Meghan Murphy writes at Spiked A Canadian dystopia.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Justin Trudeau’s ‘liberal’ government is riding roughshod over liberty.

Bored of its reputation as inclusive, open-minded and accepting, Canada opted for an authoritarian rebrand last year.

That, at least, seems to have been the intention of prime minister Justin Trudeau. Over the past year, he has led the way towards making authoritarianism great again, forcing thousands of Canadians to live as second-class citizens, while vilifying those who remain fond of their rights as dangerous bigots who should be cut off from society.

Our beta test for Tyranny 2.0 began with the Covid lockdowns in 2020.

Would Canadians agree to stay at home, mask up, abandon their elderly loved ones to die alone in hospitals and long-term care homes? Would they ostracise family members who dared to suggest a funeral for grandma? Would they shut down their businesses, host virtual cocktail hours and pretend that banging pots and pans from their windows equates to some kind of community-building exercise? Would they scream at strangers who dared to breathe too close to them on a hiking path, or who took off their masks for a bike ride? Would they turn their neighbours in to the police for hosting Christmas dinner? Why, yes they would!

After Canadians passed that test, the Liberal government pushed Covid restrictions further in 2022. At the start of the year, Canadians had to sign up to one app in order to leave the country and to return, and use another app to access restaurants, bars, gyms and sporting events. Kids were kept out of schools – indefinitely, it seemed back then – ensuring an entire generation fell behind in their education, mental, social and emotional development.

In the meantime, while everyone was distracted by Zoom meetings, or was furiously tweeting about anti-vax Nazis giving out free hot dogs in the streets, the Canadian government moved on to rolling back women’s rights in the name of ‘trans rights’.

 

 

Tyler Durden reports at Zerohedge Massive Hedge Fund, Also Known As Swiss National Bank, Suffers Colossal $143 Billion Loss In 2022.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The last time we looked at the massive money-printing (literally) hedge fund that also moonlights as the Swiss National Bank, we were stunned to learn that its US equity holdings had exploded to a record $177 billion at the end of Q1 2022, orders of magnitude more than the mere $27 billion it held as recently as 2014.

But while we wait for the SNB’s year-end 13F which should be published in about a month’s time, we already know the damage suffered by the Swiss hedge fund in 2021 and it is staggering: on Monday, the SNB reported an annual loss of 132 billion Swiss francs, or $143 billion, for fiscal 2022, the biggest loss in its 115-year history as falling stock and fixed-income markets hit the value of its share and bond portfolio. The recent drop in the US Dollar also did not help.

Monday’s provisional figure, which marked a reverse from a 26 billion franc profit in 2021, was far bigger than the previous record loss of 23 billion francs chalked up in 2015, and according to Reuters, it is equivalent to slightly more than the annual GDP of Morocco.

According to the bank, the bulk of the loss, or 131 billion francs, was from its foreign currency positions – a broad term used to describe the more than 800 billion francs in stocks and bonds the SNB bought during a long campaign to weaken the Swiss franc. Indicatively, the amount is also almost precisely the same as the GDP of Switzerland.

The losses accelerated as global stock and bond markets tumbled in unison – 2022 was the first year in over a century when both stock and bond market suffered double digit losses – as central banks around the world, including the SNB, hiked interest rates to combat inflation. Meanwhile, the strong Swiss franc – which rose above parity against the euro in July – also led to exchange rate-related losses.

And while the SNB lost money in pretty much everything there was one solitary asset class that generated a profit (take a wild guess which one): that’s right, the SNB’s gold holdings which stood at 1,040 tonnes at the end of 2021, gained 400 million francs in value during 2022.

The 2022 loss meant the central bank will not make its usual payout
to the Swiss central and regional governments, it said.

Last year the SNB paid out 6 billion francs. In fact, if the SNB followed similar accounting rules and logic as any other bank, it would have been wiped out with a loss that obliterated all of its equity capital. But in the magical world of seigniorage, where central banks are assumed to be able to print – again, literally – their way out of everything, the bank never loses and the SNB will continue its merry existence as if nothing happened.

