"A sheepdog candidate in U.S. politics is typically a presidential candidate who runs ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the nomination will eventually be awarded. This candidate's role is to attract and channel activist energies and disaffected voters back into the Democratic fold, often seen as a strategy to prevent these voters from drifting towards more radical or independent options. The term "sheepdog" implies that such candidates are used to herd voters back towards the main party line, similar to how a sheepdog herds sheep."
The two factions of the uniparty (Lib and Con) exist to sheepdog voters around Ottawa. The Cons exist to prevent sheep from a Bloc West, the Libs from Bloc Quebecois.
Bloc Quebecois have been tamed for now. The Leader's wife gets a plumb job with Canada. A "separatist" is appointed Speaker.
Bloc West--the place with all the collateral--is of course another story. Martial law is declared on honkers. Political movements go missing (Maverick).
Cons ride high in the polls, sucking up Bloc West energy. As D-Day approaches, Ottawa's White Knight appears. "Canadians" are shocked to learn the party governs and not the voter. Why the kayfabe works is either too much US television or mental retardation (retardation in the literal sense, not pejorative).
If the Blue faction win, Ottawa will carry on its merry way, Bloc West tension put-down. If the Red faction wins, Ottawa gears up a referendum or Danielle Smith op in the West. Referendums take forever; Danielle Smiths gets close to uniparty power, respectively.
Bloc movements, with more modest demands on Ottawa, can persist and strengthen over time. The uniparty can not abide this in the West. Especially while governing an insolvent country.
Poilievre was all for the mandated deadly injections during the reign of madness. He only changed when politically convenient. There is no opposition to the uni-Party in Canada. That's one predictable result of the govt owning the media. Too young to remember Pravda? Try Xinhua...then the CBC.
When the authorities went to steal the food and fuel from the Freedom Convoy at Ottawa, there were snipers on surrounding rooftops. Then the Charter of Rights and Freedoms got the Pelosi treatment. Keep in mind that Chrystia has access to your bank account. Canada is toast.
Trump observed Canada's $100 B. surplus in trade with the USA, the fentanyl leaking across the 49th parallel, the 1.3% GDP defense expenditure; and laid down 'Canada 51' as an Art of the Deal marker. Canadian politicians panicked at the thought the citizenry might be delivered to a prosperous tomorrow; and so the 'elbows up' propaganda mill churns the latest distraction.
P.S.: The anthropogenic quotient of the ever changing climate of our planet is <0.1%. The horror!
Thanks Julius - good grief. I think potential outcomes may be worse than I thought. I see Trump as a man who has opened up Pandoras box for all to see. Our government runs a very clandestine, tightlipped, destructive organization.
Most people I see are talking about the bad orange man and his tariffs. No one seems to be talking about the election.
While I agree there isn't much difference any more between left and right, Conservative or Liberal, the general population doesn't seem to get it. Also, almost no one knows about the globalist agenda so they don't understand anything about Carney's values and what he'll likely do if elected. I find that very disappointing and alarming.
For some reason, many people strongly dislike Poilievre. They've seen him for years as the opposition leader, doing what opposition leaders do and being very negative. He is a career politician, knows how to play the political games, but lacks any big ideas. I'm not sure I'd call him globalist. I think he says what he thinks will get him popularity points and that often could sound globalist.
Really, our choices in this election are not very good.
I've tried sharing Peter Foster's article about Mark Carney's book with a number of liberals -- they simply refuse to read a word of it -- anything that challenges their perceptions is simply taboo. Complete stonewall. It's so frustrating...
In regards to the Conservatives, I feel like although they don't openly share the same globalist agenda, they are committed to preserving the post-WWII order -- yet all the institutions and ideas of the post-WWII order have morphed to become the globalist agenda. So, unwittingly, they are defending the very pillars of the new world that is emerging because they are unable/unwilling to recognize that the post-WWII era was built on a rotten foundation that has now reached its logical rotten conclusion -- it's not fixable by merry putting better people with better intentions in charge of a broken system.
So, although they are not globalist cheerleaders, by defending the ideas and institutions of the post-WWII era, by refusing to confront the false beliefs underpinning the globalist agenda (like climate change), and by staying silent on a gazillion issues out of fear of being labeled anti-science, racist, alt-right, denier, etc, etc, by the media, they are effectively serving as the unwilling accomplices of the globalist order.
As an Albertan, Canadian Conservative voter, who wishes we really had a "right wing" anti-globalist party of any kind of substance, this opinion piece makes me very sad and even more sick to my stomach than I already felt. I am politically homeless. Maxime Bernier may have the policies, but he has failed to garner any relevant support and I believe it's his arrogance in thinking he can be the only leader of the PPC. Maybe we get a Poilievre lead government and he turns out to be a decent leader and at least helps Canada grow it's energy industry. Maybe he doesn't and we find a better leader for the PPC. They haven't given me an option in my constituency who I would want to vote for. I did vote for the Maverick party the last federal election. I hear what you're saying, it just makes me sad.
