Canada's scripted path to authoritarianism

 

Canada’s path toward an increasingly authoritarian government has been long underway. If it were not for me living in Norway for two and one half years over a decade ago, I would have never come to fully understand how something so totalizing and complete could occur in a nation that was as free as Canada had once been. In this article I will describe how this "War of Position" has occurred. Italian Neo-Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci argued that in modern democracies, overthrowing a system requires a long-term "war of position"—a slow, systematic battle to contest cultural values and build a counter-hegemony in civil society—rather than a direct, sudden "war of movement" or violent frontal assault. Moreover, this attack on the very basis of our constitutional form of government was aided by immigration where people who had fled authoritarian regimes voted for politicians who would recreate the type of government from which they had fled.

The concept I am describing comes from Antonio Gramsci's distinction between a "war of movement" and a "war of position." In simple terms, Gramsci concluded that in advanced liberal democracies, political power is maintained not merely through laws, police, or economic structures, but through a web of cultural institutions that shape what people regard as normal, moral, and legitimate. Therefore, revolutionaries could not simply storm parliament or seize government buildings. They would first have to win influence within civil society: schools, universities, churches, media, entertainment, professional associations, and the intellectual class.

Whether one agrees with Gramsci or not, many scholars argue that Canadian politics since the 1960s has resembled a "war of position" far more than a direct political struggle.

1. The shift from economics to culture

Prior to the 1960s, Canadian political debates were often framed around:

• Labour versus capital

• Federal versus provincial power

• English versus French Canada

• Resource development versus industrialisation

Beginning in the late twentieth century, political combat increasingly moved into the cultural sphere:

• Language rights

• Multiculturalism

• Gender roles

• Indigenous reconciliation

• Environmental values

• Sexual ethics

• National identity

A Gramscian would argue that this happened because political actors recognised that whoever defines the culture eventually influences the law.

2. Universities as a battleground

Many critics on the political right explicitly describe Canadian universities as the clearest example of a successful war of position.

From the 1960s onward:

• Marxist scholarship became more common in some humanities departments.

• Critical theory, postmodernism, post-colonial studies, and later intersectionality became influential.

• Concepts such as systemic discrimination, social construction, privilege, and power structures became common academic frameworks.

These ideas gradually moved from universities into:

• Teacher training

• Journalism schools

• Public policy programmes

• Government bureaucracies

Supporters view this as intellectual progress and greater social awareness.

Critics view it as exactly what Gramsci described: a long march through institutions that reshaped public assumptions without requiring electoral revolution.

3. Multiculturalism as a hegemonic project

Canada's official multiculturalism policy provides another example.

Prior to the 1970s, many political leaders assumed Canadian identity would primarily rest on British and French foundations.

Today, multiculturalism is often treated not merely as a policy but as a defining national value.

A Gramscian analysis would note that this transformation occurred through:

• Education

• Public broadcasting

• Immigration policy

• Civil service norms

• Cultural funding

The goal was not simply legal reform but a redefinition of what it means to be Canadian.

4. The Charter and rights discourse

The 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms shifted many political debates into courts and constitutional language.

Political questions increasingly became framed as:

• Rights

• Equality

• Inclusion

• Constitutional protection

Rather than winning every argument through elections, activists often sought victories through judicial interpretation and public persuasion.

Again, a Gramscian observer would say this reflects a war of position:

• Change the assumptions.

• Change the legal interpretations.

• Change institutional norms.

• Eventually laws and policies follow.

5. Media and public broadcasting

Institutions such as the CBC, major newspapers, universities, arts organisations, and cultural grant bodies are often identified in Canadian political debates as sites where cultural hegemony is contested.

Progressive critics argue these institutions historically reinforced:

• Colonial narratives

• Elite interests

• Anglo-centric assumptions

Conservative critics argue they now disproportionately reflect:

• Progressive social values

• Identity-based politics

• Post-national understandings of Canada

The key Gramscian point is that both sides understand these institutions matter because they shape public consciousness.

6. Indigenous reconciliation

The reconciliation movement may also be viewed through a Gramscian lens.

