Mark Carney and Stakeholder Marxism

 

Preamble:

Today I will read from two articles which describe in lurid detail why Mark Carney will be an unmitigated disaster for Canadians after I share a few personal thoughts on our present situation. He represents the most insidious version of a regulatory all-controlling nanny state that intends to monitor your thoughts, movements and economic transactions. Most Canadians are ill prepared for what Carney’s reign of illiberal socioeconomic control portends for us.

I am a free enterprise, free market economy absolutist knowing full well that those who want economic control do not produce themselves, create no value, and confiscate our wealth in the name of redistribution to distribute our assets right into their own coffers! The entire purpose of a functional democracy is to have maximum local representation. Mark Carney's Globalist Premiership spells the diametric opposite of that.

So, first I will address my Conservative and Libertarian friends, here's what those of you who claim to loathe the Globalist LPC-NDP coalition fail to understand. You falsely assume that they must be stupid, but they are not. Globalist Socialism does not exist because of stupidity, rather it exists because of the sin of pride. In fact, it was created by brilliant people driven by the will to power. Therefore, you fail to understand them. They believe themselves to be so enlightened that they have the right to exercise total control over us. They also believe that we are nothing but under evolved troglodytes who must be lorded over by them due to our inherent unenlightened ignorance. This is precisely how the NAZIS viewed the Jews. As a result, Conservatives have become Postmodern Jews in this emerging Marxofascist system where investment bankers have found the means by which they can abscond our assets while persecuting us for standing up for economic freedom. This global cabal are Malthusian anti-humanists who seek to run the world in the name of saving the planet by culling “Mother Gaia” of humanity! But if you're looking for stupid, look no further than the idiots who support their own ruin out of suicidal empathy for the leaders of this Gnostic mystery cult. If I have learned any one lesson it is that playing nice with socialists leads to an endless attempt to reason with those who have but one agenda namely, to take the long march through our institutions to poison them from within. So, my gloves are off.

Then now to my socialistically minded friends, I have but one fear. That I will fail to successfully warn you about how insidious leftist goals are and how truly maniacal the leaders chosen not by you but by the elite themselves truly are. I seriously wonder why the proletariat never asks how their socialist leaders became so obscenely wealthy. Since the socialist elite subscribe to an economic model based upon redistribution rather than production they've managed to redistribute the income of the proletariat into their pockets. Are foolish stupid enough not to realize the fact that your socialist leaders are a new parasitical bourgeoisie who lack all the virtue of the old since the old produced stuff while employing you?

#MarkCarney

Canada's Failing Government and Failing Media in a New Age of Geopolitics by Tom Quiggin

In Canada, the media and politicians have shown a remarkable lack of knowledge surrounding our current geopolitical and economic situation. It appears to be a case of wilful ignorance.

The biggest upheaval in global politics, which has been building up for a decade or more, is now happening at breakneck speed.

Canada is ill prepared and will be ground to powder.

TRUMP

What is Trump on about? And how does Canada fit into this situation? It matters, as the US economy is 10X that of Canada. They have a military and a border force. We do not. Like it or not, they have an emerging plan for a new direction. Canada, on the other hand, remains dedicated to crushing itself to please European and Chinese globalists.

TRUMP AND CHINA

Trumps key area of policy interest is China. He correctly believes that China’s pursuit of “Unrestricted Warfare” (Chinas’ term) over the past 20 years or more has been successful. America has been deindustrialized. The Belt and Road Initiative has successfully moved into Africa, Eurasia, South America and North American. Brazil has a pro-China socialist government etc etc etc

China wants influence in the Arctic and has already put Chinese mining companies into Greenland. (Shenghe Resources/Kvanefjeld Project and General Nice and the Isua Project are but two examples)

Fentanyl, organized crime, espionage, commercial investments and real estate investments have been a major part of this activity.

TRUMP AND FENTANYL

Since 2018, more than 250,000 Americans have died from fentanyl overdoses. (Vietnam War = 58,000 dead).  This does not include opiates - just fentanyl.

The fentanyl crisis is driven almost entirely by China and Mexican cartels. Canadians are heavily implicated in this, such as TD Bank doing organized money laundering for fentanyl profits of Mexican cartels. D Bank, a Big Five Canadian bank, helped kill 250,000 Americans. This is not a good plan for Canada. TD Bank was run by a Ugandan and the Canadian government has done nothing to go after TD Bank or the others for their role in killing Americans. Total state of denial on the part of Trudeau/Ford.

Interestingly enough, a conservative estimate based on Public Health Canada data suggests that between 35,000 and 40,000 Canadians have died from fentanyl-involved overdoses since 2016. (Canadian military deaths in WWII were around 45,000.)

TRUMP AND CANADA

Trump sees Canada (correctly) as having been thoroughly infiltrated by China. He sees Canada as a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. Remember that even the Canadian parliament has admitted there are a dozen or more MPs/Senators who have been compromised by China.  Look at Vancouver or Toronto real estate. Read Sam Cooper’s book on China’s infiltration (Wilful Blindness: How A Network Of Narcos, Tycoons And Chinese Communist Party Agents Infiltrated The West )

Canada is also seen has having been grossly infiltrated by the Iranians, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Khalistanis. The “northern border” of the USA is now often seen as a national security threat rather than the world’s longest undefended border.

TRUMP AND EUROPE/NATO/UKRAINE

Trump wants to clear the decks before making the big push against China. This means figuring out what to do with Nato/Ukraine -and by extension what to do with Europe. Trump has consistently argued since 2016 that the USA will no longer pay the lion’s share of Nato spending in Europe. He has consistently stated that Ukraine is a European problem and Europe needs to fix it.

He will find a way to do one of two things. Either get the war stopped or turn it into a European problem only.

TRUMP AND RUSSIA AND CHINA

As stated above, Trump’s biggest interest is China. Under Biden, the “unthinkable” occurred when Russia and China became clearly aligned with each other. Preventing this has been a corner stone project of American diplomacy since the end of WW Two.

Trump will find a way to drive a wedge back between China and Russia – it is in the interests of both America and Europe that this occurs.  This means, for one thing, getting the war in Ukraine stopped and off the table.

CANADA IS FAILING

Like it or not, Canada is now at the center of a global geopolitical struggle between the USA and China, with Russia and Europe in play on the sidelines. The Arctic is a key battleground. Energy is a key battle ground. Strategic minerals and rare earth minerals are a battleground. Trade and manufacturing are now seen as tools of the struggle.

Canada’s natural resources and geographic location place us in a brilliant position to help ourselves and to help Europe and the USA. Instead, we have madly maintained anti-energy and anti-mining policies aimed at "saving the world" while impoverishing Canada. Canada has a strong anti-energy policy while multiple countries have addressed us – wanting to buy the energy we refuse to develop.

Canadian politicians seem to feel insulting Americans is a policy option – while refusing to even acknowledge the changing world around us.

Canada now has virtually no ability to protect its own “sovereignty” in the north. Trump will not stand by while China and Russia move further into the Arctic while Canada does nothing.

TRUDEAU/CARNEY/FORD/FREELAND

The politics of division has been the hallmark of Trudeau and his “post nationalist” policy orientation. He has been blindly followed by others such as Freeland and Ford.

Former Deputy Prime Minister/Finance Minister Freeland recently suggested that Canada should form an alliance with France and the UK so as to be in a position to threaten America with nuclear weapons. Having closely followed political and security affairs for over forty years, this might be the most stupid and dangerous statement ever made by a Canadian. Threatening America with a nuclear attack while standing in Canada is a complex form of suicide. Presumably, US national security officials will see this as the mindless ranting of a clueless ex-political figure – yet Freeland may yet play a role in the next Liberal government of Carney.

Without going into details, Ford is equally clueless. A former hashish dealer for seven years with a violent family past, he still sees the world through the lens of a jumped-up corner boy.  But he is now in the big leagues and shows no awareness of the powers he is challenging.  Ontario and Canada will get hurt.

As for Carney – he is Trudeau 2.0 – but arguably worse.

CANADA AND THE USA

The options for Canada to re-emerge into something which could be prosperous and beneficial exist. Unfortunately, no one in Canada from any party seems to be aware we are caught up in the wheels of a massive meat grinder.

The media in Canada are of little help.  Paid by the government and driven by "advocacy journalism" the vast majority of our social justice journalists do not even have the intelligence to ask the right questions anymore.  They are cluess (a few exceptions)

We are in trouble.

(But don’t worry. The Canadian Forces have tampons in the men’s washroom and we banned plastic straws. That will fix stuff.)

 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-mark-carney-man-of-destiny-arises-to-revolutionize-society-it-wont-be-pleasant

Peter Foster: Mark Carney, man of destiny, wants to revolutionize society. It won't be pleasant

FROM THE ARCHIVES: What Carney ultimately wants is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism

Author of the article: Peter Foster

Published Jun 05, 2021  •  Last updated Jan 16, 2025 

Mark Carney has announced his candidacy for the Liberal party leadership and prime minister. Originally published on June 5, 2021, this in-depth Peter Foster column provides a unique look into Carney’s ideas, particularly as expressed in his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All.

In his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Mark Carney, former governor both of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, claims that western society is morally rotten, and that it has been corrupted by capitalism, which has brought about a “climate emergency” that threatens life on earth. This, he claims, requires rigid controls on personal freedom, industry and corporate funding.

Carney’s views are important because he is UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. He is also an adviser both to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on the next big climate conference in Glasgow, and to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the “Great Reset,” or the “Green New Deal,” or “Building Back Better.” All are predicated on the claim that COVID, and its disruption of the global economy, provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not just to regulate climate, but to frame a more fair, more diverse, more inclusive, safe and more woke world.

