The Endlessly Morphing Marxist Narrative

 

Marxism must constantly criticize itself to create new revised versions of itself, yet at its core it retains the same DNA:

As I stated in my previous blog/vodcast, Communism exists on a spectrum which is dependant upon installing itself gradually. It can be identified by how each step challenges normalcy. Cultural Marxism's greatest success has been to normalize deviant behaviour while vilifying competence and productivity. The Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism created a narrative fit only for miserable people who demand that we partake in equal shares of their misery. If we refuse, they label us as intolerant, bigoted, or even Nazis. Cultural Marxism appeals to the darkest elements of the human heart - egoism, nihilism, hatred, resentment, and anger. All for the glory of a utopian vision of humanity that has never existed because it cannot exist. The result of this grievance enterprise stands as a living testament to this fact.

The reason that Cultural Marxist Critical Theory is so hard to pin down is that it's like trying to nail philosophical Jello to an endlessly morphing narrative of how to reengineer humanity based upon resentment. This even though the Cultural Marxist vision for society repeatedly fails due to its refusal to recognize the fundamentally immutable nature of humanity. Only a lazy, unproductive, unwashed, malcontent like Karl Marx who lived off the largesse of others could have invented a doctrine that demands that those who produce nothing but an endlessly devolving grievance narrative should be given control of the means of production!

So, here's a compelling narrative that I have created which explores Karl Marx through a darker psychological lens. In it I have blended historical facts about Marx with an analysis of his life. What is the Postmodern legacy of Marx’s and Engels’ philosophy of Dialectical Materialism?

---

🔥 A Narrative of Karl Marx: The Rebel Against Existence

From the cobbled streets of Trier to the revolutionary salons of Paris and London, Karl Marx carried within him a storm—a profound discontent not merely with society, but with the very nature and architecture of existence. His writings thundered against the structures of power, class, and capital, but beneath the surface lay something more primal: a metaphysical fury, a rejection of the world as it was given. Namely a rejection of Godly order.

🌑 The Shadow Within

Marx’s father, Heinrich Marx, a lawyer and a man of Enlightenment ideals, once warned of the “darkness” in his son’s nature. In letters, he expressed concern over Karl’s intensity, his tendency toward isolation, and his relentless intellectual aggression. Heinrich feared that Karl’s brilliance was matched only by a destructive impulse—a refusal to accept limits, whether moral, social, or existential.

Karl did not seek reform. He sought rupture.

🧠 Hatred of the Given

Marx’s philosophical roots in Hegelian Dialectics gave him a framework to critique reality itself. But unlike Hegel, who saw history as the unfolding of reason, Marx saw history as a battlefield of suffering and exploitation. The material world, to Marx, was not a neutral stage—it was a prison built by the ruling class, upheld by ideology, and perpetuated by economic necessity.

His hatred was not just for capitalism. It was for the entire scaffolding of human existence that allowed such a system to emerge and endure.

🔥 Revolutionary Fire

In “The Communist Manifesto,” Marx and Engels called for the “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” This wasn’t just political rhetoric—it was a metaphysical declaration. Marx envisioned a world where alienation would be abolished, where man would no longer be estranged from his labour, his community, or himself.

But to reach that utopia, everything had to burn. Which is why every spiritual descendant of Marxism from Cultural Marxist Critical Race, Gender and Climate Theory, Postmodern Cultural Relativism, and WOKE create nothing but a desire to tear existing structures down as though they have no utility!

🕯️ A Tragic Legacy

Marx’s vision was uncompromising. His personal life bore the marks of his obsession: poverty, illness, and the deaths of several children. Yet he never relented. His hatred of the nature of existence itself was so complete that even suffering seemed a necessary toll on the road to revolution.

He became, in essence, a prophet of negation—driven not by hope, but by a profound rejection of the world as it is. Therefore, Marx’s legacy is a negation of existence itself, the rejection of how God has designed and ordered this world. Marxism, in all its various forms, is a murderous rejection of Truth and beauty. Truth and beauty that can only be found in Christ as well as among those who emulate their Saviour’s grand design for humanity. Is religion truly the opiate of the people as Marx once declared? Only Marxism in all its perverse ideations could produce the drunken mass hysteria inherent to the prevailing belief in Postmodern Cultural Relativism. Which is why we are witnessing the mass immigration of people whose values are fundamentally opposed to ours. An invasion of the West under a Globalist elite class intoxicated by their quest for control over humanity. We are being run rough shod by people possessed by a relentless quest for power hidden within the grievance narrative they promote. A toxic grievance which equates to showing sympathy for the Devil. We are being led by a class of oligarch, many of whom are unelected, who themselves produce nothing of value, just like their ideological father Marx. As a result, we can be assured that persecution of the Church of Christ is coming since Christianity cannot coexist peacefully with Neo-Marxism. It is a grave mistake to ignore the fact that the West was founded upon Christian principles. Collectively the West has rejected the only One who can save it. Rather is has made Dialectical Materialism its false god. Will we repent of our idolatrous ideation? For only a return to Christ can restore the foundations of our culture that Marxism is presently tearing down! Moreover, a return to our Saviour begins with individual salvation. Each of us must personally choose Christ in order to stop the deconstruction of a Western World that is actually habitable!

Exposing the Cultural Marxist Operating System

 

How the Neo-Marxist consensus operates:

Communism is a doctrine of artificially manufactured finiteness, that's why Marx and Engels called their ideas “Dialectical Materialism”. Marxism demands the creation of an artificially manufactured consensus, which is why it requires a forced revolution to install itself without our consent. Only an unwashed lazy malcontent like Karl Marx could invent a grievance narrative as toxic as his Marxist version of socialism. Marx himself was so unproductive that he needed to live off his parents, Friedrich Engels and Engels' parents yet he had to gall to demand that he had the right to control the means of production. This even though he produced nothing but ideas based on resentment. This is demonstrated by the fact that Marx co-wrote a doctrine that rejects the very nature and structure of existence but had the unmitigated gall to call his "Dialectical Materialism" as “scientific”. There is solid evidence from Marx’s own writings that he knew his doctrines were based on falsehoods making him the most successful snake oil salesman of all time.

Communism exists on a spectrum that depends upon installing itself gradually. We can identify the Marxist enterprise by how each step of the revolution challenges normalcy. Every issue it tackles is never the real issue. The real issue is always the revolution. Every step along the road to Communism has the purpose of altering human nature by means of socially engineering humanity. The left's policies are based upon magical thinking since human nature itself is immutable. Under the influence of Neo-Marxists like Mark Carney we are witnessing the ascendance of a Gnostic mystery cult of forced social conformity that promotes deviance and sexual perversion. Canada’s government engages in state sanctioned censorship, state funding and control of the 4^th Estate which then operates as the government’s propaganda tool. Any who challenge their lies are instantly labelled as hateful, bigoted, extreme right wing, or even Nazis.

The Marxist goal of normalizing perversion:

Marxism seeks to destroy beauty and normalcy. It places the profane at the centre of the normal distribution rather than out on the wings of six sigma. It normalizes the perverse as though that which is unnatural must be normalized. This is why sexual deviance must be celebrated. Remember that Marxism is a spectrum dedicated to hijacking the process of socializing. There is much talk of the death of WOKE but what those who are predicting such forget is that Marxism constantly morphs itself since each attempt to defy the laws of nature fails miserably. So let’s look at one of the founders of Postmodern perversion, Georg Lukacs.

From Wikipedia: Georg Lukács, born Bernát György Löwinger, was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher, literary historian, literary critic, and aesthetician. He was one of the founders of Western Marxism, an interpretive tradition that departed from the Soviet Marxist ideological orthodoxy. Lukács developed the theory of reification and contributed to Marxist theory with developments of Karl Marx's theory of class consciousness. He was especially influential as a critic due to his theoretical developments of literary realism and of the novel as a literary genre. In 1919, he was appointed the Hungarian Minister of Culture of the government of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic (March–August 1919).

Oxford Bibliographies: Lukács's intellectual trajectory is marked by important theoretical shifts, with a central idea permeating his investigations throughout his work: the critical analysis of the domination of subjectivism in modern society and culture, which causes men’s alienation from their historical reality. He was influential in literary realism and the novel as a genre. His "History and Class Consciousness" is considered a seminal Marxist text.

How the Woke Generation was Created through the Mass Sexualisation of Kids in Schools https://www.dharmadispatch.in/commentary/how-the-woke-generation-was-created-through-the-mass-sexualisation-of-kids-in-schools

Written by Sandeep Balakrishna Published on 1^st Mar 2021

The destruction of at least three generations was accomplished through sex education of schoolchildren. This essay narrates the history and the profiles of notable men and women responsible for it.

