Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

The Great Reset doesn’t care if you believe it exists and Canada is on the front line

Published

22 minute read

If you’re among the many people (can is possibly be the majority?) who still believe The Great Reset is an unfounded conspiracy theory, this article is for you.

The Great Reset ‘conspiracy theory’ has been around for years. If you don’t know what it is, here’s a brief explanation.  It basically submits that some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful people are using some of the world’s largest companies (which they own) as well as many of the world’s richest nations (which they run) to execute a plan to completely change the way our society works (which they don’t like very much).  The theory is, these people who refer to themselves as “the elite” are planning to cripple the power of nation states and concentrate that power in a world governing body (like the World Economic Forum). This new powerful “elite” would exercise control over everyone, everywhere. They will completely change our supply chains, our economic systems and our energy systems in an effort to unite the world to protect the environment. There’s more to it, but that gets in most of the main points.

So this is the “theory”.  But is there a “conspiracy” around this?

According the the Merriam-Webster Dictionary ‘conspiracy’ means simply “The act of conspiring together”.  The Oxford dictionary spices that up a little.  According to Oxford, ‘conspiracy’ means “A secret plan by a group of people to do something harmful or illegal”.  Seems like it’s going to be easier to prove the Merriam-Webster version, but by the end of this article you’ll see how the Oxford definition might just work as well.

When it comes to all of the people who are not actively conspiring to change the world, there are roughly four categories of understanding The Great Reset.  Either you:

  1. Have no idea there is a Great Reset
  2. Accept there is a Great Reset, but doubt the ability and the organization of the people conspiring.
  3. Accept there is a Great Reset, accept the ability of the conspirators, but either agree with their intentions, or at least not oppose their intentions due to your concern for a more fair economic system and an impending world devastating environmental disaster.
  4. Accept there is a Great Reset, and oppose the intentions of the conspirators because you personally value individual freedoms above everything else.

Group 1 is huge. Recent US polling shows half of Americans aren’t even aware of the Great Reset. It’s not like the people behind the reset aren’t writing and talking about it.  It’s just that at least half of Americans haven’t seen them do it.  That means we need to establish how it is possible in this age of information, that information of this magnitude is not being distributed to everyone.  This part of my explanation is critical to understanding how very intelligent people can be completely unaware of information other people take for-granted.

It all comes down to this. We’ve all experienced the vast chasm of division and hatred in society of late. In this atmosphere of doubt and suspicion, there is really only one one thing in the entire world that absolutely everyone can believe in.  President Donald Trump is a capital A a-hole.  Even the “Don” would likely agree with that, right?  But here’s the thing. When the rude TV star began his stunning run through the primaries, the world quickly divided between those who backed Trump and those who absolutely despised the orange tsunami.

How did this happen?  Well a very large number of people, many of them living in ‘middle’ America had had it with the quality of the people running, to run America.  When a second Clinton announced a Presidential bid they collectively shouted NOOOO.  Then they set out in search of the exact opposite of the establishment. They found it in an orange sun rise of vitriol, emerging over the high rises of Manhattan.  When Donald Trump threw his hair, ehem.. his hat into the ring, they had their guy.  It wasn’t because of his experience, or that they believed he was ultimately qualified for the job.  Trump’s crowning quality was the exact thing most people hate about him.  You see it was that massive, bulbous, all encompassing ego that was the key.  Only someone with an ego this out of control would be capable of resisting and even going on the attack against the oncoming onslaught of opposition from the embedded establishment and the mainstream media who despise him with a passion.

Trump will likely claim differently, but he didn’t invent divisiveness.  The world was already moving in this direction. But like every huge event in history, it all starts with one bullet, one border crossing, and sometimes one very unusual Orange head of hair. Camps divided around Trump’s blinding ego. Guess which side the establishment was on? Guess which side the media was on? Guess what this would mean to the distribution of information?

