Connect with us

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

Censorship Industrial Complex

Australian politicians attack Elon Musk for refusing to remove video of Orthodox bishop’s stabbing

Published on

Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

The video is available on YouTube but Australia’s political class is singling out and waging war on X owner Elon Musk for his refusal to delete footage of the stabbing of Orthodox Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel.

In a demonstration of governmental overreach the Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has attacked Elon Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter) for not acceding to demands to put a worldwide ban on video footage of an attempted stabbing of a bishop in a Sydney church.

Albanese is not alone; virtually the entire Australian political class has joined in the attack. Tanya Plibersek, minister for Environment and Water called Musk an “egotistical billionaire.” Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young described him as a “narcissistic cowboy.” Albanese chimed in by describing him as an “arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law.”

Senator Jacqui Lambie went as far as suggesting that Musk be “jailed” for his refusal to bend to the demands of the Australian government.  

In response to Lambie’s comments, Musk declared her to be an “enemy of the people of Australia,” agreeing with another social media user who suggested it should be Lambie, not Musk, who belongs in jail.

The right wing Liberal-National coalition was only slightly less aggressive saying Musk was offering an “insulting and offensive argument” in his refusal to remove graphic footage of the stabbing. How Musk saying that posts should not be taken down is “insulting and offensive” was not explained.

The victim of the attack, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, an Iraqi-born Assyrian Australian prelate who is head of the Eastern Christ the Good Shepherd Church, has displayed a maturity and moral virtue conspicuously lacking in the political arena. Emmanuel recorded a message saying that he loved his assailant, and that he wanted the video to stay online, urging people not to respond to violence with violence.

After the incident there were riots outside the church, resulting in 51 officers sustaining injuries. A 16-year-old boy has been arrested and charged with a religiously motivated terrorist attack.

That formulation is inaccurate. There is no effective protection of free speech in Australia, unlike the US, which has the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Federal government is currently preparing a misinformation and disinformation bill to force social media companies only to allow content of which the government approves.

As Senator Ralph Babet of the United Australia Party observes it is a “censorship agenda” that will be pushed no matter which party is in power. “The office of the eSafety commissioner was created under the Liberal Party and is now being emboldened by the Labor Party,” he writes.

The public battle with Musk is better seen as an attempt by the Australian government to control what is on the internet. The newly appointed eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant directed X to remove the posts, but X had only blocked them from access in Australia pending a legal challenge. The government then demanded that the posts be removed world-wide.

That the Australian political class thinks it has the right to issue edicts in countries where it has no legal jurisdiction is a demonstration of the lack of clarity in their thinking, and the intensity of their obsession with censoring.

Musk accurately characterised the situation in a post: “Should the eSafety Commissar (an unelected official) in Australia have authority over all countries on Earth?” It seems that many Australian politicians think the answer to that question is “Yes.”

The childish personal attacks on Musk, typical ad hominem attacks (going at the person rather than the argument) are revealing. What does the fact that Musk is a billionaire have to do with the legal status of the posts? Does having a lot of money somehow disqualify him from having a position?

If he is “egotistical” or “arrogant” what does that have to do with his logical or legal claims? How does exposing Musk as a narcissistic cowboy” have any relevance to him allowing content on the platform? Wouldn’t a narcissist be more likely to restrict content? The suspicion is that the politicians are resorting to such abuse because they have no argument.

The Australian government’s attack on Musk, which borders on the absurd, is just one of many being directed at X. An especially dangerous initiative is coming from the European Union’s Digital Services Act, which can apply fines of up to 6 per cent of the worldwide annual turnover, a ridiculously punitive amount. The United Kingdom’s communications regulator, Ofcom is even worse. It will have powers to fine companies up to 10 per cent of their global turnover.

Western governments are mounting an all out push to censor the internet, and Australia’s aggressive move is just part of that. What is never considered by governments and bureaucrats is the cost of such censorship.

