Far Left + Far Right = Totalitarianism (Getting our Terms right. Six current examples of Corporate Fascism)
Lessons from the Social Studies Classroom updated for the current context
This piece will eventually be parked in the REFERENCE section. It is a response to the erroneous use of terms used to gaslight and denigrate whistleblowers, critical analysts, and others who share viewpoints that differ from “ESTABLISHMENT” views. It appears journalists, politicians, and news watchers who participate in establishment media gaslighting, need a refresher course on the meanings of terms like “left wing” “far left”, “right wing”, “far right”; “fascist”, and more.
These sections follow below.
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT VS INDIVIDUAL
COMMAND VS. MARKET ECONOMY
UN “AGENDAS” = TODAY’S “COMMAND” ECONOMY
TWO EXAMPLES OF TOTALITARIANISM (Orwell + Kuznetzov)
MEDIA IGNOR-ANCE of FASCISM aka PLUTOCRATS DIRECTING GOVERNMENTS
SIX EXAMPLES (BC Health Professions Act; Aerial Spraying; Policy Horizons; Attack on Natural Health Products; Health Canada’s Drug Approval Process; Canadian Food Inspection Agency)
TAKING A TOLL - SPEECH POLICE & FEAR OF REPRISAL
UNELECTED CORPORATE TECHNOCRATIC GLOBALIST DICTATORSHIP
MISPLACED VALUES
TERMINOLOGY CHECK-UP (with VISUALS)
followed by:
Detailed Political & Economic Spectrum Drawings for closer consideration
(It is a VERY long post. Enough for 2 weeks of lesson plans!! Readers may wish to break this into multiple visits.)
Image Source: https://helpfulprofessor.com/left-wing-vs-right-wing/
So, this is how teachers traditionally taught students to understand politics. E in LEFT for EVERYONE — I in RIGHT for INDIVIDUAL
It starts simply enough: Follow the (tax) money!
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT VS INDIVIDUAL
Should governments collect tax money to provide xyz services, or should people pay less tax money and look after providing xyz services for themselves?
Who should pay for hospital buildings and staff?
for road repair?
for museums?
for addictions counselling?
for water treatment plants?
for improvements to windows and insulation for individual family houses?
for feeding and sheltering the unhoused?
for heat pumps and solar panels on government buildings? on private homes?
for horseback therapy for children with cognitive disabilities?
for the cost of a skier’s helicopter avalance rescue?
for an upgrade to the town’s electrical grid?
etc.
Students discover that the more the class decides governments should pay for, the more tax money governments collect and the more staff they employ to manage it all.
They discover, for example, that those people who advocate for lower taxes and less government spending are often described as “right wing”. Then they learn that the term “left wing” describes people who believe members of society should pay more taxes the more they earn, and that this tax money should be used to make the world a better place for everyone. When it comes to those too poor to pay into the tax system, “left wing” voters would plan more government funded, taxpayer supported programs. There the primary consideration would be Governments taxing citizens to ensure the needs of all are met. Meanwhile, supporters of lower taxes (aka “right wing” voters) would say that when taxes are lower, voluntary increased charitable spending could support philanthropic agencies set up to help those in need. Individual choice as to where money goes becomes the primary consideration. Communalism vs individualism would be the big debate.
Over time, teachers unpack more of the terminology.
—>PROGRESSIVISM - looking towards governments to solve the world’s problems, or as Merriam Webster puts it: “a political philosophy and social reform movement focused on advancing the public good through government action and often calling for government to be used to meet popular social, political, economic, and environmental needs and demands and to advance rights and protections for marginalized groups” (instead of leaving change and betterment up to the goodwill of those who can donate to charity, or to organizations like churches who in the past founded hospitals, universities, etc.)
—>ECONOMIC REDISTRIBUTION - Ever heard of Robin Hood’s supposed mantra? “Take from the rich and give to the poor.” Nowadays, governments generally put policy measures in place that are “intended to lighten the burdens of the poor by increasing burdens on the better-off”. (Source) They do this in three ways:
welfare programmes - referred to as “benefits” in Canada. The current list of taxpayer benefits provided by the federal government can be accessed here.
regulation of the labour market - putting in place minimum wage laws (by province/territory); legislating maximum weekly working hours; requiring employers to pay into employee benefit plans (Canada Pension, Employment Insurance, etc.)
progressive taxation - instead of everyone paying the same percentage of their taxable income, having a sliding scale so that low income earners pay nothing, or a smaller percentage and high income earners pay a progressively larger income such that the top income earners pay one third of their income over a certain amount as income tax. (Source)
All governments in Canada use these mechanisms — exactly where the cut off lines are, or how many benefit programs are run, or how high the minimum wages are, is what differentiates a left leaning from a right leaning government
At some point, someone decides that the public purse (aka taxpayers) cannot afford to be a government that is “all things to all people” and the red pen comes out, striking away at the list of benefits and public works and other spending programs.
COMMAND VS. MARKET ECONOMY
Students also learn that once decisions around economic production move past traditional tribal or ‘frontier’ societies, there are two basic tendencies:
Governments make all the production decisions (Command economy)
or
Production decisions are based on decisions made by individuals as they sell or buy products (Market economy)
Image Source: http://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/b2d59e63-17f6-40c2-a1f4-46aabf686392/80e9175b-38e7-42d7-a20b-5af42b9573f1.jpg
But in reality, most countries have “mixed” systems, with some production decisions left to municipal, provincial/territorial or federal governments and others left in the hands of individuals.
In some parts of Canada, for example, provincial governments once had a tight control on the sale of alcoholic beverages, ensuring that they were only sold in government liquor stores. Now, almost anyone can set up a privately run liquor store. Certain businesses, such as airlines, gas stations and train lines, were run by state owned corporations (Air Canada, PetroCanada, VIA Rail) under a left-leaning Liberal Prime Minister (Pierre Trudeau) and then later dismantled and privatized under a right-leaning Conservative Prime Minister (Brian Mulroney).
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/command-economy.asp
A far left government run amok is familiar to those who study history. Governments have done away with private ownership and implemented government-run structures before to end up with “illiberal” (aka dictatorial or totalitarian) results. For example,
Mao Zedong’s violent Agrarian Reforms in China in 1950
Collective Farming under state socialism/communism in the Soviet Union, all the East Bloc nations, but also in places like Tanzania, North Korea and Vietnam as described here
If EVERYONE is to own the means of production, that EVERYONE needs to be operationalized via a Government. Living in Eastern Germany prior to 1989, for example - people did not own their homes. The town governments had the power to determine if and when a newly widowed elderly person would be reallocated to live in a different family’s spare bedroom. The government knew about the bedroom status of each family and would demand that siblings shared a room to make room for said stranger. The government essentially functioned like the landlord, provider and supervisor of the entire population. Graduates from high school would be directed into workplaces not according to their particular talents and interests, but according to where in the state’s production plans particular workers were needed, particularly in the case of families choosing not to become party members. To purchase a family car meant to place your name on a ten to fifteen year waiting list with government party members privileged and moved to the front of the line. To get into specialty shops with Western “luxury” products like real coffee, real sugar, real chocolate, or like motorcycle helmets, one needed access to Western currency, another privilege only granted party members. There were only government grocery stores with government produced items and very few imported items like ‘exotic’ fruit. Consumer choice was unheard of. Restaurant meals were amazingly affordable, yet the menu was limited to local produce in season at the time. To step out of societal, behavioural ‘norms’ meant to have a file started on you with the state police. And snoopy neighbours would be rewarded for contributing to that file. To get a front door repaired meant applying for a work order and waiting 5 years for your turn. There were no home improvement stores with doors ready to buy and take home. Door production targets, along with production targets for every other product made in the country, were estimated and written up into five year plans.
Image Source: https://i1.wp.com/www.chrisdantes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/politicalspectrum.jpeg
CORPORATE / UN AGENDAS = TODAY’S “COMMAND ECONOMY”
The East German example of a command economy described above was run by the Communist East German Government - a classic example of a dictatorial government at the far left end of both the political and the economic spectrum. It was also the government that owned all property, including homes, businesses and all means of production. Factories making clothing or appliance, for sale in West Germany, would be owned by the state. Workers would be supervised at the exits to ensure they were not smuggling out supplies for private use (like thread, fabric, spray paint, etc.) at the end of a work day. Transportation to and from work was free or very cheap. But the busses only ran at the start and ends of the work days and only very rarely during off-peak hours.
Now, massive corporate investment funds such as Vanguard, State Street and Blackrock (which manages a value of $9 trillion) are buying up residential properties, becoming mega-landlords. As a result of the price inflation driven by these corporate endeavours, increasingly, people cannot afford private ownership. Suddenly, the corporate landlords have the solution.. rent from us! It is just as World Economic Forum advertising told us:
Now also, the same corporate firms are buying up farmland and entire downtrodden neighbourhoods, for example after staged Black Lives Matters riots or wildfire destruction. Mega businesses buy out small businesses and consumer choice is reduced.
At the far right end of the political and economic spectrum, governments implement economic directives pushed on them by corporate interests working through major “global governance” organizations like the United Nations. Corporate-driven laws are being put into place, like Canada’s Bill C-293, so that after a UN affiliate (like the World Health Organization) declares regional or global public health emergencies, Canada’s government is then justified in implementing policies that are derived from corporate-created solutionist “handbooks”. Problem, reaction, solution — all involving new investments, surveillance & data management tools, vaccines and other technologies, etc. provided by the corporations, many of whom were involved in the creation/manipulaliton of the problems themselves.
Sitting alongside of fellow WEF Board of Trustee member Chyristia Freeland, Blackrock Investment Fund CEO Larry Fink is tasked with maximizing income for all of the funds his firm manages. Here are only a few:
Image Source: https://www.stylourbano.com.br/blackrock-a-empresa-que-domina-o-mundo/
The largest transnational corporations in nearly every industry from military to media, and chemical, fuel and food production, construction, finance, publication, transportation and retail & wholesale services, real estate, property management and more all run through Blackrock.
The myriad agendas, handbooks, guidelines, etc. published on any possible topic are then passed on to governments for implementation. This is facilitated by the “Young Global Leaders” program, which has been introducing promising politicians to WEF solutions thinking for a long time. Canadian graduates from that program are included in the sleuthing done by the Malone Institute.
Canada’s citizen action group Action4Canada has obtained a copy of briefing notes used by Chrystia Freeland as she was co-chair at WEF Great Reset meeting on December 8, 2020. Here they present an overview of Canada’s connections to the World Economic Forum. They include acknowledgment by former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney that the WEF sent out copies of their Great Reset agenda to every Canadian premier. They also list off themes addressed and Canadians involved in the WEF’s “Global Futures Councils” from 2014 to 2022 here: https://action4canada.com/canadians-with-wef-ties/ (Note: Convening experts in all fields to share and prepare for developments predicted in the future in itself is a useful thing… but when those conversations are led by the very “stakeholders” that have the power to direct developments in ways that profit themselves and their peers, that is where the line should be drawn. Using politicians, manipulating populations, arranging matters to post one’s own “solutions” as the only answer is what has been leading to this enormous wealth transfer… taxpayers funds are being pumped through governments to purchase new products at exorbitant prices INSTEAD of having free-market enterprise come up with solutions to problems being identified independently of corporate interests.)
There is very little information in North American “establishment media” about the degree to which the the influence of government representatives to the United Nations has been overtaken by corporate influence. Canadian Shareable News cited OpenDemocracy, a UK based publication, which pointed to the pivotal year of 2008 as the start of global public private partnerships involving the world’s largest corporate lobby group and the United Nations. What later became published as “The Great Rest” was earlier launched by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the “The Global Redesign Initiative”. From then on, governments “would be just one stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder model of global governance” and not the representatives of the will of the nations’ citizens.
Austrailan Senator Alex Antic, describes the situation extremely well in a very short time. https://wide-awake-media.com/australian-senator-exposes-wef-in-australian-parliament/. Meanwhile, in Canada, the rare Parliamentarians who try to bring up the World Economic Forum have their attempts to do so abruptly cut off, amid calls of derision, as supposedly in Canada, the existence of World Economic Forum influence is “just a conspiracy theory.” Speaking in October 2024, for a Liberal MP the claim “that the World Economic Forum, the WEF, is directing government policy”is “promoting anti-establishment conspiracy theories”. And in April 2024, another Liberal MP referred to the World Economic Forum as “an elitist global conspiracy controlling governments around the world”. Neither MP appears aware of the 2019 partnership announced between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum (which counts among its membership top individuals from nearly every major transnational corporation.) It is little wonder, MPs are so unaware of these matters that they simply call them “conspiracies” when there is little or no coverage in most establishment media of the reality of corporate capture of institutions now including entire governments. Who is investigating the role of the multiple corporations listed as “strategic partners” of the World Economic Forum? Which safeguards are in place to ensure they are not giving untoward lobbyist access to government officials? Who is reporting on the existence of the World Governance Summit and its role in shaping the future of governance at all levels?
International publications like Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, provide North American readers with more insights into the corporatization of the UN than most North American “establishment” media outlets.
The United Nations needs a revamp. There can be little dispute about that. And the UN’s September 2024 Summit for the Future is an ideal opportunity for this upgrade.
The people of the world expect a global form of governance that can confront the unique challenges of the 21st century. The UN’s creaking, post-World War II structures have been struggling to meet the challenges of the modern world for a long time. The many crises we face demand that the UN evolves to meet these challenges. But Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s vision for that evolution – as set out in his report to the General Assembly, Our Common Agenda – is ill-conceived and underwhelming.
Instead of expanding access to the UN system to communities of people impacted by today’s crises, it gives more influence and power to corporate actors who are most culpable of bringing us to the precipice of ecological and social disaster.
The secretary-general’s approach, called multistakeholder governance, would increase corporate influence over global governance, deepening the damaging consequences of prioritising ‘return on investment’ above social and ecological needs. In a multistakeholder world, corporate executives and other founders bring together a friendly group of civil society organisations, governments, academics, UN staff, and other non-state organisations to take on a global governance role.
This would marginalise over two-thirds of the nations of the UN. Instead, a new vision and institutional arrangement that focus on people and the planet should be at the heart of the Summit for the Future.
The role of national governments in the UN would be diluted by the addition of corporate-led bodies, which might soon take on more decision-making, managing everything from the oceans to financial markets. In this brave new world, a fossil fuel giant could have a privileged voice in decisions about providing important energy for all – conflicts of interest be damned. Do we really want the world’s biggest tech behemoths and profit-oriented Big Pharma firms ‘legislating’ global rules?
Perhaps most worrying of all in this new vision of the UN is the absence of ideas for new intergovernmental negotiations to deal with current social, economic, environmental or gender debates.
As it stands, governments, as representatives of their citizens, take the final decisions on global issues and direct international organisations to implement these decisions. This proposed new system would make ‘stakeholders’ the main players.
But who exactly is a ‘stakeholder’ and why? There are countless possible stakeholder categories. At last year’s multistakeholder Food System Summit, organised out of the Office of the Secretary-General, for example, the ‘stakeholders’ were large agribusinesses, data management firms and commodity dealers, not the six billion people who actually need the food or their local representatives or civil society advocates.
Much of this thinking stems from the 2012 Global Redesign Initiative report of the World Economic Forum (WEF), which proposed such a shift in global governance.
According to the WEF (and now the UN secretary-general), nation-states and governments alone cannot solve the main issues of global governance, and other actors need to be involved. The best of those actors according to them in WEF are corporations.
Indeed, we have already witnessed an increased role of the corporate private sector through their involvement in the implementation – or rather the non-implementation – of the Sustainable Development Goals.
In 2021, the WEF and the Office of the Secretary-General concluded a memorandum of understanding on this, which, not incidentally, was never made publicly available by the UN nor submitted to the General Assembly.
By displacing governments and states from decision-making, a brand-new parallel set of corporate-compromised institutions will sit with a voice and a de facto vote to decide on global policies that impact the planet and its people.
For decades, the corporate world has fraudulently claimed greater efficiency than all others. This efficiency can be seen in the hollowed-out public services of the rich world, the crippling debt burdens of the poor world, and almost universal cultural impoverishment.
Now, sweetening its proposition with insinuations of massive philanthropic financing, the corporate world – the only real beneficiaries of these proposed changes – has international decision-making in its sights. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/8/3/a-corporate-takeover-of-the-un-must-be-stopped
In contrast to Al Jazeera, Canadian Press - Canada’s best known news agency —appears to have no interest in informing Canadians of any of this.
News is coming out that while publicly speaking, the term ESG i.e. environmental, social, and corporate governance, is receiving pushback, but still initiatives related to the CO2 theory of climate change, such as decarbonization, along with targets around shaping corporate governance and addressing social issues related to diversity and including will continue be addressed in many major corporations.
Here is an example of how strong the power of corporate agendas is on government department work. It is understandable when focussing on strategies to increase biodiversity in this country, that one works with rural and Indigenous peoples. But it is hard to fathom how far public servants at Environment Canada have to stretch themselves to come up with measurements for progress related to how policies meant to increase the numbers of plant, animal and insect species can have a specific effect on women, youth, 2SLGBTQI+ people, racialized people, persons with disabilities, and new Canadians, etc.
Canada's 2030 Agenda National Strategy seeks to create a shared vision of how Canada will implement the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and identify actions to accelerate the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at home and abroad. Each target in the KMGBF (and Canada's 2030 Nature Strategy) connects directly to at least one SDG (see Table 1 in Annex 5). Similarly, the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS) sets targets and performance measurements to further federal actions toward achieving the SDGs. The targets, implementation strategies, and short-term milestones from the 2022-2026 FSDS and subsequent iterations will strengthen the implementation of Canada's 2030 Nature Strategy. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/biodiversity/canada-2030-nature-strategy.html#toc41
TOTALITARIANISM - THEN AND NOW
The British author George Orwell and the Canadian film animator Oleg Kuznetzov both describe variations of a Command Economy in their work. In Orwell’s 1984, the government is using fictional technologies to surveille, monitor and punish its citizens. On the contrary, in his tale focussed on a single man living in a “Big Brother” type of society, Kuznetzov has the advantage of drawing on actual capabilities of current surveillance technologies. He also is aware of the massive power that is inherent when BigGoverment partners with BigTech.
