Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Two Press Conferences, Two Futures: Reality vs. Liberal Delusion

Published

11 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Poilievre lays out a real plan to fight fentanyl and secure Canada’s economy. Carney delivers empty slogans and Trudeau 2.0 talking points.

So let’s talk about two very different press conferences that happened today. One was from Pierre Poilievre, who laid out a serious, detailed plan to crack down on fentanyl traffickers, secure Canada’s borders, and put drug kingpins in prison for life. The other? Mark Carney, the Liberal Party’s unelected golden boy, who stood at a podium, threw out a bunch of vague, focus-grouped slogans, and then told Canadians—with a straight face—that he’s not a politician.

Hold on—HAHAHAHAHA. Let’s just take a second to appreciate how absurd that is.

Mark Carney—the man standing at a podium, announcing his candidacy to lead the Liberal Party, delivering pre-rehearsed political talking points, and desperately trying to sound relatable—is telling you he’s not a politician.

That’s like Justin Trudeau saying he’s not a virtue-signaler. It’s like Joe Biden saying he’s a great public speaker. It’s like CNN saying they just report the news. It’s so obviously untrue that you almost have to admire the sheer arrogance of saying it out loud.

But Carney’s dishonesty didn’t stop there. No, he went on to deliver a speech so full of contradictions, hypocrisy, and Liberal gaslighting that it deserves its own category at the Academy Awards.


Carney’s Fantasy vs. Poilievre’s Reality on the Fentanyl Crisis

Poilievre’s press conference today was dead serious—because the fentanyl crisis is dead serious. He laid out the numbers:

  • 50,000 Canadians dead since 2016. More than all the soldiers we lost in World War II.
  • A super lab in British Columbia capable of producing enough fentanyl to kill 95 million people.
  • 99% of shipping containers coming into Canada go uninspected.

His response? Mandatory life sentences for fentanyl traffickers. 15-year minimums for those caught with smaller amounts. Military-backed border security. 2,000 new CBSA officers to stop fentanyl from coming in at the source.

Now let’s compare that to Carney’s response.

Oh wait—he didn’t have one.

Carney spent his entire press conference talking about “trade diversification” and “economic growth.” Not a single detailed plan for stopping the flow of fentanyl into this country, putting drug traffickers in prison, or protecting Canadian families.

Why? Because the Liberal Party doesn’t actually care about fentanyl. They only started pretending to care because Trump forced them to.

Poilievre called it out perfectly:

“If Donald Trump hadn’t threatened tariffs, Trudeau wouldn’t even be talking about fentanyl.”

And he’s right. Because if Trudeau, Carney, and the Liberals actually cared about fentanyl, they wouldn’t have eliminated mandatory minimums for traffickers with Bill C-5.


Carney’s Laughable “Trade Strategy” vs. Poilievre’s Economic Reality

Carney—who spent most of his career **as an unelected globalist banker—**wants you to believe he has a plan to fix Canada’s economy. His big idea?

“We need to diversify trade away from the U.S.”

Oh, brilliant! Canada should just pivot away from its largest trading partner—the country that buys 75% of our exports—and do business with… who exactly?

China? The same China that’s flooding our country with fentanyl and stealing our intellectual property?

That’s like saying, “I don’t like getting my paycheck from my current job, so I’ll just get paid by a different company!” That’s not how reality works, Mark.

But now Mark Carney wants to diversify trade away from the U.S.? Fascinating. And how exactly does he plan to do that?

Energy East? Oh yeah, you guys killed that. A pipeline that would have let us sell our own oil to our own refineries instead of importing from Saudi Arabia—but nope, too “dirty” for the Liberal climate cult.

Northern Gateway? Oh yeah, canceled that too. That would have gotten Alberta oil to the Pacific, letting us sell to Asia instead of relying on the Americans. But the Liberals shut it down before the first barrel could even roll.

How about LNG exports to Japan? Oh wait—Trudeau’s government said there was “no business case.” Meanwhile, Japan is signing massive deals with Qatar while Canada, sitting on one of the world’s largest gas reserves, does absolutely nothing. Brilliant strategy, Mark.

So what’s the plan here? Sell more maple syrup to Belgium? Hope the French suddenly develop a taste for Tim Hortons coffee? Maybe trade luxury tax credits for electric BMWs? Be serious.

