Before Consume (Daily Protocol)

Simple rule for high-performers: No news/social media consumption before completing your primary creative work for the day.

This means:

• Code written

• Designs completed

• Analysis finished

• Client work delivered

THEN scroll, if you want.

This single change produces dramatic results because it protects peak cognitive hours. Most people have 3-4 hours of genuine deep work capacity daily. If they spend that arguing online, there’s nothing left for actual creation.

5. The After-Action Review

Borrowed directly from military operations.

At the end of each week, each person answers three questions:

1. What did I create this week?

2. What distracted me from creating more?

3. What protocol would prevent that distraction next week?

This builds self-awareness without judgment. People start seeing their own patterns. The outrage addict notices they spent six hours on Twitter debates and produced nothing they’re proud of.

That recognition is more powerful than any policy.

The Business Case: What You Get Back

One client (professional services firm, 60 employees) implemented all five protocols over a three-month period.

Measurable changes:

• Project delivery time decreased 23%

• Client satisfaction scores increased

• Internal conflict (HR complaints, team friction) down 40%

• Revenue per employee increased 18%

• Voluntary turnover dropped from 12% to 4%

The owner’s summary: “I got my senior team back. Same people. Different operating system.”

The cost was minimal. Fifteen minutes Monday morning. One no-phone day weekly. Two cultural expectations (48-hour action test, create before consume). Five minutes Friday for after-action review.

That’s it. No consultants. No elaborate programs. Just operational discipline applied to information consumption.

What You’re Actually Protecting

This isn’t about controlling your employees’ politics or making them less informed.

This is about protecting their capacity to build things that matter.

A software engineer arguing with strangers on Twitter isn’t writing code that solves customer problems.

A salesperson refreshing news feeds isn’t building relationships that generate revenue.

A project manager monitoring political drama isn’t seeing the logistical inefficiency that’s costing you money.

Outrage steals creative capacity. That’s the whole game.

Your employees have limited cognitive resources. Every hour they spend in reaction mode is an hour they can’t spend in creation mode.

And creation is what you’re actually paying them for.

The Question for Leaders

When you look at declining performance in your team, ask:

“Is this a competence problem or a distraction problem?”

If your employee was effective three years ago and isn’t now, but they haven’t lost technical skills, you’re probably looking at distraction.

And distraction is fixable. Not through control. Through protocols that build self-regulation capacity.

The people most trapped in outrage cycles are often your highest-performers. They’re conscientious. They care deeply. They want to make a difference.

They’ve just been weaponized against themselves by platforms that profit from their nervous system activation.

Your job isn’t to fix them. It’s to create an environment where effectiveness gets rewarded more than performance, where creation matters more than reaction, where building something real beats arguing about symbols.

Do that, and you’ll watch competent people become capable again.

Leave a comment

The article, “The Role of Doctors Is Changing Forever” by Dhruv Khullar, strikes a nerve that vibrates straight through the medical profession and right into the legal world.

If doctors are facing a reality where they must transition from being “Gods of Medicine” to true healers, we are facing an identical reckoning. For too long, lawyers have operated as the High Priests of the Law, hoarding access to the code, billing for the search, and treating clients like logic puzzles rather than people.

But the era of the “Law God” is over. And frankly, it’s good for the profession.

The Technicians are Obsolete

The parallel to the medical field is stark. Just as diagnostics are being democratized by technology, the “old school work” of law is being swallowed whole.

We have to be honest about what is happening. AI can now ingest a fact scenario, retrieve details for both sides, and interpret black-letter legal issues faster than any first-year associate.

If your value proposition is solely that you know where to find the case law or how to draft a standard motion, you are already obsolete.

The New Yorker highlights this shift for doctors, but the writing is on the wall for us. We are moving away from an Information-Scarcity Economy (where lawyers held the keys to the library) to an Insight-Economy.

Subscribe now

The Pivot: From Technician to Persuader

If the AI acts as the ultimate research assistant, perfectly recalling every statute and precedent, what is left for the human?

Everything that actually matters.

The surviving lawyer will not be the one who memorizes the most rules; it will be the master of human behavior.

• AI can identify a risk factor. It cannot look a client in the eye and understand that their hesitation isn’t about the money, but about the fear of ruining a family relationship.

• AI can list the facts most favourable to the defence. It cannot read the room in a negotiation or sense when a judge is bored, skeptical, or looking for a way out.

Think of it this way: The Technician drafts the clause that minimizes financial liability in a partnership dispute. The Counsellor realizes the dispute is actually about the founder’s ego and drafts a clause that allows him to save face, thereby preventing the lawsuit entirely.

AI can write the clause. Only you can identify the ego.

We must become masters of persuasion. When an algorithm presents two perfectly logical but conflicting interpretations of the law, it takes a human to persuade the fact-finder which one to select. It takes a human to weave those facts into a narrative that resonates with the messy, illogical, emotional reality of other humans.

Solving “Life Issues,” Not Just “Legal Issues”

This is where the “Rogue” philosophy truly diverges from the traditional path. The lawyers who thrive in this new era will be the ones who understand that legal problems are rarely just legal problems.

A divorce isn’t just a dissolution of assets; it’s a restructuring of identity. A corporate merger isn’t just a contract; it’s a clash of cultures.

To mirror the shift from “doctor as technician” to “doctor as healer,” we must shift from “lawyer as fighter” to “lawyer as architect.” We have to fix problems that have many layers. We must advise on risk not just mathematically, but emotionally and reputationally.

Adapt or Go Extinct

Khullar’s article reminds us that the role of the professional is “Changing Forever.”

This shouldn’t scare you. It should liberate you.

Let the AI be the technician. Let the AI be the “God” of data.

You? You get to be something more complex. You get to be the counsellor. You get to be the strategist who takes the raw intelligence provided by the machine and applies wisdom, empathy, and psychological acuity to actually help the client.

The machines are coming for the work we used to hate anyway. They are taking the drudgery, leaving us with the humanity.

The future doesn’t belong to the lawyer who knows the most case law. It belongs to the lawyer who knows people. Stop trying to be a Law God. Start being a human.

Share

If you think this is a weird vanity project or a sloppy throwback to imperialism, congratulations: you’re consuming the story the way it’s being sold to you. The real story is colder, quieter, and far more rational.

This isn’t a land grab. It’s a another supply-chain insurance policy.

1) The Greenland Decoy
The media frame is comfortable: diplomatic chaos, European outrage, Trump doing Trump things. But “comfort” is usually what narratives offer right before they fail you.

In hard-power terms, Greenland is not a romantic Arctic trophy. It’s a leverage point. A choke point. A vault.

And the key isn’t flying over Nuuk.

It’s buried in two formations in southern Greenland and the industrial pipeline that turns rock into weapons-grade capability.

2) The Trump Pattern: Outrage First, Terms Second
A lot of people still misunderstand Trump’s public negotiating style: the point isn’t credibility, it’s positioning.

You start with something that triggers moral hysteria. You let the other side burn political capital performing outrage. Then you pivot to something that looks “reasonable” by comparison.

Outrage isn’t a bug. It’s the crowbar to open up negotiations while elites clutch their pearls.

Once the conversation moves from “sovereignty” to “price,” the frame has already shifted. The target is no longer a principle. It’s an amount.

And when that happens, the so-called “rules-based order” starts looking less like a shield and more like a bedtime story.

3) The Real Prize: Heavy Rare Earths, Not Ice
Here’s the part the average commentator never bothers to learn because it doesn’t trend: heavy rare earth elements.

Dysprosium. Terbium. The stuff that makes high-performance permanent magnets work under stress and heat. The stuff that ends up inside missile guidance, radar/sonar systems, and advanced military platforms.

If you want a blunt way to understand it: these aren’t “green transition” minerals. They’re “win the next war” minerals.

That’s why Greenland matters.

Tanbreez, for example, has been positioned as a rare-earth project with major market attention tied to the current Greenland frenzy.
Kvanefjeld is the other name you keep hearing because it’s strategic and politically radioactive, including because of Chinese commercial entanglement (through Shenghe Resources) and the broader geopolitical contest around who ends up controlling output.

So no, this isn’t “about Greenland.”

It’s about breaking dependency.

4) The China Chokehold Everyone Tiptoes Around
Here’s the uncomfortable arithmetic: China dominates the production of processed rare earths and rare earth magnets. Reuters has reported China produces over 90% of the world’s processed rare earths and rare earth magnets.

That is a strategic vulnerability. And we cant rely on European countries to care enought to do anything about it. Germany in an act energy har kari closed all there nuclear power plants, became energy weaklings and had to buy their energy from Russia. Their elites are not thinking strategically they are suicidally embracing empathy to the point of sefl destruction and the loss of control over their population and access to energy. At some level liberals have to start acknosledging that strategy matters in a souless universe not governed byt he same rules the west fostered..

When Beijing tightens export controls, it’s not “economic policy.” It’s leverage that reaches straight into Western defence supply chains. China fights wars subtlely though economics not missiles and the media is missing it.

This is why the Greenland storyline has teeth. The U.S. isn’t trying to buy an island. It’s trying to buy time, capacity, and optionality in a world where the inputs to advanced power can be turned off by the chinese government.

Subscribe now

5) Prediction Markets Are Doing the Thing Legacy Media Won’t
You can hate prediction markets. You can call them morally grotesque. But they do one valuable thing: they force people to put money behind beliefs.

Right now, the Greenland trade is being priced very differently depending on where you look.

Kalshi has listed markets implying meaningful odds on some form of acquisition pathway over the next few years.
Polymarket has shown materially lower (though still non-trivial) odds on near-term acquisition scenarios, fluctuating around the teens to 20s depending on contract and timeframe.

That gap isn’t “market inefficiency.” It’s a disagreement about what matters more: coercion or norms.

And if you want the darker proof that traders are increasingly pricing power over politeness, look at the recent controversy around a Polymarket wager that paid out after Nicolás Maduro was captured by U.S. forces, prompting intense scrutiny over timing and potential inside information.

People aren’t pricing mainstream media stories because they are not reliable or accurate, they are pricing foreseeable strategic outcomes.

6) The Three-Theatre Squeeze (Resource, Economic, Kinetic)
The public sees separate headlines, the strategist who cares about winning not moralizing sees the undeliying patterns..

Resource front: secure the inputs. Rare earths are upstream leverage; without magnets, “advanced” weapons become very expensive paperweights.

Economic front: tariffs as alignment enforcement. When tariffs get explicitly tied to Greenland-related resistance, the US is levaraging is security blanket that keeps the Europeans safe. I perosnally love that the US is finally waking up to its own power and the nations that align with the powerful will succeed and the nations that clutch their pearls and protest will be collateral damage when the shit hits the fan.

Kinetic front (below the threshold): infrastructure probing. Undersea cables are the nervous system. When vessels get seized in sabotage investigations involving Baltic telecom links, it’s a reminder that “not-war” actions can still cripple alliance capacity.

This is what coherence looks like in 2026: pressure applied across domains until the opponent discovers what they’re actually willing to trade. Too many commentators are living in la-la land fixated on lookign superior to the brash leader who offends their fragile sensibilities

7) The Rules-Based Mirage (A Lawyer’s Note)
International law is not self-executing. It’s not magic. It’s a set of agreements that only restrain states who choose restraint, and only last as long as interests align.

Europe can invoke sovereignty and norms. That’s emotionally satisfying. But enforcement is what separates “law” from “literature.” A law only matters if there is the power to support it.

If one side believes the rules are sacred and the other believes the rules are optional, the “rules-based order” becomes an asymmetric weapon, used by the ruthless against the sincere and naive.

That’s the real danger here. Not that Greenland changes hands.

From my perspective the West is in danger because it no longer agrees on what reality is, what power is, or what price is worth paying to keep the machine running.

8) What To Watch (If You Want Signal, Not Noise)
If you’re trying to figure out whether this is theatre or doctrine, ignore the speeches and track these:

1. Mining and processing moves: project financing, offtake agreements, processing capacity announcements.

2. Export-control escalation: Beijing’s next tightening will tell you what it fears losing.

3. Tariff conditionality: are tariffs explicitly linked to compliance and alignment?

4. Infrastructure protection posture: NATO/partners hardening subsea and Arctic infrastructure after cable incidents.

5. Market odds convergence: if Polymarket begins crawling toward Kalshi, it’s a sign of global traders conceding that coercion beats norms.

Call it crude. Call it ugly. Call it “not who we are.”

But don’t call it irrational because without doing a little more thinking..

Because Greenland isn’t the story… ‘Trump bad” isnt the story… The is power and global security. There is a long game we need to play. The nice thing about a second-term president without ties to the global elite is that the US can think strategically for the long term rather than next election cycle and it pisses off the establishment, whose were feeding off the teat of the US.

Whoever controls the inputs controls the future, especially the future of force.

So here’s the real question: if your civilization depends on a supply chain your rival can throttle, are you still sovereign… or just temporarily tolerated?

Share

WestJet says the aircraft was “newly reconfigured,” with seat pitch varying from 38 inches down to 28 inches across 21 aircraft already flying this layout. I say someone should be fired.

The Strategic Failure

WestJet did not stumble into this outcome. They executed a deliberate plan: add an extra row to Boeing 737 aircraft by compressing seat pitch in standard economy. The airline positioned the move as “keeping costs low” while confirming all modifications meet Transport Canada airworthiness requirements. Can you imagine the discussions in the boardroom?

Reporting shows WestJet paused the broader rollout after backlash, cutting planned installations from 43 aircraft to 22.

This is where the MBA strategy and the Founder strategy split.

MBA Strategy: Optimize the Spreadsheet to Get Promoted

The MBA playbook runs clean math:

• More seats per flight = lower cost per seat

• Higher aircraft utilization = better unit economics

• Tighter pitch in back rows = stronger upsell pressure to premium economy

The model works on paper. Revenue per flight increases. Margin per seat improves. The CFO presents clean numbers to the board.