Personally, when the orange glow emerged from Manhattan I tuned out. Not understanding what was happening, I dismissed the orange storm as a weather system that would fizzle out when people got sick of it. I tuned out of mainstream media because I only had so much time for the gong show that was (and remains) the media coverage of the orange blowhard. This is what saved me. I had to go looking elsewhere for information.  I would soon find there was more information here, and different takes on the information everyone ‘knows’.

If you still depend on mainstream media you may not know or have time for an entire new world of information that has developed on the internet over the last few years.  Comedians who used to turn to late night TV to analyze the daily news through humour (I understand they are still there), have turned to long form and as it turns out, extremely informing conversations in a series of compelling podcasts.  They are joined by former media types and some pretty sharp up and coming minds.  While their late night and daytime TV competition unite in their humorous hatred of all things Donald, these longer form conversations have tended to go deeper, due simply to the length of the presentation.  Conversations often run past two and three hours, and “sound bites” are more like 5 to 15 or even 30 minute explanations of single issues.  Yes it is wise to avoid a number of them, just like you would avoid a number of TV programs, but you dismiss many others at your own expense.

You don’t need to agree with them to find them compelling. They are talking about events, people, and issues (including The Great Reset) you will not even find on regular mainstream media.  It is not uncommon for these podcaster / interviewers to be covering topics that my friends who rely on mainstream media won’t hear about for months, or even years.  A great example of this is the Hunter Biden laptop.  If you’ve been paying attention to this new online media, you’d have known about this since the fall of 2020.  For those who rely on regular media, they only discovered the exact same information when it was finally confirmed by the New York Times in March of 2022.  The fact they call this breaking news is hilarious (and disturbing) for those who read the original articles from the New York Post, about 20 months ago!  Here’s a link to a retrospective look at Biden laptop news from The NY Post from December 2020!

Now on to The Great Reset.  If you haven’t already clicked on the link in the fist sentence of this article here’s another opportunity.

OK now at least you know The Great Reset is a real thing.  So we move on to people who find themselves in group 2 which doubts that the Reset will ever amount to any actual resetting.  This group would say these ‘elites’ live really far away, and they’re probably harmless to us because it’s not like they have any control over us.  Not in our country.  Well. That all depends on how far away you live from people like Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland. Canada’s Deputy PM is also on the Board of Trustees of the WEF. If that’s not a conflict of interest, they probably need to redefine conflict of interest.  Don’t take it from me.  Take it from the founder of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab. (You mean the Klaus Schwab who researched, wrote, and published the book COVID-19: The Great Reset, less than 6 months after Covid-19 was a thing?.. Yes. that’s the guy.) In this short video from way back in 2017 Schwab brags about the success of a WEF program called Young Global Leaders. In Schwab’s own words, the WEF has “penetrated” Canada’s federal cabinet. Sounds kind of conspiratorial.. and a little bit less like a theory when he says it.

If we want to know if this should be disturbing to us we need to know what Earth’s elites are planning for us.  Well the WEF was kind enough to tell us exactly what The Great Reset will mean to.. well.. the rest of us. This (in)famous video reveals just how different life will be for the average person by 2030.  It doesn’t say how “the elite” will live, though we can expect they’ll have slightly different rules. Alas, I’m getting ahead of myself.  Here’s a list of the 8 things the WEF has been kind enough to let us know we need to prepare for by 2030.  I understand this video originally came out in 2016.  I first saw it in 2020.  In five years it’s been circulated widely.  Though it’s no longer featured on the WEF website, there are copies all over the internet.

Recap:

1) We’ll own nothing.  Ouch.  (Obviously the elite will own everything and since they’re smarter than us we’ll be very happy to know they’re taking care of us so well).  It’s being said by opponents of this idea that people who own a bit of land are perhaps the greatest risk to this environmental movement.  It’s bad for the environment for us to own property or even your own home. Especially because we decide what happens there.  Do we keep animals?  Do we cut down trees or burn around on recreation vehicles or inefficient farm machinery?  All bad for the environment. All that will change.