The objective has not merely been legislative reform but a change in cultural understanding:

• How Canadian history is taught

• Which historical figures are celebrated

• How land, sovereignty, and treaties are understood

This is an effort to reshape national narratives, which is precisely the type of cultural struggle Gramsci believed was decisive.

7. Conservative counter-movements

The war of position concept is not exclusive to the left.

Canadian conservatives increasingly pursue their own cultural strategy through:

• Alternative media

• Think tanks

• Independent schools

• Policy institutes

• Podcasts and online platforms

Many conservatives concluded that winning elections while losing cultural institutions produces only temporary victories.

That conclusion is remarkably Gramscian, even if many conservatives would reject Gramsci's broader ideology.

Has Gramscian ideas actually "worked" in Canada?

I argue:

• Traditional institutions have been weakened.

• National cohesion has declined.

• Ideological conformity has increased within elite institutions.

Even a neutral historical observation is that Canadian politics today is heavily shaped by contests over culture, language, identity, education, history, and public narratives. That emphasis on civil society rather than revolutionary violence is remarkably consistent with Gramsci's idea of a long-term "war of position."

Ironically, one could argue that almost every major political faction in contemporary Canada, progressive and conservative alike, now operates on Gramscian assumptions: they increasingly view schools, media, culture, bureaucracies, churches, and social institutions as the decisive terrain on which political power is ultimately won or lost.

Which is why, Canada as a project favouring rugged individualism with an unregulated market is dead! Worse still are how few of you are even aware of why Canada is in the process of becoming an ever-increasing authoritarian nightmare with no way out. Oh you may see many things that the radicals in charge are doing that you may not like but you have no idea that they are following a well-documented script in totalizing government.

My thoughts about modern evangelicalism:

My thoughts about modern evangelicalism:

I attended a men’s gathering last night where a speaker gave a testimony of not only his past sins but also a dreadful list of wrongs that were done to him when he was still a lad. I am fairly certain that even he didn’t wish to regurgitate them in such lurid detail. As a result, I felt like bathing when I got home. Let me be absolutely clear, we are all sinners. If we weren’t we would have no need of Christ. But here is why I found last night’s gathering both frustrating and uncomfortable. A blow-by-blow breakdown of a person's entire history of sin is not the biblical model for sharing a testimony, and it often does more harm than good in a church community.

When a testimony turns into an exhaustive, graphic list of past wrongs, it crosses the line from a celebration of grace into something sensational, distracting, and inappropriate for a gathering of the saints.

Where Modern Testimonies Go Wrong:

Glorifying the Wrong Entity: A hyper-detailed timeline accidentally forces the audience to focus on the shock value or complexity of the sin rather than the simplicity of God’s forgiveness. The sin becomes the "hero" of the story because it gets 90% of the airtime.

Violating Biblical Boundaries: The Apostle Paul explicitly warned that "it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret" (Ephesians 5:12). There is a vast difference between being honest about a struggle and offering an overshared, unedited diary of it.

Stumbling Blocks for Others: Hearing a meticulous list of specific sins can trigger others, plant intrusive thoughts, or create a toxic environment of comparison (where people feel their testimony isn't "dramatic enough" because they didn't commit the same list of wrongs).

The Healthy Alternative: "Appropriate Vulnerability"

Many committed Christians have asked exactly that question. Whether a service feels "shallow" is partly subjective, but there are some identifiable trends that help explain the reaction.

Why do virtually all modern evangelical meetings ignore the structure for gathering that Paul has laid out in his epistle written to the Corinthians?

1. The shift from hymnody to contemporary worship

Most older hymns were written to be sung by congregations without amplification. They typically had:

·       Strong, memorable melodies

·       Predictable harmonic movement

·       Multiple verses that developed an idea

·       Rich theological content

Examples like "Holy, Holy, Holy", "A Mighty Fortress", or "And Can It Be" tell a story, make doctrinal arguments, and contain musical tension and resolution.

Many contemporary worship songs are built differently. They often prioritise:

·       Simplicity

·       Immediate emotional accessibility

·       Repetition

·       Easy congregational participation

·       Compatibility with a modern band format

As a result, the melody is frequently secondary to the vocal style, atmosphere, and rhythm. The song may feel more like a musical backdrop for an experience than a tune that can stand on its own.