This commentary about George Orwell’s novel 1984 outlines a life under a command economy combined with technocratic surveillance techniques and a lack of freedom of thought, speech, association, etc.
There are two outstanding characteristics of this vanished “past.” First, material life for the average person had been far better in the “past” than under Ingsoc [the current totalitarian government]. Examples are numerous: the wide availability of real coffee, real sugar, real chocolate, good beer, wine, fruit, solidly built furniture, elevators that worked.5 Above all: the wide availability of well-made books and even objects kept for their intrinsic beauty alone.6
Second, in the “past” there had existed individual freedom: freedom of thought, human rights, even freedom of speech. The total suppression of human freedom under Ingsoc is, of course, the main theme of 1984 and needs no detailing. But that such freedom had once existed Orwell is careful in the novel to make clear: we are not dealing here with mere theoretical human possibilities. In the “past,” then, it had been usual for people to read books in the cozy and complete privacy of their own homes—without fear of the Thought Police.7 In the “past” people had kept diaries, to record events and thoughts for themselves: this had been taken for granted.8 In the “past” human relationships had existed naturally, without constant state interference—which is why the life of intimacy and honesty lived by Winston Smith and Julia above the old junk shop is explicitly called a relic of an earlier age.9 In the “past” there had been no imprisonment without trial, no public executions, no torture to extract confessions.10 In the “past” orators espousing all sorts of political opinions had even had their free public say in Hyde Park.11
… Orwell argues that an inevitable historical process is leading to the destruction of “western civilization”—which he defines as laissez-faire capitalism and liberal-Christian culture.22 What is coming is the centralized state, and the new world war will only hasten its arrival. But the implications of this development have not been fully understood, Orwell says, because people have falsely imagined that socialism would most likely be a better form of liberalism.23 On the contrary: “almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships,” an age in which both freedom of thought and the autonomous individual will be stamped out of existence.24. https://modernagejournal.com/1984-and-george-orwells-other-view-of-capitalism/229190/
Calgarian Oleg Kuznetzov picks up on these themes and on the realities of the concentration camp-like COVID-19 quarantine town asking himself: what if these become permanent? (Instead of ensuring a more accurate COVID-19 testing protocol and investing in home-based inexpensive repurposed antiviral medications and treatment and prevention, some governments put their money into confinement camps for those citizens “tested positive” as seen, for example in Port Augusta and Howard Springs, Australia.)
(Trigger warning: this animation is quite disturbing. It brings together many of the themes referenced by key individuals of the World Economic Forum (‘you will own nothing and be happy’; what to do with the ‘useless eaters’, etc.). It combines the regime of COVID-19 isolation with the potential of ‘smart city’ surveillance and its impact on ideologically based consumer ‘choice’ by means of a ‘social credit’ financial system all run by ‘artificial intelligence’ and the latest in enforcement technology.)
The influencers from the World Economic Forum referenced above do not envision a purely government-run social control mechanism. In fact, they represent a conglomeration of the world’s largest corporate interests - Capital I individualism for the corporate ownership class - technically the polar opposite of Big Government.
What happens when Big Business becomes the Master of the Planet?
Klaus Schwab is the CEO of the world’s largest corporate lobby group, the World Economic Forum. As such he would have had close ties with both Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland. Carney has been an Agenda Shaper at the WEF for a long time. Back in 2015 he was already giving speeches to its members. Freeland was a member of the WEF Board of Trustees until shortly before her recent bid for the leadership position in Canada’s Liberal Party. A third Liberal leadership candidate, Karina Gould, participated in the WEF’s Young Global Leaders program, as did a number of other current globalist minded heads of state, for example President Macron of France. Klaus Schwab was the author of the 2008 volume that later became rewritten as The Great Reset.
It appears the Liberal Party is currently choosing its next leader based on the person’s willingness to carry out the corporate technocratic agenda of the super-rich. It is not enough that Chrystia Freeland has written a book about these elitist individuals—
Mark Carney has the “Midas Touch” or so people think. As top central banker in two countries and a long list of financial credentials, Carney is an Agenda Shaper at the World Economic Forum alongside of plutocrat luminaries like government swapper George Soros, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, Davos “do-gooder” former US VP Al Gore, and their transhumanist visionary guru, Yuval Harari. For just a tiny peek at the massive wealth of leading members of the WEF ruling establishment, here are two attempts related to member of the WEF Class of Young Global Leader of 1998 - Jeff Bezos (a video here and an interactive tool here.) Both are from BEFORE the 2020 COVID-19 declared pandemic, which ended up enriching him even more.
American economic researcher, William F Engdahl is a regular contributor to Global Research, a publication of the Centre for Research on Globalization founded by Professor Michel Chossudovsky, Prof. emeritus at the University of Ottawa. In February 2024 he wrote:
Continue reading here: https://www.globalresearch.ca/great-reset-follow-money/5740424. More recently, we are learning that major investment firms are pulling out of ESG initiatives — As increasingly people are becoming aware of the work of the Climate Intelligence Network (CLINTEL), they are beginning to question the theory that CO2 mitigation is the best and only way to prepare humanity for inevitable naturally caused solar cycle variations.
MEDIA IGNOR-ANCE of FASCISM aka PLUTOCRATS DIRECTING GOVERNMENTS
Corporate influence is on the far right end of the political spectrum and is termed ‘fascism’. When most people hear that term, they immediately think of the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, unaware that fascism is a growing reality in our day and age. It is already well-ensconced in Canada but few people know it.
There is a little known list of corporations which collaborated with Adolf Hitler in the lead up to and during WWII. On the far left, we have the means of production fully in the hands of government while on the far right, we have the owners of the means of production fully in the pockets of government.