2) The US will no longer be the world’s superpower. (Hmmm… Don’t these things often change after brutal wars?)  Regardless instead of one superpower, there will be a few important nations.  Wonder if that will make the world more secure, or less secure?

3) They plan to use 3D printers to make human organs (lucky for us).

4) We will not be allowed to eat meat very much anymore (cows and pigs and sheep are bad for the environment).  Hey, speaking of conspiracies, I mean series of seemingly related facts that are probably just random.. Did you know Bill Gates is the largest private owner of ‘farmland’ in the United States?  Not sure when the software magnate and WEF “Agenda Contributor” took up farming.  I’m sure none of this is related to what Mr. Gates is going to allow us to eat in the future (nervous smile).  Although Gates also happens to be a big investor in synthetic meat.  Did I mention he’s an ‘agenda contributor’ with the WEF?

5) One billion people in the world will have to move due to climate change (Not sure if that applies to the beach homes of the elite). (Also not sure why scientists and engineers will stop doing what they’ve always done and help us cope and adapt if conditions are changing quickly and significantly.)

6) Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide. We already know how this feels in Canada.

7) We will be prepared to travel in space (I’m ready to go now).  The logic here is that the earth will be so ruined by us, that we better be prepared to go destroy an entirely different planet.  What could go wrong?

Finally and maybe most disturbing of all..

8) Western Values will have been tested to the breaking point.  Some probably like the sound of that. But in the history books I’ve read, when a society’s values are tested “to the breaking point” that tends to look incredibly violent and warlike.  (In my opinion number 8 is going to be really challenging to accomplish at the same time as the everybody will be happy part in number 1.  Maybe that’s why they put them so far apart in their list.).  By the way, you have to wonder what they mean by “western values”?  Is this finally being enlightened enough to turf Christianity and those silly laws that western societies adopted from those traditional religious beliefs.  Can’t wait to find out what the new traditions will be!  This outta go over well (Imagine Jerry Seinfeld saying that.)

OK.  If you don’t find this a tad disturbing that might mean you are personally in favour of The Great Reset.  It’s still a free country so that’s just fine with the rest of us.  However the introduction video above is very much prior to the official launch of The Great Reset.  That took place in the opening months of the Covid-19 pandemic.  It would be better to judge how this is actually going to work by looking at how this New World Order (that’s what they’re calling it now) is unfolding. Now that the resetters have been resetting for about two years, how’s it going so far?  Here’s a report from Glenn Beck.  Glenn is a conservative pundit and broadcaster. If you follow the mainstream media you will know him as a radical far right conservative (and maybe a lunatic). If you don’t see Beck through that filter you will acknowledge that he sometimes says very interesting things.  Things like this.  By the way, pay attention to the background behind the speakers at this “world government” conference.  Then ask yourself if this group might be planning a new world order.

 

It’s puzzling that the Canadian media doesn’t give this any coverage. I guess there are simply more important things to talk about than whether our own federal cabinet is working in our interest or in the interests of really rich people who plan to OWN EVERYTHING in just a few short years.  Oh this is probably nothing but you may have heard about the federal NDP party making a deal to secure the federal government right up to 2025.  That party is lead by the guy who now is Co-Prime Minister Jagmeet Singh.  Guess what?

Speaking of Canada.  You may find this conversation between the British podcast sensation Russel Brand and Nick Corbishley interesting.  Nick is the author of Scanned: Why Vaccine Passports and Digital IDs Will Mean the End of Privacy and Personal Freedom. As Canadians it is interesting to hear how people in other countries are seeing The Great Reset, and how Canadians are “world leaders”.  Yippee?

If you’ve managed to find your way through the longest article ever, you will certainly now be able to acknowledge The Great Reset or New World Order exists.  The question now is, do you believe this is a good thing or do you think we should resist it as things were working pretty well before they launched this? We can get into that later.  At the very least the massive number of people who dismissed the “conspiracy theorists” as slightly insane will see there is a reason many people are concerned.  In the end, as all philosophers know we need to establish the facts, before we can decide whether we agree with them or not.