Carney draws inspiration from, among others, Marx, Engels and Lenin, but the agenda he promotes differs from Marxism in two key respects. First, the private sector is not to be expropriated but made a “partner” in reshaping the economy and society. Second, it does not make a promise to make the lives of ordinary people better, but worse. Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty: “Assets will be stranded, used gasoline powered cars will be unsaleable, inefficient properties will be unrentable,” he promises.

The agenda’s objectives are in fact already being enforced, not primarily by legislation but by the application of non-governmental — that is, non-democratic — pressure on the corporate sector via the ever-expanding dictates of ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) and by “sustainable finance,” which is designed to starve non-compliant companies of funds, thus rendering them, as Carney puts it, “climate roadkill.” What ESG actually represents is corporate ideological compulsion. It is a key instrument of “stakeholder capitalism.”

Carney’s Agenda is promoted by the United Nations and other international bureaucracies and a vast and ever-growing array of non-governmental organizations and fora, especially the World Economic Forum (WEF), where Carney is a trustee. Also, perhaps most surprisingly, by its corporate victims. No one wants to become climate roadkill.

Carney clearly feels himself to be a man of destiny. “When I worked at the Bank of England,” he writes in Value(s), “I would remind myself each morning of Marcus Aurelius’ phrase ‘arise to do the work of humankind’.” One is reminded of French aristocrat and social reformer Henri de Saint-Simon, the “grand seigneur sans-culotte,” who ordered his valet to wake him with similar words: “Remember, monsieur le comte, that you have great things to do.”

That is not the only thing Carney has in common with Saint-Simon, who believed that society should be ruled by savants such as himself; an alliance of engineers and other technocratic intellectuals, along with bankers. Carney is very much a banker technocrat, not merely at ease gliding along the corridors of global bureaucratic power, but expert at framing arguments that support an ever-expanding role for his class.

His expansive pretensions first appeared at the Bank of Canada. If the economy is like a game of ice hockey, then central bankers should, ideally, be like Zamboni drivers, whose job is to keep the ice flat (Carney had in fact been a goalie during his academic years at both Harvard and Oxford). At the Bank of Canada, he often seemed like the Zamboni driver who thought he was Wayne Gretzky. He could never resist lecturing private businesses to stop sitting on “dead money,” or telling them they were too timid in the international arena, or advising consumers that they were spending too little, or borrowing too much. He promoted “macroprudence,” the idea that regulators, in their panoptic wisdom, would focus on the forest, not the trees. Now, he wants to establish himself as an intellectual.

Carney has a lot to put straight with the world. According to his new book, and the related BBC Reith Lectures that Carney delivered last year, the three great crises of credit (2008–09 version), COVID and climate are all rooted in a single problem: People in general, and markets in particular, are not as wise, moral or far-seeing as Mark Carney. He sums up this failing as the “Tragedy of the Horizon,” a phrase he concocted for a speech ahead of the 2015 Paris climate conference.

However, Carney is sophistic when it comes to the alleged moral shortcomings of capitalism. It has been one of the most tedious tropes of the left since at least The Communist Manifesto that the rise of commerce would drive out all that is virtuous in society, leaving nothing but the “cash nexus” of trade. One of Carney’s favourite philosophers is Harvard’s Michael Sandel, who produces endless trivial examples suggesting that we have moved from a “market economy” to a “market society.”

“Should sex be up for sale?” Carney thunders, following Sandel. “Should there be a market in the right to have children? Why not auction the right to opt out of military service? Why shouldn’t universities sell admission to raise money for worthy causes?” But the very fact that people reflexively feel uneasy about — or outright reject — such notions entirely disproves his point. People do not believe that everything is, or should be, for sale.

Carney notes the long debate, going back to classical times, on the nature of commercial value. This was theoretically resolved by the “marginalist revolution,” which put paid to the “paradox of value” that puzzled over the (usually) low price of useful water and the (usually) high price of useless diamonds. The marginalists pointed out that commercial value isn’t determined by usefulness or labour input. It is inevitably subjective, based on personal preferences and available resources. There is no paradox. Someone dying of thirst in the middle of the desert might be more than willing to offer a bucket of diamonds for a bucket of water.

Mark Carney is a UN Special Envoy on Climate Action.

However, market valuations are essentially different from moral values, a distinction Carney continually muddles. He misrepresents the marginalist/subjectivist perspective, claiming that it implies that anything not commercially priced is not considered valuable. “Market value,” he writes, “is taken to represent intrinsic value, and if a good or activity is not in the market, it is not valued.” But who holds such an idiotic view? Nobody “prices” their family, children, friends, community spirit or the beauties of nature, although there is certainly lots of calculation going on in the background. Carney constantly berates “market fundamentalist” straw men who employ “standard economic reasoning” and who believe that people are rational and markets perfect.

He incorrectly claims that Adam Smith — in his first great book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments — said that a sense of morality was “not inherent.” In fact, Smith believed that we are born with such a sense, which is then fine-tuned by the society in which we grow up. However, Carney — like all leftists — leans towards the blank slate, nurture-over-nature perspective because it suggests that human nature might be beneficially reformed under the right (that is, left) social arrangements.

Carney believes our moral sentiments started going astray around the time of the publication of Smith’s better-known book, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776, when the Industrial Revolution was beginning to take off. He rightly suggests that one should read both books to gain a full appreciation of Smith’s insights, but he seems to have missed the significance of Smith’s putdown of “whining and melancholy moralists,” his cynicism about “insidious and crafty” politicians, and his thoroughgoing skepticism about those who would “trade for the public good” (that is, the ESG crowd). Moreover, Smith noted that the greatest corrupter of moral sentiments was not commerce but “faction and fanaticism,” that is, politics and religion, which come together in the toxic stew of climate alarmism and ESG.

ESG used to be called Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR. The Nobel economist Milton Friedman warned against its subversive nature 50 years ago. He noted that taking on externally dictated “social responsibilities” beyond those directly related to a company’s business opened the floodgates to endless pressure and interference. The big questions are responsibility to whom? And for what?

Carney also typically misrepresents Friedman, suggesting that he claimed that shareholders should rank “uber alles,” and to the exclusion of other legitimate stakeholders such as employees and local communities. Carney claims that “At times, large positive gains could accrue to society if small sacrifices were made on behalf of shareholders.” But by what right would management “sacrifice” shareholders, and who would decide which sacrifices should be made?

Carney admits that the “integrated reporting” required by ESG is a morass: “ESG ratings consider hundreds of metrics, with many of them qualitative in nature… Putting values to work is hard work, but as with virtue, it should become easier with sustained practice.” No need to ask whose version of values and virtue is to prevail.

Despite his thorough castigation of market society, Carney somehow also believes this “corroded” society is clamouring to make great personal sacrifices for draconian climate actions and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Carney has been a prime pusher of “net-zero,” the notion that climate-related human emissions must be entirely eradicated, buried or offset by 2050 if the world is to avoid climate Armageddon. He claims that net-zero is “highly valued by society.” In reality, the vast mass of people have no clue what it entails; when Carney talks about this version of “society,” he is talking about a small, radical element of it.

Carney peddles the non-sequitur that because the world wasn’t ready for COVID, this confirms that the world is being short-sighted about climate catastrophe. But COVID is an obvious reality; an existential climate catastrophe is a hypothesis (frequently promoted — admittedly with great success — by those with agendas). He claims that “A good introduction to this subject can be found in journalist David Wallace-Wells’ The Uninhabitable Earth,” a work heavily criticized even by prominent climate-change scientists for its factual errors and exaggerations. Indeed, even its author admitted its tendentious purpose.

Carney also commends the knowledge and wisdom of Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg: “The power of Greta Thunberg’s message lies in the way she drives home both the cold logic of climate physics and the fundamental unfairness of the climate crisis.”

Anybody who cites an anxious 17-year-old as an authority on climate science and moral philosophy should be an object of deep suspicion, but then, according to Carney, climate science is easy. Greta’s “basic calculations” are ones that she could “easily master and powerfully project.” (Carney says he once gave Greta a tour of the Bank of England’s gold vaults. One wonders if she also offered up tips on monetary policy.) But then, in early 2020, Greta demonstrated her complete disconnect from reality when, at the WEF in Davos, she called for an immediate cessation of emissions, which would tank the world economy and potentially kill millions. Even Carney admits deviating from her wisdom on that point.

Far from demonstrating a firm knowledge of the climate system himself, Carney cites scary but misleading statistics. “Since the 1980s,” he writes, “the number of registered weather-related loss events has tripled, and the inflation-adjusted losses have increased fivefold. Consistent with the accelerated pace of climate change, the cost of weather-related insurance losses has increased eightfold in real terms over the past decade to an annual average of $60 billion.”

I asked Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., an expert on climate and economics at the University of Colorado, to comment. He replied “(Carney) has confused economics with weather. The increase in losses he describes is well understood to occur for two main reasons: more wealth and property exposed to loss and better accounting of those losses. To assess trends in extreme weather one should look at weather data, not economic loss data.”