But the MBA approach treats customers as interchangeable units filling seats. The strategy assumes passengers will accept degradation if the price stays competitive. The MBA strategy failed WestJets Brand.

Share

Founder Strategy: Protect the Asset

A founder asks different questions:

• What happens when customers feel disrespected?

• How fast does brand damage travel?

• What’s the cost of losing trust?

WestJet built its brand as the friendlier Canadian alternative. The entire value proposition rested on not being the airline that treats passengers like cargo.

A 28-inch seat pitch destroys that positioning.

The Second-Order Effects MBAs Miss

Military operations planning uses the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. WestJet observed competitor densification. They oriented around unit economics. They decided to match the race to the bottom. They acted.

But they failed the next loop. They didn’t observe how customers would respond. They didn’t orient around brand equity erosion. They didn’t decide with second-order effects in mind.

Three things happen when you design a base product to feel punitive:

1. Brand Trust Collapses

WestJet’s historical pitch emphasized being the human alternative. Their own marketing materials for cabin updates described “varied space” across rows with fixed recline designed for passenger comfort.

The 28-inch row rewrites the brand story. The airline that claimed to care now looks like every other carrier optimizing humans out of the equation.

2. Complaints Become Distribution

One uncomfortable passenger in row 31 reaches millions faster than any paid media campaign. Social platforms turn customer friction into viral content.

The photo didn’t just show a cramped seat. It showed contempt. And contempt is fatal to the brand promise..

3. Internal Teams Absorb the Damage

Reuters reported pushback from pilots and flight attendants, raising concerns about passenger comfort and working conditions. WestJet paused rollout to gather feedback.

Your frontline staff now defends decisions they didn’t make to customers they can’t satisfy. You’ve turned your people into blast shields for executive spreadsheet optimization.

Subscribe now

The Resource Allocation Failure

Here’s what WestJet actually bought with seat densification:

• One extra row per aircraft

• Incremental revenue per flight (offset by brand damage)

• Viral negative publicity (immeasurable cost)

• Employee morale issues (retention risk)

• Competitive disadvantage (passengers now checking seat maps before booking)

What they could have bought with the same resources:

• Product differentiation through guaranteed minimum pitch

• Marketing campaign around “We Don’t Shrink Your Seat”

• Premium economy expansion with real value gap

• Customer loyalty that survives price competition

This is the core error. WestJet allocated resources to extract margin from existing customers rather than to build defensible value.

The Strategic Question

What business is WestJet running?

• Low-cost carrier? Then sell price. Match Spirit and Frontier. Race to the bottom with eyes open. Own the budget positioning.

• Full-service carrier? Then sell experience. Maintain comfort baselines. Compete on service.

• Hybrid? You deliver resentment. Customers pay full-service prices, get low-cost constraints, and trust neither your pricing nor your product.

WestJet chose hybrid. They’re now stuck between positioning tiers with degraded credibility in both.

What Founder Strategy Looks Like

If you’re running a company under $20M (or $200M), here’s how you avoid WestJet’s mistake:

1. Define Non-Negotiable Baselines

Set a floor for your core product. Publish it. Defend it.

For WestJet, that means: minimum 31-inch pitch in standard economy, published by row at booking, before purchase.

For your business: What’s the minimum acceptable customer experience that protects your brand promise?

2. Segment Up Without Punishing Down

Sell upgrades by adding value, not by degrading the baseline.

WestJet’s current model forces passengers toward paid tiers by widening the comfort gap. That’s extraction, not value creation.

Dollar Shave Club didn’t make their base razors worse to sell premium. They made the base product good enough, then offered genuine upgrades.

3. Test Like You Mean It

Put decision-makers in the worst version of your product under real conditions.

For WestJet’s executives: Book row 31. Fly four hours. No special handling. No upgrades. Full cabin. Real delays. Overhead bin wars.

Then ask: “Did the brand survive this experience?”

For your business: Use your worst-tier product the way your most frustrated customer uses it. If you won’t, why should they?

The Military Lesson

Strategic planning uses the 70% rule: Act when you have 70% certainty. Waiting for 100% gets people killed.

But the rule has a critical requirement: rapid feedback loops.

You act at 70%. You observe results. You adjust fast.

WestJet broke the loop. They acted on seat densification. They ignored early signals (employee feedback, customer complaints). They waited until viral backlash forced a pause.

After Action Reviews in military operations ask:

• What was supposed to happen?

• What actually happened?

• Why the gap?

• What do we change?

WestJet’s AAR would show:

• Supposed to happen: Improved unit economics with manageable customer pushback

• Actually happened: Brand damage, viral negative publicity, internal opposition

• Gap: Failed to account for social media velocity and brand trust erosion

• Change needed: Reverse course or own the budget positioning completely

The Accountability Gap

Here’s the real problem. No executive will personally face the consequences of this decision.

The CEO won’t sit in row 31 for a delayed four-hour flight with a screaming toddler behind him and a business traveler’s laptop jabbing his kidneys.

The CFO won’t field angry calls from customers who feel disrespected.

The board won’t lose loyalty points or elite status. The person responsible for this disaster will not be fired.

Decisions made in boardrooms get executed on customers’ bodies. When decision-makers are insulated from outcomes, strategy degrades into spreadsheet optimization.

What This Means for Your Business

You’re not WestJet. You don’t have 21 aircraft to reconfigure.

But you face the same strategic choice every time you optimize for short-term extraction over long-term value:

• Do you tighten delivery windows to save operational costs while degrading customer experience?

• Do you reduce support staff to improve margin while increasing customer frustration?

• Do you cheapen materials to hit price points while undermining product quality?

The MBA approach says yes if the spreadsheet works. The founder approach asks: What happens when customers stop trusting us? Brands take a long time

The Challenge

WestJet’s leadership should book row 31. Four hours. Coach. Real conditions.

Your leadership should use your worst product tier. Real conditions. No shortcuts.

After the experience, ask a harder question than “Did the numbers work?”

Ask: “Did the brand survive?”

Because metrics show you what happened yesterday. Brand trust determines what happens tomorrow.

And trust, once broken by deliberate disrespect, doesn’t come back through better unit economics.

It comes back through consistently choosing customer dignity over spreadsheet optimization.

Or it doesn’t come back at all.

We just witnessed two distinct visions of the world collide. On one side, you had Mark Carney, the ultimate avatar of the technocratic elite, the man who glided from the Bank of Canada to the Bank of England and now sits as the Prime Minister of Canada (the “Davos Prime Minister,” if ever there was one). On the other hand, you had Donald Trump, the 47th President, crashing the party like a bull who not only brought his own china shop but is charging you admission to watch him break it.

The media, predictably, is focusing on the aesthetics. They tell you Carney was “eloquent,” “thoughtful,” and “principled,” while framing Trump as “brash,” “isolationist,” and “transactional.”

As usual, they are mistaking the noise for the signal.

Here is the strategic reality they want you to ignore: Carney’s speech was a eulogy for a globalist system that made a tiny layer of elites obscenely rich while leaving their nations hollowed out and vulnerable. Trump’s speech, however inelegant the phrasing, was a declaration of Realpolitik. It was the only honest thing said in Switzerland all week.