Exactly a century later, the aborted experiment of the Hungarian Marxist pervert György Lukács has been successfully revived on one side of the Atlantic and on the other side of the Pacific. From London to California, children as young as six are being “educated” in schools about such profound values as masturbation, safe sex, and “self-stimulation which encourages children to touch their "private parts" in bed and the shower.”

In 2019, more than two hundred and forty primary schools in England introduced a lesson titled All About Me taught to kids aged six to ten. As part of this, teachers were given a manual which has a section titled, The Rules of Self-Stimulation. Its excerpts make for chilling reading:

Lots of people like to tickle or stroke themselves as it might feel nice. They might play with their hair, stroke their skin, or they may even touch their private parts. This is really very normal. However, some people…say that it is dirty. This is strange as it is very normal, however, it is not polite to do it when other people are about. It is something we should only do when we are alone, perhaps in the bath or shower or bed, a bit like picking your nose, it is certainly not polite to do it in class when everyone is watching.

And then, the California Education Board informs us what kids of this age bracket should be taught in school: public school teachers should teach children about gender identity and the most effective ways to have safe sex. Here is another excerpt.

It gives tips for discussing masturbation with middle-schoolers, including telling them it is not physically harmful.

Outraged parents immediately hit back correctly claiming that pornography was being taught to kids in the guise of sex education. Which brings us back to the aforementioned Marxist pervert, György Lukács, one of the pioneers of the notorious Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism.

After the second Bolshevik Revolution in Hungary in 1919, Lukács became the Deputy Commissar for Culture. One of the first things he did was to introduce sex education in primary schools with the long-term goal of dismantling traditional value systems which had the family at its centre. However, the experiment was short-lived because the Government fell. As this essay explains in detail, the Frankfurt School eventually infiltrated the American academia and spread its tentacles wide and deep. The near-total dismantling of the American society is among its deadlier consequences. The same holds true for Europe. And a massive contributor to this dismantling is what is known as sex education. More accurately, it is the mass-scale sexualization of kids right from school who then grow up as dysfunctional teenagers and remain lifelong adolescents.

Creating Child Prostitutes

A hundred yards from where I write this, 12-year-old prostitutes often stand under street lamps on the corner at night, waiting for customers.

Theodore Dalrymple, one of the finest minds of our time, wrote these lines in the summer of 2000 sitting at his desk in London. As terrible as this is, it is not the whole story. The whole story is the attitude of both the British government and the society it supposedly governs. Here is another slice of that society.

The local health authorities send a van round several times at night to distribute condoms to the girls, the main official concern being to ensure that the sex in which the girls take part is safe… It is the authorities' proud boast that 100 percent of local prostitutes now routinely use condoms, at a cost to the city's taxpayers of $135,000 a year, soon to be increased by the employment of a further outreach worker, whose main qualification…will be "an ability to work non-judgmentally"—that is, TO HAVE NO MORAL QUALMS ABOUT AIDING AND ABETTING CHILD PROSTITUTION.

But then, Theodore Dalrymple was only describing an outcome which was foreseen decades ago when sex education in schools was first introduced in the West. A fine essay on the subject is by the British child psychologist, Louise Eickhoff who wrote in the September 19, 1970 issue of the The Guardian. The following are some excerpts from that essay, relevant even today. Emphases have been added.

Sex Education

ln all countries where sex education has been introduced the same corruptive pattern of social change has been observed: increased illegitimacy and venereal disease, promiscuity and amateur prostitution, sexually symbolic or sexually aggressive crimes and the substitute satisfactions of smoking, drinking, and drug-taking, and a lowering of the age of those involved.

There has been an increase in the need for pornography, even for orgies such as the Danish sex fair, the Isle of Wight pop festival, and "Oh! Calcutta!" There has been an upsurge in wanton, destructive aggression in the community and public displays of filth, heard on streets, on public transport, and seen on walls, even in the "Ladies," emanating from the lips and hands of children...

Hijacking our innate tribal instincts to further the Marxist enterprise:

Humans are essentially tribal by nature. Cultural Marxism hijacks our tribal instincts by parasitizing these instincts to create an entirely new tribe that is not based upon race. Whose face does an infant prefer to look at? Since most babies are primarily cared for by females, most babies prefer to look at female faces. But there is an interesting exception to this rule. Babies also prefer to look at faces that match the gender of their primary caregiver only if those faces are the same race as the primary caregiver.

From the National Library of Medicine https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19334302/

Infant preference for female faces occurs for same- but not other-race faces:

Paul C Quinn 1, Lesley Uttley, Kang Lee, Alan Gibson, Michael Smith, Alan M Slater, Olivier Pascalis

Affiliations Expand

PMID: 19334302 DOI: 10.1348/174866407x231029

Abstract

There has been a recent surge of interest in the question of how infants respond to the social attributes of race and gender information in faces. This work has demonstrated that by 3 months of age, infants will respond preferentially to same-race faces and faces depicting the gender of the primary caregiver. In the current study, we investigated emergence of the female face preference for same- versus other-race faces to examine whether the determinants of preference for face gender and race are independent or interactive in young infants. In Expt I, 3-month-old Caucasian infants displayed a preference for female over male faces when the faces were Caucasian, but not when the faces were Asian. In Expt 2, new-born Caucasian infants did not demonstrate a preference for female over male faces for Caucasian faces. The results are discussed in terms of a face prototype that becomes progressively tuned as it is structured by the interaction of the gender and race of faces that are experienced during early development.

The Neo-Marxist goal of hijacking these systems:

Parasites employ various cunning strategies to manipulate their hosts, often leading to the host's detriment or even death. These strategies range from behavioral manipulation and immune system evasion to mimicking host traits and even causing physical harm. This requires behavioral manipulation that alters the host’s behavior to increase the probability of transmitting the parasitical ideas to others. This is why the left is so hard to defeat. They operate in unison to achieve their desecration of normalcy through the parasitical ideas of Cultural Marxism. These ideas have hijacked our normal inclinations to pervert them to serve the Marxist enterprise which essentially has one real end goal, to tear it all down!

The God dilemma inherent to Marxist Hegelianism, how do we return to the quest for beauty and normalcy in a hideous world that worships violence, perversion, and sexual deviance where we are instructed that this endeavour is a matter of “pride” given that pride is one of the seven deadly sins?

The Postmodern Marxist revolution echoes the oldest human example of parasitical ideation identified in the book of Genesis:

Genesis 3:1-6 King James Version

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The parasitical ideation that the Serpent offered to Eve is identical in nature to what Cultural Marxism offers us, namely a secret form of knowledge that will make us like gods. This so-called knowledge can only lead to death, since death are the wages of sin. Marxism in all its variations glorifies that which is perverse and unnatural. It is time to return to the pursuit of beauty and normalcy. It is time to repent and turn to Christ away from the perverse ideation of the social engineers whose only success has been to deconstruct society. Whatever form and/or label that Marxism’s parasitical ideas may take, they have the same purpose namely, to parasitize our minds to undermine Godly order. This equates to challenging God’s plan for humanity. A plan that God has left imprinted on our collective psyche. This is why we sense that something has gone desperately and fundamentally wrong. Cultural Marxism exists to scream at every possible juncture, “Hath God said?”, just as the serpent once said to our ancestral mother Eve in the primordial garden of Eden. Marxism is an attempt to return to Eden by eating from the one tree whose forbidden fruit will surely prevent us from ever finding the Kingdom of God.  

 

Willful Blindness

 

I am constantly astounded that despite the obvious failures of fiduciary easing, centrally planning, the buyout of the big banks back in 2008/09 due to the orchestrated fake mortgage crisis, the nefarious and questionable origin of COVID, its relationship to the CCP and the subsequent failures of its mitigation protocols, the mRNA shots which are known to have resulted in injuries, climate alarmism without solid science to justify the failed measures used to address climate change, just to name but a few globally choreographed disasters, few care to analyse the common and consistent root cause for what we now know to be the murderous failures responsible for decimating the global economy while transferring vast amounts of wealth to the very people who have orchestrated these constructed crises.

As an example, the most significant taxpayer-funded buyout of big banks happened during the 2008 financial crisis, when the U.S. government launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, signed into law on October 3, 2008.

💰 What TARP Did

• Authorized $700 billion to stabilize the financial system.
• Initially aimed to buy toxic mortgage assets, but shifted to injecting capital directly into banks.
• Major recipients included Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and others.