Among Mark Carney’s current responsibilities since leaving the Bank of England as its governor is advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Carney’s confusion is hardly innocent since his Agenda depends on incessantly claiming that “What had been biblical is becoming commonplace.” (In other words, what was once Sacred has collapsed into the profane)

Fortunately, Carney has been making claims about worsening weather for long enough that we can assess some of his predictions. In his recent book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin, former undersecretary for science at the Obama-era U.S. Energy Department, cites the speech Carney made to Lloyd’s of London before the Paris climate conference in 2015. The speech was designed to frighten the insurance industry into divestment from fossil fuels, on the basis that many oil and gas reserves would be “stranded” as we exhaust our allowable carbon “budget.” Carney pointed out that the previous U.K. winter had been the “wettest since the time of King George III.” He went on to say, “forecasts suggest we can expect at least a further 10% increase in rainfall during future winters.” For support he cited the U.K. Met Office’s forecast for the next five years. It turned out to be dead wrong. The six winters after 2014 averaged 39-per-cent less rainfall than the 2014 record. Meanwhile a Met Office report in 2018 acknowledged that the “largest source of variability in U.K. extreme rainfalls during the winter months was the North Atlantic Oscillation mode of natural variability, not a changing climate.”

“(I)t’s surprising,” notes Koonin, “that someone with a PhD in economics and experience with the unpredictability of financial markets and economies as a whole doesn’t show a greater respect for the perils of prediction — and more caution in depending upon models.”

During his BBC Reith Lectures last year, on the topic of “How We Get What We Value,” Carney received few challenges from his handpicked questioners, but a couple came from eminent historian Niall Ferguson. Ferguson asked Carney why, in his discussion of the climate issue, he made no reference to Bjorn Lomborg (a much more knowledgeable Scandinavian than Greta), and in particular to Lomborg’s book, False Alarm, in which Lomborg establishes — using “official” science — that there is no existential climate crisis, that adapting to climate change is manageable, and that the kinds of policies promoted by Carney are likely to be far more costly than any impact from extreme weather.

Carney of course hadn’t read that book, but he dismissed Lomborg by saying that “it’s 15 or 20 years ago when he first came out with his ‘Don’t worry about the climate.’ How’s that working out for us?” But Lomborg never said “Don’t worry about the climate,” he just suggested that we had to put risks into perspective. Meanwhile Lomborg’s non-alarmist thesis is working out much better than that of doomsayers such as Carney.

This offhand rejection of someone as widely respected as Lomborg exposes the hypocrisy of Carney’s statement in Value(s) that “experts need to listen to all sides … All of us as individuals have a responsibility to be more open and to engage respectfully with different views if we want constructive political debates and to make progress on important issues.” Except, climate-catastrophe dissenters don’t make it into the debate. There can be zero diversity of views on net-zero.

Ferguson put another thorny question to Carney at that Reith lecture: He pointed out that since the 2015 Paris agreement, China had been responsible for almost half the increase in global carbon emissions, and it was building more coal capacity in the current year than existed in the entire United States. What did China’s promises of net-zero by 2060 mean, Ferguson asked, if it was “actually leading the pollution charge”? Carney’s non response was that China is the largest manufacturer of zero-emission cars, and the leading producer of renewable energy.

Koonin notes in his book that Carney “is probably the single most influential figure in driving investors and financial institutions around the world to focus on changes in climate and human influences upon it…. So it’s important to pay close attention to what he says.”

Mark Carney cries crocodile tears at the possible viability of the Marxist perspective in today’s political environment. But if there is one sure sign of a Marxist, it’s a belief that capitalism is — or is about to be — in “crisis.” His new book has an appendix on Marx’s theory of surplus value: that all profits are wrung from the hides of labour. He also cites Marx’s collaborator, Friedrich Engels. In particular he notes “Engels’ pause,” the one period in capitalist history, early in the 19th century, when workers may not have shared the increases in productivity brought about by industrialization.

Carney projects that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (a phenomenon much invoked by the WEF) might bring about a similar period, thus providing a source of political unrest. “(I)t could be generations before the gains of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are widely shared,” he writes. “In the interim, there could be a long period of technological unemployment, sharply rising inequalities and intensifying social unrest… If this world of surplus labour comes to pass, Marx and Engels could again become relevant.”

He rather seems to hope so.

Carney claims powerful parallels between Marx’s time and our own. “Substitute platforms for textile mills, machine learning for the steam engine, and Twitter for the telegraph, and current dynamics echo those of that era. Then, Karl Marx was scribbling the Communist Manifesto in the reading room of the British Library. Today, radical viral blogs and tweets voice similar outrage.”

In fact, Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, based on a tract by Engels, in Brussels, not at the British Library, but it’s more important to remember where Marx’s misguided and immutable outrage led: to a disastrous economic and political model that generated poverty and mass murder on an unprecedented scale. Meanwhile “outrage” is surely a dubious basis for policy. The outraged are certainly a useful constituency for those seeking power, however, which brings us to the influence on Carney of the man who first tried to put Marxism into practice.

When it comes to the COVID crisis, writes Carney, “We are living Lenin’s observation that there are ‘decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen’.” Strange that Carney would cite one of the most ruthless murderers in history for this rather bland insight, but then Carney’s Agenda is not without its own parallels to Lenin (minus, one presumes, the precondition of rampant bloodshed).

Although Vladimir Lenin didn’t know much about business or economics, he declared that “’Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.” Carney’s plan is global. “We need,” he claims, “to electrify everything and turn electricity generation green.” The problem is that wind- and solar-powered electricity needs both hefty government subsidies and fossil-fuel backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Green electricity is inflexible, expensive and disruptive to grids.

Carney cites Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction,” but his own version involves not the metaphorical and benign process of market innovation making old technologies redundant, but a deliberate suppression of viable technologies to make way for less reliable and less economic alternatives.

When Lenin wrecked the Russian economy after brutally seizing power in 1917, he was forced to backtrack and allow some private enterprise to prevent people starving. However, he assured his radical comrades that he would retain control of “the commanding heights” of heavy industry. Carney’s plan is to control the global economy by seizing the commanding heights of finance, not by nationalization but by exerting non-democratic pressure to divest from, and stop funding, fossil fuels. The private sector is to become a partner in imposing its own bondage. This will be do-it-yourself totalitarianism. Indeed, companies in our one-party ESG state are already pleading like show-trial defendants, making suicidal net-zero commitments, lest banks cut them off.

To further that end, Carney has helped to start a key organization, the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a collection of central banks and regulators. He has also signed up an ever-growing constituency of activist policy wonks who peddle emissions measurement and certification, eco audits and ESG rankings. This agenda is inevitably appealing to transnational organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, whose empires are all lucratively intertwined with the global governance thrust. In May, the IEA issued a report calling for an immediate end to fossil fuel investment to get to net-zero.

Part of Carney’s strategy is to force “voluntary” standards on banking and industry, then have governments make those standards compulsory. The major accounting firms appear keen to promote the possibility of endless auditing extensions, under which the relatively straightforward metric of money is to be replaced by the infinitely malleable concepts of “purpose” and “impact.”

Carney has also helped turn the accounting screw through “carbon disclosure.” Companies are pressured to make explicit the kind of damage they might suffer if the alarmists’ worst nightmares are realized. Such disclosure is a variant on that famous loaded question “When did you stop beating your spouse?” Instead, carbon disclosure asks the climate equivalent of “If you were to beat your spouse, what sort of injuries might he/she suffer?” Companies must also disclose their plans to deal with the presumed crisis. No company dares to say “We do not believe your apocalyptic forecasts.” They meekly regurgitate the required climate porn about floods and droughts and hurricanes, and make elaborate fingers-crossed emissions-reductions commitments. This in turn leads them into arrangements such as buying emissions offsets, a complex scheme analogous to the medieval Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences. Carbon markets have inevitably led to a surge in work for offset generators, certifiers and auditors. Carney projects this market could be worth $100 billion.

Ironically, earlier this year Carney found himself tangled in the murky metrics of offsets. In 2020, he was appointed a vice chairman with Toronto-based Brookfield Asset Management, where he is in charge of “impact investing.” As historian Tammy Nemeth points out in her critical study of the “Transnational Progressive Movement,” of which Carney is a leading light: “(I)t is perhaps ethically murky for someone who is actively working within the UN and advising two different governments on how to change national and global financial rules to be working for a company that will be a direct beneficiary of those rule changes.” Still, who better to lead your company through a minefield than the person who planted the mines?

Except that Carney was hoist with his own petard when he claimed that Brookfield, which has major investments in fossil fuels and pipelines, was already “net-zero” due to emissions “avoided” as a result of its investing in renewable energy. Carney’s claim produced instant refutation and accusations of greenwashing. The Financial Times called it a “major stumble.” A representative of CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) castigated those who attempt to hide “dirty coal issues.” Carney subsequently issued a qualified mea culpa on Twitter: “I have always been — and will continue to be — a strong advocate for net zero science-based targets, and I also recognize that avoided emissions do not count towards them.”

H. L. Mencken observed that “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule.” So, just how big a threat is the agenda of Mark Carney and his fellow “transnational progressives”?

In his book, Value(s), Carney lays out rationalizations and autocratic pretensions, although he is less forthcoming about his motivations. He writes that “Leaders need to renounce power for its own sake and discern the power of service.” Mencken would be amused.

The shambolic response to COVID of many governments, not least in Canada, and the distinctly unsettled nature of pandemic “science,” have not done much for the credibility of either governments or experts. The Carney-backed agenda is not predicated on working through democratic institutions but on circumventing them. Still, he is also reported to have more conventional political aspirations, namely to join the federal Liberal party and rise within it, very possibly to prime minister. (Carney recently gave a speech at the Liberal national convention, where he pledged his full support.)

