Welcome to lizard mode: living subjectively

 

Today we are witnessing libidinous need to do harm among those who claim to have philanthropic intentions. It is often said that one should follow the money to discover the source of the corruption, but money and power are mere tools being used by those engaged in social engineering to hurt humanity under the guise of being socially responsible. Remember those kids in the playground who got off on pulling the wings off of flies or who hurt little animals because the tiny creatures were incapable of defending themselves against their psychopathic tendencies? Well, the same species of psychopath has grown up and find their ideal social niche in doing harm under the guise of philanthropy and social engineering!

 

The Subjective Lie: How Governments Turn Citizens into Lizards:

 

We’ve all felt it—that low-grade hum of dread that never quite goes away. Not panic, not terror—just a constant, gnawing unease. And it’s not random. It’s engineered.  

 

Modern governments don’t need tanks or gulags anymore. They’ve found something cheaper, cleaner: subjectivity. The idea that truth isn’t fixed. That reality bends to consensus. That what’s “true” today can be “problematic” tomorrow. And every time they sell that lie, they flip a switch in your head—from prefrontal cortex (logic, empathy, planning) to amygdala (fear, rage, survival).  

 

Welcome to lizard mode.  

 

#Step One: Blur the Facts: 

It starts small. A politician says, “This isn’t about facts—it’s about how you “feel”.  A news headline reads, “Experts disagree,” even when evidence which could disprove the sanctioned narrative is deliberately being ignored. Social media algorithms reward outrage over accuracy. Suddenly, the world isn’t made of gravity and math—it’s made of opinions.  

 

And if truth is just opinion? Then nothing’s safe. Your job, your rights, your identity—they’re all up for vote. You start scanning for threats everywhere: the neighbour who supports the wrong candidate, the teacher who refused to use the “correct pronoun”, or the headline that might mean you might be next.  

 

Fear isn’t loud. It’s quiet. It’s the amygdala whispering: “They could rewrite you tomorrow!”  

 

#Step Two: Weaponize Belonging:  

Humans are pack animals. We evolved to conform—because exile meant death. Governments know this. So, they don’t force you. They just make nonconformity hurt.  

 

Call out a lie? You’re “divisive.” Question the narrative? You’re “dangerous.” Refuse to play along? You’re “toxic.” The pack turns. And suddenly, your prefrontal cortex—your reasoning center—feels like a liability. Better to shut it down. Better to rage. Better to scream along.  

 

That’s not weakness. That’s biology. The amygdala doesn’t negotiate. It just wants to survive.  

 

#Step Three: Keep the Fear Simmering:  

They don’t want you terrified—just anxious. Constantly. A little cortisol drip keeps you compliant. So, they feed you contradictions: “We’re safe, but also under siege.” “We’re free but also oppressed.” “The science is settled—until it isn’t.”  

 

Each flip-flop erodes trust. Each erosion pushes you deeper into the lizard brain: fight, flee, or freeze. Never think. Never question. Just react.  

 

And the beauty of it? You do the work. You police yourself. You self-censor. You unfriend the skeptic. You cheer when the “wrong” person gets cancelled. You become the enforcer.  

 

Lizard people don’t need chains. They build their own cages.  

 

#The Endgame:

This isn’t conspiracy—it’s control. A population in amygdala mode doesn’t vote rationally. It votes emotionally. It doesn’t debate—it denounces. It doesn’t solve problems—it punishes them.  

 

And once you’re there, you’re easy. No need for gulags. Just keep the lie alive: “There’s no objective truth.” “Reality is what we say.” “You’re either with us or against us.”  

 

The prefrontal cortex dies quietly. The amygdala takes over. And suddenly, you’re not a citizen anymore. You’re a reflex. A follower. A lizard.  

 

But here’s the glitch: some of us refuse. We hate the blur. We hate the fear. We hate being told “it depends.” Because we know—truth isn’t subjective. It’s either true or it isn’t.  

 

And the second we say that out loud? The spell cracks!  

 

So, keep saying it. Keep standing outside the pack. Keep your lights on.  

 

Because the lizard brain only wins if everyone joins the chorus.  

 

And as for me? I’m not singing. I hope that you will refuse to echo the lies too.

 

#Who invented the endgame?

 

Here are the big names who shaped “Postmodern Cultural Relativism”—folks who argued truth, morality, and meaning aren’t universal but depend on context, power, language, and culture:

 

·       Michel Foucault 

  Power/knowledge combo—everything from prisons to sexuality is shaped by shifting discourses. No "objective" truth, just who controls the story.

 

·       Jacques Derrida 

  Deconstruction king. Words never pin down meaning; everything’s slippery, full of contradictions. Relativism baked into language itself.

 

·       Jean-François Lyotard

  Coined "postmodern condition"—said grand narratives (Marxism, science, progress) are dead. Knowledge is local, fragmented, legit only in its own game.

 

·       Richard Rorty

  American pragmatist twist: truth is what works in a community, not what matches reality. Irony and solidarity over absolute foundations.

 

·       Jean Baudrillard

  Hyperreality guy—reality’s been replaced by signs and simulations. Culture’s a hall of mirrors; nothing’s "real" anymore.

 

·       Fredric Jameson 

  Marxist lens on postmodernism: late capitalism turns everything into pastiche, depthless images. Relativism as symptom, not solution.

 

·       Judith Butler 

  Gender as performance—identity is not fixed, it’s scripted by culture. Pushes relativism into bodies and norms.

 

If you want the "purest" relativists, Foucault and Derrida are the spine—everyone else riffed off them? We must ask why would anyone wish to pull the carpet out from underneath the feet of our understanding of reality itself?

 

A Scriptural Perspective:

 

From a Christian perspective, the idea that “truth is relative” is consistently rejected as a Satanic lie. The Bible presents truth as “objective, grounded in God’s character”, and knowable rather than something that shifts with personal preference or cultural mood. Here are the main ways Scripture addresses this idea.

 

#1. Truth is objective and rooted in God

 

The Bible does not treat truth as something humans invent. It presents truth as something that “exists independently of us”, because it comes from God.

 

·       John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”  Jesus does not say he teaches truth or offers one version of it; he identifies himself “as” truth.

 

·       Numbers 23:19: God is not described as flexible or contradictory; His word is dependable.

 

·       In Biblical thought, truth is not relative because God is not relative.

 

 

#2. Relativism is portrayed as moral confusion

 

Scripture often describes societies that reject objective truth as drifting into disorder and injustice.

 

·       Judges 21:25: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”   This verse is not praise; it summarizes a period of moral collapse in Israel.

 

·       Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”  This directly addresses the reversal of moral standards—one of the outcomes of relativism.

 

The Bible links “everyone defining truth for themselves” with social and spiritual breakdown.

 

#3. The Bible anticipates resistance to absolute truth

 

Scripture explicitly warns that people will prefer subjective or comforting beliefs over truth.

 

·       2 Timothy 4:3–4: People will gather teachers who tell them what they want to hear and will *“turn away from the truth.”*

 

·       John 18:38:  Pilate’s question, “What is truth?”, is often read as cynical or dismissive, reflecting skepticism rather than sincere inquiry.

 

Relativism, in this view, is not presented as intellectual progress but as “avoidance of uncomfortable truth”.

 

# 4. Relativism is linked to rejecting God, not ignorance

 

The Bible does not frame relativism primarily as a lack of information, but as a “choice”.

 

·       Romans 1:18–25: describes people who “suppress the truth” and exchange it for substitutes that suit them better.

 

This passage suggests that denying objective truth is tied to rejecting God’s authority, not merely philosophical disagreement.

 

# In summary:

 

According to the Bible:

 

·       Truth is “real, objective, and grounded in God”

·       Relativism is portrayed as “confusion”, not freedom

·       Denying truth is linked to “moral and spiritual consequences”

·       The proper response is “faithfulness to truth paired with humility and love”

 

So here are some memes that I have created that pinpoint the nauseating contradictions of Postmodern Cultural Relativism:

 

~ I exist to distill truth to cure the WOKE mind virus. Money & power are mere tools to fulfill psychopaths' libidinous need to do harm!

 

~ Limited responsible government becomes functionally impossible when subjective feelings trump objective reality!

 

~ No one with good intentions appeals to emotion as a substitute for using reason based on ethics, epistemology, & ontology.

 

~ A psyop attacking the reason & empathy of the prefrontal cortex is allowing the fear & rage of the amygdala to assume control.

 

 

How authoritarians weaponize emotions

 

Why are murderous ideologies invariably based upon hijacking our emotions?