2. Modern worship is often written for the guitar, not the piano

Traditional hymn writers commonly composed at a keyboard, where harmonic complexity comes naturally.

Modern worship music is often written by guitarists using a relatively small number of open chords. This tends to produce:

·       Repetitive harmonic cycles

·       Narrow melodic ranges

·       Similar song structures

The famous I-V-VI-IV progression and its relatives appear constantly.

Consequently, many songs sound alike because they are built on nearly identical foundations.

3. The influence of popular music

Much evangelical worship since the 1990s has been influenced by pop, soft rock, ambient music, and later by bands such as Hillsong, Bethel, and Elevation.

In popular music, the "hook" often matters more than the melody's long-term durability. A song can succeed because of production, rhythm, and emotional delivery rather than because people can whistle the tune twenty years later.

Many classic hymns remain recognisable when sung a cappella. Quite a few modern worship songs lose much of their impact once the band, with guitar, bass, drums, and sound system are removed.

4. Experience often displaced participation

A criticism raised by thinking Christians is that worship has increasingly become something people watch rather than something they do.

Historically:

·       Congregation centred

·       Strong communal singing

·       Less performance emphasis

Modern model:

·       Stage centred

·       Professional musicians

·       Concert-style sound reinforcement

·       Emotional build-ups

When that happens, the congregation can become an audience. The music may feel emotionally powerful in the room yet leave little musical substance in memory afterwards.

5. Theology has become more individualistic

Many older hymns focused on:

·       God's attributes

·       Biblical narrative

·       Doctrine

·       Church history

·       Redemption

Many contemporary songs focus more on:

·       Our feelings

·       Our experiences

·       Our relationships

·       Our responses

Not all do, of course, but the tendency is noticeable. The result can feel thinner because the songs are expressing emotions about faith rather than teaching or exploring faith itself.

6. Why "there is no tune"

This is an interesting musical observation. In much contemporary worship music, the vocal line often resembles speech rhythms set to chords rather than a fully developed melody. The memorable element may be:

·       the groove,

·       the atmosphere,

·       the production,

·       the repeated phrase,

·       rather than the melody itself.

Compare the opening of "Amazing Grace" with many modern worship songs. Almost anyone can sing "Amazing Grace" from memory decades after hearing it. The melody carries the song. In much contemporary worship music, the accompaniment carries the song.

A historical irony

Many evangelicals of the nineteenth century complained that the newer gospel songs of their day were shallow compared with the older hymns. Then later generations regarded those same gospel songs as classics.

So, part of the reaction is generational. However, the specific criticism that modern worship music often lacks memorable melodic development, relies on repeated chord loops, and contains less theological density is not merely nostalgia. Professional church musicians, hymn scholars, worship leaders, and theologians have been making those same observations for years.

In short, when people say modern evangelical worship feels hollow, they are often reacting to three things at once: less theological depth, less melodic complexity, and a shift from congregational singing toward creating a particular emotional atmosphere. The feeling that "there is no tune" is usually a response to the fact that many contemporary worship songs are built around a chord progression and mood first, with melody serving a much smaller role than it did in traditional hymn writing.

This raises a criticism that has been made by many Christians across different traditions, and it centres not on the music but on the structure of the gathering itself.

The passage I am referring to is 1 Corinthians 14:26:

"When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying."

Taken at face value, the meeting Paul describes appears highly participatory. Multiple members contribute. The gathering is not centred on a single speaker delivering a prepared sermon while everyone else listens.

That observation has led some movements, particularly the Plymouth Brethren, house church movements, and various "simple church" groups, to argue that the modern church service bears little resemblance to what is described in the New Testament. I thoroughly echo these sentiments which is why my wife and I have been forced to meet alone as any past fellowship with believers failed to follow Paul’s example.

Our argument is as follows:

• The New Testament assembly was participatory.
• Spiritual gifts were expected to function openly.
• Leadership existed, but elders shepherded rather than dominated the meeting.
• No evidence exists of a modern pastor conducting a scheduled service from a platform.
• The congregation itself was the active body of Christ.