The Technocrat’s Sleight of Hand

Mark Carney is a master of the “Davos Dialect.” It’s a language designed to hide power dynamics behind moral platitudes. When Carney speaks of “middle powers banding together” and “values-based multilateralism,” what he is actually saying is:

The Americans are no longer willing to pay for our defense and buy our exports while we regulate them to death.

Carney’s entire career is a testament to the Globalist wager: that if you surrender enough national sovereignty to international institutions (central banks, climate accords, the WEF), you can manage the world from a spreadsheet. He represents the “Davos Man”, rootless, comfortable in any capital, loyal to “systems” rather than people.

In his speech, Carney tried to rally the Europeans, partners who have let their own nations fall into disrepair. Look at who he is aligning with. The European continent is currently fracturing under the weight of unassimilated mass immigration and energy policies that prioritize “green signals” over keeping the lights on. These are nations that lost control of their borders in the name of “humanitarianism” and lost their industrial base in the name of “climate goals.”

Carney wants to shackle Canada to this sinking ship. He frames this as “strategic autonomy.” In legal terms, we call this a “distinction without a difference.” He is trading dependence on a booming, re-industrializing America for dependence on a stagnating, bureaucratized Europe. My perspective is this is bad strategy for the citizens, emotional pablum for virtue signallers, and profitable for a hidden management class pulling the strings behind these leaders who seem to be inserted stand-ins for corporatist/globalist powers.

Subscribe now

The Brute Fact of Sovereignty

Then you have Trump.

Trump doesn’t speak “Davos”. He speaks Leverage and he speaks for his people not his peers.

While Carney was weaving intricate verbal tapestries about Havel and “global governance,” Trump walked in and laid the brute facts on the table: We have the market. We have the energy. We have the military. If you want access, you pay.

The elites hate this not because it’s “rude,” but because it exposes their vulnerability. For decades, the globalist system relied on the United States acting as the benevolent sucker, securing global shipping lanes for free, absorbing cheap exports that killed American manufacturing, and defending nations that spent their budgets on welfare states instead of armies.

Trump is simply saying: The ride is over.

This is what I mean by “The Signal.” When Trump talks about tariffs or borders, he is speaking to the primary reality of the state: Sovereignty. A nation that cannot control its borders (immigration) or its economy (manufacturing) is not a nation; it is an economic zone for global capital. I cannot understand why intelligent liberals who care about our citizens (not part of the system) are not waking up to this.

Carney’s “values” are a luxury good. Trump’s “interests” are a matter of survival in a brutal world where the elite desperately wants him to be contained.

The Great Re-Alignment

The contrast should be subjected to more scrutiny at a deeper strategic level. What I see is one-sidedness and the abandonment of critical thinking. Commentators are crafting arguments to soothe their moral positions and avoiding tough discussions about what is really going on behind the curtains.

Carney represents the Management Class: The people who believe that if they just have enough meetings, enough sub-committees, and enough “frameworks,” they can suppress the messy reality of human tribalism and national interest. They want to sustain the zombie system of 1990-2020 because that is the ecosystem where they thrive.

Trump represents the Return of History: the reality that the world is a dangerous, competitive place where the “nation-state” is the only vessel that actually protects its citizens.

Carney is trying to sell a partnership of weakness, a coalition of the “polite but declining.” Trump is offering a partnership of strength, but one that requires paying your dues. Canada, because it identifies itself as polite leans anti-Trump but fails to remember that politeness without strength is not a virtue, it is the survival mechanism of the manipulated.

For the elites at Davos and the liberal media, Carney is the soothing lullaby reinforcing the message to the masses that being docile is virtuous. Trump is more of an alarm clock trying to wake the West up from its dream before it becomes a nightmare.

Trump’s message is the signal to our adversaries. Carney’s noise is the distraction meant to keep the people sedated while the system does its thing.

Strategic Takeaway: Watch the flows of capital, not the flows of rhetoric. While the audience applauded Carney, ask yourself where they are moving their money. They clap for the Technocrat, but they invest in the Realist. The corporate media is part of the system and is not telling the citizenry what they need to know to make informed decisions.

Share

The News: As of January 2026, reports indicate Saks Global is preparing to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This comes just months after the “fantasy merger” of Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, a deal that was supposed to save luxury retail but instead accelerated its collapse under a mountain of debt.

If you look at the man in charge’s resume, this was a deliberate real estate exit strategy masquerading as a retail strategy..

The Pattern: The Merchant Who Wasn’t There

To understand why Saks is collapsing, you have to look at Richard Baker, the Executive Chairman and CEO of Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC).

Baker is not a merchant. He is not a “fashion person.” He is a real estate tycoon. His father founded National Realty & Development Corp, and Baker’s entire career has been defined by a specific, repeatable algorithm: Buy the retailer, monetize the dirt, starve the store.

If you look at his resume, the pattern is glaring:

• Lord & Taylor: Baker bought the legendary chain in 2006. He didn’t turn around the brand; he sold its flagship Fifth Avenue building to WeWork for $850 million, effectively extracting the jewel and leaving the retailer to wither. Lord & Taylor eventually liquidated.

• Zellers: He bought the Canadian mass merchant, not to improve its inventory, but to sell its valuable leases to Target (a move that disastrously failed for Target, but Baker got paid for the real estate). Zellers ceased to exist as a major player.

• Galeria Kaufhof: He bought the German department store chain, merged it, and spun off the real estate assets. The retail operations eventually faced insolvency.

The Signal: When a real estate investor buys a retailer, they aren’t betting on the future of selling clothes. They are betting on the arbitrage between the company’s stock price and the square footage of its flagship locations. Saks Fifth Avenue isn’t going bankrupt because Richard Baker failed; it’s going bankrupt because his “financialization” model finally likely planned on it and the business model ran out of road.

Subscribe now

The Strategy Pivot: The “Perusal Paradox”

While Baker was playing Monopoly with the buildings, a fundamental shift in consumer psychology toward luxury occurred, making the department store model obsolete.

The Old Model: The Store was the Aggregator for 100 years, department stores like Saks had a monopoly on “The Peruse.” If you were a wealthy shopper in 1995, you didn’t know what Gucci, Prada, or Yves Saint Laurent had released that season. You couldn’t visit twenty separate boutiques in an afternoon. So, you went to Saks. Saks was the aggregator. You walked in to discover. The value proposition was curation: “Show me, or let me discover what is cool.” The transaction happened there because the discovery happened there.

The New Model: The Internet as the Aggregator. Today, “The Peruse” happens on a screen. The digital world has gamified discovery. It is infinitely more fun, efficient, and visually stimulating to browse runway shows on Vogue Runway, see influencers’ style items on TikTok, or scroll through a brand’s carefully curated Instagram feed than it is to wander through the disorganized racks of a department store.

By the time a customer walks into a physical store today, they aren’t there to browse. They are there to transact. They already know what they want.