I agree that Carney and Pollievre appear to represent different wings of globalist ideology. Both can't help themselves in attacking Trump rather than working with him for our mutual benefits while retaining national sovereignty.
The 4-D chess seems more simplistic to me. If he endorses Carney then Canadians are more likely to vote for the other guy out of disdain for Trump's stated desire. He knows Pollievre has voiced opposition to the WEF and that makes him Trump's potential ally.
The Fidesz party in Hungary, whatever anyone wants to call it and its leader Orban, has successfully created the most corrupt country in Europe. His friends and family have profited, whilst the population at large have become poorer and poorer. It’s medical system, once the envy of many countries has been decimated by… need I go on?
If that’s the alternative we are looking at, God help us.
Hello, Julius. I always appreciate your analyses, usually super-insightful. I say "usually" cuz I'm not (yet) convinced you're on the right track here (though I hope you are).
1) Is it really accurate to say (or imply) that there's only the barest ideological sliver between Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre? The former has stood behind (or generated) Trudeau's policies, and is even more zealous—not to mention more deeply connected to the WEF.
By contrast, Poilievre has stridently opposed all of Trudeau's leftist-globalist policies, and has also said that none of his cabinet members will be affiliated with the WEF.
2) In Canada's wonky-woke political climate, what choice does Pierre have but to at least 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 "anti-Trump"? Any other stance would make undecided voters less inclined to vote for the CPC.
3) If the negation of globalism is Trump's primary objective—why doesn't he just say so? While campaigning he referred many times to globalism and Marxism—and since launching his second term he's gone all in on tariffs—but I've never heard him put the two together.
It seems to me that the closest thing we've gotten from the administration re. a link between tariffs and globalism is a quote variously attributed to JD Vance or the State Department: "No free trade without free speech."
If your thesis is correct, why hasn't Trump ever stated this 1:1 correspondence when laying out his rationale for tariffs?
At most, trade re-negotiations and the eradication of globalism could be seen as 𝘢𝘥𝘫𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 goals. I like the suggestion of Christopher Patrick Kohls ("Mr. Reagan") on YouTube:
4) Here is where your essay gets the weakest. When it comes to Poilievre being "merely the 'other guy' to the 'current guy'," you have (somewhat of) a point. In terms of how the average Canadian views this election, this angle is likely pretty accurate.
But that has to do with 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯—often or even usually wrong—rather than with policy. In terms of the latter, you seem to treat the Liberal and CPC policy platforms as largely interchangeable but with differing rates of acceleration toward globalism.
I don't think that's fair. One can make a reasonable argument that the Conservatives may not (adequately) address the problems that manifest and facilitate the globalist agenda—but that's an entirely different thing from asserting that they want globalism 𝘵𝘰𝘰, just not as quickly as the Liberals.
Moreover, Poilievre has repeatedly called out globalism for the menace it is. For example: "𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘂-𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁-𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆'𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲." (https://x.com/valdombre/status/1887551512475546012)
5) You go on to cite voter statistics from the last three elections, then Poilievre's current standing in the polls (which are themselves suspect), from which you infer: "𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗮’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲?"
But is that the only possible inference? Or is another one possible—say, the inference that Joe and Jill Canadian (especially the boomers) are too willfully ignorant for their own good? You could do a whole paper or book on how the average Canadian has become increasingly dumbed-down and an idolater of the State.
If one wants to assign some of the blame to the CPC itself, it would be more valid to target any poor messaging or inconsistencies they may have. What you haven't done—but need to do to sustain your thesis—is to compare/contrast 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 of the Libs and Cons, and demonstrate (if you can!) that the CPC's policy platform is nearly as "globalistic" as the Liberals' platform.
In other words, ironically I must challenge you in the same way I challenge Canadians who label Pierre "too Trumpy" (🙄): 𝘗𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘊𝘗𝘊 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. In your specific case: explain how they're "globalistic."
6) You then offered what to me seems a bizarre argument, coming from someone like you:
Huh? 🤨 Mark #Carnage stealing Pierre's platform is a blatant attempt to convince common-sense types that the Libs 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯'𝘵 the globalist-Marxist radicals you and I both know they are.
Which means, in turn, that the CPC platform 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 globalistic, and Carney wants to convince voters that 𝘩𝘪𝘴 platform "isn't globalistic either."
To reiterate: you need to show just what it is in the CPC platform that you believe is "globalistic," and why you believe that.
---
Now, I agree with you that "𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀—𝗶𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁." And, like you, I favor the PPC's platform over Pierre's.
However, you haven't actually presented evidence that Poilievre himself is a closet globalist. All you're really giving us here is your 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. Those suspicions may be right, but you have to prove that.