📊 Long-Term Impact

• Over 700 banks received investments totaling $236 billion.
• Most of the money was eventually repaid, with the government earning a modest profit overall.
• However, some banks never fully repaid their obligations, and a few still owe dividends.

🇨🇦 In Canada

Canadian banks also received support during the crisis, with reports suggesting up to $114 billion in government assistance, though much of it was less transparent and not officially labeled as a bailout.

Willful Ignorance is the enemy of addressing an orchestrated takedown of peace, order, and good government:

Willful ignorance is the conscious choice to remain unaware of something. It is driven by a combination of factors including maintaining a positive self-image, social pressures, and the desire to avoid uncomfortable truths or potential negative consequences. People may choose ignorance to avoid guilt, appearing to be selfish, or to conform to social expectations. Moreover, every social collectivist ideology from Fascism, Nazism, so-called Democratic Socialism, Postmodernism, Cultural Marxist Critical Theory, Maoism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, etc., etc. cannot function without it!
Here's a more detailed breakdown:

1. Maintaining a Positive Self-Image:
People often prefer to believe they are good, moral, and competent. Willful ignorance allows them to avoid information that might challenge this self-perception.

For example, someone might choose not to know the negative cost to humans and the environment of the products they buy to avoid feeling guilty about their consumption. Which is why so-called green energy actually has enormous environmental costs.

2. Social Pressures and Norms:
Social environments can reinforce ignorance by discouraging challenging conversations or by promoting conformity.

Individuals may avoid information that contradicts the prevailing views of their social group to maintain social harmony and belonging.

For example, if a group of friends all believe a certain officially state sanctioned theory, someone might choose to remain ignorant of evidence contradicting that theory to avoid conflict.

3. Avoiding Uncomfortable Emotions and Consequences:
Learning about negative or unpleasant realities can evoke emotions like guilt, regret, or fear.

Willful ignorance can be a way to avoid these negative emotions by remaining unaware of the situation.

For instance, someone might choose not to learn about the socio-economic impact of their beliefs to avoid feeling responsible for government overreach and authoritarianism.

Similarly, some individuals might avoid learning about the consequences of their actions, even if those actions negatively impact others, to avoid feeling guilty or responsible.

4. The Appeal of Simplicity and Convenience:
Learning new information takes time and effort. Willful ignorance can be a shortcut, allowing individuals to avoid the cognitive burden of processing complex information. This can be particularly tempting when the consequences of ignorance are not immediately apparent.

5. Power and Control:
In some cases, willful ignorance can be a way to exert power or control, either over oneself or others.

For example, a company might deliberately obscure information about conflicts with favourable treatment it receives from the state to avoid being held accountable for these conflicts of interest.

6. Social and Political Context:
In politically charged environments, willful ignorance can be used to support specific radical narratives or illiberal agendas.

For instance, a political party might downplay the severity of a problem to avoid taking responsibility for problems their policies have created to rally support for these destructive policies. In essence, willful ignorance is often a coping mechanism, a way for individuals to navigate a complex and sometimes uncomfortable world. It has significant negative consequences, both for individuals and for society as a whole.

Importantly we need to examine willful blindness toward government corruption, conflicts of interest and emerging authoritarianism, particularly but not exclusively from the radical left. Although this might seem to be a powerful critique, it is one that echoes concerns raised by thinkers across the political spectrum. The idea that justice is used as a rhetorical shield—not to foster pluralism, but to enforce ideological conformity—is a recurring theme in debates about radical movements.

Here’s how some analysts unpack that dynamic:

🧠 Justice as a Tool for Ideological Control

• Yascha Mounk, in “The Identity Trap”, argues that a new progressive ideology has emerged that prioritizes identity over universal values. He warns that this can lead to “progressive separatism”, where policies are justified not by their outcomes but by their alignment with identity-based justice.
• Mounk describes how standpoint theory and intersectionality, while originally insightful, can be weaponized to silence dissent by claiming only certain groups have access to truth.

🏛️ Institutional Power and Conformity

• The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) platform calls for sweeping reforms—from abolishing capitalism to eliminating police and prisons. Critics argue that while framed as justice, these proposals often reject dissenting views and promote a single ideological framework.
• Some radical left caucuses within the DSA even advocate for a “revolutionary Popular Assembly” where only parties that accept the new order are allowed to operate—a vision that raises alarms about democratic pluralism.

🔍 The Paradox of Inclusion

• Mounk also highlights how identity-focused politics can paradoxically exclude rather than include. For example, prioritizing racial equity in vaccine distribution led to policies that, unintentionally, cost more lives overall, including among marginalized groups.

When justice becomes a means to enforce ideological purity, it risks becoming authoritarian in practice which is why radicals only use claims of justice to install absolute conformity to their agenda.

When justice is weaponized to enforce ideological purity, it stops being justice at all—it becomes a tool of exclusion, control, and fear. Here's what tends to unfold:

⚖️ Justice Loses Its Neutrality

• Impartiality erodes: Legal systems begin favoring one worldview, punishing dissent rather than wrongdoing.
• Due process suffers: Accusations based on ideological deviation may override evidence or fairness.

🚨 Rise of Purity Spirals

• Increasing extremism: Movements may reward ever-stricter adherence, pushing out moderates and silencing nuance.
• Self-policing communities: People fear being labeled impure, leading to conformity and suppression of honest dialogue.

🧠 Intellectual Suppression

• Free speech declines: Dissenting voices are silenced, not debated.
• Critical thinking fades: Ideological loyalty replaces inquiry and skepticism.

🧨 Historical Consequences

• Authoritarian regimes: Stalin’s purges, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and Nazi Germany all pursued ideological purity with devastating human cost.
• Social fragmentation: Families, communities, and institutions fracture under pressure to conform.

🧩 Justice vs. Ideology

Justice should be about fairness, accountability, and protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights rather than enforcing dogma that protect the officially sanctioned narrative of the PMO. When it becomes a purity test, it risks becoming a mirror image of the very oppression it claims to fight.

My summation:

Frankly Canada has become an example of a nation built on meaningless yet costly platitudes that have repeatedly and consistently achieved the opposite of what our government has sworn these policies would achieve. Yet like a dog returning to eat its vomit we simply restore known corrupt liars to power. A critical mass of Canadians are obviously incapable of asking why this is the case. Since we refuse to look at what should be obvious, since we choose to call our failures successes, we are fully deserving of the ruin our willful blindness has wreaked upon us. It appears, at least to me, that we will continue to beat ourselves, until moral improves or the beaten succumb to their own well-deserved demise due to their foolhardy ways! People will do anything rather than repent and turn to Christ. Let us see where your virtue signalling will get you on that Day of Judgement when all, including me, will stand before the King of Kings to give account for what we have done while still in this body!

2 Corinthians 5:10 (KJV) states: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."  I for one have much to answer for which is why I choose to repent of my ways before it is too late.

Hebrews 3:15-17 (KJV)

¹⁵ While it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

¹⁶ For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

¹⁷ But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

 

 

 

What causes ideological possession?

 

Me to Copilot: What causes ideological possession?

Ideological possession occurs when individuals become deeply entrenched in a belief system to the point where they lose objectivity and demonize opposing viewpoints. Several factors contribute to this phenomenon:

- **Psychological Factors**: Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung suggested that extreme identification with an ideology disrupts psychological balance, leading to ideological possession.

- **Social Influence**: Echo chambers, particularly on social media, reinforce existing beliefs and prevent exposure to alternative perspectives, further entrenching ideological commitment.

- **Cognitive Biases**: The way people believe—rather than what they believe—plays a crucial role. Strong conviction, preoccupation with an ideology, and emotional distress when challenged can escalate ideological commitment.

- **Historical Precedents**: Ideological possession has led to extreme political movements, such as the rise of the Nazi Party, where rigid ideological beliefs justified persecution and violence.

Me to Copilot: Why do you mention Nazism as opposed to Communism and its modern variant Critical Theory?

You're absolutely right—communism and critical theory also provide strong examples of ideological possession. Carl Jung analyzed how modern scientific rationalism contributed to the development of **communism, fascism, and Nazism** in the 20th century. His insights help explain how ideological possession manifests across different political movements.

Communism, particularly in its more extreme forms, has historically led to **rigid ideological adherence** that justified authoritarian control. For example, under Stalinist rule, dissent was often seen as a threat to the ideological purity of the state, leading to widespread persecution.