The Reversal of Advantage This shift destroyed the department store’s leverage that allowed them to float expensive real estate:

1. Direct-to-Consumer Shift: Once the customer knows they want the “Gucci Horsebit Bag,” they don’t need Saks. They can go to the Gucci boutique directly. Gucci prefers this because it keeps the margin and customer data.

2. The Showrooming Problem: Saks became a glorified fitting room. Customers would “peruse” online, try it on at Saks, and then buy it wherever it was cheapest (or directly from the brand).

3. The Experience Gap: Because Baker’s strategy relies on financial engineering rather than retail innovation, the stores were starved of investment. While brands like Louis Vuitton were building “temples” of luxury with art galleries and cafés, Saks stores often felt tired and understaffed.

The Takeaway

The bankruptcy of Saks is the inevitable conclusion of two converging lines on a graph.

On one line, you have the Richard Baker Playbook: treating retailers as real estate portfolios, extracting the asset value, and loading the operating companies with debt. On the other line, you have the Digitization of Discovery: The internet stripped department stores of their primary utility, curation, leaving them as expensive middlemen in a world that prefers to go direct.

Saks didn’t just lose its money. It lost its reason to exist. Brands need to take notice and adjust their strategy accordingly.

Share

It wasn’t about the fishermen. It wasn’t about “democracy.”

While the world signals their party loyalties and clutches their pearls over tweets, Trump just executed a kinetic strategic repositioning that will dictate global power dynamics for the next 20 years.

Most people missed it because they are obsessed with what he is doing. I am interested in why it matters.

In the span of 72 hours, the United States restructured the Western Hemisphere’s relationship with Chinese influence, secured the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and shattered the strategic calculus for every nation in South America.

But to understand why this matters, and what you need to learn from it to survive in business, you have to stop thinking like a civilian. You need to stop viewing oil as a commodity and start viewing it as a control system.

The Question Nobody Has the Guts to Ask

What does Iraq in 2003 have in common with Venezuela in 2025?

“Oil” is the answer for the naive. The real answer is buried in the financial plumbing: Both threatened dollar dominance in energy markets.

In late 2000, Iraq began pricing oil in euros. By 2002, they were actively moving away from dollar-denominated settlements. Eighteen months later, the U.S. invaded under the pretense of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam didn’t have advisors smart enough to tell him the war wasn’t about WMDs; it was about the Petro-Dollar.

The strategic reality? Iraq was undermining the Treasury Department’s leverage, a leverage more powerful than most standing armies.

Fast forward to today. Venezuela and Iran aren’t just selling oil outside the dollar system; they have created a parallel structure with China as the underwriter. This system is supported by a “shadow fleet”, uninsured, transponder-off tankers moving illicit energy to fund anti-Western interests.

The US is now dismantling this shadow fleet. The strategic implications outweigh the juvenile protestations of Western intellectuals who are eager to demonstrate moral superiority from the safety of their iPhones.

Before the hammer dropped:

• Iran: 1.4–1.6 million barrels/day flowing to China via “ghost” routes.

• Venezuela: 700k–900k barrels/day, financed through Chinese debt.

That is an off-the-books economy designed to bleed US interests dry.

Share

China Doesn’t Invade. China Underwrites.

Here is where the MBA analysts get it wrong. They see China buying oil and think “energy security.”

The military strategist sees the truth: China is building the payment rails for a post-dollar world.

• Long-term agreements that lock in supply regardless of price.

• Oil-for-debt structures that turn energy into geopolitical handcuffs.

• Shadow shipping networks that operate outside Western insurance.

• Yuan-denominated settlements that bypass SWIFT entirely.

Venezuela was the laboratory. When U.S. sanctions hit, China didn’t rescue Venezuela out of charity; they seized the opportunity to control the “back door” to the Western Hemisphere.

Think about the architecture: The U.S. owns the front door (Dollar, SWIFT, NY Banking). China built a side entrance (Yuan, State Shipping, Captive Refineries).

It was a strategic marriage of convenience. Until last week.

What Actually Happened (The “Kinetic” Finance)

Everyone is debating if military intervention is “justified.” That is the wrong question. The right question: What happens to China’s alternative payment system if Venezuela falls back into the U.S. sphere of influence?

Look at the sequence of moves through a Special Forces lens:

1. Targeted Sanctions: Not on the country, but on the logistics, shipping companies, insurers, ports.

2. Naval Blockades: Making the shadow network visible, and therefore vulnerable.

3. Political Recognition: Installing a government-in-waiting to legitimize the asset seizure.

4. Force Projection: Forcing China to either defend a losing investment militarily (they won’t) or lose face globally.

This isn’t an invasion. It is financial warfare supported by kinetic operations.

Trump isn’t trying to “win” Venezuela. He is making it too expensive for China to maintain their parallel system. It is brilliant, cold, and effective.

Subscribe now

The Real Strategic Shift

If this holds, the board resets:

1. China loses its beachhead. Venezuela was the proof of concept. If it fails, Brazil and Argentina will think twice about Chinese loans.

2. The U.S. regains pricing leverage. Adding 300+ billion barrels back to the dollar-system neutralizes OPEC’s tantrums.

3. The Yuan-Energy market dies. Nobody wants to be paid in Yuan if the U.S. Navy can make the shipping routes disappear.

This is what real strategy looks like. Not ideological. Not emotional. Strategic.

What This Means For Your Business

You’re probably thinking: “Cool war story, Phillip. I sell software/consulting/widgets. Who cares?”

You should. Because the exact same principle applies to you.

Most business owners fight over Market Share (The Fishermen). Strategists fight over Market Structure (The Ocean).

The Three Layers of Warfare:

• Layer 1: Surface Competition (The Amateur). Fighting on price, features, and better ads. This is a race to the bottom.

• Layer 2: Structural Control (The Professional). Controlling distribution, payment terms, and supply chains.

• Layer 3: System Architecture (The Winner). Owning the rails the game is played on.

Most businesses die fighting at Layer 1. Trump just moved the Venezuela conflict from Layer 1 (Regime Change) to Layer 3 (Global Financial Architecture).

The Bottom Line

Amazon didn’t beat bookstores by selling cheaper books. They controlled the distribution system for all commerce. Visa didn’t beat AmEx by offering better rewards. They controlled the payment rails between merchants and banks.

While you were arguing about whether Trump is “mean,” he changed the strategic map of the world. While you are debating ideology, your competitors might be changing the structural rules of your industry.

The rich don’t argue politics. They study systems.

So, a question from the Rogue Lawyer: What system in your industry do you assume is fixed, but could be owned if you stopped looking at the surface and started looking at the structure?

Think about it. Because somewhere, someone like me is already planning to own it.

Click my bio to book a consult on strategy in your world.

Read more

One scout says they need someone with “the looks.” Another talks about the player’s swing. A third mentions his girlfriend is a “six” but could be an “eight” with some work.

Beane stops them: “We’re not looking for a first baseman. We’re looking for a replacement for Jason Giambi’s production.”

The scouts keep talking about players.

Beane interrupts again: “I don’t care about players. What is the problem we’re trying to solve?”

After more deflection, he finally says it clearly: “The problem we’re trying to solve is that there are rich teams, and there are poor teams. Then there’s fifty feet of crap. And then there’s us. We are a poor team.”