Still, the loss is unlikely to have an impact on SNB policy. It hiked interest rates three times in 2022 as Chairman Thomas Jordan moved to stem high Swiss inflation, analysts said.

“The SNB’s colossal losses will not change its monetary policy at all,” said Karsten Junius, an economist at J.Safra Sarasin. “The high reputation of the SNB helps that it doesn’t have to change anything.”

Well, it may have a record loss that’s bigger than the GDP of most medium-sized countries, but at least it has its “high reputation” earned courtesy of years of laborious and exhausting… money printing.

And yes, because we live in a kangaroo world in which there are never any adverse consequences for colossal central bank stupidity, the SNB’s monetary policy will most certainly not change at all.

Footnote: Swiss Federal Budget Cuts

Swiss federal government signs off on negative budget

Negative government budgets are not the norm in Switzerland. Over the 23 years since 2000, 14 federal budgets have been positive and 9 negative. This week the federal government signed off on a negative budget for 2023 with a hole of CHF 4.8 billion in it, bringing the number of negative budgets since 2000 to 10.

In 2023, Switzerland’s federal government expects to spend CHF 86.2 billion, CHF 4.8 billion more than CHF 81.3 billion it expects to collect.

A large part of the deficit relates to a CHF 4 billion reserve that is expected to be lent to the electricity company Axpo, which faces a liquidity crisis. Axpo, which is owned mainly by Swiss cantons, owns and operates nuclear (49%), hydro (27%), fossil fuel (19%) and solar and wind (5%) power plants. The company has been hit by recent price disruption in the energy market. Rapid price shifts and efforts to deal with these by hedging future sales have consumed large amounts of cash.

The budget was accepted in parliament by 137 votes to 49. Ahead of vote an extra CHF 15 million was added to spending to fund marketing of Swiss wine, protect wolves, to support sport and a few other activities.

Not everyone was happy with the spending plans for 2023. Some on the left wanted higher spending on humanitarian aid to Ukraine, international funds, the Erasmus programme and support for clean energy and the circular economy, and less spending on the military.

Calls by the UDC/SVP for cuts to spending on the environment, health, energy, migration and culture were also rejected. Broadly, the party wanted across the board cuts with the exception of the military and welfare support for farmers.

Lee Smith documents the hideous journey at his Tablet article How the FBI Hacked Twitter.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

After journalist Matt Taibbi published the first batch of internal Twitter documents known as the Twitter files, he tweeted that the company’s deputy general counsel, James Baker, was vetting them.

“The news that Baker was reviewing the ‘Twitter files’ surprised everyone involved,” Taibbi wrote. That apparently included even Twitter’s new boss, Elon Musk, who added that Baker may have deleted some of the files he was supposed to be reviewing.

Baker had been the top lawyer at the FBI when it interfered in the 2016 presidential election. News that he might have been burying evidence of the spy service’s use of a social media company to interfere with the 2020 election, is rightly setting off alarm bells.

In fact, the FBI’s penetration of Twitter constituted just one part of a much larger intelligence operation—one in which the bureau offshored the machinery it used to interfere in the 2016 election and embedded it within the private sector. The resulting behemoth, still being built today, is a public-private consortium made up of U.S. intelligence agencies, Big Tech companies, civil society institutions, and major media organizations that has become the world’s most powerful spy service—one that was powerful enough to disappear the former president of the United States from public life, and that is now powerful enough to do the same or worse to anyone else it chooses.

Records from the Twitter files show that the FBI paid Twitter nearly $3.5 million, apparently for actions in connection with the 2020 election and nominally a payout for the platform’s work censoring “dangerous” content that had been flagged as mis- or disinformation. That “dangerous” content notably included material that threatened Joe Biden and implicated U.S. officials who have been curating the Biden family’s foreign corruption for decades.

