Opinion
The Great Reset doesn’t care if you believe it exists and Canada is on the front line
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:
- Have no idea there is a Great Reset
- Accept there is a Great Reset, but doubt the ability and the organization of the people conspiring.
- 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.
- 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!”
Opinion
Religion on trial: what could happen if Canada passes its new hate speech legislation
Just in time for Christmas, the Liberals make a deal with the Bloc that will suppress religious expressions of belief
(The Rewrite will return to its usual format in 2026. In the meantime please enjoy this republication of Peter Menzies’s take on Bill C-9 and its threat to free speech and freedom of religion. And, please, have a Merry Christmas)
If you want to get some sense of what life in Canada could be like if the federal government’s new hate speech law passes, check out Finland.
There, Päivi Räsänen, a medical doctor and Member of Parliament, and Bishop Juhana Pohjola of the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland are awaiting the verdict of their third hate speech trial – all for the same issues – since 2019.
The prospect of a similar future “Bible Trial” now hangs over Canada thanks to the minority government’s openness to making a deal with the Bloc Quebecois to get Bill C-9 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places) – passed.
Already contentious, the contemplated amendment that would remove the current protections for sincerely held religious belief, could very well stifle the ability of Christians, Muslims, Jews and others to freely refer to their most sacred texts.
As the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops puts it: “the removal of this provision risks creating uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators, and others who may fear that the expression of traditional moral or doctrinal teachings could be misinterpreted as hate speech and could subject the speaker to proceedings that threaten imprisonment of up to two years.
“Eliminating a clear statutory safeguard will likely therefore have a chilling effect on religious expression, even if prosecutions remain unlikely in practice.”
Rasanen, Finland’s former Interior Minister, was charged under a section of the Finnish criminal code titled “war crimes and crimes against humanity” after jointly publishing a 2004 pamphlet with Pohjola that described traditional religious views on marriage and sexuality. Also involved were a 2019 live radio debate and a Tweet in which she questioned a decision by Finland’s majority church, the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church, to formally support a Helsinki Pride event.
Both she and Pohjola were acquitted at their initial trial and, again unanimously, upon appeal. The prosecution, determined to get convictions, then took the case all the way to Finland’s Supreme Court, where the third trial wound up on Oct. 30. At the time of writing, a verdict is pending. The accused face up to two years in prison if convicted.
Given that a total of six judges have, so far, not been convinced thay quoting Bible passages constitutes a hate crime, that level of punishment seems unlikely. But as Rasanen has written “the greatest danger is the threat of society-wide censorship and the crushing effect on freedom of speech and religion. A judgment against me would open the floodgates to a broad ban on the public expression of religious views or other beliefs and the threat of modern book burnings.”
While that may alarm those of us who still adhere to increasingly old-fashioned views on freedom and liberal democracy, there’s no doubt that the move to suppress religious expression – and some of its very unfashionable concerns regarding sexuality – has a strong fan base.
Quebec, where a crucifix inexplicably remains mounted in the National Assembly, appears particularly keen on this approach. Its Bill 21 banned the wearing of religious symbols or clothing by certain public employees and is now being extended to daycare workers and others. Its “burka ban” also insists a person’s face must be uncovered when receiving public services and is making it illegal to pray in public without government permission.
Prompted by the mass Islamo-Leftist coalition demonstrations that have occupied Montreal’s streets for the past two years, it seems unlikely that one would be busted for bowing one’s head to commune with the Almighty while sitting on a park bench. But the fact that it might be possible could just be enough to discourage one from doing so.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is so keen to assert its leverage within a minority Parliament and stands ready to assist its passage if the exemption (“if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”) within current hate speech legislation for people sincerely motivated by their faith is removed.
Indeed, Bloc leader Yves-Francois Blanchet believed he had a deal but that the Liberals, led by a regular attendant at Roman Catholic Mass – Prime Minister Mark Carney – “fear a backlash” and may try to find another dance partner. That hesitance, according to Blanchet, may have motivated the suspension of a (Dec. 4) House of Commons Justice Committee.
Conservative MP Andrew Lawton also wondered on X if the committee was putting the bill on hold, stating “The Liberal chair of the Justice Committee says he cancelled today’s Bill C-9 meeting so MPs could “regroup.” He refuses to say whether he’ll call next Tuesday’s meeting.”