The room goes silent.

Then he delivers the real point: “And the first guy through the wall always gets bloody. Always. But if we’re trying to solve the problem like a rich team, we lose every single time.”

That scene isn’t about baseball. It’s about resource allocation under constraints. And every business owner under $20M revenue is making the exact same mistake those scouts made.

You’re asking rich team questions when you’re running a non powerful team operation.

Share

The Strategic Error

The Oakland A’s had a $40 million payroll, competing against teams spending $120 million. They couldn’t outbid the Yankees for premium talent. They couldn’t play the same game.

So Beane asked a different question: “What can we afford that produces wins?”

Answer: Players who get on base. Not sexy. Not traditional. But mathematically sound for their constraints.

Most small businesses are doing the opposite. They’re trying to execute strategies designed for companies with 10x their resources, 50x their team size, and completely different economics. This is especially true in marketing and branding, but also in strategy

A $3 million professional services firm studies what McKinsey does and tries to replicate their business development model.

A beauty brand with $1.8M in revenue reads about how Estée Lauder built relationships with Sephora and attempts to follow the same playbook.

An accounting practice making $3.2 million annually hires a “growth consultant” who pitches them on marketing funnels and CRM automation built for SaaS companies doing $50 million.

They’re all asking the wrong question.

They’re asking: How do we scale?

When they should be asking: What problem are we actually solving with the resources we have?

Professional Services: The Relationship Economics Failure

I watch this pattern destroy professional services firms again and again.

The Wrong Question: How do we build a scalable sales process?

Partner brings in a marketing agency. They implement lead magnets, email sequences, discovery call frameworks, and qualification matrices. Three months later, the firm has spent $60K and closed zero new clients from the “funnel.” Lots of activity, very little impact.

Why? Because professional services under $5M don’t scale through process. They scale through relationship depth.

The Real Question: Which three clients would pay us 3x our current rate if we solved their actual strategic problem?

Here’s what that looks like in practice from a recent client engagement:

Law firm doing $2.8M annually. Seventy percent of revenue comes from eight clients. They’ve been chasing “growth” by taking every inbound lead, saying yes to projects outside their expertise, and spreading their partners thin across 40 active matters.

I asked them: “What would happen if you called your top eight clients and asked them what keeps them awake at night that has nothing to do with your current engagement scope?”

They pushed back. “We already know what they need, legal services.”

“That’s not what I asked.”

They made the calls after some resistance. Turned out:

• Client #1 (contributing $380K annually) was about to hire a separate firm for M&A advisory because they didn’t know the law firm did deal work, they used the firm and referred another cleintin for hte same work

• Client #3 (contributing $290K) had a regulatory compliance nightmare brewing that would’ve cost them $2M+ in penalties, the firm took on that issue, prevented a disaster and got 3 new premium clients from the PR

• Client #5 (contributing $180K) was planning an international expansion but hadn’t mentioned it because “we figured you only do California law” The firm opened two giant files with many more coming from that industry

Their total revenue expansion after six months from these three existing clients was projected to be Total $1.4M in that fiscal year… and they were all premium clients, no garbage painful work.

None of it required a sales funnel. It required actual strategic thinking about client problems.

That’s the difference between big-firm copycat strategy and small-firm guerilla reality.

Big firms can afford to build process-driven business development because they have brand recognition doing 70% of the work. When you’re at Goldman Sachs, prospects show up pre-sold.

When you’re a 12-person professional services firm, every new client relationship costs you 6-9 months of trust-building and 40+ hours of senior partner time. You can’t scale that through automation as you will throw money away and not focus on what matters building a brand reputation amongst the community who needs you.

You scale it by making existing clients more successful and becoming strategically irreplaceable to them.

The firms that win at this level don’t ask “How do we get more leads?”

They ask: “What would make our best clients feel genuinely stupid for working with anyone else?” Revenue and profits rise, brand reputation grows, and you scale to a point where you can implement a Yankee strategy.

That’s is how to win with constrained resources. This is the Moneyball angle to scaling

Beauty Brands: The Sephora Fantasy

Beauty brand founders make a different version of the same mistake.

The Wrong Question: “How do we get into Sephora?”

I’ve watched beauty startups spend 24 months and burn through $800K+ chasing Sephora placement. They hire brand consultants. They reformulate for retail packaging requirements. They attend trade shows, networking with buyers.

Here’s what nobody tells them about the actual economics:

Sephora’s standard terms for emerging brands: 50-55% wholesale margin, 90-120 day payment cycles, co-op marketing fees (typically 3-5% of wholesale revenue), markdown allowances, giant free sample demands straining cashflow and profitability and full risk on unsold inventory.

Translation: You’re selling a $42 retail product for $21 wholesale. After your COGS at $8 and packaging at $3, you’re at $10 margin per unit. Sephora wants you to fund 4% co-op marketing. You’re now at $9.16 per unit.

You need to move 1,500 units per month just to cover the cost of the merchandising support they require.

If the product doesn’t hit velocity targets in 90 days, you’re getting pulled from shelves. You still don’t get paid for 120 days. And you’re competing against Estée Lauder, L’Oréal, and LVMH brands that have $50M marketing budgets and 40 years of retail relationships.

For a brand doing $1.8M in revenue with 8 months of runway, those economics are a death trap.

They sign anyway because they think Sephora placement equals validation.

The Real Question: “Where can we build margin and proof of concept that makes us attractive to acquirers who already have Sephora distribution?”

Example: Clean skincare brand. Sub-$2M revenue. Founder spent 16 months trying to get Sephora meetings.

I asked: “Who are the 100 customers who would subscribe to monthly product delivery at full margin if you solved their actual skin concerns instead of just selling them products?”

The response… “That’s not scale. I need retail distribution.”

My response… “You need cash flow and proof that customers will pay premium prices for your product repeatedly. Please answer my question.”

She identified high-end aesthetician practices, dermatology clinics, and medical spas. Small operations. 1-3 locations. Decision-maker was the owner or practice manager.

She offered them a simple partnership: Exclusive access to her line for their clients. Professional pricing (60% of retail). She’d train their staff on proper product sequencing. They’d integrate her products into their treatment protocols.

No Sephora shelf fees. No 120-day payment terms. No competing with 200 other serums.

First year result: $420K in additional revenue from 17 partnerships with 73% gross margin. Customer lifetime value: $840 (vs. $180 from typical retail one-time purchases). Second year: $890K from 34 partnerships.

Then something interesting happened.

A mid-size beauty company with existing Sephora distribution approached her for acquisition. Why? Because she had something they couldn’t build: proven repeat purchase behavior, clinical partnerships validating efficacy, and 73% margins that gave them room to absorb Sephora’s terms.

They paid 4.2x revenue for the business.

She got to Sephora. Just not the way she originally planned.

The acquiring company had the scale, the buyer relationships, and the marketing budget to make Sephora placement profitable. She built the proof-of-concept and margin structure that made her business worth buying.

That’s the pattern big beauty brands miss when they advise startups.