This is the problem with guys like Carney—they live in a world of theoretical trade deals and imaginary supply chains, while the rest of us have to live with reality. And the reality is, Canada depends on the U.S. because Liberal policies have systematically destroyed every alternative.

But sure, Mark. Tell us more about your vision for trade while Canada’s biggest industries are locked out of the global market—because of people like you.

Meanwhile, Poilievre actually acknowledged reality.

“Trump sees weakness, and what does a real estate mogul from New York do when he spots weakness? He pounces.”

This isn’t just about trade. This is about Canada being so economically weak after eight years of Liberal mismanagement that we’re now at the mercy of Trump’s tariffs.

And what did Carney have to say about that? Nothing.


Carney’s Carbon Tax Flip-Flop

And here it is—Carbon Tax 2.0 from Trudeau 2.0.

Mark Carney, the guy who spent years preaching that carbon taxes were the single most powerful tool to fight climate change, is now standing at a podium, pretending he never said that.

“We should eliminate the consumer carbon tax and instead make large polluters pay.”

Oh really? Excuse me? Carney spent his entire career defending carbon taxes, telling struggling Canadians that their skyrocketing gas and heating bills were just part of the “climate transition.” And now, magically, he’s against them?

This isn’t leadership. This is pure, shameless political opportunism.

Let’s get something straight: Mark Carney doesn’t actually care about the carbon tax. What he does care about is winning an election. And right now, even Liberal voters hate the carbon tax. So suddenly, he’s got a new idea—carbon tax for thee, but not for me.

Because, of course, Carney himself never had to pay these taxes. The man made millions as a banker, then made even more at Brookfield Asset Management—a firm that just happens to be heavily invested in fossil fuels. Oh yeah, Carney loved talking about green energy, but when it came to his own paycheck? Fossil fuels were just fine.

This is the classic Liberal formula: They jack up your energy costs, kill your job, and call it a “transition” while making sure their wealthy buddies get exemptions.

Now contrast that with Pierre Poilievre’s response.

Axe the tax.

Yeah, no shit.

While Carney is rebranding the exact same Liberal scam, Poilievre is saying what every Canadian already knows: The carbon tax isn’t saving the planet. It’s just making life unaffordable.

Because here’s the truth: It was never about fighting climate change. It was always about taking your money. And Carney’s latest spin? It’s just the next version of the same scam.


Mark Carney: Trudeau 2.0, Just With a Better Suit

Here’s the bottom line: Poilievre laid out a real plan today—one that actually addresses the fentanyl crisis, border security, and Canada’s economic vulnerabilities.

Carney? He gave a meaningless, bureaucratic speech that could have been written by ChatGPT.

Poilievre talked about real consequences for fentanyl traffickers. Carney didn’t.
Poilievre called out the Liberals’ disastrous economic policies. Carney helped design them.
Poilievre acknowledged Canada’s dependence on the U.S. Carney pretended we could just trade with Europe instead.

And yet, the Liberal Party wants you to believe that Mark Carney is Canada’s next great leader.

Here’s the truth: Carney isn’t new. He isn’t different. He isn’t a “pragmatist.” He’s just Justin Trudeau in a better suit, with a fancier resume, and the exact same failed policies.

And if Canadians fall for this scam, we’ll get four more years of Trudeau-style incompetence—just with a British accent.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

There’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…

Published on

It’s been nearly a year since I last wrote about the CBC. In the intervening months, the Prescott memo on bias at the BBC was released, whose stunning allegations of systemic journalistic malpractice “inspired” multiple senior officials to leave the corporation. Given how the institutional bias driving problems at the BBC is undoubtedly widely shared by CBC employees, I’d be surprised if there weren’t similar flaws embedded inside the stuff we’re being fed here in Canada.

Apparently, besides receiving nearly two billion dollars¹ annually in direct and indirect government funding, CBC also employs around a third of all of Canada’s full time journalists. So taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing what we’re getting out of the deal.

Naturally, corporate president Marie-Philippe Bouchard has solemnly denied the existence of any bias in CBC reporting. But I’d be more comfortable seeing some evidence of that with my own eyes. Given that I personally can easily go multiple months without watching any CBC programming or even visiting their website, “my own eyes” will require some creative redefinition.

So this time around I collected the titles and descriptions from nearly 300 stories that were randomly chosen from the CBC Top Stories RSS feed from the first half of 2025. You can view the results for yourself here. I then used AI tools to analyze the data for possible bias (how events are interpreted) and agendas (which events are selected). I also looked for:

  • Institutional viewpoint bias
  • Public-sector framing
  • Cultural-identity prioritization
  • Government-source dependency
  • Social-progressive emphasis

Here’s what I discovered.