Finally my wise friend Garett reminded about the joke that’s been circulating for many months now on social media.  Every time it turns out another conspiracy theory was actually a conspiratorial fact, someone passes it around again.  If you haven’t seen it yet it might help with your outlook in the future.  Goes like this.  “What is the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth?  — About 6 months!”

 

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Agriculture

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois 

A fourth Liberal term means higher carbon taxes and trade risks. Could Canada’s farmers and food security be on the line?

The Liberal Party, now led by Mark Carney, has secured a fourth consecutive term, albeit once again with a minority mandate. This time, however, the Liberals have a stronger hand, as they can rely not only on the NDP but also the Bloc Québécois to maintain power.

This broader base of parliamentary support could provide much-needed political stability at a crucial time, particularly as Canada prepares for a new round of trade negotiations with the United States and Mexico.

For the agri-food sector, the implications are significant. From carbon taxes to trade rules, federal decisions play a decisive role in shaping the costs and risks Canadian farmers face.

First and foremost, carbon pricing will remain a central issue. Carney has made it clear that the industrial carbon tax will stay—a policy that continues to erode the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food sector, where fuel, fertilizer and transportation costs are especially sensitive to carbon pricing. The tax, currently set at $95 per metric tonne, is scheduled to climb to $170 by 2030.

While consumers may not see this tax directly, businesses certainly do. More concerning is the Liberals’ intention to introduce a border carbon adjustment for imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing regimes. While this could theoretically protect Canadian industry, it also risks making food even more expensive for Canadian consumers, particularly if the U.S., our largest trading partner, remains uninterested in adopting similar carbon measures. Acting alone risks undermining both our food security and our global competitiveness.

Another looming issue is supply management. Although all parties pledged during the campaign not to alter Canada’s system for dairy, poultry and eggs, this framework—built on quotas and high import tariffs—is increasingly outdated. It is almost certain to come under pressure during trade negotiations. The American dairy lobby, in particular, will continue to demand greater access to Canadian markets. The Liberals have a chance to chart a more forward-looking path. Modernizing supply management could lead to a more competitive, resilient industry while providing consumers with greater choice and better prices.

The previous Parliament’s passage of Bill C-282, which sought to shield supply managed sectors from all future trade negotiations, was a deeply flawed move.

Fortunately, the new parliamentary makeup should make it far less likely that such protectionist legislation will survive. A more pragmatic approach to trade policy appears possible.

On the domestic front, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The Liberals have promised to eliminate remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade and to improve labour mobility, longstanding obstacles to the efficient movement of agri-food products across Canada. For example, differing provincial rules often prevent products like cheese, meat or wine from being sold freely across provinces, frustrating farmers and limiting consumer choice. Momentum was building before the election, and it must continue if we are serious about building a stronger domestic food economy.

Infrastructure investment is another bright spot. The Liberals pledged more than $5 billion through a Trade Diversification Corridor Fund to upgrade Canada’s severely undercapitalized export infrastructure. Strategic investment in trade gateways is overdue and critical for agri-food exporters looking to reduce reliance on the United States and expand into global markets.

Finally, the Liberal platform was alone in explicitly committing to support food processing in Canada, a crucial pillar of domestic food security. An increased focus on manufacturing will not only create jobs but also reduce reliance on imported food products, making Canada more resilient in the face of global disruptions.

Farmers have long felt sidelined by urban-centric Liberal governments. The past four years were marked by regulatory and trade clashes that deepened that divide. The hope now is that with greater political stability and a clearer focus on  competitiveness, the next four years will bring a more constructive relationship between Ottawa and Canada’s agri-food sector.

