Mark Carney's Popularity is Endangering Canada - Part 1

I really wanted to steer farther away from the political realm on this page, but the more that I see in the federal political arena, the more that I am concerned about the direction of this country. Things just keep piling up that indicate that this country is intentionally being steered towards a future that no one voted for, but due to the lack of political intellect in Canada and a government and media machine that keeps treating the electorate like mushrooms (keep them in the dark and keep feeding them sh*t), people are, apparently, still happily supporting Carney the charlatan as he pursues his own goals, no matter how those goals will hurt Canada in the long run. So, though I would rather focus on other things, I will be publishing a series of articles about Mark Carney, the direction that the Liberal Party has been taking this country over the last 11 years, and my concerns about all of this.

First of all, I will point out that Mark Carney has not so much earned his varying positions of growing authority around the world through means of approval by the masses, or even by stellar performances in his varying roles, but rather, in the last 20 plus years, he has been appointed to virtually all of his positions by people with whom he has fostered personal relationships. In 2003 he was appointed to be the Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada by then Prime Minister Jean Chretien. He was then appointed to be the Deputy Minister of Finance in 2004 by Prime Minister Paul Martin, and was later appointed to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. When he was finished in this position, Mark Carney got appointed to be the Governor of the Bank of England. When that post was done, after a short time working in another appointment at the United Nations as the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, he joined Brookfield Asset Management in 2020 where he worked to influence corporations to finance his climate change goals while at the same time securing a non-official, unpaid position as an advisor to Justin Trudeau while Trudeau was the Prime Minister of Canada. And from there, it is widely observed that his "election" as the leader of the Liberal Party was actually more of an appointment by the powers at the top of the Liberal Party structure through questionable machinations within the leadership selection process, and with the help of a captured and federally funded media machine that saw the end of the gravy train if Poillievre won, Carney managed to get himself "elected"as the Prime Minister of Canada in an unlikely political upset by a non-politician. In this position, Mark Carney has his hands on the reins of public (ie. government) policy and finances and he can steer the country any way he wants to, thanks largely to a bought and paid for majority government achieved through floor-crossing agreements.

Over the course of these different jobs and positions that Mark Carney has held, he has cultivated a love for everything related to the climate change hysteria, and has enriched himself and his friends with numerous schemes built around this scam. But, with the world governments becoming less invested in the climate change scare, Carney is beginning to lose his money making momentum. His Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero has actually imploded upon itself because the major banks that he had originally convinced to invest in it have read the tea leaves and have since pulled out, leaving his dream of making millions on climate action hanging limp. But, he has a new focus now. Instead of convincing banks and corporations to bankroll his scheme, he is now focused on the citizens of the world more directly, especially through government programs.

For those of you who are not aware, in an interview from a few years ago, Mark Carney stated that future climate action would have to be achieved through public policy (remember that phrase from earlier?) rather than public sentiment, which lead to him offering and gaining his advisor role to Trudeau and now his Prime Ministerial role, both of which allow him to influence and now control policy towards his climate change goals from which he profits personally. In fact, in an undated UN interview, Carney stated that shifting to net zero globally is a financially rewarding move, for those who are invested in it. This is not the case for those who have to carry the costs of it. You can also watch a video on Youtube by Vesper Digital in which he uncovers the financial benefits that Mark Carney will enjoy by making Canada a net zero country. This has never been about the environment; this has always been about Mark Carney's personal wealth accumulation. Climate is just one of the latest scare tactics to convince people to part with their money.

Of course, this preoccupation with climate change by the Canadian government began with Justin Trudeau. For those who are old enough to remember, this fanaticism began with 'global warming', but when the evidence did not support that theory, the narrative around it had to change to 'climate change', that way anything and everything could be attributed to the new fear tactic and only those who have been paying attention would notice this. This fear mongering around climate change, and later around Covid-19, seems to have inspired Mark Carney regarding how he can manipulate the feelings, and hence the voting choices of Canadians. Mark Carney does not offer hope in his messages to Canadians; hope will not give him the control that he desires. No, Mark Carney always relies on the fear of Trump, fear of large world powers and yes, still the fear of climate change.