Story Selection Bias

Millions of things happen every day. And many thousands of those might be of interest to Canadians. Naturally, no news publisher has the bandwidth to cover all of them, so deciding which stories to include in anyone’s Top Story feed will involve a lot of filtering. To give us a sense of what filtering standards are used at the CBC, let’s break down coverage by topic.

Of the 300 stories covered by my data, around 30 percent – month after month – focused on Donald Trump and U.S.- Canada relations. Another 12-15 percent related to Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Domestic politics – including election coverage – took up another 12 percent, Indigenous issues attracted 9 percent, climate and the environment grabbed 8 percent, and gender identity, health-care worker assaults, immigrant suffering, and crime attracted around 4 percent each.

Now here’s a partial list of significant stories from the target time frame (the first half of 2025) that weren’t meaningfully represented in my sample of CBC’s Top Stories:

  • Housing affordability crisis barely appears (one of the top voter concerns in actual 2025 polls).
  • Immigration levels and labour-market impact.
  • Crime-rate increases or policing controversies (unless tied to Indigenous or racialized victims).
  • Private-sector investment success stories.
  • Any sustained positive coverage of the oil/gas sector (even when prices are high).
  • Critical examination of public-sector growth or pension liabilities.
  • Chinese interference or CCP influence in Canada (despite ongoing inquiries in real life).
  • The rest of the known galaxy (besides Gaza and the U.S.)

Interpretation Bias

There’s an obvious pattern of favoring certain identity narratives. The Indigenous are always framed as victims of historic injustice, Palestinian and Gazan actions are overwhelmingly sympathetic, while anything done by Israelis is “aggression”. Transgender representation in uniformly affirmative while dissent is bigotry.

By contrast, stories critical of immigration policy, sympathetic to Israeli/Jewish perspectives, or skeptical of gender medicine are virtually non-existent in this sample.

That’s not to say that, in the real world, injustice doesn’t exist. It surely does. But a neutral and objective news service should be able to present important stories using a neutral and objective voice. That obviously doesn’t happen at the CBC.

Consider these obvious examples:

  • “Trump claims there are only ‘2 genders.’ Historians say that’s never been true” – here’s an overt editorial contradiction in the headline itself.
  • “Trump bans transgender female athletes from women’s sports” which is framed as an attack rather than a policy debate.

And your choice of wording counts more than you might realize. Verbs like “slams”, “blasts”, and “warns” are used almost exclusively describing the actions of conservative figures like Trump, Poilievre, or Danielle Smith, while “experts say”, “historians say”, and “doctors say” are repeatedly used to rebut conservative policy.

Similarly, Palestinian casualties are invariably “killed“ by Israeli forces – using the active voice – while Israeli casualties, when mentioned at all, are described using the passive voice.

Institutional Viewpoint Bias

A primary – perhaps the primary job – of a serious journalist is to challenge the government’s narrative. Because if journalists don’t even try to hold public officials to account, then no one else can. Even the valuable work of the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be wasted, because there will be no one to amplify their claims of wrongdoing. And Canadians will have no way of hearing the bad news.

So it can’t be a good sign when around 62 percent of domestic political stories published by the nation’s public broadcaster either quote government (federal or provincial) sources as the primary voice, or are framed around government announcements, reports, funding promises, or inquiries.

In other words, a majority of what the CBC does involves providing stenography services for their paymasters.

Here are just a few examples:

  • “Federal government apologizes for ‘profound harm’ of Dundas Harbour relocations”
  • “Jordan’s Principle funding… being extended through 2026: Indigenous Services”
  • “Liberal government announces dental care expansion the day before expected election call”

Agencies like the Bank of Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Transportation Safety Board are routinely presented as authoritative and neutral. By contrast, opposition or industry critiques are usually presented as secondary (“…but critics say”) or are simply invisible. Overall, private-sector actors like airlines, oil companies, or developers are far more likely to be criticized.

All this is classic institutional bias: the state and its agencies are the default lens through which reality is filtered.

Not unlike the horrors going on at the BBC, much of this bias is likely unconscious. I’m sure that presenting this evidence to CBC editors and managers would evoke little more than blank stares. This stuff flies way below the radar.