If the Liberals are serious about food security and economic growth, now is the time to reset the relationship with Canada’s farmers, not ignore them yet again.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Trust but verify: Why COVID-19 And Kamloops Claims Demand Scientific Scrutiny

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Rodney Clifton

Senior Fellow Rodney Clifton calls for renewed scientific scrutiny of two major Canadian narratives: COVID-19 policies and the Kamloops residential school claims. He argues that both bypassed rigorous, evidence-based evaluation, favouring politicized consensus. Critics of pandemic measures, like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, were wrongly dismissed despite valid concerns. Similarly, the unverified mass grave claims in Kamloops were accepted without forensic proof. Clifton urges a return to the scientific principle of “trust but verify” to safeguard truth, public policy, and democracy.

COVID-19 and Kamloops claims dodged scrutiny – but the truth is catching up

Do we know the best way to decide if specific empirical claims are true?

Of course we do. The best way is by using the procedures of science.

Scientists critically examine the arguments and evidence in research studies to find weaknesses and fallacies. If there are no weaknesses or fallacies, the evidence enters the realm of science. But if there are weaknesses, the research has low or zero credibility, and the evidence does not become a building block of science.

In a historical context, seemingly good evidence may not remain as science because claims are continually evaluated by researchers. This scientific process is not failsafe, but it is far better than other procedures for determining the truth of empirical claims.

This powerful principle is often called “trust but verify,” and it is the idea behind the replication of scientific results.

Today, many such truth claims demand critical examination. At least two come readily to mind.

The first is the claim that the COVID-19 procedures and vaccines were safe and effective.

It is now abundantly clear that the procedures used during the COVID-19 pandemic bypassed time tested scientific protocols. Instead of open scientific debate and rigorous testing, government appointed “scientists” endorsed government-approved narratives. Canadians were told to social distance, wear masks and, most importantly, get vaccinated—often without transparent discussion of the evidence or risks.

Those who questioned the procedures, vaccines or official explanations were dismissed as “deniers” and, in some cases, ridiculed. Perhaps the most notable example is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the Stanford epidemiologist and economist who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration. Despite being vilified during the pandemic, Dr. Bhattacharya is now the head of the U.S. National Institute of Health.

Five years after the pandemic began, it is clear that Dr. Bhattacharya—and many other so-called deniers—were raising legitimate concerns. Contrary to the portrayal of these scientists as conspiracy theorists or extremists, they were doing exactly what good scientists should do: trusting but verifying empirical claims. Their skepticism was warranted, particularly regarding both the severity of the virus and the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

The second claim concerns the allegation that Indigenous children died or were murdered and buried in unmarked graves at the Kamloops Residential School.

In 2021, the Kamloops Indigenous Band claimed that 215 children’s bodies had been discovered in the schoolyard. The legacy media swiftly labelled anyone who questioned the claim as a “denier.” Despite millions of dollars allocated for excavations, no bodies have been exhumed. Meanwhile, other bands have made similar claims, likely encouraged by federal government incentives tied to funding.

To date, this claim has not faced normal scientific scrutiny. The debate remains lopsided, with one side citing the memories of unnamed elders—referred to as “knowledge-keepers”—while the other side calls for forensic evidence before accepting the claim.

The allegation of mass graves was not only embraced by the media but also by Parliament. Members of the House of Commons passed a motion by NDP MP Leah Gazan declaring that Indigenous children were subjected to genocide in residential schools. Disturbingly, this motion passed without any demand for forensic or corroborating evidence.

Truth claims must always be open to scrutiny. Those who challenge prevailing narratives should not be disparaged but rather respected, even if they are later proven wrong, because they are upholding the essential principle of science. It is time to reaffirm the vital importance of verifying evidence to resolve empirical questions.

We still need a robust debate about COVID-19 procedures, the virus itself, the vaccines and the claims of mass graves at residential schools. More broadly, we need open, evidence-based debates on many pressing empirical claims. Preserving our democracy and creating sound public policy depend on it because verifiable evidence is the cornerstone of decision-making that serves all Canadians.

Rodney A. Clifton is a professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Along with Mark DeWolf, he is the editor of From Truth Comes Reconciliation: An Assessment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, which can be ordered from Amazon.ca or the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X