A great deal of support in Canada for Carney comes from middle class people who think they know what communism is, and simply have zero clue about it in reality. The typical response when you suggest Carney isn’t playing on team freedom is something like, “You can’t be serious! How can a central banker be communist!!”
The fact that this central banker is anxiously working on CBDCs might suggest a slight authoritarian trend though. Please keep in mind, Carney is a senior executive and policy setter for the COMINTERN org, the World Economic Forum. He even went as far as to travel to Europe to get Canada to join the EU. Another major branch office of the COMINTERN.
Then there is the Peter Foster article from the National Post published in June of 2021! Talk abut being ahead of the curve! Carney, who blames Capitalism for all our troubles and who cites Marx, Engles and Lenin, LENIN! as his influences.
The following is Ezra Levant discussing the debate last night.
It is a lesson in how a system can be rigged at any level of that system, and the more levels a system has, the more ways it can be hacked. In this example, Ezra went to court to legally assert his right as a journalist to attend the debate and ask questions. This was already a counter-hack as the Liberal Gov’t had previously attempted to ban Rebel news, which turned out to be not something they could do at that level of the total system.
So the next two levels of the system was hacked. Jagmeet refused to answer a question which was well worded and factually correct by using Alinsky rule 13. Attack the questioner, not the question, and refused to speak to someone he claimed is as odious as a Rebel reporter. As an amusing aside, the Rebel reporter was a dark skinned woman asking about the selective approach to racist policy enforcement.
When Jagmeet’s tactic of shutting down a question that speaks to the dialectical attacks on Canada by the NDP and Liberals failed because the entire room voiced displeasure, albeit too quietly for the mics to pick up, they went to hack it at another level. Suddenly a security threat meant they had to shut down the entire Q&A. Yet they did not act as if there was a threat. No attempt to remove the party leaders was made. But no more questions at all could be asked. I guess the formula is, 1 truthful question is a serious threat to the carefully staged theatrics of a debate than are 100 pre written state-paid media questions to their benefit. So better not to have any questions than one which pulls back at least one curtain, even if it’s just part way.
This tactic is at least adjacent to the one of confusing levels of abstraction. Looking at one level of a system while manipulating another. Which is also similar to making ludicrous comparisons by swapping levels of abstraction. “Muslims can’t be antisemitic because Muslims are also semites and therefore it would make them be against themselves”. As a classic example of the fallacy of shifting levels of abstraction. In fact antisemitism means hatred of Jewish people. Islamic antisemitism is because Islam makes it as clear as possible in all scripture, history, sermons and eschatology that the killing of Jewish people because they are Jewish people is central dogma for Islam. (Probably because they were the second people to reject Islam after the Meccans, who the Muslims already made extinct.)
In the case of the election, the voting machines are a constant irritant. I don’t know if Canada will use them this time in the federal election. But the thing they do best is make sure we cannot possibly know if the result they give is the one based on the number of votes cast for anyone. They are a black box, both figuratively and literally. Even if they count the ballots perfectly, it is still massively undemocratic, as there is NO WAY for people to actually know if it was fair. To paraphrase a famous Canadian judge, “Elections must not only be fair, they must seem to be fair”. The voting machines do not use open-source software, which is both more secure and allows for scrutiny of the machine’s workings. They are closed source, which means only the programmers and people who hold the code can know what the machines actually do. So the real threat of the machines is two-fold.
One: No one really can know what the election results based on votes really is. Only what we are told they are. This removes the process of selecting a government entirely from the public. We can comfort ourselves by going out and voting, and convincing ourselves with the comfortable thought that the announced winner is who was the person who got the most votes according to whatever system that region has. But we cannot know, who really got the most votes. So we have to trust the bureaucracy and the declared winner that it was a fair and secure process. A bureaucracy and winner who of course, have an enormous stake in the outcome. And if you have to take their word for it, it wasn’t an election at all, even if the machines are 100% accurate. We have removed the process of the people selecting trusted individuals using scrutineers from the people to check and count each vote, and just accept what the machines say for fear of billion dollar law suits by the companies that make them.
Two: Because of the process outlined in One: the focus tends to be on the machines. We saw this in the 2020 election that was clearly stolen from President Trump. Several investigations were launched into hacks of the machines, which all failed to find convincing evidence. But fifteen million new voters appeared out of thin air to vote for a senile and corrupt pervert who stayed in his basement for the whole campaign. So every way of looking at the election was examined, except the ways in which is was actually stolen. One might also notice that since the introduction of machines, it takes weeks and even months before final election results are made known.
In the last Federal election in Canada, for weeks after the actual election date, new Liberal seats would be announced from mail-in ballots. Mail in votes is a way of hacking elections that I think was first tried out in Austria. It was so obvious then they actually held a re-do and overturned the initial results. The process has been well refined since then however.
Still, the best thing to do is go out and vote your principles and values. If for no other reason than you have a psychological and emotional stake in the outcome. If you don’t make the effort because you feel it’s hopeless, then it is hopeless. If at least we all make the effort, then at least we get mad instead of fatalistic. We might later act to protect the effort we made in voting.