But as one of the AI tools I used concluded:

In short, this 2025 CBC RSS sample shows a very strong and consistent left-progressive institutional bias both in story selection (agenda) and in framing (interpretation). The outlet functions less as a neutral public broadcaster and more as an amplifier of government, public-sector, and social-progressive narratives, with particular hostility reserved for Donald Trump, Canadian conservatives, and anything that could be construed as “right-wing misinformation.”

And here’s the bottom line from a second tool:

The data reveals a consistent editorial worldview where legitimate change flows from institutions downward, identity group membership is newsworthy, and systemic intervention is the default solution framework.


You might also enjoy:

Is Updating a Few Thousand Readers Worth a Half Million Taxpayer Dollars?

·
Jan 19
Is Updating a Few Thousand Readers Worth a Half Million Taxpayer Dollars?
Plenty has been written about the many difficulties faced by legacy news media operations. You might even recall reading about the troubled CBC and the Liberal government’s ill-fated Online News Act in these very pages. Traditional subscription and broadcast models are drying up, and on-line ad-based revenues are in sharp decline.
Read full story
1  Between the many often-ignored sources of funding that I itemize here, and the new funding announced in the recent budget, that old “$1.4 billion” number you hear all the time is badly outdated.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

International

2025: The Year The Narrative Changed

Published on

By James Corbett
corbettreport.com

I kicked off 2025 with “The Pendulum Has Swung Again,” an editorial in which I noted how the lefty/progressive pieties of yore were being swept away by the righty/MAGA pieties of the new Trump and Change regime.

It didn’t take long for this narrative shift to be confirmed in grand style by The Great Resetter himself, Donald J. Trump:

I return to the presidency confident and optimistic that we are at the start of a thrilling new era of national success. A tide of change is sweeping the country, sunlight is pouring over the entire world, and America has the chance to seize this opportunity like never before.

Those are the bold words President Trump uttered in his inaugural address to the nation as he returned to the White House to begin his second administration this past January. And, like the bold words of so many politicians before him, they were a bunch of hot air.

After the Iran strikes betrayal, the Trump Gaza/”Board of Peace“ debacle, the Project Stargate fiasco, the Ukraine “peace plan“ disaster, the Venezuelan drug boat massacres, the “untalented Americans“ insult and, of course, the “Epstein hoax“ hoax, even the most die-hard MAGA hopium swillers have started to realize that Trump’s inaugural speech about a new “golden age” was the same old garbage that every President-to-be likes to spew on their first day in office.

But still, just because a politician is lying (i.e., his lips are moving) doesn’t mean that a dramatic “tide of change” hasn’t swept across the planet this year.

On the contrary. A remarkable shift has taken place in popular understanding and popular discourse in 2025. This shift has changed the conversation surrounding some of the core topics the independent media has been covering for years. The shift has nothing whatsoever to do with the politicians, academics, talking heads and other bloviators who presume to be “thought leaders” and “trend setters.” And, despite the best efforts of those who look for the storm cloud in every silver lining, this narrative shift is actually something to be celebrated.

So, hopefully you’ve heard my doom-and-gloom story of the year in New World Next Year 2026. Now, let’s end the year with a little holiday cheer by examining how 2025 became the year that Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccermom started tuning into conspiracy reality.

This Substack is reader-supported.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

MAHA

Historians of the future may very well note that 2025 was the beginning of one of the most consequential revolutions in recent history: the health revolution.

Last year the usual establishment mouthpieces were running fake news articles trying to “debunk” the fact that the Big Food cartel has been filling their products with synthetic chemicals, food dyes and other toxic crap.

But this year the gangsters of the Big Food syndicate—from Kraft Heinz and General Mills to PepsiCo to Kellogg to Tyson Foods, along with their retail accomplice, Walmart—are falling over themselves to announce the removal of those very chemical poisons from their products.

Last year, COVID vaccines were still officially deemed safe as mother’s milk and the health establishment was pushing boosters on everyone with a pulse.

But this year the FDA now officially admits that an unknown number of children have been killed by those vaccines and a comprehensive review of the entire childhood vaccination schedule has been ordered for the first time ever.

Last year, the WHO passed their scamdemic treaty, and the erection of the biosecurity state seemed like a fait accomplis.

But this year, faced with a $2.5 billion budget deficit and a loss in its reputation worldwide, the WHO—and, indeed, the entire biosecurity project—is in shambles.

