I hope you all realize that the division that has been created in our nation and our province was created by the government. I would argue, by design. Much easier to control the masses when divided.
These governments have never, and I mean never, opened any of this covid nonsense to scrutiny or debate. Ask yourselves why?
Why can't we hear from scientists, virologists, doctors, nurses, healthcare workers who share a different point of view, or have different data, or are backed by peer reviewed studies that show a completely different story?
Because there is a political agenda attached to it all!
Why wouldn't we, as a society, expect and demand all arguments, all data, all studies, to be in the public sphere? Regardless of where you fall on this whole mess, isn't full and transparent information the key to a healthy society? Isn't healthy debate and discussion necessary in a free society? They have locked down the narrative, supported by the media, a media that is NOT the free press, a media that is kept alive by government handouts. A government that requires the media to create & maintain the narratives. So many people are simply lazy and naive to simply accept the narratives pumped out by the media and our politicians without holding any of them to account? Without asking any of the tough and necessary questions. yet, anyone who does is quickly referred to as a conspiracy theorist. It is that lockdown of information and the dissemination of such, that has created this division.
I grew up in a country where healthy debate was the standard. Where differing positions was encouraged. Where vigorous discussion was normal. I want that country back. I want unity back. We only get unity when there is truth. We only get to truth when there is communication, transparency, and debate.
They have locked down the communication, the transparency, and the debate and we wonder why we are so divided. Up to and including the exclusion from the national debates of the only party in Canada that opposes the tyranny. That wants the debate. That wants the transparency. That wants unity. That wants freedom!
Anyone politically-engaged in Canada is familiar with this narrative; the PPC is Maxime Bernier’s vengeance-vehicle against the Conservative Party. The continued existence of the PPC destroys right-wing unity in Canada and will allow the Liberals to govern unchallenged as long as the PPC takes votes away from the CPC. It’s Reform all over again!
The vote split narrative is utter nonsense — and I’m going to prove the “vote split” doesn’t exist and is a ridiculous position to take. Moreover, the vote split narrative belies a dogged refusal on the part of big-C conservatives to engage in self-reflection. For those in the crowd that identify as big-C conservatives, this is a wake-up call.
I. A “vote split” assumes the CPC and PPC are politically aligned.
The CPC and PPC are demonstrably not aligned. As much has come straight from the horse’s mouth. A quote from Erin O’Toole:
“The Conservatives are a moderate, pragmatic, mainstream party … that sits squarely in the centre of Canadian politics.”
Click the link above to read O’Toole’s statement directly on the Conservative Party’s website. Most of it is your bog-standard grift, but that line is important and publicly signals a shift away from conservatism and towards a vague “centre”. O’Toole says it right there.
Andrew Scheer moved the CPC away from its roots, and O’Toole is doing the same. Even the most diehard big-C conservatives now must admit the CPC is gambling on a shift to the centre to get more votes.
In contrast, Maxime Bernier and the People’s Party of Canada do not spew such buzzword salads because they are confident in themselves as a conservative political party.
PPC supporters who left the Conservative Party have been quite clear; we did not leave the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party left us.
Erin O’Toole is bargaining on an incredibly ambitious and risky strategy. Rather than monopolize the right-wing and entrench support, he instead plays a game of chicken with his base to see how many conservative elements he can shed before everyone leaves him.
In embarking on this strategy, O’Toole and the rest of the CPC leadership make a rookie political mistake: they are trying to please everybody. As we all know, if you try to do that, the result is that everyone walks away unhappy.
The only issue the CPC and the PPC are aligned on is a common goal to oust Trudeau; more specifically, oust Trudeau and form government themselves. In that respect, all federal parties — excluding the Bloc — in Canada are politically aligned.
Now, PPC supporters and CPC supporters are almost certainly aligned with each other. Most of us want the same things; a small and responsible government that does not interfere with our rights and freedoms, strong traditions, a shared sense of community within the nation, a robust economy, full sovereignty unimpeded by global organizations, and mutually beneficial relationships with our allies.
Because the respective parties' supporters are aligned with each other, it is easy to conclude the PPC and CPC themselves are aligned.
However, as we know, the CPC leadership is hell-bent on attracting a new base. It is impossible to split the vote when the two parties are dramatically different and focused on attracting different voters.
II. Accusations of vote splitting are inherently anti-democratic.
If someone contends there is a vote split, what they are really saying is that your vote does not matter unless it’s for the Conservatives. Furthermore, you are obligated to vote for the Conservatives.
No political party owns votes. They must earn them by successfully convincing voters that their solutions for the country are the best out of the competition. We have moved past that age of democratic politics when unions, party apparatchiks, and your community pressured or outright coerced you into voting for a party.