He thus has a rather ill-fitting section in Value(s) on “How Canada Can Build Value for All.” It reads like a Liberal party stump speech. According to Carney “We (in Canada) routinely transcend the limitations of our size to model values and policies for other countries.” It’s the old chestnut that no progressive Canadian leader ever seems to tire of: The world needs more Canada.

Carney is a classic example of what Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit” of constructivist rationalism: the belief that the largely spontaneous institutions of the market order should be rejected in favour of more deliberately planned arrangements. Carney is undoubtedly an intelligent man, but Hayek stressed that the thing that intelligent people tend most to overestimate is the power of intelligence — particularly if they happen to be socialists.

Carney is also of the class that philosopher Karl Popper described as “enemies” of an “open society.” Popper noted that social upheavals tend to bring forth prophets who claim to understand the forces shaping the future, and promise salvation if they are given absolute power. Such was Plato’s model — in response to the upheavals of the Peloponnesian War and the first wave of democracy — of a necessary dictatorship in which the rulers lived as communists, using a specially bred military to control a cattle-like populace. Similarly, Marx’s communism was a response to the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution.

Considering the squalor of Manchester in the 1840s, one might forgive Marx and Engels for thinking a radical response was in order. But given the success of capitalism and the horrors of autocratic systems in the intervening period, it takes considerable chutzpah to be promoting net-zero totalitarianism.

Still, Carney claims that great crises demand great plans. He cites Timothy Geithner, secretary of the U.S. Treasury under president Obama, saying “plan beats no plan.” But Geithner was talking about the very real and immediate 2008–09 financial crisis. Carney’s climate plan is much closer to the notion of Soviet central long-term planning. Clearly, when it came to the subsequent welfare of the Russian people, “no plan” would certainly have beaten “plan.”

What Carney ultimately wants, like Saint-Simon, is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism. He suggests that “governments can delegate certain aspects of the calibration of specific instruments… to Carbon Councils in order to improve the predictability, credibility and impact of climate policies.” These carbon councils will be able to demand that national governments “comply or explain” when they inevitably fall short of targets. How these commissars will bring governments into line is unclear, although Nobel economist William Nordhaus has suggested “Climate Clubs” that will punish recalcitrants with punitive tariffs.

The threat of punishment will clearly be necessary because governments are doing little more than hypocritical tinkering on climate policy. China and India are hardly even playing lip service to the “climate emergency.” Nevertheless, according to Carney “political technology” is needed to “build a broad consensus around the right goals.” No question of debating the goals, or the science, just building a consensus to support them.

Carney is a man on a mission to change global society.

“Business as usual” — the most hated phrase in the socialist lexicon — is “ultimately catastrophic,” he writes.

There is too much “misplaced acceptance of the status quo.” But somehow the new socialism will not be socialism as usual. This time it’s different. We can because we must. The threat is too great to permit any argument. It’s surprising that as he was picking out choice quotes from Lenin for his book, Carney missed this one: “No more opposition now, comrades! The time has come to put an end to opposition, to put the lid on it. We have had enough opposition!”

I oppose everything that Carney stands for. But what about you? Opposition to this tyranny has never been a greater public duty or a more significant Christian imperative!

Narcissistic Leaders and Abuse of Power

 

In today’s blog and its associated vodcast I aim to discuss narcissism and its propound influence on who will choose to run for political office and for whom we choose to vote. Pathological narcissism is the single greatest reason that we are facing a crisis of conscience in the West due to leaders who are prideful and utterly tone deaf to the voices of those who entrusted them with the responsibility to govern.  

First of all, narcissism and emotional insecurity go hand in hand which is why codependents and narcissists often end locked up in an unending cycle of dysfunction. This explains in large part why Trudeau acting tough has caused a resurgence of popularity among the codependent Canadian populace who are locked into the cycle of dysfunction that I just mentioned. Narcissists naturally detest self actualized individuals. This is the reason that those of us who are independent minded are labeled as Fascists and Nazis by the codependent horde who allow the government and the 4^th Estate to do their thinking for them.

While to the narcissist relationships are about dominance, power, and control. The narcissist’s only frame of reference is their own, since our opinions do not matter to them and cannot possibly enter the equation of the power dynamic they invariably employ.  I will remind you that a few days prior to the gathering of the truckers at the Freedom Convoy here in Ottawa in 2022, folks who had travelled over half of Canada in midwinter, from both directions, to express their concerns and feelings in a peaceful protest, Trudeau shoved them to the margins, declaring them a “fringe” and their views “unacceptable.” So, these are the methods by which we are currently being governed without parliamentary oversight. And these methods must be understood for us to counter them.  There are decided advantages of being a free-thinking heterodox person. This isn’t government of the people, by the people, for the people rather it is government by the blob, for the blob, of the blob. The blob consists of a political and bureaucratic class who march in unthinking lockstep. Those governing us are utterly tone deaf to our legitimate concerns due to their narcissism and pathological hubris.

Let us examine what narcissism is and how it operates:

Narcissism is a personality trait characterized by a pattern of self-centeredness and an excessive focus on one's own needs and desires. Some common traits associated with narcissism include:

1. Grandiosity: A sense of superiority and entitlement, often believing they are special or unique.

2. Need for Admiration: A constant craving for admiration, attention, and validation from others.

3. Lack of Empathy: Difficulty understanding or empathizing with the feelings and needs of others.

4. Manipulative Behavior: A tendency to manipulate and exploit others to achieve personal goals.

5. Arrogance: A belief in one's own superiority and a tendency to look down on others.

6. Fragile Self-Esteem: Despite outward confidence, narcissists often have fragile self-esteem and can be highly sensitive to criticism.

7. Envy and Competition: A strong inclination to envy others and view them as rivals.

8. Difficulty Maintaining Relationships: Narcissists often struggle to maintain healthy, long-term relationships due to their self-centeredness and lack of empathy.

9. Inability to Take Responsibility: They may avoid taking responsibility for their actions and instead blame others for their problems.

10. Impulsivity: Engaging in impulsive and risky behaviors without considering the consequences.

Pathological narcissists will seek relationships with individuals, or in our case voters, who can serve their emotional needs and ego. They are attracted to people who can provide them with admiration, validation, and a sense of superiority. Here are some types of people pathological narcissists may be drawn to:

1. Empathetic and Caring Individuals: Narcissists often target empathetic and caring individuals who are more likely to tolerate their self-centered behavior and provide the attention and validation they crave.

2. People with Low Self-Esteem: Individuals with low self-esteem may be vulnerable to the charm and charisma of a narcissist. The narcissist can use this vulnerability to gain control and manipulate the person.

3. Codependent Individuals: Codependent individuals tend to prioritize the needs of others over their own, which can make them easy targets for narcissists who exploit this dynamic to meet their own needs.

4. Successful or Well-Connected Individuals: Narcissists may be attracted to individuals who are successful, wealthy, or well-connected, as associating with such people can enhance the narcissist's own self-image.

5. Those Who Idealize Them: Narcissists prefer relationships where they are idealized and put on a pedestal. They seek individuals who view them as perfect and infallible.

6. Enablers: Some individuals are willing to enable the narcissist's behavior by tolerating their manipulation and accepting their excuses, allowing the narcissist to continue their self-serving actions.

It's important to note that narcissists are highly skilled at identifying and targeting individuals and voting demographics who will fulfill their needs, and they often employ charm and manipulation to establish and maintain these relationships. Such relationships can be emotionally damaging for the person, and again in our case, the nation involved, as they may experience emotional abuse, manipulation, and a lack of reciprocity in the relationship. And socioeconomic ruin as Canada goes toe to toe with Trump in an unwinnable trade war that cannot possibly serve the citizens of either America or Canada. Narcissist against narcissist where both are looking for feed their egos rather than feed their nations with affordable food.

9 Insidious Ways Narcissists Try to Control You: How to sidestep narcissistic manipulation and gaslighting.

Narcissistic people use a range of covert and overt tactics to manipulate others. As you read through the following list of nine devious tactics, you may wish to think of a narcissist in your life and identify if any of these tactics may have been used on you.

1.    Projecting:

Narcissists have a habit of accusing others of doing what, in fact, the narcissist is doing. For example: Narcissists who frequently lie will accuse you of being untrustworthy. Unreliable narcissists will claim that you are undependable and have let them down. Rageful narcissists will say that you’re the one who needs anger management. Narcissists tend to be unaware of such hypocrisies. They accuse in an instant, then become convinced of their accusations. Projecting allows them to avoid responsibility for their dysfunctional behavior while putting others on the defensive.

2.    Telling you your reality:

Many narcissists believe they have special insight into others and feel justified in naming others' reality. They may say things such as, "I know you better than you know yourself." By labeling others' thoughts, feelings, and motivations, narcissists seek to gain an upper hand by making others doubt themselves.

3.    Badgering:

Narcissists feel entitled to get what they want by any means necessary. As a result, they may endlessly badger others with demands, questions, and opinions. They may pressure you to give immediate answers or make instant decisions. They repeat lies, as if doing so makes it true. They won’t listen to other viewpoints and may get furious at questions or dissent. Narcissists often fail to recognize how much they offend others. If they do recognize it, they either don’t care or may even take delight in doing so. Narcissists have found that in many cases other people will become exhausted and give in. For them, that’s mission accomplished.

4.    Infantilizing:

Narcissists may talk down to others or use a tone of voice that a parent might use with a child. They may treat others as possessing lesser intelligence or having fewer rights. Demeaning others makes narcissists feel superior.