The Twitter files have to date focused on FBI and, to a lesser extent, CIA election interference. However a lesser-known U.S. government agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) also played a significant role in shaping the 2020 vote. “CISA is a sub-agency at DHS that was set up to protect real physical infrastructure, like servers, malware and hacking threats,” said former State Department official Mike Benz, now the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. “But they expanded ‘infrastructure’ to mean us, the U.S. electorate. So ‘disinformation’ threatened infrastructure and that’s how cybersecurity became cyber-censorship.

CISA’s mandate went from stopping threats of Russian malware to stopping tweets from accounts that questioned the integrity of mail-in voting.”

The censorship industry is based on a “whole of society model,” said Benz. “It unifies the government and the private sector, as well as civil society in the form of academia and NGOs and news organizations, including fact-checking organizations. All these projects with catchphrases like building resilience, media literacy, cognitive security, etc., are all part of a broad partnership to help censor opponents of the Biden administration.”

Notably, Baker was enlisted in one of the civil-society organizations at the same time he joined Twitter as deputy general counsel. According to Benz, the National Task Force on Election Crises is something like a sister organization to the Transition Integrity Project, the group founded by former Democratic Party officials and Never Trump publicists who war-gamed post-2020-election scenarios.

“The outfit Baker was part of,” said Benz, “effectively handled the public messaging
for an organization that threatened street violence and counseled
violating the constitution to thwart a Trump victory.”

Baker’s presence at Twitter, then, and his review of the Twitter files, was deeply disconcerting. “This is who is inside Twitter,” the journalist and filmmaker Mike Cernovich tweeted at Elon Musk this spring. “He facilitated fraud.”

Musk replied: “Sounds pretty bad.”

In fact, Musk has done more in two months to bring to light crimes committed by U.S. officials than William Barr and John Durham did during their three-year investigation of the FBI’s election interference activities during the 2016 election. Musk now owns what became a crucial component of the national security apparatus that, seen in this light, is worth many times more than the $44 billion he paid for it.

The FBI prepared America’s new public-private censorship regime for the 2020 election by falsely telling Twitter, as well as other social media platforms, press outlets, lawmakers, and staff members of the White House, that Russians were readying a hack and leak operation to dirty the Democratic candidate. Accordingly, when reports of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden and giving evidence of his family’s financial ties with foreign officials were published in October 2020, Twitter blocked them.

In the week before the election, the FBI field office in charge of investigating Hunter Biden sent multiple censorship requests to Twitter. The FBI has “some folks in the Baltimore field office and at [FBI headquarters] that are just doing keyword searches for violations,” a company lawyer wrote in a Nov. 3, 2020, email.

The documents also show that Twitter banished Trump after misrepresenting his posts as incitement to violence. With U.S. intelligence services reportedly using informants to provoke violence during the January 6th protest at the Capitol, the trap closed on Trump. Twitter and Facebook then moved to silence the outgoing president by denying him access to the global communications infrastructure.

Twitter was more than a one-way mirror: The FBI also seems to have embedded its own spy structure within the social media company to siphon off the personal data and behavior of users. Dozens of former intelligence officials were installed within Twitter after the election of Donald Trump. Some had active top secret security clearances. Twitter’s director of strategy was Dawn Burton, former FBI Director James Comey’s deputy chief of staff. Perhaps most significant was Baker himself, who appears to have led the FBI’s internal organization at the platform. Efforts to reach Baker for comment on this story were unsuccessful.

Under Baker, Twitter became more than just an instrument to censor
the opposition; it also spied on them.

Newly released court documents show that Twitter coordinated with the DOJ to intercept the communications of users potentially dangerous to the Biden campaign, like Tara Reade, ​the former Biden Senate staffer who alleged that Biden had sexually assaulted her decades earlier. The DOJ subpoenaed her Twitter account, likely with the purpose of giving the company cover for finding out which journalists had contacted her about her allegations.