The benefits of “protecting” people are always overstated and inevitably infantilize the population. The price is a degradation of social institutions and a legal system that does not apply equally to the citizenry and to the government. It is a step towards tyranny: rule by law rather than rule of law.

Continue Reading

Business

UN plastics plans are unscientific and unrealistic

Published on

News release from the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

“We must focus on practical solutions and upgrading our recycling infrastructure, not ridiculous restrictions that will harm our health care system, sanitary food supply, increase costs and endanger Canadians’ safety, among other downsides.”

This week Ottawa welcomes 4,000 delegates from the United Nations to discuss how they will oversee a reduction and even possible elimination of plastics from our lives. The key problem is no one has ever figured out how they will replace this essential component of our modern economy and society. The Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada (CCMBC) has launched an information campaign to discuss the realities of plastic, how it contributes massively to our society and the foolishness of those who think plastics can be eliminated or greatly reduced without creating serious problems for key industries such as health care, sanitary food provision, many essential consumer products and safety/protective equipment, among others. CCMBC President Catherine Swift said “The key goal should be to keep plastics in the economy and out of the environment, not eliminate many valuable and irreplaceable plastic items. The plastics and petrochemical industries represent about 300,000 jobs and tens of billions contribution to GDP in Canada, and are on a growth trend.”

The UN campaign to ban plastics to date has been thwarted by reality and facts. UN efforts to eliminate plastics began in 2017, motivated by such terrible images as rivers with massive amounts of floating plastic and animals suffering from negative effects of plastic materials. Although these images were dramatic and disturbing, they do not represent the big picture of what is really happening and do not take into account the many ways plastics are hugely positive elements of modern society. Swift added “Furthermore, Canada is not one of the problem countries with respect to plastics waste. Developing countries are the main culprits and any solution must involve helping the leading plastics polluters find workable solutions and better recycling technology and practices.”

The main goal of plastic is to preserve and protect. Can you imagine health care without sanitary, flexible, irreplaceable and recyclable plastic products? How would we keep our food fresh, clean and healthy without plastic wraps and packaging? Plastic replaces many heavier and less durable materials in so many consumer products too numerous to count. Plastics help the environment by reducing food waste, replacing heavier materials in automobiles and other products that make them more energy-efficient. Many plastics are infinitely recyclable and innovations are taking place to improve them constantly. What is also less known is that most of the replacements for plastics are more expensive and actually worse for the environment.

Swift stated “Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has been convinced by the superficial arguments that plastics are always bad despite the facts. He has pursued a campaign against all plastics as a result, without factoring in the reality of the immense value of plastic products and that nothing can replace their many attributes. Fortunately, the Canadian Federal court overturned his absurd ban on a number of plastic products on the basis that it was unscientific, impractical and impinged upon provincial jurisdiction.” Sadly, Guilbeault and his Liberal cohorts plan to appeal this legal decision despite its common-sense conclusions. Opinion polls of Canadians show that a strong majority would prefer this government abandon its plastics crusade at this point, but history shows these Liberals prefer pursuing their unrealistic and costly ideologies instead of policies that Canadians support.

The bottom line is that plastics are an essential part of our modern society and opposition has been based on erroneous premises and ill-informed environmentalist claims. Swift concluded “Canada’s record on plastics is one of the best in the world. This doesn’t mean the status quo is sufficient, but we must focus on practical solutions and upgrading our recycling infrastructure, not ridiculous restrictions that will harm our health care system, sanitary food supply, increase costs and endanger Canadians’ safety, among other downsides.” The current Liberal government approach is one that has no basis in fact or science and emphasizes virtue-signaling over tangible and measurable results.  Swift noted “The UN’s original founding purpose after World War II was to prevent another world war. Given our fractious international climate, they should stick to their original goal instead of promoting social justice warrior causes that are unhelpful and expensive.”

The CCMBC was formed in 2016 with a mandate to advocate for proactive and innovative policies that are conducive to manufacturing and business retention and safeguarding job growth in Canada.

SOURCE Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Continue Reading

Trending

X