Today, as in WWII, many citizens are not aware of the degree to which corporate influence is rampant in governments. In the 1990s much was made of whether signage for Coca Cola or Pepsi could be posted in school gymnasiums during major sporting events. Corporate advertising to children within a government funded institution was seen as taboo. Nowadays, corporate influence is much more pervasive yet subtle, working via environmental and social “agendas” and a complete takeover of non-governmental organizations, educational institutions, the courts, the media etc.. And the corporate/government backed “establishment” media is silent.
There are plenty of examples of corporations that have become so powerful that they direct government spending and even government legislation. In the 1980’s and 1990’s many concerned citizens would rally and protest against the outsized influence that investment interests behind BigOil, BigMilitary, BigPharma had on government legislation. For example, firms would lobby to have the minimum wage and employer benefit payment amounts reduced, or environmental and safety standards made less onerous and expensive for them to carry out. Left wing critics would argue that that right wing politicians simply rubber stamp bills in favour of BigCorp.
Now, the critics are silent as politicians on both sides of the spectrum seemingly let legislation be put before them without even asking who wrote it or looking at the fine print themselves.
SIX EXAMPLES
1) BC Health Professions Act
Neither before or after it was turned into law, did mainstream media report on provisions in BC’s Bill 36 allowing governments to simply implement legislation written in other jurisdictions, other countries or even by corporate captured non-governmental organizations.
This Bill is now called the Health Professions and Occupations Act (HPOA) and should cause a chill across the country.
(Slides 35 & 36 by Gail Davidson LLB, as posted here.)
While there is a reference in one Canadian Press article to the BC Conservatives campaign promise to repeal the Health Professions and Occupations Act if elected, INCREDIBLY there was NO analysis of the Content of that Bill/Act in the archives of the Canadian Press News Agency at all. Likewise, the CBC reported on plans to enact Bill 36 back in October 2022, but has not followed up with medical professionals to learn of how this Act has impacted their lives and the BC healthcare system as a whole. How many Canadians would know which publications outside of the mainstream news bubble to visit if they wish to learn about the totalitarian takeover of the rule of law, the medical profession, and other aspects of society happening outside of the limelight? Only a very few would have received the kind of information about the conditions now in place in one of Canadas largest provinces as outlined here: https://www.bcrise.com/local-news/criticism-and-concern-sparked-over-bc-governments-bill-36/
2) Aerial Spraying
One intrepid California citizen is making a name for herself by tracking down and recording pilots who criss cross the skies leaving behind long lastig trails of chemicals overhead. Her courageous and preciously polite conversations confirm what some have long suspected and others have long denied: Government managers of various programs (like mosquito controlling) “were relying on ‘science’ handed down from MEGA-CHEMICAL CORPORATIONS to decide it was ‘OK’ to spray us like roaches.” (from her Conversation with an ‘adulticide’ pilot in 2024) See also her conversation with pilots who have been geoengineering Tuolumne's skies. They truly believe they are doing good work, like suppressing mosquito populations, or preventing drought by creating precipitation, and are persuaded that what they are ejecting from their planes has been demonstrated as harmless… like the “safe and effective” mantra we hear from chemical and pharmaceutical and government collusion everywhere.
Few media are questioning the logic here:
CO2 in the atmosphere must be REDUCED to prevent global warming
Chemicals must be ADDED to the atmosphere to prevent global warming.
And yet, we have the corporate lobby group - one that speaks for the interests of the world’s largest chemical conglomerates - working with academia to come up with solar heat reduction strategies, without nary a mention of the toxic fallout that would have to result.
3) Policy Horizons Canada
Here is another case of suspected corporate/government partnership/collusion NOT BEING REPORTED ON in our “mainstream” state/corporate backed media platforms. The federal government has been investing in this multifaceted “foresight” operation with taxpayer money. It is an initiative that is so important, it draws upon the participation of TEN government ministries, not to mention 2 post-secondary institutions and one US corporate backed think tank.
And it produces cutting edge reports on new technologies that have the power to manipulate the very essence of what it means to be human and what it means to own possessions.
These screen caps are from a video discussion between two people exploring Policy Horizons documentation two years ago.
“Policy Horizons Canada is the Government of Canada’s centre of excellence in foresight. We empower the Government of Canada with a future-oriented mindset and outlook to strengthen decision making.
We produce content that may attract academic, public, and international attention, and do not publish commentary on policy decisions of the Government.” https://horizons.service.canada.ca/en/about-us/index.shtml
https://horizons.service.canada.ca/en/our-work/index.shtml
Each of these documents provides a mind boggling array of topics in need of coverage, consideration and debate among Canadians. A recent example is this report entitled The biodigital convergence: Cross-cutting policy implications published in December 2024.
And yet, it would appear that the once premier Canadian news agency, the Canadian Press, is not at all prepared to ensure Canadians are able to participate in the discussion of our possibly inevitable future.
There is not even a reference to the appointment of a former World Economic Forum official to the position of Director of Policy Horizons Canada.
There are also no questions around the appropriateness of a corporate-backed think tank representative sitting at the same table as government ministry representatives. Who is he and how/why was he given a seat the table to work through this critical yet unknown future planning initiative inside the government paid for by the taxpayers of this country? How plausible is the idea that his presence in the shaping of future policy directions can actually lead to conflicts of interest?
It is ironic that we need to consult a publication from an institute located in SINGAPORE in order to find an interview with Van der Elst who has been the Director General of Policy Horizons Canada since 2018. We learn from this foreign publication that “before joining Policy Horizons, Van der Elst was Head of Strategic Foresight at the World Economic Forum for almost a decade” while Canadian establishment media seem unaware of her existence. Has it been possible for Ms. Van der Elst to engage in “foresight” of industrial trends and predictions completely in the absence of any shaping or influencing by industrial or corporate members of this powerful lobby group? Canadian journalists need to know she and her department EXIST before they can consider what questions need asking to teach readers that corporate influence on governments is a reality, not a conspiracy theory.