Perkins Coie’s lead attorney for Twitter v. Holder was former DOJ cybersecurity expert Michael Sussmann. He and Baker were friends. The FBI lawyer thanked him in a September 2014 letter for a recent meeting that included Twitter’s top lawyer Vijaya Gadde and others, but affirmed that giving specific numbers would reveal “properly classified information.” Why that would endanger sources and methods, as the government claimed, Baker never explained. But no one at DOJ knew more than Baker about FISA, the most intrusive surveillance program that U.S. intelligence services have in their arsenal.

Given what we know now, it’s clear that special counsel John Durham’s case against Sussmann was even more troubled than it first seemed. His star witness, Baker, wasn’t a hero in the story but a co-conspirator, to whom Durham gave a pass so he could charge Sussmann with a process crime.

What few understood was that the issue wasn’t just the 2016 election but the 2020 vote, too. Baker had to tread carefully or else risk exposing the job for which Sussmann had helped plant him at Twitter. It was one of the spy service’s most sensitive operations—infiltrating social media platforms to fix a presidential race. So Sussmann was acquitted—and the FBI’s hack of Twitter continued.

The Obama administration also realized that it could lean hard on monopoly social media platforms in order to gain political advantages—and it could make companies that weren’t compliant pay a price. First strike got you a dressing down from the White House: Weeks after the 2016 vote, for instance, Obama pulled Mark Zuckerberg aside at a conference in Peru and read him out about not doing more to keep Russian disinformation off Facebook. The reality is that Russia spent around $135,000 on Facebook ads, a small percentage of what presidential campaigns typically spend on a single day before lunch. But Obama wasn’t worried about Russia—he struck deals with Vladimir Putin to advance his own idiosyncratic foreign policy goals, like the nuclear agreement with Russia’s ally Iran. Obama’s problem was Trump.

As he was leaving office, Obama stamped the U.S. government’s seal of approval on Russiagate, ordering his spy chiefs to draft an official assessment claiming Putin helped put Trump in the White House. Since then, in Deep State parlance, “Russia” equals Trump and stopping “Russian disinformation” means censoring Trump, his supporters, and anyone else opposed to the national security apparatus’s takeover of the public communications infrastructure. Since Zuckerberg didn’t keep Trump off Facebook in 2016, he had to put up $400 million to drive votes to Democrats in 2020—and even that wasn’t enough. In 2021, Democratic Party insiders working together with Zuckerberg’s Big Tech competitor, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, sent a fake whistleblower after him to testify before congress that Facebook was bad for teenage girls.

The censorship regime would regulate out of existence anyone who resists it. To make the case for the hegemony of government censors, it found an eminent pitchman: Barack Obama.

In April, as Musk first said he wanted to buy Twitter and save free speech, Obama embarked on a “disinformation” tour, which took him to several college campuses to promote the un-American virtues of censorship. He first visited his hometown to speak at a University of Chicago conference, “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy.” Other guests included Anne Applebaum, an early advocate of the collusion conspiracy theory who pushed the spy-service fiction in dozens of her Washington Post columns. Also in attendance was former CISA head Chris Krebs, now famous for congressional testimony in which he claimed the 2020 election was the most secure ever.

The purpose of Obama’s speech was to present a choice to his audience: Either you impose a scorched-earth policy against the establishment’s opponents, or else you will face the kind of regulation that every company knows will be its death knell. Moreover, if they made the right choice, Obama showed, there was money in it for them.

“In effect, Obama announced that the funding channels are open for people who want to do disinformation work,” said Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online. “It’s like what happened with climate change. If you were an academic who wanted federal funding for anything, you made sure you made reference to climate to get grants. Same now with disinformation. Obama was saying, ‘here’s where the puck is moving, so skate here if you want federal funding.’”

In retrospect, the failure of the Russiagate conspiracy theory
accelerated the spy service’s takeover of social media.

Though no one is likely to be held accountable anytime soon, or ever, it was enough that the details of the operation were exposed by Patel and Nunes. In response, the spy agencies moved much of their operations out of the federal government and into the private sector, where even if congressional investigators found it, there wasn’t much they could do. Republicans could threaten to regulate social media, but their threats were empty. They might even find themselves—and their campaign ads—banned from Twitter.