From that perspective, the contemporary pattern of:

• one worship leader,
• one sermon giver,
• a rigid order of service,
• passive audience participation,

This format of gathering is more organizational rather than functioning as a Spiritually living organism. The real debate is not whether leadership existed. Nobody seriously denies that elders existed.

The real debate is whether leadership means:

A. Facilitating a gathering where many members contribute,

or

B. Conducting a gathering where one designated person does most of the speaking.

If you read 1 Corinthians 12-14 straight through, the emphasis does seem heavily weighted toward participation by many members. Paul repeatedly uses the image of the body where every member supplies something. The concern in chapter 14 is not getting more people involved. It is actually the opposite. So many people were contributing that Paul had to impose order:

"Let two or three prophets speak."

"If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace."

"The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."

Those instructions only make sense if multiple people were expected to contribute regularly.

Historically, many scholars would agree that the earliest Christian gatherings were probably much more interactive and much smaller than the typical evangelical service today. Over the centuries, as churches grew larger, became institutionalised under Orthodoxies and Catholicism, and developed clergy structures, the service gradually became more centred on designated leaders. This has placed an intermediary between God and man other than Christ Himself!

So, my comparison is specifically between Paul's description in 1 Corinthians 14 and a contemporary evangelical service where hundreds of people sit facing a stage, it is understandable why I see a significant disconnect. The key question then becomes whether that disconnect represents a legitimate adaptation to larger congregations or a departure from the New Testament pattern itself. Christians have been debating that question for centuries. I think it is obvious where I stand in this disconnect between what Paul described as typical Church life” and the man-made structures of modern evangelicalism. How Paul commanded us to meet has been crushed under an organizational format that places manmade structures at the centre of Church meetings rather than the Holy Ghost!

The other thing I find particularly frustrating is that the entire Western zeitgeist is under an attack by the heresies of postmodernism and critical theories. Christian gatherings are failing to equip the Church to stand against these Gnostic heresies.

From a traditional Christian perspective, especially one grounded in Christian doctrine, there is an obvious tension:

·       Christianity claims objective truth.

·       Christianity claims historical revelation.

·       Christianity claims that God has spoken authoritatively.

·       Christianity claims that human nature is real and not infinitely malleable.

Christians should therefore see certain postmodern and critical-theory assumptions as Gnosticisms incompatible with core Christian doctrines. My frustration lies in the churches’ refusal to address them directly. Many evangelical churches devote substantial time to:

·       worship music,

·       personal encouragement,

·       practical life application,

·       family issues,

·       emotional and relational topics,

But without sound doctrine these things fall short of the Glory of God while spending comparatively little time equipping Christ’s Body to engage with:

·       philosophy,

·       epistemology,

·       competing worldviews,

·       secular ideologies,

·       intellectual history.

As a result, people may leave church knowing how to discuss their feelings but not how to answer fundamental questions such as:

·       What is truth?

·       How do we know what we know?

·       Does objective morality exist?

·       What is a human being?

·       Why is Christianity different from Gnosticism?

·       What assumptions underlie contemporary identity politics?

·       What does Scripture say about authority, justice, power, and nature?

Historically, Christians often invested heavily in these questions. The early church confronted:

·       Gnosticism,

·       Platonism,

·       pagan mystery religions,

·       various heresies concerning Christ and the Trinity.

The Reformers engaged:

·       scholasticism,

·       ecclesiastical authority,

·       Renaissance humanism.

In the twentieth century, Christian thinkers engaged:

·       Marxism,

·       nihilism,

·       existentialism,

·       logical positivism.

One could argue that every generation has had to train believers to recognise the dominant intellectual currents of its age in the light of the Truth of Christ.

I have made this comparison because I see modern ideologies as dividing humanity into categories of fake enlightenment and false consciousness or treating subjective awareness as more authoritative than objective reality.

My broader concern, however, is one that many pastors, theologians, and lay Christians leaders have expressed: if churches focus almost exclusively on personal inspiration and internal experience, they may produce believers who are not well equipped to analyse and respond to the major philosophical and cultural challenges of our time.