Murderous ideologies are frequently rooted in intense, primal emotions rather than rational thought because these ideologies are designed to bypass critical thinking and trigger immediate, often violent, behavioural responses. By focusing on emotional drivers such as fear, anger, and rage, these ideologies manipulate individuals into perceiving threats and acting on them, often bypassing the brain's rational, logical centres.

Here is a breakdown of why murderous ideologies are based primarily on feelings:

1. Emotions Overpower Rationality:

Hijacking the Brain: Intense emotions like outrage and fear activate the amygdala—the brain's, survival-focused "primal" center—which can override the prefrontal cortex, the area responsible for logic, empathy, and decision-making.

"Crimes of Passion": Many violent acts are not calculated, but rather impulsive reactions to intense emotions like jealousy, revenge, or, most commonly, fear-based anger.

The Role of Fear: Fear is a powerful, primary motivator that can shut down rational thought and drive people toward aggressive, protective, or "defensive" actions against perceived enemies.

2. Dehumanization and "Us vs. Them" Dynamics:

Emotional Categorization: Ideologies often foster an "us versus them" mentality, which uses emotion to categorize people, leading to dehumanization.

Creating "Bad Essence": To justify violence, ideologies often promote the idea that the target group is not just different, but fundamentally evil, subhuman, or animalistic. This removes the emotional barrier of empathy, allowing for cruelty without guilt.

3. Psychological Justification and Control:

Post-hoc Rationalization: While initially driven by feelings, murderous ideologies provide a structure to justify actions after the fact. People tend to look for reasons for their actions, so once the killing begins, hate serves as a justification that reinforces the behaviour.

Authoritarian Dynamics: Extreme violence is often linked to "authoritarian personalities" who seek to regain a sense of power or control when they feel threatened or insecure.

Emotional Manipulation: Manipulators exploit cognitive biases by using emotional triggers, such as, for instance, in the Holocaust where anger over economic and political crises was channelled into antisemitism.

4. Need for Belonging and Meaning:

Group Cohesion: Murderous ideologies often provide a sense of purpose and social belonging. The pressure to conform to a group makes it difficult for individuals to break away, as they fear rejection.

Ideology as a Shield: Such belief systems are often "hard shells" of fixed dogmas that protect individuals from the uncertainty of reality, hiding an underlying, chaotic, and unbridled emotionalism.

In Conclusion: Murderous ideologies are effective because they leverage, rather than challenge, the most raw, primitive, and intense emotional states of human beings.

To sum this up:

So, the question remains, why are so many of our so-called democratic institutions captured by hyper-emotionality that leads to them becoming authoritarian and as a result potentially murderous? Why are so many of the leftist leaders of Western countries decrying the combined efforts of Israel and the US to end the tyranny of a murderous theocracy which has killed thousands of its own people while attacking its neighbours with impunity as it shouts death to Israel and death to the USA? Western leaders are openly sympathising with the homicidal hyper-emotional irrational world view of Islam, and its top-down absolutism because they hope to do something similar to their own citizens. This is why British subjects are now being jailed for Facebook posts and why Tommy Robinson is under constant attack from the authorities for exposing the extent of the Muslim rape gangs operating in the UK. It's time to restore reason to politics by rejecting the toxic feelings upon which Postmodern Cultural Relativism and Cultural Marxist Critical Race Gender and Climate Catastrophizing Theory operate.

But here’s where it gets kinky:

For many years I booked and hosted blues gigs and events in Niagara to some measured success. As a result, the blues scene in the Niagara Peninsula is “happenin”, as we say in the biz. What is invaluable in playing the blues convincingly is feel. Many folks have the coordination and ear to play well technically. Many have mastered the theory of music to express themselves using their understanding of harmony, modes, melody, time, and technique to play well mechanically but do so without any real mojo. However, some folks who seem to know nothing of these things theoretically still play with such expression and passion that it astounds me that such “funkitudinal groovinality” could exist. I know since I have had the privilege of playing with them. However, what is useful in both playing music and in artistic expression is a very poor tool to use to navigate the multivariate complexities of this wicked world. Due to my utter rejection of the group think of social collectivism and my stance on the importance of a responsible government limited by constitutional law and inherent rights, my former musical chums have come to loathe me with a flaming passion. They live purely by feelings where rational, calm, and circumspect discourse are words they would need a dictionary to understand.