The public-private sector merger worked only because, as a unifying myth for the U.S. elite, if not as a legal or political maneuver, Russiagate was a great success. If there were any fears of how news of the FBI’s spying operation on a presidential campaign might be received by the press, civil rights activists, and the left, the reception to Russiagate dispelled those concerns. The media offered itself up as a platform for information operations and published illegal leaks of classified information while the rest of the ruling class promoted a conspiracy theory and celebrated the assault on the constitutional rights of their fellow Americans as a success story.

Barr resigned from the administration a month after the election, outraged that Trump kept pushing him to investigate election fraud when, according to Barr, there was no evidence of it. And yet on his watch, law enforcement agencies under his authority ran the biggest election interference operation in U.S. history. William Barr did not respond to a request for comment.

It seems Barr’s contempt for the president he served blinded him—along with the class of people to which he belongs, Democrats and Republicans alike—to an essential fact: A whole-of-society industry designed to shape elections and censor, propagandize, and spy on Americans was never simply a weapon to harm Donald Trump. It was designed to replace the republic.

Footnote:  Soviet Humor:

“Lubyanka (KGB headquarters) is the tallest building in Moscow. You can see Siberia from its basement.”

 

 

 

From the Burning Platform Is the New World Order on the Precipice?.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.  H/T Tyler Durden

The New World Order nobility may be receiving more roadblocks for their plans than they had anticipated. The entire scam is based on the ignorance and complacence of the great mass of people in the western based economies. Control of the West is essential for world domination. We are the source of wealth and innovation which makes it imperative. The new platform has begun to get rickety with energy problems, war and civil strife bubbling to the surface.

China is believed to be a huge source of economic and political power but actually without the West being a customer, China is a backwater without technology, markets, energy and foodstuffs. The government is unstable as shown in the past few weeks with the new attempted lockdowns. Their food shortages of the past two years are not mentioned by the simpletons of the media but contribute to general instability. The Chinese are a huge unknown to our “intellectual elite” whether they realize it or not.

Control of the sluggish population of Chinese is an easy task compared to Europe and North American farmers, but all are now stirring.

This does not even consider India and Russia. By adding these cards to the deck the game plan of the WEF attempted coup appears poorly designed with a small chance of successful domination. That leaves two options regarding their plans, either they are rather sophomoric or there is a plan simmering as yet unknown. I vote for sophomoric. All international schemes have revolved around the US for 100 years because of our ability to fund any type of debauchery. The current unknown is how do they expect the US consumer to drive the economies that they expect to dominate if we are poor, hungry and cold.

Europe has been used as test bed for the new system as
they are used to being dominated by a system of their betters.

The clock is ticking as we speak for a major crash that will test the controls set up by the Reich in Europe. The citizens are getting chilly and unappreciative in the support for the new order. The power bills have skyrocketed while farmers’ land is being confiscated. France has been using a colonial type franc to fund its ex-territories in Africa while sucking them dry causing huge migration. Italy and France have begun a war of words about illegal immigrants. Hungary has said it will veto additional sanctions on Russia. The Reich has used the Euro to tap money from the Mediterranean countries so they are running on empty. Britain is in their own mess financially as well. Where will originate the funding for this extension of socialism?

Theoretically the last option would be expanding the Belt and Road system financed by China. Unfortunately China is experiencing tougher times than expected at home and it is a road to nowhere. Bluffing about Taiwan is amusing, not dangerous. Even their border with India has become volatile.

The Reich is left again bumping into the Russian Bear that is blocking its’ expansionist dreams. WEF intellectualism is revealed again to be suspect at best. Russia is only interested in its’ own empire and historically defends against the Reich. Certainly the sanctions invoked by the EU for the war are a thorn for Russia but an obvious disaster for Europe.