4) Attack on Natural Health Food Products (NHAPPA)
Health Canada is imposing new fees and regulations on the natural products and services. Alberta litigation lawyer Shawn Buckley recently explained the long history of attempts by BigPharma to work through the federal government in order to allow them to access to the natural health product market. Canadian health food stores now struggle to remain open the the face of $5 million/day fines if they are caught just speaking about the beneficial effects of this or that natural health product to an undercover corporate spy masquerading as a curious customer. Meanwhile, enraged and worried customers are bombarding legislators with appeal letters while the corporate-backed media stay silent. Learn more here: https://nhppa.org/crisis-summary/ and here https://rumble.com/v6o3h8l-shawn-buckley-war-on-natural-health-products.html.
5) Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the case of BC’s Universal Ostrich Farm
In addition to press releases put out by our CSNews Press Room on February 3 and 12, a number of independent investigators have been looking at conflicts of interests and other irregularities to do with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s handing of 2 suspected cases of avian flu on a BC farm. This family owned operation in an extremely remote part of British Columbia specializes in raising ostrich eggs used in medical antibody research. As a result of the research, in collaboration with specialists in Japan, Canada and the USA, a wide range of medical products have been developed from antibodies produced by the female of a herd of approximately 400 ostriches Here are just a few of the “irregularities” that lead astute observers to suspect another case of misplaced weaponized compassion…for corporate benefit. (Who is tugging at the heartstrings of those who believe: We need to ‘stamp out’ the virus because we care abut the health Canadian animals?)
A partnership between the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the corporate captured United Nations (UN) was formalized in 2019.
The World Health Organization (WHO), the World Organization for Animal Health(WOAH), and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) have a system of designating the Public Health Association of Canada (PHAC) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) as National Focal Points (NFPs) for the implementation of the WHO’s International Health Regulations. This would mean that Canadian Health Ministry staff, including the CFIA are tasked with implementing directives coming their way from foreign corporate influencers. Learn more as ON Lawyer Lisa Miron discusses the matter of global lockstep pandemic coordination with US cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.
One such policy is the “stamping out” policy which means that when PCR testing is used to indicate a positive result for Avian Flu in a chicken barn, the ENTIRE flock needs to be “depopulated”. (In many other countries and in the past in Canada, only the ill chickens were isolated and possibly killed.) It was understood that exposure to the virus would help the remaining members of the flock develop immunity to the disease in the future. It is also known that there are therapeutic treatments to both prevent and treat Avian Flu. And that by “stamping out” or murdering animals that have already developed immunity, and replacing those flocks with “naive” birds, ones that have never encountered the virus before, one leads to MORE illness, not less. But one also ends up with more potential targets for mRNA “vaccination”!! KaChing!
The Canadian government has just purchased 500K doses of mRNA based HUMAN Avian Influenza while telling the public via its website that humans becoming will with Avian influenza is extremely rare. Following the COVID playbook the next step will be to drive fear of human infections spread by contact with chickens, cats, raw milk, eggs, etc. etc. to drive up demand and line ups at “vacation stations”. Then, once again, those who stay away, can be derided as “the horrible unvaxed” and we get back on the crazy carousel.
Research on the eggs from the BC ostrich farm has developed antibody treatment that can be successfully used (via aerosol misting) to provide chickens and other animals with immunity to a range of respiratory and other infections. Research on avian influenza was underway and has been halted by CFIA actions to date.
CFIA was notified via an anonymous call that some ostriches on the farm had become ill. This illness was as a result of migratory ducks settling in among the pens. The symptoms mirrored those of an infection that went around the farm in 2020 and did not resemble those of Avian flu. Only some of the younger ostriches died this time around, while all who had developed immunity from the previous infection remained alive.
CFIA agents based their diagnosis on two nasal and rectal swabs of two dead birds. They took no tissue samples, tested no live birds, forbade the farm owners from doing any testing themselves and refused to provide detail on the numbers of test cycles used in the laboratory. They then deemed the infection to be Avian flu and issued a cull order for the entire flock. They also asked the family where they keep the Ostrich antibodies. And they stated that they would have the right to confiscate and destroy any and all things found on the farm AND IN THE HOME related to ostriches. They also demand that the farmers arrange for nine deep pits to be dug on the property into which 400 bodies at roughly 200 lbs each are to be buried. Someone at CFIA leaked a memo regarding CFIA’s attempts to find hunters to do the shooting.
This unscientific overreach is being contested in court. The irony is that the ostriches are NOT being used for food, the ostriches are flightless and as such pose no risk on any other animals, the CFIA is making no efforts to treat the migratory ducks, for example with protective ostrich antibodies, and other countries are not as adherent to the “stamping out policy” as Canada appears to be. The CFIA went so far as to accuse the judge who has so far provided a 30 reprieve on the extermination date, of having neglected to consider the need for Canada to retain an “avian flu free” designation for trade purposes.
To learn more about this story, please visit the citizen action site: https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/. Here one sees, for example that the ostriches have now been illness free for 38 days — all the more support for the belief that the Canadian government insists on having the ostriches killed, purely to eliminate further potential production of products that would form an alternative to mRNA injections for both animals and humans. See also reports by citizen journalists such as this one Urgent Biosecurity Overreach: CFIA’s H5N1 Precedent & The War on Natural Immunity... by Connie Shields and on about the Director General of the World Organization of Animal Health (WOAH) by James Roguski.
6) Changes to Canadian Drug Approval Regulations
In December 2020, the World Economic Forum published “Agile Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution A Toolkit for Regulators”
On pages 6-7, we read:
“Regulators can struggle to assign responsibility for managing risks to different actors in dynamic and complex environments (the “responsibility problem”).A more agile approach to regulation is needed in order to unlock the potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and shape it in a way that protects citizens and reflects their values.