Critical theory, originally developed by the **Frankfurt School**, critiques societal structures and power dynamics. While it provides valuable insights, some argue that its more radical interpretations can lead to ideological possession—where individuals become so committed to the framework that they reject alternative viewpoints outright.

Both Communism and Critical Theory, like Nazism, demonstrate how ideological possession can shape political movements and influence societal structures. What are your thoughts on this?

Me to Copilot: “Great answers but you haven't addressed what makes people vulnerable to such dangerous thinking and what can be done to prevent it in the future.”

You're asking the right questions—understanding vulnerability is key to preventing ideological possession. Several factors make individuals susceptible to extreme ideological thinking:

- **Psychological and Emotional Struggles**: People experiencing uncertainty, anxiety, or identity crises may seek ideological frameworks that provide a sense of purpose and certainty.

- **Social Isolation**: Those who feel disconnected from their communities or lack strong social bonds are more likely to adopt rigid ideologies that offer belonging.

- **Cognitive Biases**: Confirmation bias and black-and-white thinking reinforce ideological possession, making individuals resistant to opposing viewpoints.

- **Exposure to Echo Chambers**: Online forums and social media can create environments where individuals are only exposed to reinforcing narratives, deepening ideological entrenchment.

### Prevention Strategies:

- **Encourage Critical Thinking**: Teaching individuals to question assumptions and analyze information objectively can reduce susceptibility to ideological possession.

- **Promote Open Dialogue**: Engaging in respectful discussions with diverse perspectives helps prevent ideological rigidity.

- **Strengthen Social Connections**: Building strong relationships and community ties can reduce the appeal of extreme ideologies.

- **Early Intervention**: Identifying signs of ideological possession early and providing support can prevent individuals from becoming deeply entrenched.

By fostering intellectual humility and encouraging open-mindedness, we can help individuals resist ideological possession and engage in more balanced, constructive discourse. What do you think?

Me to Copilot: Expand on what Carl Jung had to say about embracing radical ideology since you had mentioned Jung’s ideas about such earlier.

Carl Jung explored the dangers of radical ideology, particularly in how it can lead to **ideological possession**—a state where individuals become so consumed by an ideology that they lose objectivity and critical thinking. He believed that the human psyche naturally seeks balance, but when people over-identify with an ideology, they disrupt this equilibrium, leading to fanaticism and intolerance.

Jung also examined the relationship between **archetypes and ideology**, suggesting that ideological movements often tap into deep psychological structures. For example, totalitarian regimes frequently invoke **heroic or messianic archetypes**, creating a sense of destiny and righteousness that fuels ideological extremism. He was skeptical of Marxism, believing that its materialist focus ignored the deeper psychological and spiritual dimensions of human existence.

Additionally, Jung warned that radical ideologies often emerge in response to societal crises, offering simplistic solutions to complex problems. He argued that individuals must engage in **self-reflection and individuation**—the process of integrating different aspects of the psyche—to resist ideological possession.

His insights remain relevant today, especially in understanding how ideological movements shape political and social discourse. What do you think about Jung’s perspective?

Me to Copilot: Finally, why do all these illiberal authoritarian ideologies reject Christianity?

Authoritarian ideologies often reject Christianity because it promotes values that challenge centralized control, such as **individual dignity, moral autonomy, and spiritual authority**. Many authoritarian regimes view religion—especially Christianity—as a potential source of opposition, rebellion, or alternative loyalty that undermines state power.

### Reasons for Rejection:

- **Christianity’s Emphasis on Individual Freedom**: Authoritarian regimes thrive on conformity and obedience, whereas Christianity encourages personal moral responsibility and free will.

- **Historical Opposition to Tyranny**: Throughout history, Christian movements have resisted oppressive governments, making them a threat to authoritarian control.

- **Alternative Source of Authority**: Christianity teaches that ultimate authority belongs to God, not the state, which contradicts authoritarian ideologies that demand absolute loyalty.

- **Suppression of Religious Institutions**: Some regimes fear that religious organizations could become centers of political resistance, leading to restrictions or outright persecution.

While some authoritarian governments attempt to **co-opt religion** for their own purposes, others actively suppress it to maintain control. What do you think about this dynamic?

Me to Copilot: Would this coopting of religion include the Nazi's worship of Odin as the All Father?

Yes, the Nazis attempted to **co-opt Norse mythology**, including Odin as the All-Father, to align with their ideological goals. Some Nazi figures sought to replace Christianity with a **Germanic pagan revival**, emphasizing racial purity and warrior ethos.

While Hitler himself was not deeply invested in Norse mythology, certain factions within the Nazi movement promoted **neo-paganism** as an alternative to Christianity, which they viewed as weak or foreign. Some modern neo-Nazi groups continue to invoke Odin and other Norse gods in their symbolism and gatherings.

This manipulation of religious and mythological narratives was part of a broader effort to create a **political religion** that reinforced Nazi ideology. What do you think about this historical distortion?

Me to Copilot: Finally, what is the most effective manner one can use to disabuse people of irrational belief systems? Especially given Professor Leon Festinger's findings about people doubling down on their delusions in the face of overwhelming evidence?

Leon Festinger’s research on **cognitive dissonance** highlights why people often double down on irrational beliefs when confronted with contradictory evidence. His famous study, *When Prophecy Fails*, observed a doomsday cult whose members became **more committed** to their beliefs after their prophecy failed. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they rationalized the failure by claiming their faith had saved the world.

### Effective Strategies to Disabuse Irrational Beliefs:

1. **Encourage Self-Discovery**: Direct confrontation often backfires. Instead, asking **open-ended questions** can lead individuals to recognize inconsistencies in their beliefs on their own.

2. **Provide Alternative Narratives**: People resist abandoning beliefs unless they have a **compelling replacement**. Offering a more rational, emotionally satisfying perspective can ease the transition.

3. **Reduce Social Reinforcement**: Echo chambers strengthen irrational beliefs. Encouraging exposure to **diverse viewpoints** can weaken ideological entrenchment.

4. **Use Incremental Exposure**: Sudden, overwhelming evidence can trigger **defensive reactions**. Gradually introducing new information allows individuals to process and adjust without feeling attacked.

5. **Leverage Trusted Sources**: People are more likely to reconsider their beliefs if the information comes from **sources they respect** rather than perceived opponents.

6. **Highlight Personal Autonomy**: Instead of telling someone they are wrong, emphasizing their ability to **think independently** can make them more receptive to change.

Festinger’s findings remind us that **beliefs are deeply tied to identity**, making change difficult. However, with patience and strategic engagement, irrational belief systems can be challenged effectively. What do you think about these approaches?

My summation:

Of course, Copilot is a large language model capable of collating vast amounts of data in seconds. It is what its name implies, artificial intelligence. Nevertheless, it is a very useful tool when doing research if you understand the correct questions to ask. A language model cannot comprehend the essential spiritual nature of man. However, it does tell us that rejecting God will invariably result in embracing a political system that is still religious to its core. Albeit an idolatrous false religion which will lead to ruin. Only a return to Christ can solve these heresies that have captured so many of leaders fomenting a new globalist religion. Many of them are unelected. They are self appointed arbiters of what is deemed to be truth who seek to undermine the very values that has made Western freedom possible.

Canada and kakistocracy: government by the blind and deluded

 

One of the great problems of our time exists due to addressing the symptoms of a problem rather than examining and addressing said problem’s root cause(s). No physician worth his salt will merely treat the symptoms of an illness without addressing the disease’s root cause(s). We see this in the way that the state in concert with international health care authorities developed public health policies for COVID-19. A mere few short years ago we were being censored for merely suggesting that the virus originated in the self same Level-4 laboratory in Wuhan where Pfizer had been developing mRNA technology.  But worse than this initial failure of correctly assessing how the virus originated and how best to treat it, we know that the BIG LIE ostensibly appears to be a continuance of the CIA’s MKUltra mind control. Western government’s, including Trump’s first administration, fully cooperated with and helped to fund the CCP’s military who run the bio-lab in Wuhan.

From Wikipedia:

“Project MKUltra is a human experimentation program designed and undertaken by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to develop procedures and identify drugs that could be used during interrogations to weaken individuals and force confessions through brainwashing and psychological torture. The term MKUltra is a CIA cryptonym: "MK" is an arbitrary prefix standing for the Office of Technical Service and "Ultra" is an arbitrary word out of a dictionary used to name this project. The program has been widely condemned as a violation of individual rights and an example of the CIA's abuse of power, with critics highlighting its disregard for consent and its corrosive impact on democratic principles.”