The traditional answer to world financial trauma is to have the USA make the payoffs through gold or more recently inflation. Today there is little room for maneuver in our finances. In 1907 we spent 7% of our GDP on government. Today it is about 46%. There is nothing left for the banks to steal. That leaves one option for world stability. That is of course our military.

Europe has none since the US has paid for its’ unruly teenager for 90 years. In WW2, 1 of 11 men were in the army. Today it is about 1 in 200 and there is a 25% deficit in recruiting. Our young men are not being fooled into supporting a corporate empire building system again. US hegemony is past but there is no one to take our place as the relatively benign thief in charge. This is a new horizon in history which places a great deal of pressure on the “intellectual” class to react to unknown situations.

Their record in the last century for functional innovative thought is 0 wins vs 100 losses.

 

 

1.  Hope for a Federal Election in 2023

Epoch Times reports Nearly Half of Canadians Want a Federal Election in 2023: Poll.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Nearly half of Canadians say they want a federal election in 2023, a new poll finds, and a slim majority indicate that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should step down as Liberal leader in the new year.

Conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Global News, the poll shows that 49 percent of Canadians hope for a federal election next year, despite one not being legally mandated until 2025 and the NDP’s promise to keep the minority Liberal government in power so long as their “supply and confidence” agreement holds till then.

The desire for an election varies across provinces, with those living in Atlantic Canada (63 percent), Alberta (60 percent), Saskatchewan (55 percent), Manitoba (55 percent), B.C. (53 percent), and Quebec (60 percent) showing more interest than those residing in Ontario (46 percent), said the poll, released on Dec. 26.

Nationally, only 43 percent believe that a federal election will take place.

A majority of Canadians (54 percent) said Trudeau should step down as Liberal leader in 2023 and that the country should have a new prime minister, though just 27 percent believe he will do so.

This view is more widely held by men (58 percent) than women (49 percent), according to the online poll. Researchers noted a similarity in regional variation, with Alberta (65 percent) being most likely to hold this position. Atlantic Canada took the second spot at 57 percent, while Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario tied at 56 percent. B.C. followed closely behind at 54 percent whereas only 43 percent of Quebecers think Trudeau shouldn’t run in the next election.

The approval rating for Trudeau (45 percent) is higher than that of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre (41 percent), according to the poll.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who recently returned to her role after a short hiatus, has an approval rating of 39 percent.

Yves-François Blanchet, leader of the Bloc Québécois, had the approval of 43 percent of Quebecers, while approval for People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier was 26 percent.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh received the highest approval rating at 53 percent.

In an interview with Global News, Ipsos CEO Darrell Bricker said popularity doesn’t necessarily mean more votes.

“As we’ve seen in elections past with NDP leaders, they tend to do well in the polls and they don’t do so well on Election Day,” Bricker said. “So even though they might like him a little bit, they’re not necessarily prepared to vote for him unless something changes.”

The survey was conducted based on a sample of 1,004 Canadians aged 18 and over Dec. 14–16. It is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

2. Crackdown on Political Incorrectness

Toronto Sun reports Jordan Peterson threatened with psychologists licence being revoked over political statements online.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Is Jordan Peterson about to lose his licence to practice psychology in Ontario? That’s what Peterson is claiming online and, so far, the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) has not denied it.

Peterson took to Twitter on Tuesday to say that he was ordered to take social media training or face a disciplinary hearing.

“BREAKING: the Ontario College of Psychologists @CPOntario has demanded that I submit myself to mandatory social-media communication retraining with their experts for, among other crimes, retweeting @PierrePoilievre and criticizing @JustinTrudeau and his political allies,” Peterson tweeted Tuesday morning.

Peterson isn’t being asked to reconsider his actions towards a fellow psychologist online, he’s being asked to submit to social media training for political statements he’s made. None of the people who have lodged complaints are clients, Peterson said, nor are they connected to clients. They haven’t experienced personal harm from Peterson, but they want the good doctor to be punished.