5.    Minimizing

Narcissists systematically minimize anything that makes them look or feel bad. They make excuses for their bad behavior by blaming others. They may deny outright that they have done anything destructive. Narcissists know that minimizing and stonewalling is hard for others to fight. Their minimizing reveals a double standard. When a narcissist insults or hurts another person, they hardly give it a second thought. But when a narcissist feels slighted, it can feel like the end of the world to them.

6.    Going nuclear

Narcissists are generally not adept at containing their strongest impulses or feelings. They feel free to throw tantrums, call names, or make a scene. Their larger-than-life feelings and reactions make them feel powerful and discharge uncomfortable feelings or thoughts. Once again, it puts others on the defensive.

7.    Shaming

Narcissists carry enormous shame, though this shame is generally outside their awareness. As a result, they tend to discharge their unpleasant feelings on those around them. They may question others’ legitimacy. They may chide others for a less-than-perfect performance or rub a failure in another’s face. They have a knack for knocking others down a peg. The result: They feel one-up. In addition, the recipients of their shaming may feel they have to defend or explain themselves, which often gives narcissists additional ammunition for more shaming.

8.    Flattering

Narcissists love to be complimented and thus believe that others also eat up praise. Sometimes they flatter as a way to induce you to respond in kind. They may try to stroke your ego to get something they want from you or to create dependency. Or they may pour on false flattery to defuse any attempts by others to hold narcissists accountable for their negative behaviors. Personality disorders are designed to hide or distract from an individual's greatest emotional and psychological vulnerabilities. Narcissists' most-dreaded experiences include feeling humiliated, inferior, or illegitimate.

9.    Political Control:

From Manipulism and the Weapon of Guilt: Collectivism Exposed by Mikkel Clair Nissen

Now we find they use orchestrated, designed, and calculated psychological coercion—subliminal conditioning that utilizes the weapon of guilt and enticement. Coercion is accomplished by means that are identical to the methods commonly known as Machiavellian egocentricity, which is described in psychology as the illusive ability to manipulate, subdue, and control others in order to achieve personal ends and desires. This results in weakening the general society, and even worse, further weakening society’s emotionally weakest citizens—the codependent collectivists. Conversely, this emotional weakness empowers the radical collectivist part of society even further. The more depraved the collectivist is—and thereby the more manipulative and malignant—the stronger the collectivist. These nine tactics are designed to protect the narcissist from confronting the reality that they fear through self-inflation, always at others' expense. And in our case, that nation’s

For example, narcissists tend to:

·       Play a win-lose game rather than seek win-win solutions

·       Seek superiority to gain the upper hand rather than seek for equitable solutions

·       Value appearance more than substance

·       Convince and coerce others rather than deal honestly with them

My conclusions:

The seven deadly sins refer to behaviors and habits that are considered among the most cardinal vices under Christian teachings. Ironically, the seven deadly sins do not appear explicitly in the Bible. However, each of these vices gets ample mention throughout the Bible and other religious books, albeit individually. Also known as capital vices or cardinal sins, the seven deadly sins are believed to give birth to other forms of immoralities. They include Pride, Greed, Wrath, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, and Sloth. These seven deadly sins stand in sharp contrast to the seven heavenly virtues of Prudence, Justice, Temperance, Courage, Faith, Hope, and Charity. We are governed by a cadre of narcissists who exhibit all of the former and none of the latter.

Abuse of Power and Injustice

Leaders are called to govern with justice and integrity. When they abuse their power and act unjustly, they not only harm others but also dishonor God’s design for leadership.

Proverbs 29:2

“When the godly are in authority, the people rejoice. But when the wicked are in power, they groan.”

Isaiah 10:1-2

“What sorrow awaits the unjust judges and those who issue unfair laws. They deprive the poor of justice and deny the rights of the needy among my people. They prey on widows and take advantage of orphans.”

Ecclesiastes 5:8

“Don’t be surprised if you see a poor person being oppressed by the powerful and if justice is being miscarried throughout the land. For every official is under orders from higher up, and matters of justice get lost in red tape and bureaucracy.”

 

Why the reactionary left is at war with Trump

 

Our present cultural dilemma:

Clickbait noun ˈklik-ˌbāt: something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest

I am constantly astounded at how easily many are being influenced by low resolution, overly simplistic analyses of our present culturally defining moment. Most will accept the clickbait which offers the most simplistic answers to the problems with which we are being confronted in so much as the clickbait preferred resonates with their particular ideological preferences. This reactionary attitude applies to all political stripes regardless of ideological bent.

What astounds me is that so few care to assess our defining cultural moment for themselves. I read few root cause analyses capable of defining our cultural situation. I see few suggestions as to how these issues might be addressed. There has been little attempt to even measure whether or not the preferred path forward is practical and useful.

Clickbait has replaced thousands of years of philosophical and theological studies of the human condition. It offers idiots reactionary solutions that appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's like crack cocaine to the weakest and least intelligent of minds. The true opiate of the people isn't Christianity, rather it is the belief that the state can solve our problems. No wonder society has become so desperate and nihilistic.

What is WOKE at its foundations ideologically speaking?

As a counter-reaction to this nihilism and loss of meaning the leading voices in restoring confidence and faith in our culture have identified two major components of WOKE ideology that have provoked the present backlash against radical leftism. Most of these voices of reason have become well known via alternative media and the 5^th Estate while the 4^th Estate generally holds them in utter contempt since the 4^th Estate operates as apologists for the political elite today. The first major ideological component to WOKE is Postmodern Cultural Relativism which states that all cultures except ours have equal value. Postmodernists also assert that language isn't really used to communicate, rather it's a tool wielded only to assert power and control. Postmodernists also deny that there is a grand narrative that can help explain life. Therefore, it's the Postmodernists like Derrida and Foucault, just to name two, who are responsible for the prevailing war on the meaning of language itself. Foucault was also a renowned paedophile.

The other ideological element of the radical left identified as prevalent today is Cultural Marxist Critical Race and Gender Theory. Cultural Marxism attempts to replace the Grand Narrative that built the West, namely Christianity. Postmodernists choose to ignore this fact since their first assertion is to reject the very idea of a Grand Narrative, nonetheless, they have adopted Critical Theory as their Grand Narrative. Moreover, there isn't a university in the West which doesn't teach these Neo-Marxist ideas as viable philosophical bases for political theory. This takeover of the Academy is known by those who have engaged in it as "the long march through the institutions" and how frighteningly successful it has been. Antonio Gramsci wrote in the 1930s of a “war of position” for socialists and communists to subvert Western culture from the inside. Gramsci was an Italian communist who is credited with the blueprint that has served as the foundation for the Cultural Marxist movement in modern America. Later dubbed by 1960s German student activist Rudi Dutschke as “the long march through the institutions”. Gramsci wrote in the 1930s of a “war of position” for socialists and communists to subvert Western culture from the inside in an attempt to compel it to redefine itself. So, Gramsci used war metaphors to distinguish between a political “war of position”—which he compared to trench warfare—and the “war of movement (or maneuver),” which would be a sudden full-frontal assault resulting in complete social upheaval.

A Shift in Strategy

In the 1998 book The Antonio Gramsci Reader, edited by David Forgacs, Gramsci’s development of a new form of strategy for ushering in the socialist revolution is made clear. Gramsci argued that the Bolshevik Russian revolution of 1917 worked because the conditions were ripe for such a sudden upheaval. He described the Russian revolution as an example of a “war of movement” due to its sudden and complete overthrow of the existing governing structure of society. Gramsci reasoned that in Russia in 1917, “the state was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous.” As such, a direct attack on the current rulers could be effective because there existed no other significant structure or institutions of political influence that needed to be overcome.

In Western societies, by contrast, Gramsci observed that the state is “only an outer ditch” behind which lies a robust and sturdy civil society. Gramsci believed that the conditions in Russia in 1917 that made revolution possible would not materialize in more advanced capitalist countries in the West. The strategy must be different and must include a mass democratic movement, an ideological struggle. His advocacy of a war of position instead of a war of movement was not a rebuke of revolution itself, just a differing tactic—a tactic that required the infiltration of influential organizations that make up civil society. Gramsci likened these organizations to the “trenches” in which the war of position would need to be fought.

The massive structures of the modern democracies, both as state organizations, and as complexes of associations in civil society, constitute for the art of politics as it were the “trenches” and the permanent fortifications of the front in the war of position: they render merely “partial” the element of maneuver which before used the “the whole” of war, etc. Gramsci argued that a “frontal attack” on established institutions like governments in Western societies may face significant resistance and thus need greater preparation—with the main groundwork being the development of a collective will among the people and a takeover of leadership among civil society and key political positions. It is important to bear in mind that Gramsci’s ultimate goal is still socialism and overthrow of the capitalist order. His contribution was to outline a different strategy for this to occur.

Gramsci’s Analysis of “Civil Society” and Hegemony

Gramsci defined civil society as the “ensemble of organisms commonly called ‘private.’” More directly, he described civil society as that sphere of social activities and institutions not directly part of the government. Primary examples included political parties, trade unions, church organizations, and other popular voluntary associations. Gramsci noted that dominant social groups in civil society organized consent and hegemony—they assumed a leadership position by the consent of members. Their leadership role includes fostering an ideological consensus among their members. Gramsci envisioned that these groups would organize their opposition to the existing social order.

Gramsci, however, viewed civil society in Western societies to be a strong defensive system for the current State, which in turn existed to protect the interest of the capitalist class. “In the West, there was a proper relation between state and civil society, and when the state trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed. The state was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks,” he wrote. In short, in times when the state itself may have shown weakness to overthrow from opposing ideological forces, the institutions of civil society provided political reinforcement for the existing order. In his view, a new collective will is required to advance this war of position for the revolution. To him, it is vital to evaluate what can stand in the way of this will, i.e. certain influential social groups with the prevailing capitalist ideologies that could impede this progress.