But as bad as things are for Big Pharma and Big Food, they’re even worse for Big Climate.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE CLIMATE HOAX

Veterans of the climate hoax have been gobsmacked by the monumental implosion of the climate change narrative that took place this year.

Last year it was business as usual, with the Chicken Littles of the Malthusian, anti-human “climate emergency” narrative furthering their agenda with little perceptible opposition. They continued to argue for killing humans and killing pets and they continued building their $100 trillion carbon marketmonopolizing the world’s resources under the guise of “saving Mother Earth.”

But this year the public, alert to the politicization of science exposed by the scamdemic, has finally begun to question and even push back on this pseudoscientific scam.

We saw early signs of this narrative tidal shift in the farmer protests of recent years and in the growing awareness that the greenwashed, virtue-signalling “Net Zero” platitudes of the politicians were in fact a smokescreen for a collective death pact signed by the Green Reaper himself.

But the “climate crisis” hoax didn’t just stall this year; it burnt to the ground.

It started with every one of the Big Six American banks withdrawing from the Net Zero Banking Alliance this past spring.

It continued with the stunning narrative about-face of climate agenda-pusher Bill Gates, who directly contradicted decades of his own fearmongering about weather gods to admit that climate change will not, in fact, lead to humanity’s demise.

And it culminated in the world-historic failure of COP30—the United Nations’ annual climate summit—which not only failed to produce any agreement of substance but which generated headlines like “The climate cult’s dissolution is inevitable.” Even the Los Angeles Times was compelled to declare that America is “finally waking up from its decades-long climate catastrophism stupor.”

If you had told the average conspiracy realist in 2024 that the climate cult would be on death watch by the end of 2025, he would surely not have believed you.

But what if you told that same 2024 truther that 2025 would also be the year that moved the Overton Window on 9/11 Truth?

9/11 TRUTH TURNS THE TIDE

January 1, 2025, dawned like every New Year since the catastrophic and catalyzing false flag attack of September 11, 2001. For New Year’s revelers in the conspiracy reality community, the thought that anyone within 100 miles of the corridors of power would be caught openly questioning the conclusions of The 9/11 Commission seemed as remote as it ever had.

But then ex-Congressman Curt Weldon came out to voice his opposition to the official 9/11 fairy tale.

And ex-Congressman Dennis Kucinich embraced the fight for 9/11 justice.

And CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou appeared along 9/11 Truth researchers and activists at a three-day conference dedicated to dissecting the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory.

And, of course, the Chair of the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Ron Johnson, has joined the ranks of those daring to question the events of September 11.

As Corbett Reporteers know by now, though, more important by far than the action of any of these individuals in staking their public reputation on 9/11 Truth is the narrative change that has taken place around the idea of 9/11 Truth. Today, pointing out that the US government’s explanation of 9/11 is a tissue of lies is no longer an automatic social death sentence. And, emboldened by these examples of 9/11 Truth-telling, millions more people are aware that there are serious, unanswered questions about the events of that day than were aware even a year ago.

And, best of all, an added bonus of the turning of this turning of the tide on 9/11 is that people are now questioning other false flag events and the illegal wars of aggression that those events have enabled.

CALLING OUT GENOCIDE

In years past, the default position of all establishment news sources has been to uncritically accept the Israeli narrative in any conflict between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. To the extent that Palestinian voices were even allowed onto such programs, it was to mock, denigrate and dismiss them as representatives of a savage, terror-supporting people.

That began to change during 2014’s Operation Protective Edge, an Israeli military incursion of the Gaza Strip that even the establishment media had to concede was characterized by war crimes and massacres. In subsequent years, reports on Israel’s ongoing war crimes, its apartheid against Palestinians and its rampant illegal behaviour gave rise to the BDS movement and a worldwide protest campaign.

But it wasn’t until 2025 that that long-simmering pot finally came to a boil. After the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials late last year, more and more people came out this year to denounce Israel’s campaign of carnage in Gaza. Now it’s gotten to the point where the usual griftersbandwagon-jumpers and literal sons of CIA agents that populate the ranks of the Mainstream Alternative Media have had to completely change their views on the genocide in Gaza.

And, as usual, politicians everywhere were compelled to jump in front of that parade and pretend to be leading it. Although the establishment press is loathe to admit it, a sea change has taken place on the international stage this year, with many long-time defenders of the US/Israel orthodoxy stepping out in defiance of the imperial consensus on occupied Palestine. Mexico led the way by recognizing the Palestinian state in February of this year, followed by CanadaAustralia, the UKFrance and several other countries later in the year.