I did a Deep Dive called "Why Conservatism Failed to Stop a World Gone Mad" ( https://juliusruechel.substack.com/p/why-conservatism-failed-to-stop-a ) where I dig deeper into this issue. It's not that the likes of Poilievre, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, etc, etc, are all committed globalists, but rather that they are conserving the ideas and institutions of the now defunct post-WWII era - yet those ideas and institutions are precisely what has morphed into globalism. Until they are willing to confront these failed ideas (I give a long list of examples, picking specifically on Pierre Poilievre), they end up being unable to reverse evolving globalist system.
One case in point is Poilievre's cowardice on the climate hoax, which he doesn't confront directly out of fear of media backlash -- he only discusses policy differences (climate subsidies for climate innovation versus the Liberal idea of punitive climate taxes). But, this approach ultimately gives legitimacy to the underlying false claim that CO2 controls temperature and the false claim that there is an alleged climate emergency caused by our greenhouse emissions (and ironically leaves voters to decide whether Carney or Poilievre is the better leader to deal with this alleged "climate crisis").
These false climate claims are not only the basis for corruption and grift, but they are also one of the core mythologies to justify the centralization of power in federal and international hands and the excuse for increasing control over the population. And so, this Conservative strategy to avoid confronting the underlying scientific hoax, and instead focus on chasing voters through appeasement and legitimization of the climate hoax ultimately prevents the globalist push from being confronted and dismantled.
I could go on, but I think my linked article does a better job than what I can re-create in a quick off-the-cuff comment.
I have been thinking about Good Friday this weekend.
One of the necessary qualities for Jesus' Passion was His courage. It does not seem to be emphasised in much of the narrative, but it certainly was not lacking.
One quality which I find missing in our current national discourse is, of course, courage. You do make this clear in your description of Mr. Poilievre. Comparison to Premier Smith is instructive.
Okay, I normally don't comment under posts, but In this case, I feel like I have to. First off, can we stop acting like far left Liberals by lumping every single person into one single entity acting like it's a person. Obviously we know that there are corrupt people in the conservative party, and the liberal party, and the green party, And the NDP, and the block and yes even the PPC. Just like in America we have bad actors in all parties. But lumping every single MP into a single category is just plain stupid. Don't be like the liberals.
And there is only one Trump. There will never be anybody else like Trump. Why? Because he's Donald Trump. What do we like it or not the United States presidency is the most powerful position in the world. No country will ever have a Trump, nor would I want everybody to have a Trump. Again, we are not America. We have different laws, we have different people, And if Pierre came out acting like Trump you know exactly what would happen. Prime example would be Maxine Bernier, who attempted to be a mini Trump and actually lost his only seat.
Secondly, can anybody give me 100% solid proof that Pierre is indeed a globalist? Because speaking of somebody who actually is friends with his brother, I can tell you right now Pierre is not a globalist in any way shape or form. And it's pretty ignorant for anybody to be assuming that he is going to be a globalist before he's even had a chance to show us what he can do. Now, has somebody who has worked in campaigns and knows people who work for Pierre, Premier Smith and other like minded conservative MPs, I can tell you right now, that what is happening with Trump, is being done on purpose.
What's the one thing the Liberals have been saying for the last 2-3 years? That Pierre is just like Trump, conservatives are Maple syrup MAGA, Maga Extremists, so on and so on. And let's just add in there that Pierre totally knew that Carney was going to be replacing Trudeau for the upcoming election, which means that Trump definitely knew, and has all the dirt on the man who declared war on the United States of America back in 2019, when Carney stated that the United States should no longer be the world reserve currency, and should be replaced with a digital world reserve currency, possibly one that mirrored China's digital currency, run and controlled by the IMF. When you think about how this is playing out strategically, It starts to make a lot more sense. Trump acts like he doesn't know Pierre, Trump openly comes out and endorses the enemy while at the same time, exposing Mark Carney for the globalist corrupt elite that he is. I don't think people quite understand how high up on the ladder Carney actually is.
Trump is making him look like a goof, Carney's being exposed, Brookfield is being exposed, NetZero is being exposed, The climate hoax is being exposed, And everything is being brought into the spotlight. How biased the media actually is, How are elections have been rigged, How China has infiltrated our country and how bad it actually is, All of the shady plans that Brookfield had planned for Canada and the world. How Carney has no plan because he's stealing all of Pierre's Ideas. Democrats tried to do the same thing with Trump's agenda, but it didn't work. Carney was smart, and realized that the woke shit wouldn't win an election, So now he's just stealing Pierre's platform. These people aren't stupid. They're not going to do the exact same thing that the Democrats did which lost them the election. Trump isn't going to endorse Pierre, because he knows that we are more socialist and far left than the United States. And obviously Pierre is not going to see that he agrees with Trump. That would be political suicide. Pierre is going to stand up to Trump because that's what Trump wants. If we don't have a strong leader who can stand up to Trump, Then they won't stand up to China, or India, or any other authoritarian leader who threatens our country. Trump doesn't need a butt kissing weenie next door. He needs a strong leader because he can't protect the entire North America by himself nor should he have that responsibility.