Gramsci spoke of organizations including churches, charities, the media, schools, universities and “economic corporate” power as organizations that needed to be invaded by socialist thinkers. The new dictatorship of the proletariat in the West, according to Gramsci, could only arise out of an active consensus of the working masses—led by those critical civil society organizations generating an ideological hegemony.

The only possible antidote:

Which is why using our taxes we have actively helped to fund an attack on the foundations of not merely the Academy itself, but the entire civil society of the once Christian West. This blend of Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism have caused the West to forget who we are to sew sympathy for the Devil. We are committing cultural suicide due to parasitical empathy for the very thing which intends to destroy us. What I have shared here is not a hidden Gnostic mystery. Rather it is common knowledge to any who are aware of what is actually being taught in our universities which in turn has been applied politically by the ideologically addled political class who have received university degrees in advanced Marxism. So, if you want a clickbait meme guaranteed to contain the absolute Truth, repent of your ideological possession and turn to Christ for without Christianity the West as a project in human dignity and freedom cannot survive!

 

So you think DOGE is dodgy do you?

 

Regarding the left's ongoing attack on competence and capability:

The left cannot exist without the use of deceit. Of necessity it must blend contradictory ideas into an impossible unity. On the one hand it states that life is a zero-sum enterprise while on the other it wastes funding for its social programs without any regard for the actual outcomes and how cost effectively said outcomes were achieved. This is the reason that to the rational mind leftist policies seem contradictory for the simple reason that they are. Most importantly leftists hate competence which is why they wage DEI wars where hiring is not based upon competence but rather upon immutable traits that have nothing to do with a person’s actual abilities. I am constantly reading criticisms of DOGE’s successful efforts to reduce waste, cost and variation in the American bureaucracy. I find it remarkable that the criticisms leveled against DOGE completely ignore the fact that Musk has built functional systems that government funded NASA has never managed to create. SpaceX was incorporated on 14 March 2002 while NASA was created in 1958. In all those years NASA’s government funded efforts haven’t managed to develop reusable recovery systems for the booster stages of rockets.

Private industry has no choice but to operate at a profit while the government via its bureaucracies have a licence to waste taxpayer’s money. Musk is a renowned expert in driving efficiency. I will go into the background of one of the outstanding young men Musk hired to work at DOGE. Luke Farritor is an American software engineer who is currently serving at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Luke is the son of Shane Farritor, a University of Nebraska–Lincoln professor from Ravenna, Nebraska. Luke interned at SpaceX in 2023. That year, he won a $40,000 prize from the Vesuvius Challenge for using artificial intelligence to uncover ten letters from one of the Herculaneum Papyri scrolls. Farritor's AI program segmented images of the carbonized scroll into 100 pixels by 100 pixels to determine the characters written in ink. In February 2024, Farritor and two other competitors he had teamed up with won the $700,000 grand prize for revealing more than 2,000 additional characters. Farritor studied computer science at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, before dropping out to become a Thiel Fellow in 2024. Farritor was appointed to the Department of Government Efficiency in 2025, and is among a group of 19–24-year-olds at the agency. Farritor currently holds a General Services Administration (GSA) email and A-suite level clearance, with access to all GSA physical spaces and IT systems, according to Wired. He is also an executive engineer in the office of the secretary of Health and Human Services. CNN reported on February 6, 2025, that Energy Secretary Chris Wright had that day granted Farritor access to the department's computer systems.

Luke is among six young engineers Musk has assembled as part of the DOGE team, some still in college, to spearhead a government overhaul aimed at slashing waste and inefficiencies, reported Daily Mail. Six young men between the ages of 19 and 24 — Akash Bobba, Edward Coristine, Luke Farritor, Gautier Cole Killian, Gavin Kliger and Ethan Shaotran — have taken up various roles furthering the DOGE agenda, according to a report from Wired. As a further example Bobba was part of the highly regarded Management, Entrepreneurship, and Technology program at UC Berkeley and has held internships at the Bridgewater Associates hedge fund, Meta and Palantir.

These young men are not billionaires, rather they are highly competent young engineers who know how to manage data to create functional and efficient computer systems. I am constantly astounded at how lefties long to waste the taxpayer’s money while at the same time believe that life is a zero-sum game. These two contradictory concepts cancel one another out. I detest big government with a flaming passion. Of all the evils in this world bureaucratic control and waste ranks among the worst. It is the mechanism by which the godless Tower of Babel is built. A totalizing system intended to "reach unto heaven" which is now collapsing under the weight of its own corruption. The left knows they are lying. They just hate the fact that their radical game of gaming the system to their corrupt advantage is coming to an abrupt and desultory halt!

What the leaders of every major political party in Canada cannot tell you

 

Today’s topic: Neo-Marxists who hide behind liberalism and our present Canadian dilemma:

Communists love to spread hate as well as to call themselves "liberal" to hide who they actually are! The result? We are living in an alternative reality. An upside-down world where Postmodern Cultural Marxists have created "newspeak" to disguise the actual meaning of words. They have done so because they believe words are not really used to communicate meaning but are tools wielded to control others. Life to them is nothing but the will to power! The chief reason they are forced to conceal their real identity is that their utopian planning is presently being revealed as an incredible dystopian lie! Fear mongering and coercion are its key features. The result is tyranny, yet the eventual outcome is exposing the corruption needed for our political class to resort to using such tactics.

Therefore, Neo-Marxism has had a profound effect on Canadian society. Up until recently Canadians historically took everything their political leaders had to say with a large grain of salt. We were unlike Americans in this regard since the notion of “my country right or wrong” was not part of our zeitgeist. We have never trusted our leaders in the way that Americans often do. They are known for viewing their politicians with either an almost God-like admiration or a passionate hatred. This reality has repeatedly been evidenced by how many times there have been assassination attempts in the US. Throughout American history, there have been 17 direct assaults against presidents and presidential candidates. Five of those incidents resulted in death.

Here in Canada, we have never felt that strongly about our Prime Ministers reflected by either a general disregard or outright mistrust of them. This attitude first began to change under Pierre Elliot Trudeau where he was viewed with either fanatical zeal or deep mistrust and loathing. This attitude faded in February of 1984 when he resigned and did not reemerge until his son became Prime Minister in 2015 when he was lauded by the bureaucracy as their saviour. And they were right, under his premiership the bureaucracy has metastasized like cancer to extend its illiberal regulatory control into virtually every cloying aspect of our lives. I have read reports that up to 60% of the cost of constructing a new home are in fees, levies, and hidden taxes.

But how have so many Canadians become so enamoured with leaders who are doing such permanent damage to our economy? Our elected representatives have engaged in social engineering which is changing the fundamental nature of Canadian culture! Our house was completed in 2017, and we moved in in December of that year. At present my entire neighbourhood has been ghettoized by people from India, Asia, the Middle East and Africa who are forcing their cultures on us rather than assimilating into ours. We are literally committing suicide by parasitical empathy as a result. But why have Canadians become so infatuated with policies that are wreaking such lasting socioeconomic damage?

Canadians’ emotional investment in radical Postmodern ideas:

Emotional investment refers to the commitment of our feelings and emotions to a particular belief, person, or cause. This concept is significant in understanding human behavior and decision-making. Here's how it works:

 1. **Identity and Self-Concept**

Our beliefs and values are deeply intertwined with our identity and self-concept. When we emotionally invest in a belief or cause, it becomes a part of who we are. Challenging that belief can feel like a challenge to our very identity, leading to strong emotional reactions.

 2. **Cognitive Dissonance**

When confronted with information that contradicts our emotionally invested beliefs, we experience cognitive dissonance—a psychological discomfort caused by holding conflicting thoughts. To alleviate this discomfort, we might reject, rationalize, or ignore the conflicting information to protect our emotional investment.

3. **Confirmation Bias**

Emotionally invested individuals tend to seek out information that supports their beliefs and avoid information that contradicts them. This is known as confirmation bias. It helps reinforce their existing beliefs and reduces the anxiety that comes from cognitive dissonance.

4. **Social and Cultural Influences**

Our social and cultural environment plays a significant role in shaping our emotional investments. Friends, family, and community can reinforce our beliefs, making it difficult to change them without risking social alienation.

5. **Emotional Resilience and Coping**

Emotionally invested individuals may develop coping mechanisms to deal with challenges to their beliefs. This can include rationalizing contradictory information, finding supportive communities, or engaging in activities that reinforce their beliefs.

6. **Persistence and Commitment**

Emotional investment often leads to a higher level of persistence and commitment to a cause or belief. People are more likely to stick with their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary, driven by the emotional attachment they have formed.

7. **Defense Mechanisms**

To protect their emotional investments, people may employ defense mechanisms such as denial, projection, or rationalization. These mechanisms help them maintain their beliefs and avoid the psychological discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Understanding emotional investment can help us appreciate why people hold onto their beliefs so strongly and how emotions play a critical role in shaping our perspectives and behaviors.

What the leaders of every major political party in Canada cannot tell you since they would instantly lose all support!

The Canadian government suggests that the Rule of Law does not apply to Chinese and Indian influence over our government. Why? Our overlords claim that nations with populations of 1.411 billion and 1.429 billion people respectively are "minorities" and therefore are untouchable! The only true minority in Canada today are those who can remember a time when the state did not yet control the narrative. There were myriads of things that our elected representatives could have done to make us freer, more independent, and prosperous. Instead, they squandered our wealth, investing it in the very countries whose citizens are fleeing to Canada to get away from the type of corruption those countries have now brought to our shores.