To date there has not been an official admission of the sheer level of mind control which was used by state actors to manipulate public opinion. This was particularly effective amongst those who have a high level of trust in the state so long as it pursues a progressive agenda aimed at radically transforming society into a mind meld of socialist conformity. So, what can history tell us about similar attempts to radically transform society. What happened when the advocates of change refused to examine the damage caused by such radical transformation? What damages were caused in maintaining functional socioeconomic order? So let me begin with the following two quotes from periods of British history where the Kingdom had been descended into civil unrest.

“Anarchy is not so much the absence of government as the government of the worst—not aristocracy but kakistocracy—a state of things, which to the honor of our nature, has seldom obtained amongst men, and which perhaps was only fully exemplified during the worst times of the French revolution, when that horrid hell burnt with its most horrid flame. In such a state of things, to be accused is to be condemned—to protect the innocent is to be guilty; and what perhaps is the worst effect, even men of better nature, to whom their own deeds are abhorrent, are goaded by terror to be forward and emulous in deeds of guilt and violence.” ~ Thomas Love Peacock

“Therefore we need not make any scruple of praying against such: against those Sanctimonious Incendiaries, who have fetched fire from heaven to set their Country in combustion, have pretended Religion to raise and maintaine a most wicked rebellion: against those Nero's, who have ripped up the wombe of the mother that bare them, and wounded the breasts that gave them sucke: against those Cannibal's who feed upon the flesh and are drunke with the bloud of their own brethren: against those Catiline's who seeke their private ends in the publicke disturbance, and have set the Kingdome on fire to rost their owne egges: against those tempests of the State, those restlesse spirits who can no longer live, then be stickling and medling; who are stung with a perpetuall itch of changing and innovating, transforming our old Hierarchy into a new Presbytery, and this againe into a newer Independency; and our well-temperd Monarchy into a mad kinde of Kakistocracy. Good Lord!” ~ Paul Gosnold's “A sermon preached at the publique fast the ninth day of Aug. 1644 at St. Maries, Oxford, before the honorable members of the two Houses of Parliament there assembled:”

The word Kakistocracy was first coined as early as the 17th century and derives from two Greek words, kákistos (κάκιστος, 'worst') and krátos (κράτος, 'rule'), together meaning 'government by the worst people'. The earliest use of the word dates to the 17th century given by Paul Gosnold.

I will keep stating the following until the following is fully understood, most conservatives completely fail to understand the grip, the sheer power, of ideological possession. What are the successes of MKUltra in manipulating public opinion through psychological abuse and mind control? When the West agreed to cooperate with the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany our leaders used Cultural Marxist Critical Theory by incorporating its thinking into the forerunner of the CIA. Wild Bill Donovan used the Frankfurt School’s ideas to defeat both Soviet Marxism and Nazism. The CIA has since been using our universities to spread Postmodernism and Critical Theory ever since. Europeans have never really understood limited constitutional government. The idea of Parliament limiting the King is an entirely English and therefore a British and in turn American construct. This is why almost all European countries are still governed by coalition legislative bodies, in other words, rule by the BLOB, of the BLOB, and for the BLOB. The EU has become a fulfillment of a socioeconomic confederacy dominated by Germany, just as "the Fuhrer" intended.

Tyranny was always waiting to pounce like a lion on any semblance of freedom that the West ever knew. Type Critical Theory and Postmodernism into any search engine of your choosing to examine the curriculum being taught by all major Western universities. The humanities departments of these institutions have become the weaponized tools by which radical social engineers have taken the long Neo-Marxist march through our institutions. We are in an ideological battle where most so-called right wingers have no understanding of what they are fighting. Worse, many of you appear not to care.

Many conservatives are people who prefer bombastic leaders for several reasons:

1.    Charisma and Confidence: Bombastic leaders often exude charisma and confidence, which can be appealing to followers. Their assertiveness and boldness can inspire trust and admiration.

2.    Clear Vision: These leaders often present a clear and compelling vision for the future. Their strong rhetoric can make their ideas seem more achievable and attractive.

3.    Decisiveness: Bombastic leaders tend to make decisions quickly and assertively. This decisiveness can be reassuring to people who prefer clear direction and action.

4.    Emotional Appeal: Their passionate and energetic communication style can resonate emotionally with people, making them feel more connected and motivated.

5.    Perceived Strength: Bombastic leaders are often seen as strong and capable of handling challenges. This perception can be comforting to followers who seek stability and security.

6.    Media Influence: The media often highlights and amplifies the actions and statements of bombastic leaders, increasing their visibility and influence.

But invariably the following issues are deliberately being ignored:

1.    Polarization: Bombastic leaders often use divisive rhetoric that can polarize societies. This can lead to increased tension and conflict among different groups.

2.    Oversimplification: These leaders may present complex issues in overly simplistic terms, which can lead to misguided policies and decisions. Their black-and-white thinking can ignore the nuances and complexities of real-world problems.

3.    Authoritarian Tendencies: Bombastic leaders often exhibit authoritarian tendencies, such as undermining democratic institutions and processes. This can erode the rule of law and threaten democratic governance.

4.    Impulsiveness: Their tendency to make quick, assertive decisions can sometimes lead to impulsive and poorly thought-out actions. This can have serious consequences, especially in matters of national or international importance.

5.    Manipulation: Bombastic leaders can manipulate public opinion through emotional appeals and sensationalism. This can lead to a misinformed and manipulated populace, which can be detrimental to a healthy democracy.

6.    Short-term Focus: These leaders often prioritize short-term gains and immediate results over long-term planning and sustainability. This can lead to policies that are not in economically viable for the prosperity and economic well-being of future generations.

If you think these characteristics do not describe Trump, then you’re an ideologically possessed fool. Ask yourselves, since you rightfully condemn the left for doing precisely the same thing, why you are so willingly duped or blind to your own willingness to forgo reason to march in unthinking lockstep with others with whom you identify? Don’t you condemn the left for doing precisely the same? A true conservative is someone who believes in personal accountability and self-reliance. They will not place their faith in politicians, no matter how much they admire them. Politics by its very nature is based upon manipulation. This is why conservatives are very often Christians. They understand the fallen nature of humanity and that there is only one Saviour, Christ Jesus. If you have placed your faith in man, any man no matter who they are, I will tell you what you are not and what you are, you are not a conservative, you are an ideologically possessed idolator! Do I really need to remind you that Pierre Poilievre was a shoo-in for PM until Trump resurrected the Monroe Doctrine to threaten Canadian sovereignty then effectively crown Marx Carney as our new PM?

Legislative assemblies came into being as a direct result of Magna Carta. The King, or Executive Branch of government, was forced to bring their requests to levy taxes to parliament to receive approval for further expenditures or to pass legislation. Most of the major policies enacted by Trump to date have been by executive order thereby ignoring the need for democratic consent of his policies. It does not matter how excellent his policies are. Trump is not a King. The executive branch of government must never operate without being limited by the legislative branch of government. America herself was literally founded upon this principle since the King had attempted to levy taxation without the colonists being represented in parliament in London. Most of you who call yourselves conservatives have no understanding of the political history of the very system of government you claim to espouse.

I know I have just wasted by time by writing these demonstrable facts. I do so, so that when all is said and done, I will not be found wanting in my duty to tell my readers and listeners the unvarnished truth not placing my faith in mere men but in God and in God alone.