Lastly, and because I know this post is getting way too long, Maxime Bernier is a shill for the left. He only ever comes out when it's election time, he only ever comes out to trash the conservatives and try to cause doubt in the minds of Canadians, And the guy who actually helps start the PPC, has publicly come out and said that Maxime Bernier is all about himself, doesn't actually care about Canadians or the party, and his pretty much run that party into the ground.
So take of this comment what you will, but I sincerely hope that people start doing more research because there is a lot that Canadians are missing in this entire global takedown of the Globalists deep state cabal And the plans behind these awful people. Go listen to Trump speeches again, go read Mark Carney's book, decipher the globalist UN buzzwords, Go dive into everything NetZero entails, what circular economy, stakeholder capitalism, and green transition mean. Go study all of the research of the people in Maga that Elon Musk comments to. I've been doing this for 6 years. And Canadians are missing 95% of what's actually going on.
Yes, I like your comments, Julius and assessment of the situation. It is sobering to realize that we are in the early stages of a long war. And yes, in the last federal election i was never so when the conservatives had virtually the same platform as a liberal, especially on the Covid scam. Thanks for this.
Hi Julius, a friend of mine sent me his thoughts on this and said I would reach out to you for an answer. Looking forward to your reply
This got me thinking. And maybe I am not getting the actual point but I come back to my earlier rant about voters. I don’t understand Julius when he suggested that Polieve is a mildly different version of Carney and that what he needs to do to win is become much more conservative? I don’t think I there is support in Canada for that position? Hence polieve is trying to thread the needle. Maxine represents the hard core right and he is viewed as a radical idiot by the voters.
I need help bridging Julius comments to the real world in Canada. Does he actually think a more extreme “conservative” politician could win in Canada? What am I missing?
My comment about Poilievre/Carney is building on a position I laid out in a previous article: Why Conservatism Failed to Stop a World Gone Mad (https://juliusruechel.substack.com/p/why-conservatism-failed-to-stop-a) -- in a nutshell, that by defending the exhausted ideas and institutions of the post-WWII era -- the very same institutions and ideas that are now morphing into globalism -- establishment Conservatives in Canada, the E.U. and elsewhere are actually supporting the very system that is giving birth to global socialism. Winning an election is irrelevant if what results is merely a blue tint of the same failed ideas -- to lead a country out of crisis requires confronting the core pillars of the past 80 years, which are no longer working. I think the article does a better job of explaining it than I can reproduce here in just a few lines...
Very, very well put. You have galvanized a number of thoughts I have had. This is the first post of anyones that I have commented on in many months. Thank you Julius
I agree that Poilievre is no revolutionary conservative but is likely better internally for Canada. Trump must shake his head and ask where the hell the anti-globalists are in the North. Consider this though - imo for someone to call themselves a genuine conservative they must be BOTH fiscally and socially conservative. At a time when the world is beginning to need more people, the West is dying both morally and demographically. It is not fun watching it happen, not now in slow motion as it has been for decades, but rapidly while countries like Hungary, Russia and yes even China are glomming on to the demographic reality!
Agreed - lots of empathy for the young these days who are facing ridiculous housing prices. This has come about as a result of lots of isms though - global-ism, femin-ism, transnational-ism and the Big Daddy of them all - Commun-ism. Imagine a State that put the nuclear family first, policy-wise, and reduced their tax burden so much that one parent could stay home and raise productive and grateful citizens. Utopia? Nah, but a healthy society might just emerge.
Canada has fallen decades ago. It’s the blind running around in Plato’s Cave on mass now during its death throes who are still completely ignorant to what’s already happened. You ignored We The Screamers. There is no going back.
"A sheepdog candidate in U.S. politics is typically a presidential candidate who runs ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the nomination will eventually be awarded. This candidate's role is to attract and channel activist energies and disaffected voters back into the Democratic fold, often seen as a strategy to prevent these voters from drifting towards more radical or independent options. The term "sheepdog" implies that such candidates are used to herd voters back towards the main party line, similar to how a sheepdog herds sheep."
The two factions of the uniparty (Lib and Con) exist to sheepdog voters around Ottawa. The Cons exist to prevent sheep from a Bloc West, the Libs from Bloc Quebecois.
Bloc Quebecois have been tamed for now. The Leader's wife gets a plumb job with Canada. A "separatist" is appointed Speaker.
Bloc West--the place with all the collateral--is of course another story. Martial law is declared on honkers. Political movements go missing (Maverick).
Cons ride high in the polls, sucking up Bloc West energy. As D-Day approaches, Ottawa's White Knight appears. "Canadians" are shocked to learn the party governs and not the voter. Why the kayfabe works is either too much US television or mental retardation (retardation in the literal sense, not pejorative).
If the Blue faction win, Ottawa will carry on its merry way, Bloc West tension put-down. If the Red faction wins, Ottawa gears up a referendum or Danielle Smith op in the West. Referendums take forever; Danielle Smiths gets close to uniparty power, respectively.
Bloc movements, with more modest demands on Ottawa, can persist and strengthen over time. The uniparty can not abide this in the West. Especially while governing an insolvent country.
https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2024/10/government-of-canada-appoints-new-chair-of-the-canada-foundation-for-innovation-board-of-directors.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Plamondon
Well said!
"sheepdog candidate" -- fantastic term -- I hadn't heard that term before but it sure hits the nail on the head!
https://x.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/1910366407360942579
Thanks for clarifying Julius. You are the new rock star amongst my Calgary friends .
I'm honored! 🙏
Poilievre was all for the mandated deadly injections during the reign of madness. He only changed when politically convenient. There is no opposition to the uni-Party in Canada. That's one predictable result of the govt owning the media. Too young to remember Pravda? Try Xinhua...then the CBC.
When the authorities went to steal the food and fuel from the Freedom Convoy at Ottawa, there were snipers on surrounding rooftops. Then the Charter of Rights and Freedoms got the Pelosi treatment. Keep in mind that Chrystia has access to your bank account. Canada is toast.
Trump observed Canada's $100 B. surplus in trade with the USA, the fentanyl leaking across the 49th parallel, the 1.3% GDP defense expenditure; and laid down 'Canada 51' as an Art of the Deal marker. Canadian politicians panicked at the thought the citizenry might be delivered to a prosperous tomorrow; and so the 'elbows up' propaganda mill churns the latest distraction.
P.S.: The anthropogenic quotient of the ever changing climate of our planet is <0.1%. The horror!
Thanks Julius - good grief. I think potential outcomes may be worse than I thought. I see Trump as a man who has opened up Pandoras box for all to see. Our government runs a very clandestine, tightlipped, destructive organization.
Most people I see are talking about the bad orange man and his tariffs. No one seems to be talking about the election.
While I agree there isn't much difference any more between left and right, Conservative or Liberal, the general population doesn't seem to get it. Also, almost no one knows about the globalist agenda so they don't understand anything about Carney's values and what he'll likely do if elected. I find that very disappointing and alarming.
For some reason, many people strongly dislike Poilievre. They've seen him for years as the opposition leader, doing what opposition leaders do and being very negative. He is a career politician, knows how to play the political games, but lacks any big ideas. I'm not sure I'd call him globalist. I think he says what he thinks will get him popularity points and that often could sound globalist.
Really, our choices in this election are not very good.
💯
I've tried sharing Peter Foster's article about Mark Carney's book with a number of liberals -- they simply refuse to read a word of it -- anything that challenges their perceptions is simply taboo. Complete stonewall. It's so frustrating...
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-mark-carney-man-of-destiny-arises-to-revolutionize-society-it-wont-be-pleasant
In regards to the Conservatives, I feel like although they don't openly share the same globalist agenda, they are committed to preserving the post-WWII order -- yet all the institutions and ideas of the post-WWII order have morphed to become the globalist agenda. So, unwittingly, they are defending the very pillars of the new world that is emerging because they are unable/unwilling to recognize that the post-WWII era was built on a rotten foundation that has now reached its logical rotten conclusion -- it's not fixable by merry putting better people with better intentions in charge of a broken system.
So, although they are not globalist cheerleaders, by defending the ideas and institutions of the post-WWII era, by refusing to confront the false beliefs underpinning the globalist agenda (like climate change), and by staying silent on a gazillion issues out of fear of being labeled anti-science, racist, alt-right, denier, etc, etc, by the media, they are effectively serving as the unwilling accomplices of the globalist order.
What a mess...
The National Post article linked is good. Thanks for sharing.
As an Albertan, Canadian Conservative voter, who wishes we really had a "right wing" anti-globalist party of any kind of substance, this opinion piece makes me very sad and even more sick to my stomach than I already felt. I am politically homeless. Maxime Bernier may have the policies, but he has failed to garner any relevant support and I believe it's his arrogance in thinking he can be the only leader of the PPC. Maybe we get a Poilievre lead government and he turns out to be a decent leader and at least helps Canada grow it's energy industry. Maybe he doesn't and we find a better leader for the PPC. They haven't given me an option in my constituency who I would want to vote for. I did vote for the Maverick party the last federal election. I hear what you're saying, it just makes me sad.
I agree that Carney and Pollievre appear to represent different wings of globalist ideology. Both can't help themselves in attacking Trump rather than working with him for our mutual benefits while retaining national sovereignty.
The 4-D chess seems more simplistic to me. If he endorses Carney then Canadians are more likely to vote for the other guy out of disdain for Trump's stated desire. He knows Pollievre has voiced opposition to the WEF and that makes him Trump's potential ally.
The Fidesz party in Hungary, whatever anyone wants to call it and its leader Orban, has successfully created the most corrupt country in Europe. His friends and family have profited, whilst the population at large have become poorer and poorer. It’s medical system, once the envy of many countries has been decimated by… need I go on?
If that’s the alternative we are looking at, God help us.
Hello, Julius. I always appreciate your analyses, usually super-insightful. I say "usually" cuz I'm not (yet) convinced you're on the right track here (though I hope you are).
1) Is it really accurate to say (or imply) that there's only the barest ideological sliver between Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre? The former has stood behind (or generated) Trudeau's policies, and is even more zealous—not to mention more deeply connected to the WEF.
By contrast, Poilievre has stridently opposed all of Trudeau's leftist-globalist policies, and has also said that none of his cabinet members will be affiliated with the WEF.
2) In Canada's wonky-woke political climate, what choice does Pierre have but to at least 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 "anti-Trump"? Any other stance would make undecided voters less inclined to vote for the CPC.
3) If the negation of globalism is Trump's primary objective—why doesn't he just say so? While campaigning he referred many times to globalism and Marxism—and since launching his second term he's gone all in on tariffs—but I've never heard him put the two together.
It seems to me that the closest thing we've gotten from the administration re. a link between tariffs and globalism is a quote variously attributed to JD Vance or the State Department: "No free trade without free speech."
If your thesis is correct, why hasn't Trump ever stated this 1:1 correspondence when laying out his rationale for tariffs?
At most, trade re-negotiations and the eradication of globalism could be seen as 𝘢𝘥𝘫𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 goals. I like the suggestion of Christopher Patrick Kohls ("Mr. Reagan") on YouTube:
". . . 𝗜 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽'𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦., 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀. . . . .
". . . 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆. 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 . . . 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. 𝗠𝗮𝘆𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝘄𝗲𝗯 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 - 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆, 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰, 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹. 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. . . .
"𝗨𝗞, 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮; 𝘄𝗲'𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀. 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗲. 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻, 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 . . . 𝘄𝗲'𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀. 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗲. 𝗠𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗰𝗼, 𝗴𝗼 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀. 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗲." (https://youtu.be/DT_OLIgT6Us?t=177)
4) Here is where your essay gets the weakest. When it comes to Poilievre being "merely the 'other guy' to the 'current guy'," you have (somewhat of) a point. In terms of how the average Canadian views this election, this angle is likely pretty accurate.
But that has to do with 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯—often or even usually wrong—rather than with policy. In terms of the latter, you seem to treat the Liberal and CPC policy platforms as largely interchangeable but with differing rates of acceleration toward globalism.
I don't think that's fair. One can make a reasonable argument that the Conservatives may not (adequately) address the problems that manifest and facilitate the globalist agenda—but that's an entirely different thing from asserting that they want globalism 𝘵𝘰𝘰, just not as quickly as the Liberals.
Moreover, Poilievre has repeatedly called out globalism for the menace it is. For example: "𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘂-𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁-𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆'𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲." (https://x.com/valdombre/status/1887551512475546012)
5) You go on to cite voter statistics from the last three elections, then Poilievre's current standing in the polls (which are themselves suspect), from which you infer: "𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗮’𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲?"
But is that the only possible inference? Or is another one possible—say, the inference that Joe and Jill Canadian (especially the boomers) are too willfully ignorant for their own good? You could do a whole paper or book on how the average Canadian has become increasingly dumbed-down and an idolater of the State.
If one wants to assign some of the blame to the CPC itself, it would be more valid to target any poor messaging or inconsistencies they may have. What you haven't done—but need to do to sustain your thesis—is to compare/contrast 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 of the Libs and Cons, and demonstrate (if you can!) that the CPC's policy platform is nearly as "globalistic" as the Liberals' platform.
In other words, ironically I must challenge you in the same way I challenge Canadians who label Pierre "too Trumpy" (🙄): 𝘗𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘊𝘗𝘊 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. In your specific case: explain how they're "globalistic."
6) You then offered what to me seems a bizarre argument, coming from someone like you:
"𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗶𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗮'𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 '𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁-𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴' 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆[.]"
Huh? 🤨 Mark #Carnage stealing Pierre's platform is a blatant attempt to convince common-sense types that the Libs 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯'𝘵 the globalist-Marxist radicals you and I both know they are.
Which means, in turn, that the CPC platform 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 globalistic, and Carney wants to convince voters that 𝘩𝘪𝘴 platform "isn't globalistic either."
To reiterate: you need to show just what it is in the CPC platform that you believe is "globalistic," and why you believe that.
---
Now, I agree with you that "𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀—𝗶𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁." And, like you, I favor the PPC's platform over Pierre's.
However, you haven't actually presented evidence that Poilievre himself is a closet globalist. All you're really giving us here is your 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. Those suspicions may be right, but you have to prove that.
I did a Deep Dive called "Why Conservatism Failed to Stop a World Gone Mad" ( https://juliusruechel.substack.com/p/why-conservatism-failed-to-stop-a ) where I dig deeper into this issue. It's not that the likes of Poilievre, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, etc, etc, are all committed globalists, but rather that they are conserving the ideas and institutions of the now defunct post-WWII era - yet those ideas and institutions are precisely what has morphed into globalism. Until they are willing to confront these failed ideas (I give a long list of examples, picking specifically on Pierre Poilievre), they end up being unable to reverse evolving globalist system.
One case in point is Poilievre's cowardice on the climate hoax, which he doesn't confront directly out of fear of media backlash -- he only discusses policy differences (climate subsidies for climate innovation versus the Liberal idea of punitive climate taxes). But, this approach ultimately gives legitimacy to the underlying false claim that CO2 controls temperature and the false claim that there is an alleged climate emergency caused by our greenhouse emissions (and ironically leaves voters to decide whether Carney or Poilievre is the better leader to deal with this alleged "climate crisis").
These false climate claims are not only the basis for corruption and grift, but they are also one of the core mythologies to justify the centralization of power in federal and international hands and the excuse for increasing control over the population. And so, this Conservative strategy to avoid confronting the underlying scientific hoax, and instead focus on chasing voters through appeasement and legitimization of the climate hoax ultimately prevents the globalist push from being confronted and dismantled.
I could go on, but I think my linked article does a better job than what I can re-create in a quick off-the-cuff comment.
Cheers, Julius
I have been thinking about Good Friday this weekend.
One of the necessary qualities for Jesus' Passion was His courage. It does not seem to be emphasised in much of the narrative, but it certainly was not lacking.
One quality which I find missing in our current national discourse is, of course, courage. You do make this clear in your description of Mr. Poilievre. Comparison to Premier Smith is instructive.
Okay, I normally don't comment under posts, but In this case, I feel like I have to. First off, can we stop acting like far left Liberals by lumping every single person into one single entity acting like it's a person. Obviously we know that there are corrupt people in the conservative party, and the liberal party, and the green party, And the NDP, and the block and yes even the PPC. Just like in America we have bad actors in all parties. But lumping every single MP into a single category is just plain stupid. Don't be like the liberals.
And there is only one Trump. There will never be anybody else like Trump. Why? Because he's Donald Trump. What do we like it or not the United States presidency is the most powerful position in the world. No country will ever have a Trump, nor would I want everybody to have a Trump. Again, we are not America. We have different laws, we have different people, And if Pierre came out acting like Trump you know exactly what would happen. Prime example would be Maxine Bernier, who attempted to be a mini Trump and actually lost his only seat.
Secondly, can anybody give me 100% solid proof that Pierre is indeed a globalist? Because speaking of somebody who actually is friends with his brother, I can tell you right now Pierre is not a globalist in any way shape or form. And it's pretty ignorant for anybody to be assuming that he is going to be a globalist before he's even had a chance to show us what he can do. Now, has somebody who has worked in campaigns and knows people who work for Pierre, Premier Smith and other like minded conservative MPs, I can tell you right now, that what is happening with Trump, is being done on purpose.
What's the one thing the Liberals have been saying for the last 2-3 years? That Pierre is just like Trump, conservatives are Maple syrup MAGA, Maga Extremists, so on and so on. And let's just add in there that Pierre totally knew that Carney was going to be replacing Trudeau for the upcoming election, which means that Trump definitely knew, and has all the dirt on the man who declared war on the United States of America back in 2019, when Carney stated that the United States should no longer be the world reserve currency, and should be replaced with a digital world reserve currency, possibly one that mirrored China's digital currency, run and controlled by the IMF. When you think about how this is playing out strategically, It starts to make a lot more sense. Trump acts like he doesn't know Pierre, Trump openly comes out and endorses the enemy while at the same time, exposing Mark Carney for the globalist corrupt elite that he is. I don't think people quite understand how high up on the ladder Carney actually is.