No wonder Trump has resurrected the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny since despite Trudeau’s claims that he has resigned and prorogued parliament, Trudeau continues to reign over us without parliamentary oversight. This is of course illegal, yet our weak courts do nothing. They have been bought with judges appointed to them who share the government’s radical agenda. And so, we are left undefended against Trump’s declaration that he will make us the 51^st State. A claim that is ridiculous since no state in the Union is as large as Canada which is the second largest nation on planet earth. We would need to be split into fractured and disjointed pockets of people who no longer have a common story to unite them. I cannot imagine anything more likely to create nihilism and despair.  

So, this is a time of cultural reckoning. My parents' generation had enemies who were external to Canada. In their time the nation united around fighting its common enemies. Today our greatest threats are internal. They come from those we have elected to govern us. Never before has Canada faced such an existential crisis. Our leaders have sold us out to a criminal fifth column operating within our borders whose goals are an existential threat to peace, order, and good government. They spell the utter ruin of the Godly values that have made Canada an experiment in constitutional democracy possible.

As Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has stated, taking God's name in vain is not merely using the Lord’s name as a curse as most might assume. Taking His name in vain actually refers to serving one’s own godless agenda while claiming that said agenda serves the highest possible good. This is where the Sacred has collapsed into the profane to the point where society has come to worship godlessness! We are being governed by ideologically possessed blasphemers who claim that they are serving the highest possible good yet in reality engage in the basest criminality which serves their own venal and disastrous outcomes!

The only possible answer:

God has a way of hemming us in. Of leaving us with an either-or decision. Literally a choice between death and life.

Deuteronomy 30:15-20

15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

20 That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

We are at one such moment in time. In the Hebrew language, the word חֶטְא (“sin”) literally means “to miss”. From which the Hebrew speaker understands that “to sin” means to “miss” the will of God, or worse that to pretend that by serving your own godless ends that this serves the highest possible purpose. This is the very definition of what it means to take the Lord’s name in vain.

2 Chronicles 7:14

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

But to return and have our land healed begins with this realization:

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” ~ Psalms 51:5.

To the Postmodernist belief in inherent sinfulness is utter foolishness since they believe that their project in top-down illiberal control will result of creating Utopia (literally “no place”). In this they reveal that their belief system is a Gnostic mystery religion to its very core. How can this be you might ask? Because Neo-Marxism begins with a criticism of religion, and it ends with a religion based on criticism.

I am calling you all to a day of national repentance that our land may be healed of the likes of Justin Trudeau, Mark Carney and Jagmeet Singh whose misguided policies have brought us to the brink of ruin. We continue to be governed by a cabal of treasonous ideologues without parliamentary oversight which by its very definition is illegal. This is God’s punishment where enemies of the Dominion of Canada within and without are seeking to overthrow us while robbing us of our inheritance of peace, order and good government.

Authoritarianism and the Grievance Narrative

 

Today I want to examine three well documented versions of authoritarianism to compare what they share in terms of the tools they employ to create group think, or as I like to call it, “mass psychoses”. Today we will examine what Orwell had to say in his novel 1984 about socialist authoritarianism since it was events in Communist Russia that impacted the plot and theme of 1984. Then I will examine the methods National Socialism employed to gain sufficient popularity to the create group think required to unify the German people. Finally, we will look at WOKE and its present hold on society despite recent signs that it has come under resistance from those who dare to think for themselves. Ultimately, we will examine how all three use a grievance narrative to foment cultural revolution.

But allow me to begin by starting at the end of this totalizing process. By this I mean I will begin where the Sacred has collapsed into the profane. To examine this, I hope to uncover the effects on society of the single characteristic which defines every authoritarian government, the grievance narrative that I just mentioned. Then I will end with a word of caution, as to why there cannot be a political solution to a moral, philosophical, and spiritual crisis.

At the heart of every authoritarian regime lies the delusional belief that the State ought to be given total socioeconomic control. Once this happens the executive branch of government will cease to be limited by the legislative branch. Which means that the executive branch may exercise undemocratic powers that are no longer representative of the public will. This story has been repeated all throughout human history perhaps being first best represented by the Tower of Babel narrative. The Mesopotamians attempted to build a system that would reach unto heaven so men could become like gods. The Babel narrative describes a society where the Sacred had collapsed into the profane. The outcome was confusion. An inability to communicate clearly. The old narrative that had once informed the Mesopotamians had to be surrendered to the ideas that could build the new order created by the Übermensch or the Over Man. He was the superior god-like man who could create a system that would reach unto heaven. This is why we instinctively find globalism so dangerous. Today people shout past one another without understanding the other. What was meant under the old narrative is forcibly displaced by “new speak”.

Orwell developed the idea of Newspeak in his dystopian novel, "1984". It was Orwell’s attempt to examine Soviet Communism. In 1984 the “Party” limited thought and prevented rebellion by reducing the complexity of language. Through Newspeak, Orwell explored the power of language to shape thought and control society, thus illustrating how totalitarian control is maintained. In 1984 Orwell showcased Newspeak's role in erasing historical truths while manipulating public perception, emphasizing the language's importance in maintaining the Party's dominance.

Yet today we welcome Babel 2.0! Those who are leading our Postmodern globalizing projects are driven by grievance narratives, resentment, pathological narcissism and the delusional belief that they are the high priests of a system that is capable of controlling things far beyond human comprehension. The complexity of the problems they seek to address are too multivariate to be controlled. In my youth the old socialist left never trusted the MAN yet now that they have become the MAN, they manifest the very thing that they once despised, namely authoritarian autocratic overreach! This is why Justin Trudeau has lost control of his government. Moreover, it has become obvious that he is likely not the author of the plan to create an authoritarian Canada! But as for Trump, on his part he is certainly not a conservative since everything he has done since he has assumed office has been by executive order. The exchange between these two narcissists will likely do irreversible damage to both of our once great countries if a real statesman like Pierre Poilievre fails to shortly become our Prime Minister to negotiate with a man who only knows how to win at all costs.

But how did we get here? Let me be blunt, so now I will address you who are left leaning, PBS, NRK, CBC watching, pro-abortion, gay rights activists who support Islamic violence, who believe that Tommy Robinson belongs in prison for exposing the rape gangs in England, who hate Christianity, who believe in Postmodern Cultural Relativism, who think that COVID-19 wasn't developed as a bio-weapon, who promote Cultural Marxist Critical Gender and Race Theory, read my warnings, every single corrupt politician and every last ideologically possessed bureaucrat who have destroyed representative democracy, it is you ideologically addled demoniacs who are directly responsible for the failure of our political systems and governments all throughout the West! You obviously hate human life. You have offered sacrifices of our unborn to Beelzebub. You detest individual accountability and economic liberty. May your nutty Gnostic dialectical reasoning and Malthusian view of humanity fast come to an end. Without a grievance narrative there is not an authoritarian ideology that would exist. Your sacrilegious rituals and festivals will no longer be celebrated by an increasing majority of us who are disgusted by open displays of sexual deviancy to publicly force perversion on our children!

So now that we have examined what Orwell had to say about Soviet style communism in1984 let us examine how the other grievance narratives operate:

Nazi policies:

The Nazi party’s policies were deliberately vague so that they might appeal to as many people as possible. People of both right and moderate-left wing politics joined because they agreed with at least one of their policies which are listed as follows:

·       an aim to abolish the "unfair punishment" of the Treaty of Versailles was popular with many Germans

·       promises of better pensions and increased employment appealed to the common man and many traditional socialists

·       opposition to communism led many landowners and businessmen to support the Nazis – they were seen as the only credible right-wing alternative to the left-wing parties.

·       belief in the supremacy of the German race appealed to nationalists.

·       paramilitary groups reminded people of the comradeship they shared as soldiers during WWI

·       the promise to re-militarise Germany would bring in huge industrial contracts – bringing support from many industrialists

·       Hitler's hatred of Jews struck a chord with many people - they were a convenient scapegoat for all of Germany's problems and were main aspect of the German “grievance narrative”

Use of propaganda:

Propaganda posters were aimed at women which read, “German women, think of your children – Vote Hitler”. Propaganda is disinformation spread to promote a political cause and to persuade people to adopt the new narrative. Information about what the Nazis believed in and who they blamed for Germany’s dire situation was effectively spread by the Party’s propaganda machine run by Josef Goebbels.

·       These methods of campaigning were used by the Nazis in the 1920’s which included radio (the mass media of its day)

·       mass rallies newspapers (MSM) like “Der Stürmer” which literally means, “The Stormer”

·       Hitler's impassioned speeches inflamed German public sentiment by telling Germans exactly what they wanted to hear

·       the use of simple slogans to introduce their ideas to make them appeal to the ordinary German.

·       At the same time Goebbels prevented those who opposed Nazi policies from expressing their views. This helped ensure only Nazi messages got across to the public.

Nazi organisation:

The Nazi Party was extremely organised. This meant they were able to convey policies to a wide range of people, while appearing to be competent and able to run the country:

·       The Nazis were present in many German cities and towns with many local offices

·       Nazi party members worked efficiently to spread policies through propaganda

·       the Nazi Party's original paramilitary wing the Sturmabteilung appeared to be a strong organisation which could protect Germany from its enemies – internal as well as external.