Have you noticed how often Mark Carney's speeches and press releases include words such as "dangerous and divided world"? I have not checked extensively, but I would wager that a majority of the things that he has said and written in prepared speeches and written announcements include those very words or some variant of them. This is intended to instill fear in the people and position Carney as the one who can navigate Canada through this "dangerous and divided world". Little do people realize that Carney has been the very source of the most noticeable division in this world, that between the U.S. and Canada. He has maintained this self-imposed rift between the two countries because doing so sustains his political clout and favourability with the electorate. This is all done intentionally and with malice towards Canadians, yet the 'elbows up' crowd cheer him on as he leads Canada down the road to an economic winter.

Just the latest example of this fear-based manipulation is the recent announcement that the Canadian military has been planning for the "extreme tail risk" that the United States "might order military action against Canada". The very thought of this as absolutely absurd, yet the media has run with this story, adding the phrasing of a 'military invasion', a word which Carney did not use but he seems all too happy to allow the media to do so in order to spin up this fear among politically inept Canadians. After all, it just adds to his cultivated appearance that he is "standing up to Trump", and every time he makes it appear that way he gets another bump in the polls. I really wish that Canadians would wake up and realize that they are all being manipulated through fear tactics and decisions that are based on politics rather than what is good for Canada.

I want to talk fairly extensively about the manipulation tactics that are at play in Canada today, and here I want to take liberally from a video that Chris Baker of 'Bakes on Things' on spoke about on Youtube. Baker tends to have quite a lot of good takes on what is happening in our federal political realm and I encourage you to look up his channel.

In the video that I am talking about, Baker talks about how Mark Carney and the Liberal Party are benefiting from a perfect psychological storm of events and portrayals that are being created and used to control and manipulate Canadians, and the thumbnail picture for this video even shows Mark Carney leading Canadians off the end of a broken bridge with the text "Liberal Lemmings" across the screen. How fitting.

One of the things that he mentions that is in play is 'normative social influence', which basically means that it is the normal trait of human beings to not want to appear to be different than everyone around them. People are averse to social rejection and mockery, so we learn what responses are expected of us in order to be accepted. In the case of the current political climate in Canada, this has devolved to such a point where for a Canadian to even ask whether or not Mark Carney has done all that he can to secure a trade deal with the U.S. causes some to accuse the questioner of betraying Canada or surrendering to Trump. In order to avoid these uncomfortable situations, people tend to either espouse the positions of the majority or remain quiet in order to avoid confrontation and ridicule. This is not democratic politics anymore, this is becoming mob rule. When one does not feel free to state their own opinions out of fear of punishment, then democracy is already half dead!

The next thing that Baker discusses is 'informational social influence'. This is what happens when a person actually changes their position based not on their own research and understanding of a situation, but rather their opinion has been changed because of the confidence of those who are stating a contrary position, and this leads to one questioning if their own reasoning is flawed; not based upon facts, but based upon feelings. A nation cannot be run on feelings; we have seen what happens when feelings override logic while we watched sock-boy Trudeau ruin this country. As Baker says, "After hearing enough confident people say the same thing over and over and over again, questioning yourself can feel more reasonable than questioning the crowd. But confidence is not evidence. Volume is not accuracy. And consensus is not independent verification. Sometimes a hundred people arrive at the same conclusion after examining the facts. Sometimes a hundred people arrive there because they heard the first 10 people repeating it, whether it included facts and research or not."

And this conversation about informational social influence leads us directly into the next topic of discussion; 'the illusory truth effect'. There has been research done on what happens when a person is exposed to a claim that is repeated again and again. It can actually cause a person to believe that it is true regardless of whether or not there is any factual basis behind it. The idea has simply become familiar to us through the repetition. This concept really came to light when former Liberal Cabinet Minister Catherine McKenna stated that, "Some real advice, I said that if you actually say it louder, we've learned in the house of commons if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point people will totally believe it!" This was a tactic of the previous Prime Minister and his Cabinet, and this current Prime Minister seems to be using the same tactics now.