Yet what I have witnessed in the music scene has now become what my wife calls “the spirit of the times” where hyper-emotionality, outrage, and grievance narratives are all that determines how folks will react to the harsh realities confronting them. Whether this is due to being raised without discipline and consequences for their bad behaviour where parents and teachers both taught little Johnnie and dear wee Sally that they were the centre of the universe such that their false perceptions of what constituted fair ought to trump their own failure to toughen up, or whether this is due to the chemicals and hormones in our food that are turning our brains into mush, who can tell? Perhaps the prefrontal cortex responsible for logic, empathy, and decision making has become an amorphous blob of useless fat leaving the amygdala’s survival-focused "primal" centre in control. Today much of the West is fulfilling Devo’s prophecy in the tune Joko Homo!

They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind in sails

Are we not men?
We are Devo
Are we not men?
D-E-V-O

We're pinheads now
We are not whole
We're pinheads all
Jocko Homo

Are we not men?
We are Devo
Are we not men?
D-E-V-O

Are we not pins?
We are Devo

Monkey men all
In business suits
Teachers and critics
All dance the poot

We are living in a dystopia where monkey men in suits dancing the poot have become our leaders doing the jerk as they climb deeper into bed with murderous Islamic theocracies and Communist China that supply dictatorships with the means to attack Western democracies along with the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel! We have now regressed into our amygdala’s lizard brain to become “lizardus erectus”!

Postmodernism: The Abolition of Man

 

We need to understand the psychology of people who seek to control everything while themselves are totally unrestrained in their own behaviour. C.S. Lewis explains this in his book the “Abolition of Man”. It was C.S. Lewis's primary thesis in that book that modern education and culture are quietly dismantling the very idea of objective moral truth—what he calls the "Tao," a universal natural law of right and wrong that cuts across all civilizations. 

He argues that when we treat values as mere subjective feelings (or "preferences") rather than real truths, we end up producing "men without chests"—people who have intellect and appetite but no moral backbone. The final twist: the very elites who push this relativism will eventually use science and technology to remake humanity itself, abolishing real human nature in the process. 

In short: reject the Tao, and you don't just lose morality—you lose the capacity to be human.

So let me map this directly onto Canadian public-sector governance frameworks:

Here is a “concise but rigorous explanation”, framed explicitly through “C. S. Lewis’s concept of the Tao” and its relevance to “Postmodern governance and Critical Theory” showing the structural consequences.

1. What Lewis means by “the Tao” (the starting point)

By “the Tao”, Lewis does “not” mean Taoism as a religion, but what he calls “objective value”: the shared moral grammar found across civilizations—natural law, traditional morality, or the belief that some things are “really” good, just, noble, or evil, regardless of preference or power. Lewis argues that reason itself depends on this moral backdrop: we cannot reason about what “ought” to be unless we already accept some values as given rather than constructed. (https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-abolition-of-man/terms/the-tao), (https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Abolition-of-Man )

When Lewis says rejecting the Tao leads to the “abolition of man,” he is not claiming people become immoral monsters overnight. He is saying something subtler and more devastating: Namely the loss of the conditions that make moral reasoning, human dignity, and even disagreement intelligible at all. (https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/abolition-of-man-according-to-angus-menuge.pdf )

2. What “rejecting the Tao” looks like in Postmodern and Critical frameworks

Postmodernism and many strands of Critical Theory are explicitly “anti-foundational”.

They reject:

*   Objective or universal moral standards

*   Stable meanings (truth as something discovered rather than constructed)

*   Appeals to “nature,” “human essence,” or “natural law”

Instead, values are treated as:

*   Products of “power relations” (Foucault)

* “Social constructions” contingent on discourse

*  Historically situated narratives with no privileged standpoint. (https://ispcjournal.org/32-5/ ), (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-349-21718-2_7.pdf )

In governance, this translates into administrative and policy frameworks that emphasize:

*   Narrative over norm

*   Lived experience over shared standards

*   Equity outcomes over principled constraints

*   Power analysis over moral evaluation. (https://polsci.institute/perspectives-public-administration/postmodern-approach-in-governance/), (https://midwest.edu/upload/07library_05-04-02thesis/Public%20Administration%20English%20Thesis%28PA%29/5_critical%20management%20studies%20and%20public%20administration%282015%29.pdf )

This is not accidental; it flows directly from Postmodern epistemology.