2 Timothy 2 (KJV):

¹³ If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

¹⁴ Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

¹⁵ Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

 

On a fractured nation: why we are here

 

List of things I detest:
High Church mummery
Catholicism and Popery
Superstition in general
Religious priests and prelates who claim to stand between God and man
WOKE Pastors
Televangelists
Convenient Christians who serve Christ externally but internally are whited sepulchres
Gnostic heresies
Hegelian Dialectics (a Gnostic heresy)
Dialectical Materialism (the biggest Gnostic heresy)
Socialism (Gnostic heresy 1.0)
Postmodern Cultural Relativism (Gnostic heresy 2.0)
Critical Theory studies (Gnostic heresy 3.0)
Using progressivism to push socioeconomic ruin (a silly Gnostic heresy)
Politicians who claim to be liberal but who don’t have a clue what liberalism is
Fake conservatives who do not understand free market economics
Fake liberals and conservative politicians who use their ideological handles to fool their constituents into believing they are something they are not
Metastasizing bureaucratic regulatory nightmares
Bureaucrats who refuse to serve the public good
Politicians who hire far too many bureaucrats
Career politicians
Janteloven, Tall Poppy Syndrome, and Crab-in-a Bucket thinking (the real source of all collectivist ideologies)
Collectivism in general
The university professors who teach Critical Theory and Postmodernism as viable theories
Anyone who teaches children to despise their own heritage due to Postmodern Cultural Relativist lies
Stupid teachers who believed their Neo-Marxist university professors by passing on their ideological possession to our children
The idiots who fail to recognize that in this nation of coerced speech we are undergoing an enormous PsyOp to hide the fact that the global elites are returning us to penury and serfdom
People who think there is a political solution to our moral, philosophical, and spiritual crisis
Ideologues
Fanatics
Sexual deviants and perverts
Goofs who are worthy of capital punishment
Disrespectful kids
Parents who don’t teach their kids to respect their elders
Attacks on English Common Law, particularly the Castle Doctrine
Corrupt leftist judges and lawyers who betray the Rule of Law as it is written
Music without soul
Musicians who play soulfully yet who believe in Neo-Marxism
Fools who accept what their elected reps tell them without question
People who attempt to argue using gaslighting and “yes, it is” and “no it isn’t” as replacements for ethics, epistemology, and ontology
People who refuse to inform themselves when so much information is at our disposal thus making it unforgivable not to discover the truth of the sheer extent of the lies told by our failed political system to support its so-called legitimacy
People who police their fellows by coercing others to march in unthinking lockstep
Politics based upon coercion rather than on peace, order, and good government
Trump’s bombast and bullying
Carney who is basically a shiver waiting to crawl up our spine as he places the final nail in the coffin of the Dominion of Canada
People who do not appear to realize that two or more things can be true at the same time
Idiots who think that the State gives us our rights as opposed to rights being an inherent part of being an individual created in the image of God
Those who mock God by believing in Gnostic heresies (Paganism)
Particularly the deluded and damned fools who believe that Gnostic heresies will save them as opposed to placing their faith in our one and only Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
People who believe that the government is capable of redistributing wealth without destroying the economy
People who think that the government is not the primary source of all socioeconomic ruin
Perhaps most profoundly I detest people who believe that there can be simplistic solutions to multivariate complex problems.
This penultimate category is also the most likely to ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Finally people who will take offence at the things I write as though my opinions matters.

In the ancient Icelandic writings known as Hávamál claimed to be the Words of Odin the High One there's a warning which I'll translate into English, "A witless man believes everything he knows between the mountains where he dwells". Far too many people are living in an echo chamber of ideological possession where they've submitted their cognitive functions to the deluded socialist collective. I find it remarkable that the West has surrendered itself to the species of social collectivist thinking that caused World Wars, the Cold War, the rise of murderous totalitarianism in China, Korea, and south-east Asia. Obviously, we shed much blood to stop tyranny yet like dogs returning to lap up their own vomit the West has been captured by Neo-Marxist ideas. Only God can save us from the inevitability of our fate but only if we repent and turn to Christ!

Canada is standing at the crossroads

 

Preamble:

I will begin by empathizing that this content is geared to a very specific audience. If you are concerned about the ideological direction in which Canada is headed and would like to delve into that issue deeper, read on, or watch on, depending on whether you are reading my blog or watching my vodcast. I make no apologies for the complexities of my content since there are no simple answers to multivariate complex problems.

Canada is at an ideological crossroads that may be permanent:

Canada at a crossroads for the path we choose as a nation on April 28^th will determine the very nature of Canadian governance perhaps for all time. One represents a radical departure from limited parliamentary democracy based upon authoritarian overreach and total state socioeconomic control while the other a restoration of limited government and free markets. Our choices are therefore no longer a mere matter of choosing between differing political opinions. Canadians are being faced with a radical departure from the very nature of our constitutional democracy since the current regime has no regard for constitutional limits on government. One of the remarkable characteristics of authoritarians is projection where they blame their opponents for the very things for which they are guilty.

The projection inherent to authoritarianism:

Projection is often observed as a common feature among individuals with authoritarian tendencies. At its core, projection is a psychological defense mechanism where people attribute feelings, impulses, or traits they dislike or deny in themselves onto others. In authoritarian contexts, this mechanism can become especially pronounced.

**Rigid Self-Image and Externalizing Flaws** 

Authoritarian personalities typically embrace a strict, black-and-white worldview. They tend to see the world as divided into unequivocally good and bad elements, which makes it easier to externalize imperfections. By projecting their own undesirable qualities—such as aggression, intolerance, or moral failings—onto others, authoritarian figures can maintain a pristine self-image. For example, a leader who exhibits aggressive or repressive behaviors may accuse dissenters or minority groups of the very same traits. This not only shifts potential criticism away from themselves but also reinforces the in-group versus out-group dynamic that is often central to authoritarian ideology.

**Scapegoating and Simplified Worldviews** 

In authoritarian settings, the process of projection is further reinforced by the tendency to scapegoat. By blaming out-groups for various societal issues, authoritarian leaders and their followers avoid confronting the complexities and their own internal conflicts. This creates a simplified narrative: the in-group is virtuous, and the out-group is inherently flawed or dangerous. Such dynamics contribute to a climate where challenging the prevailing narrative becomes both psychologically uncomfortable and socially sanctioned.

**Psychological Comfort and Cognitive Dissonance** 

Another layer to this is the alleviation of cognitive dissonance—the mental discomfort experienced when holding conflicting thoughts or beliefs. For those with authoritarian leanings, accepting even a hint of personal or systemic imperfection can be profoundly unsettling. Projection, then, becomes a tool to mitigate this dissonance by externalizing blame and negative traits. In doing so, individuals maintain a cohesive identity and worldview, albeit one that is distorted by the unwillingness to face internal truths.

Overall, while projection is not exclusive to authoritarianism, it is a notable feature that often emerges as individuals within such systems strive to protect their self-concept and justify a divisive, extreme worldview. This psychological mechanism serves as a means to reinforce group identity and power structures by consistently attributing negative qualities to perceived external threats.

Does this perspective resonate with what you’ve observed in political or social environments? Perhaps we could explore how these dynamics play out in specific historical or contemporary examples:

RIGHT DISHONOURABLE: Scandals that defined the Trudeau era

Here's a list of some of the more notable goofs, scandals and blunders that defined the Trudeau era

Author of the article: Bryan Passifiume Published Jan 11, 2025  •  Last updated Jan 11, 2025  •  10 minute read

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s nearly decade-long time in office was defined by a regular stream of scandals, faux pas and controversies — many of which brought the PM to his knees but, against all odds, managed to maintain the confidence of his party.

While this list doesn’t cover everything, here’s a sampling of some of the biggest blunders, goofs and scandals committed by the PM and his government over the past 10 years.

CASH-FOR-ACCESS SCANDAL (2016)

In Dec. 2016, The Globe and Mail reported pricey Liberal Party cash-for-access events held at homes of wealthy Chinese-Canadians, charging attendees as much as $1,525 each in exchange for one-on-one time with the PM.

The scheme, according to media reports, would see the party collect between $50,000 and $120,000 in donations from each of these events, some featuring hosts and guests with uncomfortable ties to Beijing.

Among the first measures implemented by the Trudeau Liberals upon coming to power were new “open and accountable” rules governing lobbying and political fundraising, but then-Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson absolved Trudeau of any wrongdoing — despite her office never opening a formal investigation into the matter.

AGA KHAN AFFAIR (2016)

Among the first defining scandals of Trudeau’s administration was the PM’s infamous eight-day 2016 Christmas vacation at the Aga Khan’s private island in The Bahamas.

While the PMO concealed the trip from public view, the story — broken by the National Post — was later confirmed, touching off an ethics investigation that saw Trudeau become the first PM in Canadian history found guilty of ethics breaches.

The investigation also found the Trudeaus had previously visited Bells Cay twice before.

“Canadians have had a very rough time since 2015,” senior Conservative strategist Stephen Taylor told the Sun.

“Governments put onerous rules and financial constraints upon Canadians, and the Aga Khan vacation just showed Canadians that some of us aren’t bound by the rules.”

ELBOWGATE (2016)

Trudeau’s attempt to manhandle the Conservative whip during a vote resulted in a female MP being elbowed in the chest, prompting a flurry of apologies from the PM.

During an attempt to delay a third-reading vote on an assisted dying bill on May 18, 2016, Trudeau grabbed Conservative Whip Gord Brown by the arm to lead him away from MPs gathered on the floor of the House of Commons.

While grabbing Brown’s arm, Trudeau drove his elbow into the chest of NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau, seen on video doubling over in pain after the contact.

“What kind of man elbows a woman? It’s pathetic! You’re pathetic!” then-NDP leader Thomas Mulcair yelled at Trudeau.

