Opinion
The Great Reset doesn’t care if you believe it exists and Canada is on the front line
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:
- Have no idea there is a Great Reset
- Accept there is a Great Reset, but doubt the ability and the organization of the people conspiring.
- 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.
- 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!”
Crime
The Uncomfortable Demographics of Islamist Bloodshed—and Why “Islamophobia” Deflection Increases the Threat
Addressing realities directly is the only path toward protecting communities, confronting extremism, and preventing further loss of life, Canadian national security expert argues.
After attacks by Islamic extremists, a familiar pattern follows. Debate erupts. Commentary and interviews flood the media. Op-eds, narratives, talking points, and competing interpretations proliferate in the immediate aftermath of bloodshed. The brief interval since the Bondi beach attack is no exception.
Many of these responses condemn the violence and call for solidarity between Muslims and non-Muslims, as well as for broader societal unity. Their core message is commendable, and I support it: extremist violence is horrific, societies must stand united, and communities most commonly targeted by Islamic extremists—Jews, Christians, non-Muslim minorities, and moderate Muslims—deserve to live in safety and be protected.
Yet many of these info-space engagements miss the mark or cater to a narrow audience of wonks. A recurring concern is that, at some point, many of these engagements suggest, infer, or outright insinuate that non-Muslims, or predominantly non-Muslim societies, are somehow expected or obligated to interpret these attacks through an Islamic or Muslim-impact lens. This framing is frequently reinforced by a familiar “not a true Muslim” narrative regarding the perpetrators, alongside warnings about the risks of Islamophobia.
These misaligned expectations collide with a number of uncomfortable but unavoidable truths. Extremist groups such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and decentralized attackers with no formal affiliations have repeatedly and explicitly justified their violence through interpretations of Islamic texts and Islamic history. While most Muslims reject these interpretations, it remains equally true that large, dynamic groups of Muslims worldwide do not—and that these groups are well prepared to, and regularly do, use violence to advance their version of Islam.
Islamic extremist movements do not, and did not, emerge in a vacuum. They draw from the broader Islamic context. This fact is observable, persistent, and cannot be wished or washed away, no matter how hard some may try or many may wish otherwise.
Given this reality, it follows that for most non-Muslims—many of whom do not have detailed knowledge of Islam, its internal theological debates, historical divisions, or political evolution—and for a considerable number of Muslims as well, Islamic extremist violence is perceived as connected to Islam as it manifests globally. This perception persists regardless of nuance, disclaimers, or internal distinctions within the faith and among its followers.
THE COST OF DENIAL AND DEFLECTION
Denying or deflecting from these observable connections prevents society from addressing the central issues following an Islamic extremist attack in a Western country: the fatalities and injuries, how the violence is perceived and experienced by surviving victims, how it is experienced and understood by the majority non-Muslim population, how it is interpreted by non-Muslim governments responsible for public safety, and how it is received by allied nations. Worse, refusing to confront these difficult truths—or branding legitimate concerns as Islamophobia—creates a vacuum, one readily filled by extremist voices and adversarial actors eager to poison and pollute the discussion.
Following such attacks, in addition to thinking first of the direct victims, I sympathize with my Muslim family, friends, colleagues, moderate Muslims worldwide, and Muslim victims of Islamic extremism, particularly given that anti-Muslim bigotry is a real problem they face. For Muslim victims of Islamic extremism, that bigotry constitutes a second blow they must endure. Personal sympathy, however, does not translate into an obligation to center Muslim communal concerns when they were not the targets of the attack. Nor does it impose a public obligation or override how societies can, do, or should process and respond to violence directed at them by Islamic extremists.
As it applies to the general public in Western nations, the principle is simple: there should be no expectation that non-Muslims consider Islam, inter-Islamic identity conflicts, internal theological disputes, or the broader impact on the global Muslim community, when responding to attacks carried out by Islamic extremists. That is, unless Muslims were the victims, in which case some consideration is appropriate.
Quite bluntly, non-Muslims are not required to do so and are entitled to reject and push back against any suggestion that they must or should. Pointedly, they are not Muslims, a fact far too many now seem to overlook.
The arguments presented here will be uncomfortable for many and will likely provoke polarizing discussion. Nonetheless, they articulate an important, human-centered position regarding how Islamic extremist attacks in Western nations are commonly interpreted and understood by non-Muslim majority populations.
Non-Muslims are free to give no consideration to Muslim interests at any time, particularly following an Islamic extremist attack against non-Muslims in a non-Muslim country. The sole exception is that governments retain an obligation to ensure the safety and protection of their Muslim citizens, who face real and heightened threats during these periods. This does not suggest that non-Muslims cannot consider Muslim community members; it simply affirms that they are under no obligation to do so.
The impulse for Muslims to distance moderate Muslims and Islam from extremist attacks—such as the targeting of Jews in Australia or foiled Christmas market plots in Poland and Germany—is understandable.
Muslims do so to protect their own interests, the interests of fellow Muslims, and the reputation of Islam itself. Yet this impulse frequently collapses into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, pointing to peaceful Muslims as the baseline while asserting that the attackers were not “true Muslims.”
Such claims oversimplify the reality of Islam as it manifests globally and fail to address the legitimate political and social consequences that follow Islamic extremist attacks in predominantly non-Muslim Western societies. These deflections frequently produce unintended effects, such as strengthening anti-Muslim extremist sentiments and movements and undermining efforts to diminish them.
The central issue for public discourse after an Islamic extremist attack is not debating whether the perpetrators were “true” or “false” Muslims, nor assessing downstream impacts on Muslim communities—unless they were the targets.
It is a societal effort to understand why radical ideologies continue to emerge from varying—yet often overlapping—interpretations of Islam, how political struggles within the Muslim world contribute to these ideologies, and how non-Muslim-majority Western countries can realistically and effectively confront and mitigate threats related to Islamic extremism before the next attack occurs and more non-Muslim and Muslim lives are lost.
Addressing these realities directly is the only path toward protecting communities, confronting extremism, and preventing further loss of life.
Ian Bradbury, a global security specialist with over 25 years experience, transitioned from Defence and NatSec roles to found Terra Nova Strategic Management (2009) and 1NAEF (2014). A TEDx, UN, NATO, and Parliament speaker, he focuses on terrorism, hybrid warfare, conflict aid, stability operations, and geo-strategy.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
By
Individuals and communities must take responsibility for their own safety.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wayne Gretzky’s Terrible, Awful Week.. And Soccer/ Football.
Western Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots
-
Digital ID2 days agoCanada releases new digital ID app for personal documents despite privacy concerns
-
Community1 day agoCharitable giving on the decline in Canada
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoNFL Ice Bowls Turn Down The Thermostat on Climate Change Hysteria
-
Energy2 days agoCanada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy
-
Crime2 days agoTrump designates fentanyl a ‘weapon of mass destruction’
-
Energy2 days agoCan we not be hysterical about AI and energy usage?
-
Energy2 days agoEnergy security matters more than political rhetoric
-
Alberta1 day agoCanada’s New Green Deal