3. Why Lewis would say this erodes “the capacity to be human”

Lewis’s core claim is that “values are not optional add-ons to reason”. They are its precondition. Once value judgments are treated as merely subjective or political, several things follow:

a. Moral language collapses into technique

If “good” means “what advances an approved framework”, then ethics becomes “instrumental”—a matter of policy optimization, not moral truth. Governance becomes management of outcomes, not judgment of right and wrong. Lewis foresaw this as the rise of “Conditioners”: elites who shape behaviour without reference to objective standards. (https://www.studyguides.blog/abolition-of-man-summary-analysis-lewis )

b. Power replaces persuasion

In a post-Tao system, disagreement is no longer about truth but about “positionality”. Those who dissent are not “wrong” but “problematic”. This aligns closely with Postmodern governance models that treat resistance as something to be managed rather than reasoned with. (https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781040287156_A49841261/preview-9781040287156_A49841261.pdf )

c. The “chest” disappears

Lewis’s famous image of “men without chests” refers to people who can calculate (head) and desire (belly) but lack trained moral sentiment—the ability to “recognize” what is worthy of admiration or contempt. Postmodern systems often explicitly distrust such judgments as biased or oppressive, hollowing out the very faculty that makes moral agency possible. (https://samselikoff.com/writings/cs-lewis-abolition-of-man ), (https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/abolition-of-man-according-to-angus-menuge.pdf )

4. How this plays out when injected into “all facets of governance”

When Critical-Postmodern assumptions become “totalizing”—embedded in law, education, HR, public administration, and policy design—the result is not neutrality but a new orthodoxy:

* “Rules without roots”: Norms enforced without appeal to shared human goods

* “Rights without duties”: Claims severed from obligations grounded in human nature

* “Equity without limits”: No principled stopping point, because no objective telos exists

* “Inclusion without truth”: Belonging prioritized over whether beliefs correspond to reality

Lewis’s warning is that this does not free humanity from constraint; it “subjects humanity to whoever controls the framework”. The conquest of nature becomes the conquest of man by man, justified not by truth but by theory. (https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/abolition-of-man-according-to-angus-menuge.pdf), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Man )

5. The core insight, restated plainly

To reject the Tao is not merely to lose “traditional morality.” It is to deny that humans share a nature that makes moral reasoning possible. In postmodern governance, this denial manifests as systems that still command, judge, and punish—but no longer in the name of truth, only in the name of power, process, or progress.

Lewis’s claim is stark but precise: “once you deny objective value, you do not get a better kind of human—you get a manipulable one”. So how does “Postmodern governance unintentionally recreate moral absolutism under a different name”?

Below is a “conceptually rigorous explanation” of this phenomenon:

Postmodern governance unintentionally recreates moral absolutism under a different name, since it is grounded in “mainstream scholarship on Postmodernism, i.e. Foucault, Lyotard, and Habermas”, and then explicitly connected this to governance.

Here are four steps related to this connection:

1. Postmodernism’s stated aim: rejection of moral absolutes

Classical Postmodern theory explicitly rejects:

* “Objective truth”

* “Universal moral values”

* “Foundational moral authority”

As summarized by “Encyclopaedia Britannica”, Postmodernism treats reality, knowledge, and “value as constructed by discourse”, denying the existence of objective or absolute moral values. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy/Postmodernism-and-relativism )

Lyotard famously defines Postmodernism as “incredulity toward metanarratives”—that is, toward any universal moral or historical story claiming authority over others. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Postmodern_Condition )

“In theory”, this leads to moral pluralism and humility but in reality, it does the opposite.

2. The internal contradiction: critique requires normativity

Here is the pivot point. Postmodern and Critical Theories “continuously condemn”:

*   Oppression

*   Exclusion

*   Injustice

*   Harm

*   Domination

But condemnation is “not morally neutral”. To say something “ought not” exist presupposes a standard by which it is wrong.

This is what critics call “the self‑refutation or “cryptonormativity” problem”:

*   Postmodernism denies universal moral standards

*   Yet it relies on “strong moral judgments” to function at all

This paradox is widely documented by critics of Postmodernism, including political theorists and philosophers. (https://polsci.institute/understanding-political-theory/critiques-postmodernism-grand-narratives-inconsistencies/ ), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_postmodernism )

3. How power quietly replaces truth (Foucault’s contribution)

Foucault resolves the contradiction by “replacing truth with power”.