In a series of apologies after the incident, Trudeau said he took it upon himself to physically “assist” Brown to his seat.

“I can now see was unadvisable as a course of actions that resulted in physical contact in this House that we can all accept was unacceptable,” Trudeau said.

INDIA TRIP (2018)

Among the more memorable blunders from the Trudeau era was the infamous 2018 state visit to India, which saw the PM — still riding high in popularity both at home and around the world — engage in some embarrassing behaviour.

Despite being invited by Indian PM Narendra Modi, Trudeau and his family were greeted at the airport by an agricultural minister.

Among invitees to a state dinner during Trudeau’s visit were Sikh extremist Jaspar Atwal — one of four people convicted in a 1986 plot to murder Indian cabinet minister Malkiat Singh Sidhu.

Seemingly unwilling to settle on locally-produced food, the government paid over $17,000 to fly Canadian celebrity chef Vikram Vij to India from Vancouver to prepare food for the PM and his entourage at a number of events. unacceptable,” Trudeau said.

Trudeau’s choice of elaborate costumes during the trip also earned scorn from Indian media and pundits, which stood in contrast to his Indian counterparts who wore business suits.

“The ‘Mr. Dress-up goes to India’ trip really set the bar for Trudeau when it came to wasting money in a spectacular fashion and he tried hard to live up to that for his entire tenure,” said Kris Sims, Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

KOKANEE GROPE (2018)

In June 2018, a screenshot of a two-decade old editorial published in a local B.C. newspaper accused Trudeau of “groping” and “inappropriately handling” a reporter sent to cover the August 2000 Kokanee Summit Festival on behalf of the National Post.

The event was a fundraiser commemorating Trudeau’s brother Michel, killed by a 1998 avalanche while skiing in Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park.

The editorial included Trudeau’s apparent-apology, where he said that if he’d known she was reporting for a national paper, “I would never have been so forward.”

After weeks of silence, Trudeau later said he “… apologized in the moment because I had obviously perceived that she had experienced it in a different way than I acted, or I experienced it.”

SNC LAVALIN AFFAIR (2019)

Among the most notable Trudeau scandals began with a February 2019 Globe and Mail article alleging attempts to waylay prosecution in a corruption case involving Quebec-based construction giant SNC-Lavalin, now known as AtkinsRealis.

That article went to print shortly after former cabinet member Jody Wilson-Raybould was demoted from Justice Minister to Veteran’s Affairs after reportedly refusing requests to offer deferred prosecution to the company, sparing the firm a conviction that would ban it from bidding on government contracts for a decade.

Wilson-Raybould’s resignation was followed by that of close aide Gerry Butts, and Treasury Board President Jane Philpott.

Trudeau later expelled Philpott and Wilson-Raybould from caucus.

She testified about months of pressure to greenlight the deal, including from Butts and former Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick.

The investigation found that Trudeau had indeed improperly pressured Wilson-Raybould, but saw no evidence of outright political interference.

WE CHARITY SCANDAL (2020)

The Trudeau government’s April 2020 decision to enlist WE — an international children’s charity founded by brothers Craig and Marc Kielburger — to operate their $912 million Canada Student Service Grant program touched off a scandal that, once again, put the PM in the middle of yet another situation involving questionable ethics.

The involvement of WE raised questions surrounding how close the Kielburgers were to Trudeau, who was a common sight at the charity’s WE Day events.

It was later revealed that Trudeau’s mother and brother were paid to speak at WE events between 2016 and 2020, as well as then-Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s daughters’ work history with the charity.

While Trudeau would later be cleared of wrongdoing by the ethics commissioner, Morneau was found to have broken the rules by not recusing himself from cabinet discussions concerning WE.

Morneau would later resign, but said it had to do with disputes over COVID-19 policy instead of WE.

BLACKFACE (2019)

A bombshell during the 2019 federal election saw Trudeau come face-to-face with allegations he’d darkened his skin to act as racist caricatures on numerous occasions.

On Sept. 18, Time Magazine published images from the 2001 yearbook of Vancouver’s West Point Grey Academy — a private school where Trudeau once taught — depicting the future PM dressed as Aladdin sporting darkened skin and a white turban during a school function.

When pressed by reporters, Trudeau also admitted to singing Day-O in blackface during a 1990s talent show in high school.

A third video, also from the 1990s, featured Trudeau with his entire body painted black, waving his arms and sticking his tongue out.

When questioned how many times he’d appeared in blackface, Trudeau said he couldn’t recall.

THE FREEDOM CONVOY (2022)

The Trudeau government’s handling of the Freedom Convoy, one of the largest protest mobilizations in Canadian history, came under intense criticism.

With as many as 18,000 participants taking over Ottawa’s Wellington St. and surrounding avenues on Jan. 29, it quickly became clear that both law enforcement and government officials were taken completely by surprise.

Despite some concerning incidents, assaults and reports of harassment, the largely peaceful protest dwindled in size as time went on — but politicians across all levels of government seemed determined to end it once and for all.

The City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency on Feb. 6, one day before Ottawa City Councillor Diane Deans described the protests and border blockades as a “nationwide occupation” and that her city was “under siege.”

Despite most border blockades being cleared and protesters in Ottawa dwindling, as well as major government operations largely being unaffected by the protest, Trudeau enacted the Emergencies Act on Valentines Day which gave banks the ability to monitor and freeze accounts of organizers and those suspected of donating to the cause.

Protest organizers Chris Barber and Tamara Lich were arrested on Feb. 17, with Pat King arrested one day later.

That was also the day police started forcibly removing vehicles and protesters from downtown Ottawa, including an incident where a 49-year-old women was knocked to the ground by a Toronto Police Service mounted officer on horseback.

A federal court decision determined the federal government’s invocation of the emergencies act was unconstitutional and unreasonable, despite the earlier Rouleau Commission previously concluding that it was justified.

In his decision, Justice Richard Mosley wrote that while the convoy was indeed a disruption of public order, it didn’t constitute a national emergency and invoking the act “does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility.”

THE TRIPS

Aside from the infamous India trip, the Trudeau era is marked with numerous questionable uses of government money and aircraft for excursions both local and abroad — including 2015’s trip to COP21, where $800,000 was spent to send 283 delegates to the Paris summit.

The United States, in contrast, only sent 124 delegates.

“Nothing says saving the planet like posing for pictures as you dine on the taxpayer dime in France,” the CTF’s Kris Sims told the Sun.

Another notable trip was the Trudeau family Sept. 2021 Tofino vacation, which saw the PM quietly depart on Canada’s first Truth and Reconciliation Day, despite invitations from numerous First Nations to attend local ceremonies.

Other notable excursions included who stayed in a $6,000-per-night hotel suite during the Queen’s 2022 funeral, where the government spent a little under half a million dollars just on hotel rooms.

The PM and his entourage racked up a $200,000 in-flight catering bill during a 2023 mission to Asia, while last June’s visit to the G7 and Ukraine summits included $800 spent on junk food prior to the flight.

While he wasn’t on the plane, Governor-General Mary Simon’s use of government travel has also come under scrutiny — including a four-day state visit to attend the Frankfurt Book Fair in Germany that cost over $700,000, the infamous $100,000 airline catering bill racked up during a 2022 trip to the Middle East, and an infamous trip to Iceland that year — which resulted in a $71,000 limousine bill, despite most events happening withing easy walking distance of the vice-regal’s hotel.

Our current regime repeatedly blames their opponents for the very things for which they are guilty by labelling them as “far-right fascists”. So let us examine what Fascism entails:

There’s No Denying the Socialist Roots of Fascism Saturday, November 27, 2021 Leer en Español

Fascism is a form of socialism. As such, it does not engage in a fight between left and right, but between different leftists ideologies.

In the past few decades, there has been a deep discussion about the ideological roots of fascism, and above all, a great misunderstanding about the collectivist principles that this authoritarian movement promulgated. To understand this ideology better, it is necessary to know in depth the life, beliefs, and principles of both its political leaders (such as Benito Mussolini) and its philosophical leaders (such as Giovanni Gentile).

Mussolini was an Italian military man, journalist, and politician who was a member of the Italian Socialist Party for 14 years. In 1910, he was appointed editor of the weekly La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle), and the following year he published an essay entitled “The Trentino as seen by a Socialist.” His journalism and political activism led him to prison, but soon after he was released, the Italian Socialist Party—increasingly strong and having achieved an important victory at the Congress of Reggio Emilia—put him in charge of the Milanese newspaper Avanti!