In this sense, I echo a concern found in the New Testament. Paul's letters are not merely devotional. He repeatedly warned believers about "every wind of doctrine", deceptive philosophies, false teachers, and arguments that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. The assumption is that Christians need not only encouragement, but also intellectual and spiritual discernment.

May God save us from WOKE ideation!

 

 

How Carney's policies align with Agenda 2030

The UN 2030 Agenda includes goals on climate action, sustainable finance, clean energy, sustainable cities, reduced inequality, and public-private partnerships. Canada's own SDG reporting identifies climate action, clean energy, sustainable infrastructure, partnerships, and social programmes as core parts of its implementation of Agenda 2030. [canada.ca], [canada.ca]

Carney's critics point to several aspects of Carney's public record:

• Net-zero transition policies. Carney has repeatedly advocated moving economies towards net-zero emissions and integrating climate considerations into economic decision+-* `-making. As UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, he described net zero as a central economic objective. [un.org], [media.news...lumbia.edu]

• Climate-related financial disclosure. Carney helped promote climate-risk disclosure frameworks and has argued that climate risks should be measured and reported by major institutions. Critics view this as part of the ESG and sustainability governance architecture associated with Agenda 2030. [un.org], [cse-net.org]

• Sustainable finance. He was involved in initiatives such as the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which seeks to align large pools of private capital with net-zero goals. Critics argue this represents large-scale coordination between governments, regulators, and financial institutions. [cse-net.org], [un.org]

• Public-private partnerships. Commentary on Carney's policy vision frequently references using public and private capital together to finance economic transition projects. Public-private partnerships are also highlighted within UN sustainable development frameworks. [cse-net.org], [canada.ca]

• Industrial decarbonisation and climate competitiveness. Carney has supported maintaining or strengthening industrial emissions-reduction mechanisms and broader transition policies aimed at reaching net-zero targets. [clearbluemarkets.com], [sustainableviews.com]

Why Carney's critics say he is "managing decline"

People making this argument generally reason as follows:

1. Higher energy costs Critics believe aggressive decarbonisation policies raise energy, transportation, and production costs, reducing competitiveness relative to countries with lower regulatory burdens.

2. Constraints on resource development Canada is rich in oil, gas, mining, and other natural resources. Critics argue that stronger climate policies can limit development of sectors that historically generated significant income and investment.

3. Financial-sector influence Because Carney has a background in central banking, global finance, climate finance, and international institutions, some critics believe economic decisions will increasingly be shaped by financial and regulatory priorities rather than market demand. [un.org], [cse-net.org]

4. Preference for managed economic transition Critics argue that rapid restructuring towards a lower-carbon economy risks sacrificing existing industries and jobs before replacement industries are fully established.

5. Global governance concerns Some opponents view alignment with UN goals, international climate agreements, and global financial frameworks as transferring influence away from purely national decision-making. Carney's involvement with UN climate-finance initiatives is often cited in support of this concern. [un.org], [media.news...lumbia.edu]

What can be demonstrated?

The evidence clearly shows that Carney has been strongly associated with:

• net-zero policies,

• climate finance,

• ESG-related disclosure frameworks,

• international climate initiatives,

• sustainable-investment strategies,

• public-private financing of economic transition. [cse-net.org], [un.org], [clearbluemarkets.com]

What the evidence does not by itself prove is that he intends to "manage Canada's decline". That is an interpretation made by critics based on their view that these policies will weaken Canada's economy. The evidence supports the existence of the policies and goals; whether they constitute deliberate decline is a separate judgement.

The Core Thesis:

Carney's critics argue that Mark Carney represents a form of "technocratic global governance" in which financial institutions, regulators, international organisations, and governments are coordinated around climate and sustainability objectives that closely overlap with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They point to his own public statements, his UN roles, and his work in climate finance as evidence.

The argument is not that Agenda 2030 is hidden. Rather, critics say it is being implemented openly through financial, regulatory, and industrial policy.