In his power/knowledge framework:

*   Truth is not discovered but “produced”

*   Norms emerge from discursive and institutional power

*   Knowledge is inseparable from governance and control (https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/powerknowledge-michel-foucault ), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-knowledge )

Importantly, Foucault does “not” deny norms—he relocates them. They are no longer “true”; they are “enforced” and therefore illiberal.

Habermas explicitly criticizes Foucault for this move, arguing that Foucault smuggles in moral judgments he cannot justify—what Habermas calls “cryptonormativity”. (https://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol4.1/01_powell.html )

4. What happens when this enters governance

When Postmodern assumptions are operationalized in governance, four things happen simultaneously:

a. Absolutes return — but disguised as process

Governance frameworks assert “non‑negotiable commitments” (e.g., equity, inclusion, harm reduction), but explicitly deny grounding them in universal human goods.

They become:

*   Mandatory

*   Enforced

*   Non‑contestable

This is moral absolutism “without metaphysics”.

b. Disagreement becomes pathology

Because norms are framed as outcomes of justice rather than moral claims, dissent is reinterpreted as:

*   Ignorance

*   Bias

*   Harm

*   Resistance to progress

This follows directly from power/knowledge logic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-knowledge )

c. Moral language therefore loses appeal to reason. Debate no longer asks “Is this true or good?”  Rather it asks, “Who is harmed?” or “Which group is marginalized?”

These are “important questions”, but they are not sufficient as universal moral criteria—and they are not open to rational falsification!

d. Enforcement replaces persuasion

Without shared moral truth, governance relies on:

*   Compliance mechanisms

*   Training and re‑education

*   Performance metrics

*   Cultural enforcement

Exactly the outcome critics of postmodernism warn about. (https://www.colorado.edu/education/sites/default/files/attached-files/Beyer_Liston_Discourse_or_Moral_Action.pdf )

5. Why this is absolutism, not relativism

Moral absolutism is defined by “three features”:

1.  Claims that cannot be overridden

2.  Norms that apply regardless of individual judgment

3.  Sanctions for dissent

Postmodern governance meets all three: “it simply relocates authority from truth to power”.

As critics note, postmodernism often becomes the very “grand narrative” it sought to dismantle: a universal story about power, oppression, and legitimacy that admits no external challenge. (https://polsci.institute/understanding-political-theory/critiques-postmodernism-grand-narratives-inconsistencies/ )

6. Lewis’s insight, confirmed philosophically

C. S. Lewis predicted this exact pattern: When objective value is denied, values do not disappear—they are imposed.

Postmodern governance does not abolish morality. It “centralizes it”, bureaucratizes it, and immunizes it from critique.

Habermas—no conservative—arrives at the same conclusion from a different angle: without shared rational norms, critique collapses into power struggles dressed as ethics. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20152793 )

7. The distilled conclusion

Postmodern governance rejects moral absolutes in theory, but recreates them in practice—grounded not in truth or human nature, but in institutional power and moralized outcomes.

That is why it feels simultaneously:

*   Relativistic in philosophy

*   Absolutist in enforcement

Which is why everything in Postmodern Canada feels fake, like false and enforced conformity that denies the very foundational principles of our Western philosophical underpinnings. Postmodernism is anti-Christian to its ideological core and must be denounced and exposed for the manipulative falsehood that it is! It is indeed the manifestation of what C.S. Lewis explained in the Abolition of Man!

Mark Carney's "Value(s)": A Banker’s Cover for Critical Theory

 

Dear readers/listeners, I have become almost desperate to help people understand that what we are facing is not merely a political battle; it is a spiritual struggle for the integrity and survival of the foundations of Western society. Rebellion to restore Peace, Order, and Good Government isn't Revolution, rather it would be Restitution! We aren't living in a democracy, rather we are living in a kleptocracy led by kakistrocrats! Since I never make assertions without defending my argument with evidence, I have drafted the following in the hopes that it might help you to better understand how Carney and his ilk, the identical species of financial market manipulators and financiers to be found in the Epstein files, have sunk to almost unbelievable depths of depravity. These kleptocrats are using the Neo-Marxist rhetoric of Critical Race, Gender, and Climate Catastrophizing Theory to defend and hide their profiteering, unscrupulous investing, and predatory lending.