In a series of tweets, Peterson said that many professions in Canada are now run by associations or colleges that are highly political and which impose fear on their members. He said this included physicians, lawyers, psychologists and among others.

“This means that your care and legal counsel has been rendered dangerously unreliable,” Peterson tweeted.

 

3. Barely Hidden Globalist Agenda

Wentworth reports Klaus Schwab’s “Young Global Leaders” school rules the world?.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

How is it that more than 190 governments from all over the world ended up dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in almost exactly the same manner, with lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination cards now being commonplace everywhere?   Always vaccines, never therapeutics like vitamin D, zinc, ivermectin or — like Trump suggested — HCQ.

The answer may lie in the Young Global Leaders school, which was established and managed by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, and that many of today’s prominent political and business leaders passed through on their way to the top.

The German economist, journalist, and author Ernst Wolff has revealed some facts about Schwab’s “Young Global Leaders” school … in a video from the German Corona Committee podcast.

The story begins with the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is an NGO founded by Klaus Schwab, a German economist and mechanical engineer, in Switzerland in 1971, when he was only 32. The WEF is best-known to the public for the annual conferences it holds in Davos, Switzerland each January that aim to bring together political and business leaders from around the world to discuss the problems of the day. Today, it is one of the most important networks in the world for the globalist power elite, being funded by approximately a thousand multinational corporations. …

Wolff points out that very few graduates of the Global Leaders school list it on their CVs. He says that he has only seen it listed on one: namely, that of the German economist Richard Werner, who is a known critic of the establishment. …

Another thing that the Global Leaders graduates have in common is that most of them have very sparse CVs apart from their participation in the program prior to being elevated to positions of power, which may indicate that it is their connection to Schwab’s institutions that is the decisive factor in launching their careers. This is most evident when the school’s alumni are publicly questioned about issues that they have not been instructed to talk about in advance, and their struggles to come up with answers are often quite evident. Wolff contends that their roles are only to act as mouthpieces for the talking points that those in the shadows behind them want discussed in public debate. …

Transcript of Peterson Video Above

When I look at Trudeau there’s a couple of things that I see. I see someone who hasn’t grown up. One of the most appalling things about the budget, as far as I was concerned, is that it provides ample evidence (if such was not already sufficiently provided) that Trudeau is exactly what you would be afraid of. He doesn’t have an answer to a problem that isn’t overwhelmingly predictable ideologically.

It’s like you don’t even need him, you just have to run the ideology, it has the answers. What’s the big problem: equity between men and women? I’m sorry that’s not the big problem, that’s not even scratching the surface of the problem with that approach. And your solutions? You can learn those your first week in women’s studies. They are the sorts of solutions children toy with when they have no idea what they’re contending with.  Well there’s there’s not a lot there I’m afraid.

Fixing these complex systems is unbelievably complicated and you’re likely to make them worse when you’re mucking about with them haphazardly. And so it’s way easier just to do what Trudeau said back in 2016. Why do we have women half of the cabinet? Because it’s 2016! It’s almost impossible to overstate how shallow that comment is. And not only shallow but also casually malevolent in an unconscious sense. Because he had a job to do, which was to evaluate his MPs thoroughly and skeptically and pick the best people, period. But that isn’t what he did. Instead he said: “Oh well, it’s 2016 so I’ll appoint half women.”

Everybody gave them a pass on that so here we are now. We have a budget that’s equity focused, well good luck with that.

When I look at Trudeau there’s a couple of things that I see. I see someone who hasn’t grown up so he’s Peter Pan. I see someone who knows how to behave in public. That’s one thing you can say, he’s got that that easy charisma and charm that comes from being good-looking and being from a favored background. He’s got by on that favored background.

I believe that if he had any true character that he would not have run. Because he ran on the strength of his name and he hadn’t earned the right to do that. But people elected him, and so here we are, and this is what we get. He pulled out the ideological card when he formulated the cabinet and Canadians all went: “Oh isn’t that cute.” No it’s not cute, it’s not acceptable and now we’re paying the price for it.