As Baker says, "By the sixth exposure, your brain may no longer process the message as a new claim requiring examination any longer. Instead, it feels familiar and familiarity can be mistaken for truth and credibility, which it's not. That is how propaganda can function without some mysterious official sitting in a dark room writing instructions for every journalist in Canada. A government establishes the message. A large media conglomerate ecosystem amplifies that message exponentially. Social media emotionally intensifies that message. Citizens repeat it to one another. Eventually, it becomes something everybody knows, but everybody may only know it because everybody keeps hearing everybody else say it." This is the primary basis of propaganda, the same thing that the Soviets practiced in the USSR and which is still practiced in China, and Canadians have been exposed to this tactic for years!

And this next paragraph from the video was too accurate for me to paraphrase. "Researchers have also found that a single previous exposure to misinformation can make people more willing to share that misinformation later. So, the cycle feeds the cycle, which feeds the cycle, which feeds the cycle. And repetition creates familiarity. Familiarity creates perceived credibility. Perceived credibility encourages sharing and so on and so forth. And then sharing creates more repetition. And soon the loudest idea appears to be the only socially acceptable idea. And right now one of the loudest ideas in Canada is that standing behind Mark Carney is synonymous with standing behind Canada. That is an extraordinarily valuable message for the Liberal Party to have and they are going all in on it. Chips pushed to the middle of the table because it transforms criticism of government policy into suspected disloyalty to the country."

Taking this idea and going back to the first thing mentioned, normative social influence, we can understand how the Liberal media machine, along with the actual legacy media machine in this country, can so easily convince Canadians that the right thing to do in this time is to turn our collective backs against our biggest trading partner and closest ally in rejection of the one person who is currently in charge of that country, and that only for a short time. The idea is ludicrous, but Canadians have been told this so many times, and the perception that to do otherwise is disloyalty to Canada and not only to a political party, that they embrace this notion while cheering with their elbows up. Trump is one man and Canadians are all too happy to destroy our economy to spite him and him alone!

So we have normative social influence in which a person does not want to face ridicule or rejection if their opinion is seen to be abnormal, we have informational social influence wherein the media repeats the government talking points as proven fact with no push back about accuracy or truth which creates an air of authority for the message, and we have the illusory truth effect wherein a repeated claim gains merit simply on the basis of repetition. These three things combined create an atmosphere wherein Mark Carney does not have to answer questions about the economic impacts of his decisions, because the people, and the media, have become too afraid to ask the economic questions. Nobody wants to be seen as being unpatriotic or disloyal to Canada, so nobody brings it up. 

In fact, we see what happens when somebody does bring it up. Pierre Poillievre and the rest of the Conservative Party of Canada act in an important role in our Parliamentary system; they are His Majesty's Official Opposition. It is literally their official job to question the government on what they are doing and where they are leading the country. If they failed to ask the governing Liberals about the costs of their political policies, they would not be doing the job that the Official Opposition has been doing for hundreds of years in the original Parliament of Britain and then in our own Parliament. Yet what happens when they do exactly as they are expected to do? They are labelled as "Trump supporters", "Maple Maga" and as traitors to Canada.

WHAT!?

Since when has it been undemocratic or unpatriotic to question the governing party? This is a brand new phenomenon in a parliamentary democracy, and it is an emotional trap to create consensus where no consensus exists.

Again quoting Chris Baker as he introduces the next tool in the manipulation toolbox; "That brings us to pluralistic ignorance. Picture 10 people sitting around a table. Seven privately have serious questions about the government's strategy, but nobody wants to speak first. One person praises Mark Carney, so that person speaks first. Then another nods because he doesn't want to make an argument against that. A third assumes the nod means agreement. And then a fourth stays quiet because it appears the room has already reached a consensus. By the end of the conversation, nearly everyone believes the table strongly supports something most of them privately questioned, and therefore we go that route. The appearance of consensus can often create the consensus itself." This in conjunction with the illusory truth effect is too reminiscent of Orwell's "1984". If you have not read that book, you probably should. It appears to be a text book for what the government plans to do to us.

We are seeing this pluralistic ignorance being used in the constant use of political polls that are being framed as the basis upon which the Liberal government is acting. The government likes to claim that "65/73/85%" of Canadians support the actions and words of Mark Carney. This gives the impression that the majority of Canadians want the pain that we are facing. I have a very hard time believing this, but the polls don't lie, do they?