 

Of all the social collectivist ideologies Marxism has proven to be the most persistent due to its ability to reinvent itself in new forms. The reason for this is due to the essential problem with its core premise that everything is a material struggle for power and domination. In1930’s Germany the fathers of Critical Theory emerged as a reaction to the failure of Marxism. Added to them we must include the French Postmodernists who had their part to play in creating a denial of a Grand Narrative thereby introducing cultural relativism. It is cultural relativism which has led to the mass immigration from nations who do not share our values. The merging of Critical Theory with Postmodernism has been manifested today as what could best be described as WOKE Marxism. Nevertheless, the DNA of Dialectical Materialism still comprises its core component, that we live a purely material world in a constant battle for limited resources despite the fact all the warnings regarding such limits have proven to provide the fear mongering needed so make us willling to give up yet more of our freedoms to a centrally controlled society run by the ideological elite.

 

If you understand what they are doing, you will stand alone since few wish to conceive of evil made manifest! ~ Wm. H. Rymer

 

**Mark Carney's "Value(s)": A Banker’s Cover for Critical Theory and Government Overreach**

 

Mark Carney's 2021 book *Value(s): Building a Better World for All* isn't a Marxist manifesto—it's smarter than that. It doesn't cite Adorno, Marcuse, or Gramsci. It doesn't wave a red flag. Instead, it whispers the same ideas in boardroom English: ideas that markets aren't neutral; that they're rigged by hidden power. Inequality isn't just unfair—it's portrayed as a self-reinforcing, and corrosive, a betrayal of "social fabric" due to free market capitalism. Climate change isn't policy—it's "the ultimate betrayal of intergenerational equity," an existential sin that demands we revalue everything from carbon to community. Diversity? Not charity, but resilience: "A more diverse system is more resilient," he writes, tying gender gaps, racial disparities, and unpaid labour into a single "fairness" fix. Every single idea are echoes of the writings of the renowned Critical Theorists from the past dressed up in boardroom language.

 

Obviously, this isn't new. Carney’s book is Critical Theory applied to what he labels as the elite power embedded in systems, where false consciousness is sold as "price," norms Carney says that need dismantling for the “greater good”. Carney calls it "stakeholder capitalism," but the bones are pure Frankfurt School: critique the market society that commodifies people, then replace it with "values" enforced top-down. ESG investing, carbon pricing, solidarity as policy—they're tools used to override profit, not debate it. He doesn't say "hegemony"; rather he says "externalities." Same effect: elite control, dressed up as ethics!

 

And then came the Freedom Convoy—proof in action. In February 2022, Carney wrote a Globe and Mail op-ed framing the Ottawa protest as "sedition," an "insurrection" funded by "foreign donors" who should be "thoroughly punished." No violence, no guns—just honking, flags, and frustration over mandates. Yet he pushed "follow the money," "choke off" funding, treat dissent as anarchy. A week later, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act—froze seventy-six bank accounts, seized three-point-two million in donations, no court orders, no trials. Courts later ruled it illegal: unreasonable, ultra vires, Charter-violating. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld that in January 2026. No justification. No threat.

 

Although Carney wasn't PM then—he was advising, commenting, cheering. No smoking gun proves he ordered the freezes, but his "sedition" rhetoric greased the wheels. He didn't need to; he just echoed the critical-theory reflex: label opposition pathological, starve it, call it an attack on public order. The convoy wasn't seditious—rather it was Canadian. But Carney treated it like counter-revolutionary noise. That's not economics. That's control.

 

Today, as PM, he pivots to tariffs, jobs, defense—pragmatic, sure. But the playbook stays: emergencies justify bending rules, values justify bending freedom. *Value(s)* sold us a moral upgrade. What we got was a banker who sees dissent as a bug, not a feature—and the law as optional when the officially sanctioned narrative is at stake.

 

Under the Liberal Party of Canada, the Canadian government has pursued a radical agenda while hiding its ideological origins. The result is a deeply fractured nation with a failing economy. Yet these are merely the symptoms of a much deeper spiritual rot that reflects a society which on the one hand has become godless while on the other due to mass immigration sees Islam fast replacing the Christian foundations of our beleaguered nation. If that doesn’t concern you, then you are a fool!