Canadian conservatives should not be cowed into holding their noses and voting against their values in the hope of defeating Trudeau and the Liberal Party.
That’s not how any of this works or indeed should work. If you sacrifice every principle in the pursuit of victory, you will find that victory is hollow. And you will become weak.
This might come as a shock to some, but the Liberal Party will go on. There will be another Trudeau in the future. Power struggles at the polls go on forever in democracies — defeating Trudeau today does not mean you have “won”.
The Conservative Party has become weak. They have abandoned many of their principles and allowed themselves to be led around on a leash by the narrative set by the Liberals and associated media outlets.
The Conservatives are throwing the entire game for years to come.
Supporters of the People’s Party recognize that an O’Toole-CPC victory would not change much apart from some cosmetic changes. Increasingly, many Conservative Party supporters are coming to the same conclusion.
If you contend that PPC voters and their pesky vote-splitting are to blame for the Conservative’s continued decline, you are O’Fooling yourself by attacking others for exercising their democratic rights.
III. The vote split narrative stops the CPC from engaging in self-reflection.
For a certain segment of big-C conservatives, the PPC is the blame for all of their problems. The PPC split the vote in 2019 and kept the Conservatives out of office. The PPC gives conservatism a “bad name” (to who? Left-wing voters who would never consider voting for a right-wing party?). The PPC is going to split the vote again and cost the CPC the next election.
All of this serves to prevent real self-reflection within the Conservative Party to identify its flaws and how they could be rectified. The Conservatives did not lose in 2019 because of the PPC. They lost because Andrew Scheer was a weak, indecisive, low-energy leader who ran a weak, indecisive, low-energy campaign.
Evidently, the CPC has not done any self-reflection because they elected another weak, generic leader who wasted no time ripping off his “true blue” mask. If the Conservative’s current half-hearted and uninspiring rhetoric is anything to go by, they will run another weak and generic campaign in the 44th General Election.
“But Pierre Poilievre!”
Poilievre is not the leader of the Conservative Party.
Vote For Your Values
It’s as Maxime Bernier himself is fond of saying. If you don’t vote for what you want, you’ll never get it.
If all you want is to see Trudeau out of the PMO and to hell with the rest of it, by all means, continue voting Conservative. One day, you may be successful.
But if you want more than a simple changing of the guard, if you want a real conservative federal government, your only logical option is to vote for the People’s Party of Canada.
And for those sitting on the fence who say they will support the PPC once it grows large enough — my friends, you are putting the cart before the horse.
If you want to see a conservative government in Ottawa, you must be willing to act courageously. Do the brave thing and make your own decision. Don’t let all kinds of white noise and propaganda from the CPC drive you away from your own values and beliefs.
I believe in the values of Freedom, Respect, Responsibility, and Fairness. Chances are, you do as well!
What other federal party besides the People’s Party of Canada boldly and openly champions these values which built Canada?
16 August 2021, 11.12am
‘The Great Reset’ conspiracy theories don’t seem to want to die. The theories were triggered by the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) summit last year, which had the theme ‘The Great Reset’ and argued that the COVID crisis was an opportunity to address the burning issues facing the world. According to the BBC, the term ‘Great Reset’ has received more than eight million interactions on Facebook and has been shared almost two million times on Twitter since the WEF initiative was launched.
The set of conspiracy theories around the Great Reset are nebulous and hard to pin down, but piecing them together gives us something like this: the Great Reset is the global elite’s plan to instate a communist world order by abolishing private property while using COVID-19 to solve overpopulation and enslaving what remains of humanity with vaccines.
Intrigued by the palaver around last year’s summit, I decided to find out what the WEF’s Great Reset plan was really about. At the heart of conspiracy theories are supposed secret agendas and malicious intent. While these may be absent from the WEF's Great Reset initiative, what I found was something almost as sinister hiding in plain sight. In fact, more sinister because it’s real and it’s happening now. And it involves things as fundamental as our food, our data and our vaccines.
The magic words are ‘stakeholder capitalism’, a concept that WEF chairman Klaus Schwab has been hammering for decades and which occupies pride of place in the WEF’s Great Reset plan from June 2020. The idea is that global capitalism should be transformed so that corporations no longer focus solely on serving shareholders but become custodians of society by creating value for customers, suppliers, employees, communities and other ‘stakeholders’. The way the WEF sees stakeholder capitalism being carried out is through a range of ‘multi-stakeholder partnerships’ bringing together the private sector, governments and civil society across all areas of global governance.
The idea of stakeholder capitalism and multi-stakeholder partnerships might sound warm and fuzzy, until we dig deeper and realise that this actually means giving corporations more power over society, and democratic institutions less.