Element 1: Direct Association with UN Climate Initiatives

One of the strongest factual connections is that Mark Carney served as UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. In that role, he promoted mobilisation of private capital toward climate-transition and net-zero objectives.

Critics argue:

Agenda 2030 places climate action among its principal goals.

Carney spent years helping design financial mechanisms intended to accelerate climate-transition policies.

Therefore, his political programme naturally aligns with major Agenda 2030 objectives.

Element 2: Financial System as the Main Lever

A recurring theme in Carney's speeches is that climate concerns should become embedded within financial decision-making.

He has argued for:

• climate-risk disclosure,

• mandatory reporting,

• net-zero investment strategies,

• alignment of capital markets with climate goals.

Critics claim this is more significant than legislation because:

• banks determine lending,

• pension funds determine investment,

• insurers determine risk pricing.

If those institutions adopt common sustainability standards, critics argue that entire sectors can be reshaped without direct government orders.

Element 3: ESG as a Governance Mechanism

Carney was involved in promoting climate-related disclosure frameworks and helped advance systems that evaluate climate-related corporate risks.

The critical interpretation is:

• ESG metrics become de facto requirements.

• Access to capital increasingly depends upon ESG performance.

• Economic behaviour is guided through financial incentives and restrictions rather than democratic debate.

• Critics therefore see ESG as a governance tool rather than merely a reporting tool.

Element 4: Net Zero as an Organising Principle

Carney has frequently described the transition to net zero as a major economic objective and opportunity.

Critics counter that:

• net-zero targets require large-scale intervention,

• energy choices become politically driven,

• sectors such as oil and gas face structural pressure which disallows access to abundant and cheap energy.

They argue this transforms economic planning from market-led development into goal-directed development.

Element 5: Public-Private Partnerships

Agenda 2030 explicitly includes partnerships among governments, corporations, financial institutions, and civil society.

Commentary regarding Carney's policy approach frequently highlights public-private financing of economic transition projects.

Critics say this creates:

• concentrated decision-making,

• influence for large financial actors,

• reduced influence for ordinary market participants.

Whether that criticism forms a major part of the argument.

The "Managed Decline" Argument

The strongest version of the "managed decline" claim usually has five steps:

Step 1: Canada's comparative advantage is resource development:

• oil,

• gas,

• mining,

• forestry,

• agriculture.

Step 2: Net-zero policies increase costs and regulatory burdens on those sectors.

Step 3: Investment shifts toward politically favoured sectors through subsidies, regulations, disclosure requirements, and transition programmes.

Step 4: Traditional industries are weakened before replacement industries become equally productive.

Step 5: Economic growth slows while Canada's relative position declines.

Critics therefore conclude that policymakers are knowingly accepting lower growth in exchange for delusional climate objectives.

That line of reasoning is what leads some opponents to use the phrase "managed decline".

Why Carney's critics Focus on Carney Specifically

Many politicians support climate policies. Critics focus particularly on Mark Carney because he brings together several roles rarely found in one person:

• Governor of the Bank of Canada,

• Governor of the Bank of England,

• UN climate envoy,

• climate-finance advocate,

• promoter of net-zero investment frameworks.

Because of that combination, critics see him as one of the most influential architects of the global climate-finance movement rather than simply another politician discussing emissions reductions.

The Strongest Factual Claim That Can Be Made:

The strongest claim directly supported by available evidence is:

Mark Carney has spent years advocating climate-focused financial regulation, net-zero investment strategies, climate-risk disclosure, and public-private mobilisation of capital, and these goals substantially overlap with major objectives contained in the UN's 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals.

A different and stronger claim, namely that he is intentionally trying to reduce Canada's prosperity or deliberately manage national decline since only someone who is utterly malicious would have so successfully and deliberately pursued the impractical ideological lunacy of Canada's carefully orchestrated decline initially as an adviser to Justin Trudeau and now as Prime Minister for these past ten years!

My concerted opinion about Carney:

A pox be upon him and his household, for every aspect of his orchestrated reign of socio-economic tyranny leads me to only one conclusion. Carney is ushering in a new age of authoritarian global governance where he intends to sit at the pinnacle of a cabal of illiberal ideologically possessed tyrants.