On the contrary. Even though I am not a pollster, I know how the polls can be easily influenced to show a desired outcome with "legitimate" polling data. One simply needs to look at the outcome of the latest election, choose the desired location in which to concentrate the polling calls in order to achieve the ideal outcome, and proceed with asking the precisely worded questions of the people in the chosen area. Then it is just a matter of  'accurately' reporting the results. I have taken part in some political polls. There have actually been one or two polls that I have refused to complete because I recognized that the questions were designed to lead the person in a certain direction or there was no option to absolutely reject the premise of the question; there were simply different levels of acceptance of the offered premise. Those weren't polls to find out the desire of the people, those were polls to measure the level of agreement with an already made decision.

As evidence of the manipulation aspect of political polls, I will offer to you the words of Dimitry Soudis, the former Director of Communications to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In an interview on the Radio-Canada program " Mordus de Politique" which aired on May 30, 2023, in which he was talking about his time working in the Prime Minister's Office, Mr. Soudis stated, in French, "Je me souviens a l’epoque appeler des sondeurs…J’ai besoin d’un sondage qui me donne le resultat suivant." Google translate gives us the English translation of his comments; "I remember calling pollsters at the time... I need a poll that gives me the following result." It has long been known that polls can be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome, but what is the worst part of our current situation is that our current and previous governments have been spending an exorbitant amount of tax-payer money on polls which are not used to determine what the desire of the average Canadian is in an effort to lead the country as we want it to be lead, but rather to create the perception of popular support for their current actions.

In 2010, under the previous Conservative government, opinion polling spending was at $7 million a year, down from $31 million a few years earlier, and the numbers kept dropping until 2015 when Justin Trudeau came into power. Then the opinion polling spending tripled, and the average amount spent on opinion polling by the Liberal government for the last five years is $16.98 million as of March 31, 2026.

Then on top of all of this comes the manufactured patriotism that we are now experiencing. Canadians are well known for our quiet pride in this country. We have typically been proud of who we were, but we would never proudly raise Canada above other countries in the same way that Americans have seemingly always done of their country. That has simply not been the Canadian way. Yet now we have national pride in our stance against one man who leads the nation that is our closest ally. We are being told time and again that we are being attacked by the U.S., and this tends to drive people to unite against the threat around those who are seen as protecting us, hence the apparent support of the Liberals and the constant barrage of messages reminding Canadians of the threat that Donald Trump poses to us.

Again quoting Chris Baker, "When people perceive a foreign threat, partisan divisions can temporarily weaken. The national leader stops being merely a politician and he becomes a symbol of the country itself, which is why some of you are being called traitors and treasonists for not supporting him. Opposing the leader begins to feel uncomfortably close to opposing the country itself." This is largely why the Conservatives are having trouble gaining any traction in this political environment. Their job is to criticize the government, and there is plenty to criticize, but doing so turns the 'elbows up' crowd into a bunch of braying idiots as they call out "Treason! Treason!"

As such, we are not living in a time wherein the government has to accomplish anything anymore to maintain popular support, all that is needed is an announcement that something is happening. This elicits an emotional response from the people, and emotional response equals political benefit; constant announcements give the impression of progress where none has been achieved; this creates political capital where none is warranted. Announcements become the achievement, but they achieve nothing and help nobody. This is another aspect from "1984"; the government made announcements so regularly that people thought things were actually being accomplished when nothing at all was being accomplished. On top of this, the frequency of announcements made it impossible for the average person to keep track of what they were and if they actually contradicted previous announcements.

We are literally living in 1984's Oceanina right now, and people don't see it.

Baker continues with the observation that "Economic consequences move slowly through a country. And Mark Carney knows that emotion moves fast and it can be even overnight." Even if the economic result of a decision or a policy will hurt the country, that will not be felt for some time, potentially months or even years, but in the meantime, Mark Carney gets a boost in the polls and a manufactured mandate to continue acting in the now because of the emotional reaction of people who just need to see things getting done. He probably doesn't even plan to be around when the pain comes. I would be vey surprised if he sticks around for the next election campaign. He has manufactured his majority, he has the balance of up to five years to put his plans into motion to enrich himself and destroy this country, and when his current term is up, he will resign and move back to Europe, or maybe even back to his home in the U.S., and rake in his money while we all pay for it for generations to come.