The plan from which the Great Reset originated was called the Global Redesign Initiative. Drafted by the WEF after the 2008 economic crisis, the initiative contains a 600-page report on transforming global governance. In the WEF’s vision, “the government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter.” Governments would be just one stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder model of global governance. Harris Gleckman, senior fellow at the University of Massachusetts, describes the report as “the most comprehensive proposal for re-designing global governance since the formulation of the United Nations during World War II.”
Multi-stakeholder partnerships are public-private partnerships on the global stage
Who are these other, non-governmental stakeholders? The WEF, best known for its annual meeting of high-net-worth individuals in Davos, Switzerland, describes itself as an international organization for public-private cooperation. WEF partners include some of the biggest companies in oil (Saudi Aramco, Shell, Chevron, BP), food (Unilever, The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé), technology (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) and pharmaceuticals (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna).
Instead of corporations serving many stakeholders, in the multi-stakeholder model of global governance, corporations are promoted to being official stakeholders in global decision-making, while governments are relegated to being one of many stakeholders. In practice, corporations become the main stakeholders, while governments take a backseat role, and civil society is mainly window dressing.
Perhaps the most symbolic example of this shift is the controversial strategic partnership agreement the United Nations (UN) signed with the WEF in 2019. Harris Gleckman describes this as a move to turn the UN into a public-private partnership, creating a special place for corporations inside the UN.
The multi-stakeholder model is already being built. In recent years, an ever-expanding ecosystem of multi-stakeholder groups has spread across all sectors of the global governance system. There are now more than 45 global multi-stakeholder groups that set standards and establish guidelines and rules in a range of areas. According to Gleckman, these groups, which lack any democratic accountability, consist of private stakeholders (big corporations) who “recruit their friends in government, civil society and universities to join them in solving public problems”.
Multi-stakeholderism is the WEF’s update of multilateralism, which is the current system through which countries work together to achieve common goals. The multilateral system’s core institution is the UN. The multilateral system is often rightly accused of being ineffective, too bureaucratic and skewed towards the most powerful nations. But it is at least theoretically democratic because it brings together democratically elected leaders of countries to make decisions in the global arena. Instead of reforming the multilateral system to deepen democracy, the WEF’s vision of multi-stakeholder governance entails further removing democracy by sidelining governments and putting unelected ‘stakeholders’ – mainly corporations – in their place when it comes to global decision-making.
Put bluntly, multi-stakeholder partnerships are public-private partnerships on the global stage. And they have real-world implications for the way our food systems are organized, how big tech is governed and how our vaccines and medicines are distributed.
In autumn 2021, the UN is set to host the World Summit on Food Systems (FSS) in Rome. This is necessary, given that 3.9 billion people – more than half of the world's population – are currently battling hunger and malnutrition, even though there is enough food to feed the world. But this year’s summit differs significantly from past UN food summits, embracing ‘multi-stakeholder inclusivity’, in which the private sector has ‘an important role’. A concept note from 2019 showed that the WEF was set to be involved in organising the summit, though it is not now clear what the role of the WEF will be.
“Abandoning pesticides is not on the table. How come?” asks Sofia Monsalve of FIAN International, a human rights organisation focused on food and nutrition. “There is no discussion on land concentration or holding companies accountable for their environmental and labour abuses.” This fits into a bigger picture Monsalve sees of large corporations, which dominate the food sector, being reluctant to fix the production system. “They just want to come up with new investment opportunities.”
FIAN International together with 300 other organizations have expressed their concerns about the multi-stakeholder setup in an open letter to the secretary general of the UN, António Guterres. In a meeting with civil society groups who signed the letter, Amina Mohammed, the UN deputy secretary general, assured them that strong safeguards would prevent a corporate capture of the event, “by allowing only platforms or networks and no single corporation to the summit.”
How the United Nations is quietly being turned into a public-private partnership02-07-2019 | Harris GleckmanA new agreement with the World Economic Forum gives multinational corporations influence over matters of global governance.
But for Monsalve, “this only makes it worse. Now corporations can protect their interests and hide behind these platforms because it's unclear who is in there.” Indeed, a corporate partner list is nowhere to be found on the official website. The FSS organisers were contacted for comment but had not responded by the time of publication.
The signatories to the letter fear that, with corporate involvement in the summit, food will continue to be treated “as a commodity and not as a human right”. If unchanged, industrial food systems will continue to have irreversible impacts on our health and the health of our planet.