The deal now appears to be locked in, although Justice Minister Sean Fraser promised concerned faith groups he would hear them out over the winter.
Meanwhile, the very idea that the exemption might be removed has lit up Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who, already opposed to Bill C-9 because of its restrictions on free speech, declared that it would “criminalize sections of the Bible, Qur’an, Torah and other sacred texts.”
I don’t know that it would. But it could. And that should be enough to alarm all those who believe in a God greater than the state. Just in time for Christmas, or whatever our politicians call it these days.
We note with sadness the passing Wednesday of Peter Arnett, whose work will be remembered vividly by those old enough to recall the first Gulf War and CNN’s hey day.
A New Zealander and later American too, Arnett made his name in war zones reporting for Associated Press, beginning in Vietnam. He won a Pulitzer prize for his sins, experienced controversy and lived to be 91. He tried and that’s all you can ask. Farewell, faithful servant.

Readers will notice a new DONATE button has been added. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner. This commentary originally appeared in Epoch Times Canada)
The Rewrite is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
There’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…
It’s been nearly a year since I last wrote about the CBC. In the intervening months, the Prescott memo on bias at the BBC was released, whose stunning allegations of systemic journalistic malpractice “inspired” multiple senior officials to leave the corporation. Given how the institutional bias driving problems at the BBC is undoubtedly widely shared by CBC employees, I’d be surprised if there weren’t similar flaws embedded inside the stuff we’re being fed here in Canada.
Apparently, besides receiving nearly two billion dollars¹ annually in direct and indirect government funding, CBC also employs around a third of all of Canada’s full time journalists. So taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing what we’re getting out of the deal.
Naturally, corporate president Marie-Philippe Bouchard has solemnly denied the existence of any bias in CBC reporting. But I’d be more comfortable seeing some evidence of that with my own eyes. Given that I personally can easily go multiple months without watching any CBC programming or even visiting their website, “my own eyes” will require some creative redefinition.
So this time around I collected the titles and descriptions from nearly 300 stories that were randomly chosen from the CBC Top Stories RSS feed from the first half of 2025. You can view the results for yourself here. I then used AI tools to analyze the data for possible bias (how events are interpreted) and agendas (which events are selected). I also looked for:
- Institutional viewpoint bias
- Public-sector framing
- Cultural-identity prioritization
- Government-source dependency
- Social-progressive emphasis
Here’s what I discovered.
Story Selection Bias
Millions of things happen every day. And many thousands of those might be of interest to Canadians. Naturally, no news publisher has the bandwidth to cover all of them, so deciding which stories to include in anyone’s Top Story feed will involve a lot of filtering. To give us a sense of what filtering standards are used at the CBC, let’s break down coverage by topic.
Of the 300 stories covered by my data, around 30 percent – month after month – focused on Donald Trump and U.S.- Canada relations. Another 12-15 percent related to Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Domestic politics – including election coverage – took up another 12 percent, Indigenous issues attracted 9 percent, climate and the environment grabbed 8 percent, and gender identity, health-care worker assaults, immigrant suffering, and crime attracted around 4 percent each.
Now here’s a partial list of significant stories from the target time frame (the first half of 2025) that weren’t meaningfully represented in my sample of CBC’s Top Stories:
- Housing affordability crisis barely appears (one of the top voter concerns in actual 2025 polls).
- Immigration levels and labour-market impact.
- Crime-rate increases or policing controversies (unless tied to Indigenous or racialized victims).
- Private-sector investment success stories.
- Any sustained positive coverage of the oil/gas sector (even when prices are high).
- Critical examination of public-sector growth or pension liabilities.
- Chinese interference or CCP influence in Canada (despite ongoing inquiries in real life).
- The rest of the known galaxy (besides Gaza and the U.S.)
Interpretation Bias
There’s an obvious pattern of favoring certain identity narratives. The Indigenous are always framed as victims of historic injustice, Palestinian and Gazan actions are overwhelmingly sympathetic, while anything done by Israelis is “aggression”. Transgender representation in uniformly affirmative while dissent is bigotry.
By contrast, stories critical of immigration policy, sympathetic to Israeli/Jewish perspectives, or skeptical of gender medicine are virtually non-existent in this sample.