"We should also ask, what happens when the emotional reward arrives before the economic invoice? Standing up to Trump can feel satisfying in today's momentary bliss. Losing an American customer 6 months from now will feel very, very different from that. Seeing a politician speak about sovereignty can feel empowering and motivating." "Nationalism feels free at the rally. It becomes considerably more expensive at the grocery store, the unemployment office, and the federal budget." (Chris Baker)

The liberals have wrapped the national decline of our country in the flag, and thus, the people cheer as it continues. If anyone dare state the obvious, that Canada is currently a shell of the nation that it used to be, there isn't even denial of the statement, merely anger at someone having the gall to state the obvious because it is a slight against the nation and our newest vain glorious leader. It almost feels like North Korea.

There was one interesting thing that Baker said in discussing this topic. He referred to the Asch Conformity Experiment in which one test subject was inserted into a group of experiment confederates whom the subject thought were also subjects of the experiment. The task was to match lines according to length with obviously correct answers, but the confederates of the experiment stated obviously incorrect answers to see if they could elicit the same incorrect answer from the only real subject. The test was designed to determine "whether people would give an answer they knew was wrong just to agree with a unanimous majority on an easy line-judgement task." What they found was that "About a third of critical-trial answers matched the majority’s wrong choice, and three-quarters of participants conformed at least once." This conformity was a result of normative social influence, one of the things that I mentioned earlier, even though the subject knew that the answer that the majority of the people gave was wrong.

But there was a bit of hope found in the study as well. They found that if just one of the confederates of the experiment who was acting like a subject dissented with the group, then conformity of the actual test subject dropped by about 80%. This demonstrated that it was the apparent unanimity of the group that drove the result and not the size of the group that was conforming. The test also showed that about 25% of the test subjects did not conform to the group at all. This indicates that about a quarter of people are independent thinkers and that the firm insistence that something is not acceptable is enough to bolster the courage of otherwise compliant people to stand up for what was right.

"One dissenter, one, mattered in that room. One person saying, "Wait a minute, a different line is longer. I see something different." gave others permission to trust their own eyes at that point and also say it. That is why political conformity is most powerful when dissent disappears. If every network repeats the same damn framing, if every panel begins with the same assumption, if every critic is treated as disloyal, if every difficult economic question is dismissed as pro-Trump, people can begin to believe there is no legitimate alternative position. But one voice that breaks from that illusion and can prove it. One friend asking for evidence here rather than just saying we're following Mark Carney blindly. One neighbour questioning the numbers. One family member refusing to confuse patriotism with obedience. One independent outlet investigating the other side. One voter will say, "I oppose what Donald Trump is doing, but I also expect better from my own government." That single sentence breaks the false choice."

"Because patriotism is not following the crowd with your elbows up. Patriotism is having the courage to think for yourself, to wonder, and to look for advice and for evidence."

So with that in mind, I want to encourage any of you that are watching things going on in this country and getting upset at the direction this country is going, to speak up against the voice of the crowd. One in four people appear to have the strength to do this, and this can turn the compliant into confederates of our own. Our voices can turn this around if we continue to speak out and refuse to be quieted by the louder voices of the confused and fearful masses.

But I also want to leave with this final thought, which I believe that I have stated before and I intend to state again and again. Just like in the Bible when the Israelites turned their backs on God and pursued ungodly things and pagan gods, God allowed them to do so but sent calamity on their nation until they returned to Him. I believe that God has abandoned us to the destruction that will come if we continue to pursue this path away from Him, but if we turn back to Him and pursue His righteousness first as individuals and then as a nation, God can and will bring us close to Him again and save us from the future that is hurtling towards us. I believe that we are nearing the End Times that the Bible tells us about, but there are righteous nations that will stand against the Anti-Christ, and Canada still has a chance to be one of those and not one that submits to the Anti-Christ's demonic rule.