The Canadian Press released a piece, “Poilievre’s Conservative party embracing language of mainstream conspiracy theories,” and I feel gaslit. All the major networks, including CBC, CTV and Global, picked up this story. They say Poilievre’s negative comments about the World Economic Forum (WEF) are part of a debunked conspiracy, but they don’t discredit the heart of their premise.
Let’s start with the opening statement and the whole piece’s thesis. “Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been hitting the summer barbecue circuit with ramped-up rhetoric around debunked claims that the World Economic Forum is attempting to impose its agenda on sovereign governments.”
Firstly, everyone agrees there is a WEF; this is not some group that conspiracy theorist says exist without any proof, such as the Illuminati or Satanic cults. Yes, many people who buy into these things regard the WEF as an element of more extensive and much uglier conspiracy theories. Still, I am keeping with what is proveable and documented for this post. The WEF has a website; what does it say its mission is…” The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” Also, “We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.”
So they want to shape “global, regional and industry agendas,” while this might not be quite the “imposing” used in the article, they do have an agenda they want to enact using influence on leaders in critical sectors, including government. I don’t think that the mission statement of the WEF debunks the claim that the WEF is “attempting to impose its agenda on sovereign governments.”
Further into the article, “The Conservative party also recently sent out mailers with a poll asking people to tell Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who they think the prime minister should stand with: working Canadians or the World Economic Forum.
The wording implies Trudeau’s cabinet is beholden to the latter.”
The article uses wiggle words to argue that this is all a conspiracy; “beholden” is such a word, as was “imposed” in the opening statement. Instead of beholden, how about we use “heavily influenced by”. Is there any proof of this influence? What if the Deputy Prime Minister was a member of the Forum’s Board of Trustees? Is it possible that her connections to the WEF influence her thinking on policy, and is this significant, considering she is also the finance minister?
What if people like the Deputy Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice of Canada, the Leader of Canada’s New Democrats, the Director of the National Housing Council, the Ambassador of Canada to the European Union, the Minister of Citizens’ Services, Employment and Social Development Canada and several Liberal MPs are listed on their page as members of the WEF’s Forum of Young Global Leaders? Would that show any level of influence on our political class.
What does Klaus Schwab, founder and executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, say about their tactics, particularly Canada?
The head of the WEF says they penetrate cabinets and is proud that at least half of PM Trudeau’s cabinet is on board. It might be easier to dismiss the WEF as a globalist conspiracy if its founder was not suggesting that Canada has one of the most heavily penetrated cabinets in the world.
It would also be easier to dismiss all this as conspiracy if Klaus Schwab did not write a book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset“, which presents COVID as a unique opportunity to reshape the way corporations and government function and to accelerate the WEF agenda. In this book, the term Build Back Better was used; very soon after this, leaders worldwide were parroting the book’s talking points about a reset, including our PM.
So where is the conspiracy? Regardless if we think the WEF goals will save the world or reduce human freedom, we should be able to discuss these goals and decide as citizens of a sovereign nation if and how we want to adopt them. Why is the leader of a political party not allowed to say he opposes this without being called a conspiracy theorist? If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might have some ideas why?
retirereadreflect.ca 