It’s difficult to overstate how dramatic the change in public opinion on the situation in Palestine has been in 2025. Just as in the wake of 9/11, when Bush and the neocons managed to turn a tidal wave of public support and sympathy into worldwide hatred by using the event as an excuse to wage an illegal and immoral War of Terror, so, too, has Netanyahu and his band of Likudniks managed to turn near-worldwide sympathy and support over the (similarly suspicious) events of 10/7 into a wave of condemnation for a blatantly genocidal assault on Gaza. (Israel’s 9/11, indeed.)

It seems 2025 was the year that the magical spell the Zionists have cast over the world for generations—the one that deems all criticism of Israel to be “anti-Semitic“—was finally broken.

But after reading all this, we’re still left with the most important question: what does this all mean for the year ahead?

WHAT WILL 2026 BRING?

I could go on and on about the profound narrative shifts that have taken place this past year.

In fact, I haven’t even mentioned the spectacular downfall of Klaus Schwab and the utter abandonment of the “Great Reset” agenda. Who even pays attention to the WEF and their minions at this point?

And I haven’t talked about the public furor over the ongoing Epstein cover up and the confirmation that all sides of the phoney left/right political charade have a vested interest in keeping the public’s attention away from the topic of political pedophilia.

But I know what some of you are thinking: “James, how can you possibly be celebrating these narrative shifts? There are still problems in the world!”

Yes, thank you in advance to all those who will point out that:

  • just because the Big Food cartel are removing food dyes from their products doesn’t make their products healthy; and
  • just because the US government are going to review the childhood vaccination schedule doesn’t mean that they will end vaccination; and
  • just because Gates has admitted that rising temperatures are not an existential threat doesn’t mean he will start promoting a pro-human agenda; and
  • just because some politicians are promoting (partial) 9/11 Truth doesn’t mean any 9/11 perp is about to be frog-marched in an orange jumpsuit to the courthouse; and
  • just because people are now emboldened to call Israel’s aggression against the Palestinians out for the genocide that it is doesn’t mean the genocide is about to stop; and
  • just because Klaus Schwab is out doesn’t mean globalism is finished; etc.

I am well aware of all that, obviously.

But if that is your objection to the celebration of the narrative shift, then you haven’t understood the narrative shift.

The narrative shift isn’t about what politicians or academics or establishment puppets are saying or doing. It’s about what you and your neighbours and those around you are saying or doing.

Pleasse understand what it is I’m saying here.

Of course, not everyone is suddenly a super-awake Level 99 Jedi Truth Warrior who knows that the flat earth is being controlled by 12-dimensional lizard people from the planet Archon.

But more people than ever are ready and willing and able to hear about the toxins in the food and the poisons in the vaccines and concede the truth about the climate hoax and ask questions about 9/11 and call the genocide in Gaza a genocide in Gaza. This is a good thing.

The only thing the would-be rulers of humanity really fear is the idea that we—the great, teeming, unwashed masses—might one day wake up to the fact that humanity is being enslaved by a handful of people.

That we might discover that their control over us is primarily narrative control.

That we might decide to reclaim our power and write our own narrative.

And, to the extent that that is what has begun happening this year—even if it’s only the thinnest edge of that giant wedge—we are in fact winning.

But even if you don’t even see the faintest spark of hope in any of this yet, there is still one thing to keep in mind: the narrative shift I speak of is what we make it.

We are not helpless spectators who are watching this shift happening with no part to play in it. Rather, we are making things happen (or not) by participating in conversation with those around us. We are informing, educating and mentoring those who are just now waking up to reality . . . or we’re standing on the sidelines critiquing the efforts of those who are trying to do so.

What happens in 2026 is not a foregone conclusion. It will be the end result of the efforts we make today (or don’t make today) to encourage this narrative shift.

I know what side I’m on, and what I’m going to continue to do. And, with your support, I’m going to continue doing it.

Let’s make 2026 the year we put the first (if not the final) nail in the bastards’ coffin.

Merry Christmas, everyone!


Like this type of essay? Then you’ll love The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter, which contains my weekly editorial as well as recommended reading, viewing and listening.

If you’re a Corbett Report member, you can sign in to corbettreport.com and read the newsletter today.

Not a member yet? Sign up today to access the newsletter and support this work.

Continue Reading

Trending

X