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 28th 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment