Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

The Great Reset doesn’t care if you believe it exists and Canada is on the front line

Published

22 minute read

If you’re among the many people (can is possibly be the majority?) who still believe The Great Reset is an unfounded conspiracy theory, this article is for you.

The Great Reset ‘conspiracy theory’ has been around for years. If you don’t know what it is, here’s a brief explanation.  It basically submits that some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful people are using some of the world’s largest companies (which they own) as well as many of the world’s richest nations (which they run) to execute a plan to completely change the way our society works (which they don’t like very much).  The theory is, these people who refer to themselves as “the elite” are planning to cripple the power of nation states and concentrate that power in a world governing body (like the World Economic Forum). This new powerful “elite” would exercise control over everyone, everywhere. They will completely change our supply chains, our economic systems and our energy systems in an effort to unite the world to protect the environment. There’s more to it, but that gets in most of the main points.

So this is the “theory”.  But is there a “conspiracy” around this?

According the the Merriam-Webster Dictionary ‘conspiracy’ means simply “The act of conspiring together”.  The Oxford dictionary spices that up a little.  According to Oxford, ‘conspiracy’ means “A secret plan by a group of people to do something harmful or illegal”.  Seems like it’s going to be easier to prove the Merriam-Webster version, but by the end of this article you’ll see how the Oxford definition might just work as well.

When it comes to all of the people who are not actively conspiring to change the world, there are roughly four categories of understanding The Great Reset.  Either you:

  1. Have no idea there is a Great Reset
  2. Accept there is a Great Reset, but doubt the ability and the organization of the people conspiring.
  3. Accept there is a Great Reset, accept the ability of the conspirators, but either agree with their intentions, or at least not oppose their intentions due to your concern for a more fair economic system and an impending world devastating environmental disaster.
  4. Accept there is a Great Reset, and oppose the intentions of the conspirators because you personally value individual freedoms above everything else.

Group 1 is huge. Recent US polling shows half of Americans aren’t even aware of the Great Reset. It’s not like the people behind the reset aren’t writing and talking about it.  It’s just that at least half of Americans haven’t seen them do it.  That means we need to establish how it is possible in this age of information, that information of this magnitude is not being distributed to everyone.  This part of my explanation is critical to understanding how very intelligent people can be completely unaware of information other people take for-granted.

It all comes down to this. We’ve all experienced the vast chasm of division and hatred in society of late. In this atmosphere of doubt and suspicion, there is really only one one thing in the entire world that absolutely everyone can believe in.  President Donald Trump is a capital A a-hole.  Even the “Don” would likely agree with that, right?  But here’s the thing. When the rude TV star began his stunning run through the primaries, the world quickly divided between those who backed Trump and those who absolutely despised the orange tsunami.

How did this happen?  Well a very large number of people, many of them living in ‘middle’ America had had it with the quality of the people running, to run America.  When a second Clinton announced a Presidential bid they collectively shouted NOOOO.  Then they set out in search of the exact opposite of the establishment. They found it in an orange sun rise of vitriol, emerging over the high rises of Manhattan.  When Donald Trump threw his hair, ehem.. his hat into the ring, they had their guy.  It wasn’t because of his experience, or that they believed he was ultimately qualified for the job.  Trump’s crowning quality was the exact thing most people hate about him.  You see it was that massive, bulbous, all encompassing ego that was the key.  Only someone with an ego this out of control would be capable of resisting and even going on the attack against the oncoming onslaught of opposition from the embedded establishment and the mainstream media who despise him with a passion.

Trump will likely claim differently, but he didn’t invent divisiveness.  The world was already moving in this direction. But like every huge event in history, it all starts with one bullet, one border crossing, and sometimes one very unusual Orange head of hair. Camps divided around Trump’s blinding ego. Guess which side the establishment was on? Guess which side the media was on? Guess what this would mean to the distribution of information?

Personally, when the orange glow emerged from Manhattan I tuned out. Not understanding what was happening, I dismissed the orange storm as a weather system that would fizzle out when people got sick of it. I tuned out of mainstream media because I only had so much time for the gong show that was (and remains) the media coverage of the orange blowhard. This is what saved me. I had to go looking elsewhere for information.  I would soon find there was more information here, and different takes on the information everyone ‘knows’.

If you still depend on mainstream media you may not know or have time for an entire new world of information that has developed on the internet over the last few years.  Comedians who used to turn to late night TV to analyze the daily news through humour (I understand they are still there), have turned to long form and as it turns out, extremely informing conversations in a series of compelling podcasts.  They are joined by former media types and some pretty sharp up and coming minds.  While their late night and daytime TV competition unite in their humorous hatred of all things Donald, these longer form conversations have tended to go deeper, due simply to the length of the presentation.  Conversations often run past two and three hours, and “sound bites” are more like 5 to 15 or even 30 minute explanations of single issues.  Yes it is wise to avoid a number of them, just like you would avoid a number of TV programs, but you dismiss many others at your own expense.

You don’t need to agree with them to find them compelling. They are talking about events, people, and issues (including The Great Reset) you will not even find on regular mainstream media.  It is not uncommon for these podcaster / interviewers to be covering topics that my friends who rely on mainstream media won’t hear about for months, or even years.  A great example of this is the Hunter Biden laptop.  If you’ve been paying attention to this new online media, you’d have known about this since the fall of 2020.  For those who rely on regular media, they only discovered the exact same information when it was finally confirmed by the New York Times in March of 2022.  The fact they call this breaking news is hilarious (and disturbing) for those who read the original articles from the New York Post, about 20 months ago!  Here’s a link to a retrospective look at Biden laptop news from The NY Post from December 2020!

Now on to The Great Reset.  If you haven’t already clicked on the link in the fist sentence of this article here’s another opportunity.

OK now at least you know The Great Reset is a real thing.  So we move on to people who find themselves in group 2 which doubts that the Reset will ever amount to any actual resetting.  This group would say these ‘elites’ live really far away, and they’re probably harmless to us because it’s not like they have any control over us.  Not in our country.  Well. That all depends on how far away you live from people like Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland. Canada’s Deputy PM is also on the Board of Trustees of the WEF. If that’s not a conflict of interest, they probably need to redefine conflict of interest.  Don’t take it from me.  Take it from the founder of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab. (You mean the Klaus Schwab who researched, wrote, and published the book COVID-19: The Great Reset, less than 6 months after Covid-19 was a thing?.. Yes. that’s the guy.) In this short video from way back in 2017 Schwab brags about the success of a WEF program called Young Global Leaders. In Schwab’s own words, the WEF has “penetrated” Canada’s federal cabinet. Sounds kind of conspiratorial.. and a little bit less like a theory when he says it.

If we want to know if this should be disturbing to us we need to know what Earth’s elites are planning for us.  Well the WEF was kind enough to tell us exactly what The Great Reset will mean to.. well.. the rest of us. This (in)famous video reveals just how different life will be for the average person by 2030.  It doesn’t say how “the elite” will live, though we can expect they’ll have slightly different rules. Alas, I’m getting ahead of myself.  Here’s a list of the 8 things the WEF has been kind enough to let us know we need to prepare for by 2030.  I understand this video originally came out in 2016.  I first saw it in 2020.  In five years it’s been circulated widely.  Though it’s no longer featured on the WEF website, there are copies all over the internet.

Recap:

1) We’ll own nothing.  Ouch.  (Obviously the elite will own everything and since they’re smarter than us we’ll be very happy to know they’re taking care of us so well).  It’s being said by opponents of this idea that people who own a bit of land are perhaps the greatest risk to this environmental movement.  It’s bad for the environment for us to own property or even your own home. Especially because we decide what happens there.  Do we keep animals?  Do we cut down trees or burn around on recreation vehicles or inefficient farm machinery?  All bad for the environment. All that will change.

2) The US will no longer be the world’s superpower. (Hmmm… Don’t these things often change after brutal wars?)  Regardless instead of one superpower, there will be a few important nations.  Wonder if that will make the world more secure, or less secure?

3) They plan to use 3D printers to make human organs (lucky for us).

4) We will not be allowed to eat meat very much anymore (cows and pigs and sheep are bad for the environment).  Hey, speaking of conspiracies, I mean series of seemingly related facts that are probably just random.. Did you know Bill Gates is the largest private owner of ‘farmland’ in the United States?  Not sure when the software magnate and WEF “Agenda Contributor” took up farming.  I’m sure none of this is related to what Mr. Gates is going to allow us to eat in the future (nervous smile).  Although Gates also happens to be a big investor in synthetic meat.  Did I mention he’s an ‘agenda contributor’ with the WEF?

5) One billion people in the world will have to move due to climate change (Not sure if that applies to the beach homes of the elite). (Also not sure why scientists and engineers will stop doing what they’ve always done and help us cope and adapt if conditions are changing quickly and significantly.)

6) Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide. We already know how this feels in Canada.

7) We will be prepared to travel in space (I’m ready to go now).  The logic here is that the earth will be so ruined by us, that we better be prepared to go destroy an entirely different planet.  What could go wrong?

Finally and maybe most disturbing of all..

8) Western Values will have been tested to the breaking point.  Some probably like the sound of that. But in the history books I’ve read, when a society’s values are tested “to the breaking point” that tends to look incredibly violent and warlike.  (In my opinion number 8 is going to be really challenging to accomplish at the same time as the everybody will be happy part in number 1.  Maybe that’s why they put them so far apart in their list.).  By the way, you have to wonder what they mean by “western values”?  Is this finally being enlightened enough to turf Christianity and those silly laws that western societies adopted from those traditional religious beliefs.  Can’t wait to find out what the new traditions will be!  This outta go over well (Imagine Jerry Seinfeld saying that.)

OK.  If you don’t find this a tad disturbing that might mean you are personally in favour of The Great Reset.  It’s still a free country so that’s just fine with the rest of us.  However the introduction video above is very much prior to the official launch of The Great Reset.  That took place in the opening months of the Covid-19 pandemic.  It would be better to judge how this is actually going to work by looking at how this New World Order (that’s what they’re calling it now) is unfolding. Now that the resetters have been resetting for about two years, how’s it going so far?  Here’s a report from Glenn Beck.  Glenn is a conservative pundit and broadcaster. If you follow the mainstream media you will know him as a radical far right conservative (and maybe a lunatic). If you don’t see Beck through that filter you will acknowledge that he sometimes says very interesting things.  Things like this.  By the way, pay attention to the background behind the speakers at this “world government” conference.  Then ask yourself if this group might be planning a new world order.

 

It’s puzzling that the Canadian media doesn’t give this any coverage. I guess there are simply more important things to talk about than whether our own federal cabinet is working in our interest or in the interests of really rich people who plan to OWN EVERYTHING in just a few short years.  Oh this is probably nothing but you may have heard about the federal NDP party making a deal to secure the federal government right up to 2025.  That party is lead by the guy who now is Co-Prime Minister Jagmeet Singh.  Guess what?

Speaking of Canada.  You may find this conversation between the British podcast sensation Russel Brand and Nick Corbishley interesting.  Nick is the author of Scanned: Why Vaccine Passports and Digital IDs Will Mean the End of Privacy and Personal Freedom. As Canadians it is interesting to hear how people in other countries are seeing The Great Reset, and how Canadians are “world leaders”.  Yippee?

If you’ve managed to find your way through the longest article ever, you will certainly now be able to acknowledge The Great Reset or New World Order exists.  The question now is, do you believe this is a good thing or do you think we should resist it as things were working pretty well before they launched this? We can get into that later.  At the very least the massive number of people who dismissed the “conspiracy theorists” as slightly insane will see there is a reason many people are concerned.  In the end, as all philosophers know we need to establish the facts, before we can decide whether we agree with them or not.

Finally my wise friend Garett reminded about the joke that’s been circulating for many months now on social media.  Every time it turns out another conspiracy theory was actually a conspiratorial fact, someone passes it around again.  If you haven’t seen it yet it might help with your outlook in the future.  Goes like this.  “What is the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth?  — About 6 months!”

 

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Business

Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

A billionaire’s retail ambition might also serve Beijing’s global influence strategy. Canada must look beyond the storefront

When B.C. billionaire Weihong Liu publicly declared interest in acquiring Hudson’s Bay stores, it wasn’t just a retail story—it was a signal flare in an era where foreign investment increasingly doubles as geopolitical strategy.

The Hudson’s Bay Company, founded in 1670, remains an enduring symbol of Canadian heritage. While its commercial relevance has waned in recent years, its brand is deeply etched into the national identity. That’s precisely why any potential acquisition, particularly by an investor with strong ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), deserves thoughtful, measured scrutiny.

Liu, a prominent figure in Vancouver’s Chinese-Canadian business community, announced her interest in acquiring several Hudson’s Bay stores on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (RedNote), expressing a desire to “make the Bay great again.” Though revitalizing a Canadian retail icon may seem commendable, the timing and context of this bid suggest a broader strategic positioning—one that aligns with the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly nuanced approach to economic diplomacy, especially in countries like Canada that sit at the crossroads of American and Chinese spheres of influence.

This fits a familiar pattern. In recent years, we’ve seen examples of Chinese corporate involvement in Canadian cultural and commercial institutions, such as Huawei’s past sponsorship of Hockey Night in Canada. Even as national security concerns were raised by allies and intelligence agencies, Huawei’s logo remained a visible presence during one of the country’s most cherished broadcasts. These engagements, though often framed as commercially justified, serve another purpose: to normalize Chinese brand and state-linked presence within the fabric of Canadian identity and daily life.

What we may be witnessing is part of a broader PRC strategy to deepen economic and cultural ties with Canada at a time when U.S.-China relations remain strained. As American tariffs on Canadian goods—particularly in aluminum, lumber and dairy—have tested cross-border loyalties, Beijing has positioned itself as an alternative economic partner. Investments into cultural and heritage-linked assets like Hudson’s Bay could be seen as a symbolic extension of this effort to draw Canada further into its orbit of influence, subtly decoupling the country from the gravitational pull of its traditional allies.

From my perspective, as a professional with experience in threat finance, economic subversion and political leveraging, this does not necessarily imply nefarious intent in each case. However, it does demand a conscious awareness of how soft power is exercised through commercial influence, particularly by state-aligned actors. As I continue my research in international business law, I see how investment vehicles, trade deals and brand acquisitions can function as instruments of foreign policy—tools for shaping narratives, building alliances and shifting influence over time.

Canada must neither overreact nor overlook these developments. Open markets and cultural exchange are vital to our prosperity and pluralism. But so too is the responsibility to preserve our sovereignty—not only in the physical sense, but in the cultural and institutional dimensions that shape our national identity.

Strategic investment review processes, cultural asset protections and greater transparency around foreign corporate ownership can help strike this balance. We should be cautious not to allow historically Canadian institutions to become conduits, however unintentionally, for geopolitical leverage.

In a world where power is increasingly exercised through influence rather than force, safeguarding our heritage means understanding who is buying—and why.

Scott McGregor is the managing partner and CEO of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting.

Continue Reading

Bjorn Lomborg

Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is crazy high

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Canada has made a legal commitment to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister Trudeau promised that climate action will “create jobs and economic growth” and the federal government insists it will create a “strong economy.” The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.

Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. Annual Canadian CO₂ emissions have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actually increased over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.

Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual CO₂ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One study shows that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.

Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.

In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we would already need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.

The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UN points out that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed to start reducing global carbon emissions, which last year hit a new record.

Data from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.

Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanity hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.

Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More than two billion mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides about 5 per cent of global energy.

Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence has declined only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use some nine centuries from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.

Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.

But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.

We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumers up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X