This intense political activism was followed by World War I, which marked a turning point in Mussolini’s life. In the beginning, the leader of the Socialist Party was part of an anti-interventionist movement, which opposed Italy’s participation in World War I. However, he later joined the interventionist group, which earned him expulsion from the Socialist Party.

Mussolini participated in the war and went on to take advantage of the dissatisfaction of the Italian people, due to the few benefits obtained by the Treaty of Versailles. He then blamed his former comrades of the Socialist Party for it, and that is when he started the formation of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, which later would become the Italian Fascist Party.

Based strongly on the nationalist sentiments that flourished as a result of the combat, Mussolini came to power by the hand of violence, fighting against the traditional socialists and shielding himself in the famous squadron of the black shirts. It was only then that the ideological complex of fascism would begin to take shape.

Who Is the Ideological Father of Fascism?

Practically everyone knows that Karl Marx is the ideological father of communism and socialism and that Adam Smith is the father of capitalism and economic liberalism. Do you know, in contrast, who the mind behind fascism is? It’s very likely that you don’t, and I can tell you in advance that the philosopher behind fascism was also an avowed socialist.

Giovanni Gentile, a neo-Hegelian philosopher, was the intellectual author of the “doctrine of fascism,” which he wrote in conjunction with Benito Mussolini. Gentile’s sources of inspiration were thinkers such as Hegel, Nietzsche, and also Karl Marx.

Gentile went so far as to declare “Fascism is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form.” One of the most common reflections on this is that fascism is itself socialism based on national identity.

Gentile believed that all private action should be oriented to serve society. He was against individualism, for him there was no distinction between private and public interest. In his economic postulates, he defended compulsory state corporatism, wanting to impose an autarkic state (basically the same recipe that Hitler would use years later).

A basic aspect of Gentile’s logic is that liberal democracy was harmful because it was focused on the individual which led to selfishness. He defended “true democracy” in which the individual should be subordinated to the State. In that sense, he promoted planned economies in which it was the government that determined what, how much, and how to produce.

Gentile and another group of philosophers created the myth of socialist nationalism, in which a country well directed by a superior group could subsist without international trade, as long as all individuals submitted to the designs of the government. The aim was to create a corporate state. It must be remembered that Mussolini came from the traditional Italian Socialist Party, but due to the rupture with this traditional Marxist movement, and due to the strong nationalist sentiment that prevailed at the time, the bases for creating the new “nationalist socialism,” which they called fascism, were overturned.

Fascism nationalized the arms industry, however, unlike traditional socialism, it did not consider that the state should own all the means of production, but more that it should dominate them. The owners of industries could “keep” their businesses, as long as they served the directives of the state. These business owners were supervised by public officials and paid high taxes. Essentially, “private property” was no longer a thing. It also established the tax on capital, the confiscation of goods of religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal rents. Statism was the key to everything, thanks to the nationalist and collectivist discourse, all the efforts of the citizens had to be in favor of the State.

Fascism: the Antithesis of Liberalism & Capitalism

Fascism claimed to oppose liberal capitalism, but also international socialism, hence the concept of a “third way,” the same position that would be held by Argentine Peronism years later. This opposition to international socialism and communism is precisely what has caused so much confusion in the ideological location of fascism, Nazism, and also Peronism. Having opposed the traditional internationalist Marxist left, these were attributed to the current of ultra-right movements, when the truth is that, as has been demonstrated, their centralized economic policies obeyed collectivist and socialist principles, openly opposing capitalism and the free market, favoring nationalism and autarchy.

In that sense, as established by the philosopher creator of fascist ideology, Giovanni Gentile, fascism is another form of socialism, ergo, it was not a battle of left against right, but a struggle between different left-wing ideologies, an internationalist and a nationalist one.

In fact, in 1943, Benito Mussolini promoted the “socialization of the economy,” also known as fascist socialization; for this process Mussolini sought the advice of the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Nicola Bombacci; the communist was the main intellectual author of the “Verona Manifesto,” the historical declaration with which fascism promoted this process of economic “socialization” to deepen anti-capitalism and autarchism, and in which Italy became known as the “Italian Social Republic.”

On April 22, 1945 in Milan, the Fascist leader would declare the following:

“Our programs are definitely equal to our revolutionary ideas and they belong to what in democratic regime is called “left”; our institutions are a direct result of our programs and our ideal is the Labor State. In this case there can be no doubt: we are the working class in struggle for life and death, against capitalism. We are the revolutionaries in search of a new order. If this is so, to invoke help from the bourgeoisie by waving the red peril is an absurdity. The real scarecrow, the real danger, the threat against which we fight relentlessly, comes from the right. It is not at all in our interest to have the capitalist bourgeoisie as an ally against the threat of the red peril, even at best it would be an unfaithful ally, which is trying to make us serve its ends, as it has done more than once with some success. I will spare words as it is totally superfluous. In fact, it is harmful, because it makes us confuse the types of genuine revolutionaries of whatever hue, with the man of reaction who sometimes uses our very language.”

Six days after these statements, Benito Mussolini would be captured and shot.

This article was republished with permission from El American.

Our present situation: A nation at a crossroads:

Today we have an unelected Prime Minister in the person of Mark Carney. Let’s examine his economic policies

Mark Carney’s economic philosophy is both comprehensive and transformative, blending traditional market principles with a deep-seated commitment to ethical and sustainable values. Here are some of its key elements:

### Values-Based Economics

At the very heart of Carney’s thinking is the idea that economic success isn't merely measured in terms of GDP or short-term profit. In his book *Value(s): Building a Better World for All*, he lays out a framework based on seven core values—dynamism, resilience, sustainability, fairness, responsibility, solidarity, and humility—which serve as guiding principles for modern economics. Carney argues that these values are essential for ensuring that markets reflect broader societal goals such as social equity and long-term environmental stewardship. This perspective challenges the traditional notion that markets should be left entirely to self-regulate and instead posits that integrating human and ethical dimensions into financial systems can lead to more robust and just economic outcomes.

### Bridging Financial Stability and Sustainable Growth

Carney’s experience as a central banker—first at the Bank of Canada and later at the Bank of England—has significantly informed his approach. During his tenure, he employed innovative strategies like “forward guidance,” a communication tool that helped manage market expectations and stabilize economies during tumultuous times, such as the 2008 financial crisis. Beyond mere crisis management, however, his policies consistently reflected a dual focus: ensuring financial stability while actively preparing the economic system for future challenges, including climate change. He envisions a world where monetary policy and economic regulation work hand in hand with sustainability goals, ensuring that financial markets internalize the real costs of environmental degradation.

# Emphasis on Climate Finance

A standout component of Carney’s philosophy is his advocacy for channeling vast amounts of capital toward sustainable development. He has argued that to achieve global climate objectives, the world needs trillions of dollars in annual investments directed towards green technologies and low-carbon initiatives. This approach does not see climate policy as an externality to be tacked on, but as a central pillar of economic strategy—one that demands close cooperation between governments, financial institutions, and private investors. By reframing the financial incentives in the light of environmental impact, Carney underscores a radical shift: the market should, ideally, serve society and planet rather than being a self-contained system driven solely by profit .

# Integration of Private Sector Insights

Carney’s journey from the private sector—as evidenced by his years at Goldman Sachs—to the helm of public financial institutions has given him a unique vantage point. This blend of experiences has allowed him to appreciate both the competitive forces of global finance and the necessity of regulatory oversight. Early in his career, his academic work and professional engagements highlighted the importance of intense business competition as a driver of innovation and efficiency. However, his subsequent roles have reinforced the idea that these market forces must operate within frameworks that promote long-term societal well-being, rather than pursuing short-term successes at any cost.

# A Broader Vision for Economic Policy

In sum, Carney envisions an economic model where the measurement of value transcends mere financial metrics. He challenges policymakers and market leaders to “turn the market back into humanity”—that is, to re-integrate ethical considerations and collective well-being into the very fabric of economic decision-making. This vision calls for a fundamental rethinking of how economies operate in the modern age, urging a shift away from narrow self-interest towards a more holistic, sustainable approach that is capable of addressing the multifaceted challenges of our time.

God save us from Mark Carney’s version of total state control:

His philosophy is reflective of precisely the ideas posited by fascism with complete state control over what can or cannot be produced and to what ends and by what means. Frankly I am terrified of what will happen to this nation if for whatever reason, whether due to foreign interference, or due to the ideological possession of Canadians, the majority choose to go down the path of authoritarianism and Mark Carney’s version of Fascism!