Estée Lauder can afford Sephora’s terms because they’re moving 50,000 units per SKU per month with products that have 30+ years of brand equity and manufacturing scale that drives COGS down to $2.40 per unit.

You’re not Estée Lauder.

You’re a $1.8M beauty brand trying to survive long enough to become a $5M beauty brand, or an acquisition target for someone who can actually win at retail.

The strategies that work at $500M will kill you at $1.8M.

Subscribe now

The Reframe Framework

Here’s what I do when a client comes to me saying they need to “scale” or “grow”:

Step 1: Define actual constraints

Not aspirational constraints. Not “if we just had more capital” constraints. Real constraints.

• Current revenue

• Current margin structure

• Available cash runway

• Senior leadership capacity (hours per week they can actually execute)

• Existing customer/client relationships that could expand

Most businesses lie to themselves here. They pretend they have more capacity, more capital, or more leverage than they do.

Get honest about what you actually have to deploy.

Step 2: Identify the expensive assumption

Every business operates on assumptions borrowed from bigger companies.

“We need a sales team.”
“We need to diversify our customer base.”
“We need to automate our fulfillment.”

Maybe. Or maybe those assumptions cost $200K to implement and return nothing because they’re solving problems you don’t have yet.

Find the assumption that’s bleeding resources without producing wins.

Step 3: Ask the small ball question

“What produces a win with the resources we have right now?”

Not “eventually.” Not “once we raise capital.” Right now.

For professional services: It’s almost always relationship depth with existing clients.

For beauty brands: It’s almost always direct channel control that builds proof of concept for acquisition.

For agencies: It’s almost always becoming strategically irreplaceable to 3-5 core clients instead of project vendors to 30.

Step 4: Execute the unsexy strategy

This is where most businesses fail.

The small ball strategy is never sexy. It doesn’t make for good LinkedIn content. It doesn’t impress other founders. It’s not “scalable” in the way VCs talk about scale.

But it wins.

Beane’s scouts hated his approach. It wasn’t traditional baseball. It wasn’t about “the eye test” or “championship pedigree.”

It was about getting on base for $40 million. And it took the A’s to the playoffs.

Your version of “get on base” won’t look like growth hacking or viral marketing or building a sales machine.

It’ll look like deeply solving real problems for the people already paying you, in ways that make expansion inevitable.

The Diagnostic Questions

If you’re running a business under $20M, ask yourself these:

1. Am I trying to solve problems I don’t have yet?

“We need better systems before we scale” is code for “I’m solving a $10M problem at $2M revenue.”

You don’t need systems. You need revenue.

2. What would my top 5 clients/customers pay me 2-3x for that I’m not currently offering?

If you don’t know, you haven’t asked. That’s a relationship depth problem, not a growth problem.

3. Where am I competing on the same terms as companies with 10x my resources?

If you’re bidding against firms with dedicated sales teams and you have one founder doing everything, you’re playing the wrong game.

4. What can I own completely with my current capacity?

Not “access.” Own. Control. Where you set terms instead of accepting them.

5. If I had to become profitable in 90 days with zero additional capital, what would I do differently?

That answer is probably your actual strategy. Everything else is an expensive distraction.

When the Experts Want to Be Right More Than They Want to Win

Here’s what most people miss about that Moneyball scene.

Billy Beane didn’t convince his scouts. They hated his approach. They thought he was destroying baseball. They wanted to be right about “the eye test” and “championship pedigree” more than they wanted to win games with a $40 million payroll.

So Beane didn’t waste time convincing them.

He convinced the owner. The guy writing the checks who needed wins, not validation from other scouts.

That’s exactly what I do.

When a founder calls me, they’re usually surrounded by “experts” telling them what they should do:

• Their marketing agency says they need a rebrand and a funnel

• Their business coach says they need to work on their mindset

• Their lawyer says they need to incorporate in Delaware

• Their accountant says they need better bookkeeping systems

All of those people might be right in isolation. But none of them are asking: “What problem are we solving with the resources we have right now?”

The founder doesn’t need more advice from people who want to be right about their domain expertise.

They need someone who wants them to win.

That’s why I work with partners and founders, not their teams. The teams want to defend their existing approach. The decision-makers want results.

I don’t convince the scouts. I help the owners see what game they’re actually playing, and how to win it with what they’ve got.

Because here’s the truth:

The businesses that survive under $20M don’t have the luxury of being right about strategy. They need to be effective with constraints.

The law firm that spends $60K on a marketing system might be “right” that they need better lead generation. But if it doesn’t produce $200K in new revenue within 6 months, they’re out of business.

The beauty brand that spends 18 months chasing Sephora might be “right” that retail distribution is the ultimate goal. But if they burn through their runway before getting there, they never make it.

The professional services firm that builds elaborate systems for scale might be “right” that they’ll need those systems eventually. But if they’re not profitable enough to survive until “eventually,” it doesn’t matter.

Billy Beane knew he couldn’t play the Yankees’ game with the A’s resources.

Most small business owners are trying to play the Yankees’ game with the A’s budget, because everyone around them is telling them that’s what “real businesses” do.

I help them play the game they can actually win. I specialize in guerrilla tactics that win

Not the game that looks impressive. Not the game that fits the template. Not the game that makes other founders envious at conferences.

The game where they’re still standing in 24 months. Profitable. With leverage.

Then they can play bigger. From strength. On their terms.

Everything else is just scouts talking about a player’s girlfriend while the season slips away.

Subscribe now

This is the Paper Tiger problem. And it’s bleeding companies dry.

What a Sniper Taught Me About Boardrooms

During my service in elite units, I spent days in a hide site, motionless, waiting. The target would appear, then disappear. Hours would pass. The amateur pulls the trigger on the first flash of movement. The professional waits for certainty.

In 2019, I watched a $12M manufacturing company nearly collapse because their CEO couldn’t wait. They had six months of strong sales and immediately: expanded to three new markets, doubled headcount, and signed a 10-year lease on premium office space.

When their major client delayed a contract renewal (normal in that industry), they had zero runway. The CEO had optimized for the appearance of growth, the new office, the hiring announcements, the expansion press releases, instead of building actual resilience.

The company that survived? Their competitor who stayed in the same modest facility, banked their profits, and maintained a 12-month cash reserve. Less impressive on LinkedIn. Alive when the market tightened. The take away dont act like a pubesent male when it comes to opportunity, act like the old bull and be alive to moements that actually require urgenucy as opposed to simple opportunity.

That’s when you see leadership in action, rather than peacocking at opportunity.

Share

The Three Signatures of a Paper Tiger Leader

1. Speed Over Patience (The Optics Trap)

Paper Tigers make decisions fast because fast looks decisive. Substance leaders make decisions right.

I saw this clearly with a tech startup CEO in Vancouver. Raised $3M, immediately started talking about “blitzscaling.” Within 90 days: new C-suite, expensive downtown office, and a product pivot away from their core competency.

The pivot failed. The C-suite quit. The office sat half-empty, lawsuits emerged, bill collectors line up at the door. The company burned through $2.1M before returning to their original product, 18 months behind where they started.