That’s not to say that, in the real world, injustice doesn’t exist. It surely does. But a neutral and objective news service should be able to present important stories using a neutral and objective voice. That obviously doesn’t happen at the CBC.
Consider these obvious examples:
- “Trump claims there are only ‘2 genders.’ Historians say that’s never been true” – here’s an overt editorial contradiction in the headline itself.
- “Trump bans transgender female athletes from women’s sports” which is framed as an attack rather than a policy debate.
And your choice of wording counts more than you might realize. Verbs like “slams”, “blasts”, and “warns” are used almost exclusively describing the actions of conservative figures like Trump, Poilievre, or Danielle Smith, while “experts say”, “historians say”, and “doctors say” are repeatedly used to rebut conservative policy.
Similarly, Palestinian casualties are invariably “killed“ by Israeli forces – using the active voice – while Israeli casualties, when mentioned at all, are described using the passive voice.
Institutional Viewpoint Bias
A primary – perhaps the primary job – of a serious journalist is to challenge the government’s narrative. Because if journalists don’t even try to hold public officials to account, then no one else can. Even the valuable work of the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be wasted, because there will be no one to amplify their claims of wrongdoing. And Canadians will have no way of hearing the bad news.
So it can’t be a good sign when around 62 percent of domestic political stories published by the nation’s public broadcaster either quote government (federal or provincial) sources as the primary voice, or are framed around government announcements, reports, funding promises, or inquiries.
In other words, a majority of what the CBC does involves providing stenography services for their paymasters.
Here are just a few examples:
- “Federal government apologizes for ‘profound harm’ of Dundas Harbour relocations”
- “Jordan’s Principle funding… being extended through 2026: Indigenous Services”
- “Liberal government announces dental care expansion the day before expected election call”
Agencies like the Bank of Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Transportation Safety Board are routinely presented as authoritative and neutral. By contrast, opposition or industry critiques are usually presented as secondary (“…but critics say”) or are simply invisible. Overall, private-sector actors like airlines, oil companies, or developers are far more likely to be criticized.
All this is classic institutional bias: the state and its agencies are the default lens through which reality is filtered.
Not unlike the horrors going on at the BBC, much of this bias is likely unconscious. I’m sure that presenting this evidence to CBC editors and managers would evoke little more than blank stares. This stuff flies way below the radar.
But as one of the AI tools I used concluded:
In short, this 2025 CBC RSS sample shows a very strong and consistent left-progressive institutional bias both in story selection (agenda) and in framing (interpretation). The outlet functions less as a neutral public broadcaster and more as an amplifier of government, public-sector, and social-progressive narratives, with particular hostility reserved for Donald Trump, Canadian conservatives, and anything that could be construed as “right-wing misinformation.”
And here’s the bottom line from a second tool:
The data reveals a consistent editorial worldview where legitimate change flows from institutions downward, identity group membership is newsworthy, and systemic intervention is the default solution framework.
You might also enjoy:
Is Updating a Few Thousand Readers Worth a Half Million Taxpayer Dollars? |
||||||
|
||||||
| Plenty has been written about the many difficulties faced by legacy news media operations. You might even recall reading about the troubled CBC and the Liberal government’s ill-fated Online News Act in these very pages. Traditional subscription and broadcast models are drying up, and on-line ad-based revenues are in sharp decline. | ||||||
|
-
Business2 days agoGeopolitics no longer drives oil prices the way it used to
-
Business2 days agoArgentina’s Milei delivers results free-market critics said wouldn’t work
-
Business2 days agoDeadlocked Jury Zeroes In on Alleged US$40 Million PPE Fraud in Linda Sun PRC Influence Case
-
Business1 day agoTaxing food is like slapping a surcharge on hunger. It needs to end
-
COVID-191 day agoJudge denies Canadian gov’t request to take away Freedom Convoy leader’s truck
-
International1 day agoOttawa is still dodging the China interference threat
-
espionage1 day agoCarney Floor Crossing Raises Counterintelligence Questions aimed at China, Former Senior Mountie Argues
-
Energy1 day ago75 per cent of Canadians support the construction of new pipelines to the East Coast and British Columbia