Trump is making him look like a goof, Carney's being exposed, Brookfield is being exposed, NetZero is being exposed, The climate hoax is being exposed, And everything is being brought into the spotlight. How biased the media actually is, How are elections have been rigged, How China has infiltrated our country and how bad it actually is, All of the shady plans that Brookfield had planned for Canada and the world. How Carney has no plan because he's stealing all of Pierre's Ideas. Democrats tried to do the same thing with Trump's agenda, but it didn't work. Carney was smart, and realized that the woke shit wouldn't win an election, So now he's just stealing Pierre's platform. These people aren't stupid. They're not going to do the exact same thing that the Democrats did which lost them the election. Trump isn't going to endorse Pierre, because he knows that we are more socialist and far left than the United States. And obviously Pierre is not going to see that he agrees with Trump. That would be political suicide. Pierre is going to stand up to Trump because that's what Trump wants. If we don't have a strong leader who can stand up to Trump, Then they won't stand up to China, or India, or any other authoritarian leader who threatens our country. Trump doesn't need a butt kissing weenie next door. He needs a strong leader because he can't protect the entire North America by himself nor should he have that responsibility.
Lastly, and because I know this post is getting way too long, Maxime Bernier is a shill for the left. He only ever comes out when it's election time, he only ever comes out to trash the conservatives and try to cause doubt in the minds of Canadians, And the guy who actually helps start the PPC, has publicly come out and said that Maxime Bernier is all about himself, doesn't actually care about Canadians or the party, and his pretty much run that party into the ground.
So take of this comment what you will, but I sincerely hope that people start doing more research because there is a lot that Canadians are missing in this entire global takedown of the Globalists deep state cabal And the plans behind these awful people. Go listen to Trump speeches again, go read Mark Carney's book, decipher the globalist UN buzzwords, Go dive into everything NetZero entails, what circular economy, stakeholder capitalism, and green transition mean. Go study all of the research of the people in Maga that Elon Musk comments to. I've been doing this for 6 years. And Canadians are missing 95% of what's actually going on.
Sorry for any spelling mistakes. I'm using Google talk to text and it is early in the morning and I am tired.
Yes, I like your comments, Julius and assessment of the situation. It is sobering to realize that we are in the early stages of a long war. And yes, in the last federal election i was never so when the conservatives had virtually the same platform as a liberal, especially on the Covid scam. Thanks for this.
Hi Julius, a friend of mine sent me his thoughts on this and said I would reach out to you for an answer. Looking forward to your reply
This got me thinking. And maybe I am not getting the actual point but I come back to my earlier rant about voters. I don’t understand Julius when he suggested that Polieve is a mildly different version of Carney and that what he needs to do to win is become much more conservative? I don’t think I there is support in Canada for that position? Hence polieve is trying to thread the needle. Maxine represents the hard core right and he is viewed as a radical idiot by the voters.
I need help bridging Julius comments to the real world in Canada. Does he actually think a more extreme “conservative” politician could win in Canada? What am I missing?
My comment about Poilievre/Carney is building on a position I laid out in a previous article: Why Conservatism Failed to Stop a World Gone Mad (https://juliusruechel.substack.com/p/why-conservatism-failed-to-stop-a) -- in a nutshell, that by defending the exhausted ideas and institutions of the post-WWII era -- the very same institutions and ideas that are now morphing into globalism -- establishment Conservatives in Canada, the E.U. and elsewhere are actually supporting the very system that is giving birth to global socialism. Winning an election is irrelevant if what results is merely a blue tint of the same failed ideas -- to lead a country out of crisis requires confronting the core pillars of the past 80 years, which are no longer working. I think the article does a better job of explaining it than I can reproduce here in just a few lines...
Hi Julius - I'm listening to Jordan P. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Dw0xaa5xM
I think he has read your book Plunderers of the Earth. I suggested it to him a couple of times. I would imagine others did as well.
🙏 Thanks Vicki -- Great news!
Very, very well put. You have galvanized a number of thoughts I have had. This is the first post of anyones that I have commented on in many months. Thank you Julius
I agree that Poilievre is no revolutionary conservative but is likely better internally for Canada. Trump must shake his head and ask where the hell the anti-globalists are in the North. Consider this though - imo for someone to call themselves a genuine conservative they must be BOTH fiscally and socially conservative. At a time when the world is beginning to need more people, the West is dying both morally and demographically. It is not fun watching it happen, not now in slow motion as it has been for decades, but rapidly while countries like Hungary, Russia and yes even China are glomming on to the demographic reality!
Agreed - lots of empathy for the young these days who are facing ridiculous housing prices. This has come about as a result of lots of isms though - global-ism, femin-ism, transnational-ism and the Big Daddy of them all - Commun-ism. Imagine a State that put the nuclear family first, policy-wise, and reduced their tax burden so much that one parent could stay home and raise productive and grateful citizens. Utopia? Nah, but a healthy society might just emerge.
Canada has fallen decades ago. It’s the blind running around in Plato’s Cave on mass now during its death throes who are still completely ignorant to what’s already happened. You ignored We The Screamers. There is no going back.