[Regulators should] Engage stakeholders to test their assumptions, invite scrutiny of the benefits and costs of proposed regulations and revise their approach accordingly [and] Design, administer and enforce regulation in a way that focuses on the risk posed and minimizes unnecessary costs and side effects”
Pity the stakeholder (a nice word for vaccine manufacturer) for whom all the previous regulations brought with them high degree of risk (like a chance their application is turned down) and a lot of ‘unnecessary’ costs (like the costs of doing sufficiently large and independently operated clinical trials) and side effects (like financial losses if their products end up failing the trials).
Few or no Canadian journalists have taken the time to compare drug the requirements inherent in the drug approval process before and after the publication of the WEF Agile Regulation Toolkit.
We note with interest that there are contradictions between what was actually done and what was called for by the normal, pre-COVID-19 drug regulation process: at least 6000 study participants (3000 placebo and 3000 test subjects) closely surveilled for at least 6 months as outlined here https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/guidance-market-authorization-vaccines/rolling-submissions-non-clinical-requirements.html
Why is this wording so very different from that unearthed by Alberta regulatory lawyer Shawn Buckley as per his testimony to the independent National Citizens’ Inquiry on May 12, 2023? Journalists would have had nearly two years to examine closely the causes behind this change of policy. Journalists who amplify Health Canada’s announcement of its purchase of 500K doses of human avian influenza vaccines are not looking at the processes used to ensure their safety and efficacy. They are not assessing the results from any phase 3 placebo-controlled trials done by the manufacturer to see whether any adverse effects noted in the first 6 months exceed the range of 1 in 1000 doses. There is no reference in their coverage to the early human trial described here to ask whether the mRNA-based Avian Flu injections are resulting in similar adverse events as the COVID-19 injections.
An intrepid investigator could pick up on the many unanswered questions asked here already in 2021 re: Health Canada’s processes and add to them, given the insights of Shawn Buckley’s testimony and the afore-mentioned small scale trial both from 2023. (See the entire “following the science” section of this website for plenty of suggestions for further investigation.)
Given our knowledge that Health Canada’s branches function as National Focal Points of the World Health Organization and that since 2019 the UN and the WEF have officially been working as partners, we are in need of someone to clearly disprove our hunch that here too, governments are carrying out corporate agendas.
TAKING A TOLL - SPEECH POLICE & FEAR OF REPRISAL
Government branches do not only consist of the decision makers at the top of the organizational chart. Every office is staffed with public servants. Already in 2019, in a survey on staff wellbeing, Health Ministry staff reported higher levels of “Fear of Reprisal” than staff in other government departments.
https://en.gorodnichy.ca/evidence/fear-of-reprisal
Everywhere, one hears of employers using threats of job loss to deal with employees who question impractical or impossible policies, even within police forces. See this directory of testimonies given in 2023 arranged by employment groups to hear the expeirences testified to under oath by many individual Canadians.
Introducing the
UNELECTED CORPORATE TECHNOCRATIC GLOBALIST DICTATORSHIP
Let us now bring both the far left (communist) and the far right (fascist) ends of the spectrum together and contemplate the result.
Here we combine Klaus Schwab’s “Stakeholder Capitalism” coming in from the Far Extreme Big Business Right with the Far Left idea of “Progressive” Papa/Mama State looking after all of society’s problems on taxpayer dime.
While the mainstream media bubble focusses on news coverage circulating around the centrist midline, having viewers cheer on Canada’s Conservatives in one election season and the Liberals, Greens, New Democrats in another — pretending the “battle” is between variations of “Collectivist” vs “Individualist” adjustments to more or less UNIPARTY budgeting… all the action is hidden away on the other end of the playing field. Few cameras show, and few commentators comment on the rapprochement between the extreme state-backed and extreme corporate-backed forces and. how they are erecting a technocratic control grid in the making while no one is watching.
In fact, in Canadian media, topics “beyond the red line” are typically dismissed as “conspiratorial”. People discussing ways to reorganize society along less totalitarian lines might even end up labeled as “extremist”. Journalists, pundits and politicians liberally make use of terms such as “far right” or “populist” to discredit critical voices. Speaking about the growing list of corporate & state backed reprisal against those who are not remaining silent on these issues, is considered taboo.
There are many whose interests are best served if popular discussion remains on the other side of the red line - back in the realm of left vs right party politics.
Now there is also a whole genre of academic inquiry into the concept of “Populism”. We learn of ”thin” vs “thick” populism here:
A growing body of work adopts a “thin” ideology conception of populism, which attributes populist parties’ electoral success to anti-elite and people-centric appeals that resonate with voters holding populist attitudes. A second tradition, however, has attributed the success of populist parties to particular “thick” or “host” ideologies, such as anti-immigration, anti-globalization, or pro-redistribution positions. This creates a need to unpack which exact components of thin and/or thick populist ideology attract voters to these parties. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10103131/1/Neuner_Wratil_RPS.pdf
And here we have a useful flowchart that focusses on “Thin” populism alone:
In fact, the growing rejection among Canadians of corporate fascism within our governments might be denigrated by some establishment voices as simply an example of typical “anti-elite thin right wing populism”. The COVID-19 restrictions gave birth to many citizen action “freedom” groups, including the Ottawa Freedom Convoy. Having a “people-centric” focus, pushing back against the excesses of the “ruling establishment” and standing up for the restoration of individual and national authority over one’s own decision-making, or sovereignty somehow gets tabled by “the Elites” as the “oh so terrible populism” or even worse-sounding: “terrible thin populism” without the benefit of any “host ideologies, such as anti-immigration, anti-globalization, or pro-redistribution positions” which according to some academics, would lend more “thickness”to this populism!
Populism, whether of the left-wing or the right-wing variety, seems reviled by the “Establishment” which, in turn, is made up of anything from overcautious fence-sitters all the way up to Chrystia Freeland’s ”Plutocrats” and/or the elitist “Donor Class” — those monied individuals who fund the various influential think tanks that get interesting positions in and among elected officials as we saw with Canada Policy Horizons.
MISPLACED VALUES
“TRADITIONAL” VALUES VS. “PROGRESSIVE” VALUES
So far, we have examined the use of “right” and “left” on the economic spectrum and noted its uses in the interplay between a free market vs a command economy.