Another landmark in the development of stakeholder capitalism can be found in the Big Tech sector. As a part of his 2020 Roadmap for Digital Cooperation the UN Secretary-General called for the formation of a new ‘strategic and empowered multi-stakeholder high-level body’. Again it's not easy to find a list of stakeholders but after some digging a long list of ‘roundtable participants’ for the roadmap includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft and the WEF.
Although the functions laid out for this new body are quite vague, civil society organizations fear it will come down to Big Tech creating a global body to govern itself. This risks institutionalising these companies' resistance against effective regulation both globally and nationally and increasing their power over governments and multilateral organizations. If the body comes to fruition, it could be a decisive victory in the ongoing war GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft) is waging with governments over tax evasion, antitrust rules, and their ever-expanding power over society.
More than 170 civil society groups worldwide have signed another open letter to the secretary general of the UN – this time to prevent the digital governance body from forming. The secretary general was approached for comment but had not replied at the time of publication.
Then there’s COVAX. The COVAX initiative aims to “accelerate the development and manufacture of COVID-19 vaccines, and to guarantee fair and equitable access for every country in the world”. That, again, sounds wonderful, especially given the staggering inequalities in vaccination levels between rich and developing countries.
But why is the World Health Organization (WHO), which is part of the UN, not calling the shots? “Countries together, through multilateral agencies like the WHO, were supposed to take decisions about global health issues, with maybe some technical support by others,” says Sulakshana Nandi from NGO People's Health Movement, which has recently brought out a Policy Brief on COVAX.
They just want to come up with new investment opportunities
COVAX was set up as a multi-stakeholder group by two other multi-stakeholder groups, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) and CEPI (the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), in partnership with the WHO. Both GAVI and CEPI have strong ties with the World Economic Forum (which was one of the founders of CEPI) as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and both are also connected to companies like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson through manufacturer partnerships (GAVI) or as 'supporters' (CEPI). Even though COVAX is funded predominantly by governments, it is these corporate-centred coalitions that are overseeing its roll-out.
The contrast between the multi-stakeholder approach and a 'classic' multilateral one came to the surface when South Africa and India proposed the so-called TRIPS waiver at the end of last year. They requested a temporary lifting of intellectual property rules on all COVID-19 technologies in order to boost the manufacturing and distribution of vaccines and other essential medical products in mainly developing countries. WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a speech that he backed the proposal. “But GAVI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – even Bill Gates himself – and Big Pharma opposed this proposal very strongly,” said Nandi. “It's more important for them to protect their interests and market mechanisms than to protect universal health or protect people from COVID.” The WHO was approached for comment but has not replied.
Again, there is a stark choice between a human rights-led approach carried out by the UN and a profit-led approach carried out by multistakeholder bodies representing the interests of corporations. In the case of COVAX – which is failing to meet its modest aim of vaccinating 20% of the populations of low- and middle-income countries – the former has won out.
So even if the WEF (or Bill Gates) is not responsible for the COVID pandemic, even if the vaccines are not laced with microchips to control our thoughts, something fishy really is going on in the realm of global governance. If you value your right to public health, to privacy, to access healthy food or to democratic representation, be wary of the words 'stakeholder capitalism’ when they pop up at the next Davos summit.
The WEF was approached for comment on the issues raised in this article, but had not replied at the time of publication.
Hungary and Poland are great examples of nations that understand how bad hyper-centralized planning through communism really is. It’s why the people in those countries protect their nation through healthy nationalism. Precisely what we need to do in Canada and throughout the rest of the western world.
The UN represents hyper-centralized power and planning. Creating, developing, and implementing policy through coercion to nation states around the world. This NEVER works because the world is diverse. They don’t want diversity. They want every nation to be the same. In fact, so much so they don’t want nations at all. In the words of our prime minister one week after he was first elected,”Canada will be the first post national state”. One month previous to that Harper signed the last incarnation of the sustainable development agenda- transforming our world. Leaving the door wide open for Trudeau to do exactly what he has done since being elected. Every bureaucratic policy, every bill, every oic has been in compliance with an unelected foreign entity agenda.
Enter Covid. Under the cover of Covid, Trudeau has passed or attempted to pass numerous bills. Each and every one of them have been in compliance with that agenda.
C6,C7, C10, C36, C12, C15, C19, C273
He told us, they are using Covid as the opportunity to reimagine the economy and to achieve the goals of sustainable development. The communist manifesto on steroids.
This is why they try to destroy leaders like Orban and Balsanaro and Trump. There is a strong movement around the world pushing back against this nation destroying agenda. We need strong nationalists to defend our nation states.
Maxime Bernier and the Peoples Party of Canada fill that role in Canada.
The only federal party in Canada doing that.
This is our last chance Canada.
Support the #PPC and our great nation!