·       When social unrest increased, after benefits were cut in 1930, Hitler used fear of Communism to get support from industrialists. Alfred Hugenberg, an industrialist who owned a chain of newspapers, and Fritz Thyssen, a steel manufacturer, along with other industrialists formed the Harzburg Front.

·       The Harzburg Front helped finance the Nazi election campaigns in 1932-1933. This ensured the Communists were defeated.

And now that we have examined how the Soviet, and the Nazi grievance narratives operated, let us examine the prevailing WOKE narrative.

Perceived grievance and individualising moralities: exploring the psychological structure of left-wing authoritarianism: Identity politics and social justice:

Social justice movements have had an increasing influence on society, particularly in the form of Identity Politics. These movements seek to empower individuals by promoting a narrative of certain group identities as marginalized entities, which are polarized against other privileged group identities. Social justice calls attention to forms of structural oppression that produce inequalities, including patriarchy, systemic racism, white privilege, and heteronormativity. Moreover, it has been suggested that a key attribute of leftist Identity Politics and social justice ideology are perceptions of victimhood, with awareness of privilege and oppression referring to the capacity to recognize social injustices arising from systemic privilege and oppression. Dr. Angelo Fasce and Dr. Diego Avendaño recently found that Identity Politics was composed of three dimensions: perceived grievance, identity-based ideology and prejudice toward groups perceived as privileged, which was then related to extreme justice-seeking behavior.

Leftist authoritarian attempts to enforce ideological adherence have gradually emerged through censorship, disciplinary action, and other implicit forms of illiberalism. Social penalties are most pervasive on social media, where individuals can face a torrent of shout-downs, demands for retractions, and deplatforming. It has been suggested that algorithmic ordering and engagement metrics on social media platforms incentivize hostility and moral outrage. As ideas expressed in speech become increasingly regulated, studies show that political correctness has been steadily reemerging. For example, the rise of safe spaces and trigger warnings on university campuses rationalize speech regulations on the grounds that certain language is emotionally dangerous and can be perceived as a form of violence. Lukianoff and Haidt argue that cognitive distortions are driving political correctness norms and policies, with exaggerated patterns of thought mobilized in calls for speech protections. Cognitive distortions magnify threat perceptions and generate maladaptive behavioral consequences such as emotional reasoning, all-or-nothing thinking, and catastrophizing. Thus, Lukianoff and Haidt argue that shielding individuals from ideas that might cause discomfort encourages unhealthy mental habits and psychological fragility.

An intolerance of diverse ideas is also seen with ‘cancel culture’, a form of reputation destruction where an individual may be maliciously bullied and socially ostracized for expressing allegedly problematic beliefs. Kaufmann recently found high levels of authoritarianism and political discrimination in western universities, where one in ten academics endorsed extreme forms of cancellation. Narrowing social norms of acceptable discourse has seemingly coincided with an increase in dogmatic political views and affective polarization. While examining powerful discourses is a valid enterprise, these ideologies do not submit themselves to the marketplace of ideas, thereby inhibiting legitimate disagreement and productive dialogue.

In Conclusion:

The equality of all before the law and laws that are enforced blindly without regard for our individual identity is the only possible way for Lady Justice to remain blind. All authoritarian regimes assign blame and innocence based on immutable traits that we have no control over divorced from our own moral rectitude. The West was built on the idea that everyone is created in the image of God and therefore deserves to be treated as such, as individuals who are each possessed with their own unique divine worth. Therefore, Christianity is where identity politics goes to die.

Galatians 3 (KJV)

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is the only Divine path to justice and true equality. Christ Himself has borne our grievances and has atoned for our sins. In light of His finished work all we can have is gratitude for His Divine atonement and His undeserved mercy toward us sinners! Grievance narratives have been responsible for creating hell on earth and continue to do so. As Christians let us help to usher in His Kingdom on earth by ending these toxic resentful ideas to restore the West as a Christian enterprise.

Galatians 5:1 (KJV)

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

 

 

 

 

Can there be a political solution to a spiritual crisis?

 

The state of the nation as we face the collapse of the Trudeau led LPC government:

#JustinTrudeau along with his minions and supporters have made a mockery of Canada's parliamentary democracy proving that there is not a single functional or fit for purpose aspect of it in its present form. But most of all, Trudeau's cabal of illiberalism has made a mockery of the Canadians he was elected to serve! “The government has squandered our fiscal advantage, hollowed out our military, shattered our immigration system and shown little interest in our anemic productivity while economic, geopolitical and security threats to Canada rise to DEFCON levels,” Kevin Lynch wrote in a column published in The Globe and Mail on Jan. 2. We have an unelected appointed Senate poised to oppose Poilievre and the Conservatives if and when the godless tyranny and fiscal imprudence of Trudeau ends in an election which Poilievre and his party will almost certainly win. But this only takes me back to my most frequent assertion regarding our socioeconomic crisis, namely that we are not merely facing a socioeconomic crisis. Rather we are in a spiritual battle between good and evil. There cannot be a political solution to a moral, philosophical and spiritual crisis! Nevertheless, never let the perfect become the enemy of the good. So let us dig deeper to flesh out what can be done as we face an existential battle for Canadian democracy.

Our present situation throughout the Anglosphere:

When I was young, I never imagined that Great Britain and Commonwealth countries like Canada would be holding political prisoners whose only crime was to peacefully and publicly express legitimate concerns about their government, its policies, particularly regarding unvetted immigration and the resulting crime. Both Great Britain and Canada have provided concrete proof as to just how authoritarian radical leftists will become even as they hide behind a false front of tolerance and inclusivity. I have been warning about the dangers of Postmodern Cultural Relativism and Cultural Marxist Critical Race and Gender Theory since no later than 2013 while I was still living in uber WOKE Norway. I have been labelled with the most horrible epithets by the ideologically possessed who are causing our socioeconomic crisis, yet there is one thing that they've never been able to explain. Precisely why has everything I have been warning about come to pass? My detractors appear to be pathologically divorced from reality due to ideological possession. Until we figure out how to deal with what is arguably a critical mass of insanity, we will never be free of the damage idea pathogens are wreaking on functional social order. Because of those possessed by them Neo-Marxists like Trudeau have brought us to the brink of irreversible ruin. For his entire tenure I've been tormented with the certain knowledge where his policies would lead us. Despite this, many still cling to their ideological delusions. I have lost, if I ever had any, all faith in humanity. Apparently, our present selves delight in murdering our future selves in the vain hope that God can be cheated.

Why have Canadians become so prone to accepting delusional ideation?

Canadians suffer from an appalling ignorance of the actual nature of the problems we face as a society. There is an old saying in the Icelandic Eddas, "A witless man believes everything he thinks between the mountains where he dwells"! Many are living their lives devoid of real perspective. This is partly due to many being far too willing to accept the deconstruction and misrepresentation of truth fed to them by the government as well as the government’s puppets in the state funded 4th Estate. Not only are many Canadians subjective experiences woefully inadequate, but many are also devoid of curiosity. For it is curiosity that is required to actively look for alternative opinions that will challenge the commonly accepted narrative. This is particularly true for those who are comfortable living in their own preconceived echo chambers. For there their ears reject anything which challenges their misconceptions. Interestingly those who are most prone to holding these biases also believe themselves to be enlightened. Simultaneously they dismiss those who challenge the official narrative’s blatant falsehoods as troglodytes. This would be hilarious if it were not so damning.

We must remember that a fish rots from the head down. Canadians have been completely betrayed by their leadership and the entitled sanctimonious political class. Our system of education has been hijacked by leftist radicals who deliberately feed their students lies to indoctrinate and proselytize our youth in a radical “progressive agenda” which is accomplishes anything but bringing us progress. This has been a year when the size of the state has metastasized like cancer while the democratic will of the citizen has been dismissed as unworthy of consideration. It is time to prepare for war, not merely on an ideological front but also on a spiritual one!

My prayer for 2025:

In 2024 two idea pathogens have merged to create the perfect ideological storm. Postmodern Cultural Relativism and Cultural Marxist Critical Race and Gender Theory caused us to reach a point where Canada is committing socioeconomic suicide out of parasitical empathy. May 2025 witness the death of these mind viruses which threaten the bedrock of Western civilization. But I warn you, ideological possession comes out only with much prayer and fasting. These Neo-Marxist beliefs form the basis of the Gnostic mystery religion of which Trudeau appointed himself the high priest. His nihilistic ideas form the basis of the pathological Zeitgeist which will destroy us. Our only hope is to repent so that we may receive the Divine deliverance which God wishes to bring to Canada, but only if we return to Him!

The very great problem we have in combating totalitarian regimes is that we have never come to terms with how truly hideous are the ideologies which possess our enemies. There can be no underestimating the hold that parasitical ideas have on people's minds nor can what people believe be defeated politically. Like dogs returning to vomit totalitarian ideologies have been kept alive in Canada by the very institutions we have entrusted to protect us from them. All the worst ideas that originated in the 19th Century which led to the murder of millions in the 20th Century are still possessing the lecture halls of the Academy in the 21st Century. They have captured the hearts and minds of far too many Canadians today. We are facing an ideological disaster where our families and friends have become our ideological enemies! Remarkably these ideologies require that we surrender our individuality and autonomy to the state run collective despite what label the elite political class may apply to them!

I swear by the Almighty as long as God gives me breath and the right words to use to defeat the type of ideological possession which has captured the minds and hearts of so many Canadians that I will never be silent. My ancestors came to Canada long before we became a Dominion to help create a unified Christian nation under God built on peace, order, and good government!