Compare this to a $15M logistics company I advise. When a major opportunity emerged to expand into the U.S. market, the CEO spent three months conducting reconnaissance: flew to four cities, interviewed potential customers. We mapped the actual regulatory landscape, and built financial models for three different entry strategies as available ‘course of action’ and wargamed them against three scenarios to choose a path that made the most sense..

They entered one market, not four. Grew 40% year-over-year. No drama, no pivots, no emergency board meetings.

Patience looks like inaction to the people who are disappointed by the decision to slow down their desired end state. But survival and success demand courage, character and consistency.

2. Hiding Over Standing (The Accountability Gap)

During mortar attacks in-theater, two types of leaders emerge: those who find cover, and those who run toward the impact zone to account for their people.

In business, this shows up in how leaders handle problems.

A retail company I consulted with had a sexual harassment complaint. The CEO’s first response: “Let’s handle this quietly.” Translation: protect the company’s image over addressing the actual problem.

The harassment continued. Three more complaints emerged. A lawsuit followed. Settlement: $1,340,000. But the real cost? Loss of two high-performers who left because leadership wouldn’t act, and a culture where people stopped reporting problems altogether.

The pattern is identical across industries: Paper Tigers hide from uncomfortable truths. They restructure departments to avoid firing poor performers and hide behind HR. They create “task forces” instead of making decisions. They use consultants to deliver bad news they should deliver it themselves.

Substance leaders run toward the fire. Paper Tigers send someone else and answer useless emails..

3. Appearance Over Reality (The Façade Economy)

I’ve sat through dozens of boardroom presentations where CEOs showcase:

• “Culture initiatives” (mandatory fun that everyone hates)

• “Innovation labs” (expensive rooms where nothing gets built)

• “Strategic partnerships” (press releases with no revenue)

Then I ask two questions that Paper Tigers cannot answer:

“What is the stupidest thing we do here?”
“Who are you actually afraid of?”

If the leadership team deflects, jokes, or provides a safe answer, you’ve found your Paper Tigers.

A $8M professional services firm couldn’t answer either question. After 2 days of interviews with their team, I found:

• They were spending $45,000 annually on industry awards no client cared about

• Their “streamlined processes” actually required 14 approval steps for basic decisions

• The CFO was running a shadow empire, every decision required his sign-off, creating bottlenecks across the company

None of this appeared in their glossy annual report. All of it was killing their business. None of the leaders had the courage to say what was wrong out loud and simply worked to expand their empires amid the dysfunction.

Share

The Inoculation Protocol: Building Anti-Fragile Organizations

The military doesn’t build resilience through motivational speeches. It builds resilience through controlled stress.

Here’s how to stress-test your organization:

The Red Team Exercise

Take your next major strategic initiative. Now assign your smartest people to destroy it.

Not to poke holes. Not to “identify risks.” To kill it with the ferocity of your most dangerous competitor.

A $6M SaaS company I work with was planning a major product expansion. During their Red Team exercise, their senior developer (who’d been quiet in planning meetings) systematically demolished the technical architecture. Cost to discover this in the planning room: $0. Cost if they’d discovered it post-launch: minimum $400,000+ in rework and lost contracts.

If your leadership team takes the attack personally, you’ve found your Paper Tigers. If they adapt the strategy and counter-attack with evidence, you’ve found substance.

The After Action Review (No Bullshit Edition)

In elite units, after every operation, rank disappears. Everyone, from the most junior member to the commander, analyzes what went wrong. No feelings get spared. No careers get protected. The only thing that matters is: What actually happened, and how do we improve?

Most companies can’t do this. They do “post-mortems” where everyone agrees it was “a learning experience” and nobody names the VP whose decision cost them six months.

Real AARs require:

• Anonymity where needed (so people tell the truth)

• Consequences where earned (so the truth matters)

• Focus on process, not people (though sometimes people are the process problem)

A manufacturing company implemented real AARs after a failed product launch. First session: uncomfortable silence. Third session: their head of operations admitted his team wasn’t ready and he’d agreed to the timeline due to political pressure. Six months later, launch success rate improved 60%.

The organizations that win aren’t the ones that never fail. They’re the ones who learn faster from failure.

The Recovering Lawyer Advantage

As a trial lawyer, I learned a critical truth: you cannot win on vibes. You win on facts.

When a CEO tells me “Our culture is great,” I respond like I’m cross-examining a witness:

• “Prove it. Show me your retention data.”

• “Show me your anonymous exit interviews.”

• “Show me your Glassdoor reviews you didn’t pay to remove.”

This adversarial approach strips away the façade. Most organizations cannot produce this evidence. They have the appearance of culture (pizza Fridays, mission statements, motivational posters) without the substance (people who stay, perform, and recommend others join).

A $20M distribution company claimed they had “strong leadership pipeline.” I asked to see their succession plans. They had none. I asked who could run each division if the current leader left tomorrow. Silence.

Eighteen months later, their VP of Sales quit unexpectedly. They promoted someone unprepared internally. Revenue dropped 22% that quarter. The cost of not having real succession planning: approximately $1.2M in lost revenue and 8 months of recovery time.

The Last 10%

The first 90% of anything is easy. Anyone can start a business. Anyone can lead when conditions are favorable. Anyone can make money in a bull market.

The Paper Tigers live in the 90%.

The last 10% is where substance reveals itself:

• Holding your position when everyone else is panicking

• Making the difficult call that protects long-term value over short-term optics

• Firing the high-performer who’s toxic to culture

• Admitting you were wrong and pivoting

I watched a CEO face this decision: their VP of Sales was their top revenue generator ($4M annually) but was systematically destroying team morale. Three good people had quit. Two more were interviewing elsewhere.

Paper Tiger decision: Keep the VP, maybe “coach” them, hope it improves.

Substance decision: Fire the VP, rebuild the team, accept short-term revenue hit for long-term health.

They chose substance. Revenue dipped 15% for two quarters. Then recovered. Then exceeded previous levels by 30% because the new team actually collaborated instead of competing internally.

The last 10% is where Paper Tigers get exposed and substance leaders separate themselves.

The Rogue Imperative

“Rogue” isn’t a rejection of order. It’s a rejection of mediocrity.

In a business environment that rewards appearance over reality, quarterly optics over long-term substance, and consensus over conviction, the Rogue is the leader who refuses to participate in the fraud.

Whether you’re holding a position under fire or holding a CEO accountable in a boardroom, the mechanism of success is identical:

Wait for the shot. (Patience over speed)
Endure the conditions. (Resilience over comfort)
Ensure the target is real. (Substance over optics)

Great leadership is a discipline. It requires suppressing your ego when everyone’s celebrating, standing firm when everyone’s hiding, and being real when everyone’s performing.

If you find a leader who waits when others rush, stands when others hide, and stays real when others perform, follow them. They’ll take you through the fire.

If you can be that leader, you’ll rarely need to look back to see if anyone’s following.

Because true substance, like gravity, doesn’t require belief. It simply pulls.

What’s the stupidest thing your company does? Hit reply. I’ll tell you if you’re right.

Subscribe now