Frequently, the terms right and left refer to values, implying that the LEFT (Progressive) is more Open Minded and Accepting of Change while the RIGHT (Conservative) is more Closed Minded and Focussed on Tradition. This is especially seen around matters of family structure and child-bearing/child-rearing choices.
“A woman’s role is in the home while a man’s role is to provide for the family.” That would be an example of a “traditional” (or conservative) value. It’s “opposite” might be “women and men are equal, and should be able to choose their jobs independently of their gender.” This would mean that when pregnant, a women should have the right to chose an abortion if she wishes to. If she chooses to keep the child, she should also have access to daycare services so that she can return to the workforce when she is ready to do so. This would also mean that instead of just providing maternity leave benefits to mothers, the government should provide paternity leave benefits to fathers. Moving away from tradition with the support of government involvement, programming, etc., is considered by some to be “progressive”. Yet this term too, is not always clear and transparent. Sometimes one gets a party named “progressive conservative” apparently moving forward while remaining traditional. And at some points, students learn that the term “liberalism” is pretty fluid as well. While social liberalism sits to the left of centre, classical liberalism (or conservative liberalism) sits on the right.
When East Germany was run by a Communist government, workplace daycares were very common and freely accessible to women. Many women were encouraged to study engineering and other high level traditionally male professions. Yet many voters who espouse “traditional values” do not make their daughters stay home — rather they promote women and well as men in higher education. Few modern governments would cut maternity leave benefits to force women to stay home and look after children.
Values are hard to pin down, so using them to describe spots on the political spectrum ends up simply describing caricatures, not complex individuals.
Writing in 2020, Oxford social theorist and political researcher, Dr. Marius Ostrowski wrote a piece entitled: What are the values of the left?
His list included:
https://justice-everywhere.org/distribution/what-are-the-values-of-the-left/
And yet, it is exactly this list of values that one finds all throughout the political spectrum. Government COVID-19 restrictions spawned all sorts of groups espousing FREEDOM; THE RULE OF LAW (OR EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW); and JUSTICE. Participants at the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa spoke glowingly of the strong demonstrations of SOLIDARITY AND PLURALISM they witnessed as Canadians of all economic, ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds converged on the Capital with a common purpose, that of advancing society away from the regressive COVID-19 measures and using all manners of improved medical treatments for example.
Unfortunately, reporting on the Convoy characterized the participants as “right-wing” or “far-right” or even “fascist” while the values espoused by this huge segment of Canadians fit just as easily on all parts of the political spectrum.
When the means of communication and censorship are controlled by the afore-mentioned “elites” - billionaire shareholders of WEF corporations, they are free to shape narratives and reporting as they please and receive very little pushback.
As a result, we hear of a “right wing” resurgence but usually the term is meant as a perjorative social label, not necessarily to address someone’s economic stance. People who advocate for an end to overseas war, and its associated displacements of refugees, and who imply that many newcomers to our country would likely have preferred living in their homelands than come here, may be labeled xenophobic or racist. People who promote parenthood can be called sexist. Old fashioned values of faith and family can be denigrated as “alt-right” even though, there are also people of faith and strong supporters of families on the left.
TERMINOLOGY CHECK-UP (with VISUALS)
“Right wing” “alt-right” and “fascist” have become ideological words in our day and age just like during the McCarthy era terms like “left-wing”, “socialist” and “communist” were strong insults.
People on the LEFT imply that people on the RIGHT are
far right
unthinking, cult-like fanatics
who support regressive policies (for example, they would roll back climate protection and protection for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, the poor, those living with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, etc.)
and that they should be censored, de-platformed, silenced by whatever means
People on the RIGHT imply that people on the LEFT are
far left
unthinking, cult-like fanatics
who support expensive, harmful and useless WOKE & green policies
and that they should be educated to understand other viewpoints they appear not to be considering
Here we see this politicised usage of the terms RIGHT and LEFT in a current campaign ad. Can you tell from which party the note originated?
Left wing parties typically accuse right wing parties of prioritizing Big Business elites over the populist ordinary every day Canadian.
It is ironic that the leader of this party, in whose name the note was sent, is known for expensive tastes in jewelry, clothing and vehicles, and is listed as a member of a class of Young Global Leaders mentored by the World Economic Forum. This party has been complicit in the enrichment of Big Pharma elites at the expense of those injured or killed by the very products advertised as “safe and effective.” Quick to sloganeer against “Billionaires and CEOs” just before election season, this party leader was nowhere to be found when, at the National Citizens Inquiry, ordinary Canadians testified of the harms of the government’s embrace of billionaire production. This party leader HAS NOT APOLOGIZED FOR HIS PARTY’S SILENCE AS THEY SUPPORTED GOVERNMENT ACTIONS THAT TOOK FROM THE POOR AND GAVE TO THE RICH! Amazon, Pfizer, Moderna and others CEOs would NOT have been as greatly enriched had all the Opposition Parties in Canada UNITED TO FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE SCIENCE, not the propaganda.
Regardless of which side of the centre line they are sitting on, Party leaders, members and supporters who continue to
gaslight
deny their complicity
ignore the sad realities
support the vilification of whistleblowers
exploit the current situation for vote gathering
need to relearn the basics in terms of left/right terminology.
The FAR RIGHT CORPORATE FACIST technology-empowered dictating “elites” are the bad guys. We need to stop fighting around the centrist middle and turn our attention where it belongs.
Let’s edit the rest of the message started above — to apply the key lessons learned in this very long post!
============================================================
Detailed Spectrum Drawings for closer consideration
These diagrams have been borrowed from FollowingtheCovidScience where they are explained in detail. (Written in February 2023 in response to “establishment” commentary re: Member of European Parliament Christine Anderson’s visit to Canada and endorsement of the Canadian Freedom Convoy.)
BASIC DRAWING
Excellent article.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349881372_Effect_of_Coronavirus_Worldwide_through_Misusing_of_Wireless_Sensor_Networks
http://pervasivecomputinginfo.blogspot.com/2018/10/ieee-802156-standard.html
https://www.activistpost.com/node-without-consent/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157295/