Justin Trudeau’s 2019 WEF ties and 2020 UN press conference—where he called the pandemic a chance to "reimagine economic systems" via SDGs and "Building Back Better"—expose a globalist agenda pushing property abolition, surveillance, and debt-fueled policies like the Paris Agreement. Guest Spencer Fernando, an Independent Press Gallery journalist, argues Trudeau’s bad-faith enthusiasm for crisis-driven expansion (echoing Obama’s Rahm Emanuel) reveals systemic exploitation of public fear. While mainstream media ignored these remarks, Canadians—especially conservatives—grow increasingly alarmed by pandemic-era overreach, yet establishment pressure silences dissent, leaving Rebel News as a rare alternative. The episode frames Trudeau’s vision as a high-tech authoritarian blueprint, demanding democratic pushback despite conservative hesitation. [Automatically generated summary]
Hello my friends, today I take you through a crazy World Economic Forum essay about what the future is like.
I really get deep into it.
We talked before about a world without property, but this is a world without privacy.
They even talk about having your thoughts registered.
Registered with whom?
They never quite say.
This is crazy.
I want to invite you to become a Rebel News Plus subscriber.
Get the video version of this podcast.
It's eight bucks a month.
It's not much.
Subscribe for the whole year in advance.
It's 80 bucks.
That's a bargain.
You know, I think that's like half of Netflix, but I promise you, you'll never hear these things on Netflix.
Go to RebelNews.com, click subscribe.
It would be a real favor to me because, you know, we don't get any money from Justin Trudeau.
We rely on our viewers.
It's the only way to stay independent.
Just go to rebelnews.com and click subscribe.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, more questions about Justin Trudeau's Great Reset.
It's November 17th, and this is the Answer Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
You have 8,500 customers here, and you don't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
But why publish them?
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Over the past week, we've talked about the great reset.
I showed you that bizarre video that the World Economic Forum published four years ago, but then took off Twitter just last week for some reason, where they talked about a world without property ownership, a world without meat, weirdly, a world where really you would be a bit less of a person and a bit more of an ant and an ant colony.
That's how it felt like to me.
And then this video of Justin Trudeau just blew up.
It even made international news.
It was even picked up on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox.
Building back better means giving support to the most vulnerable while maintaining our momentum on reaching the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the SDGs.
Canada is here to listen and to help.
This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset.
This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and climate change.
Yeah.
Now I see that although the World Economic Forum took down the one video link that I had discussed last week, there are plenty of other places where they continue to promote that same bizarre dystopian future.
This website published by the World Economic Forum back in 2016, it's still up and it adds another layer.
You'll have no privacy now too.
Ancient Law's Endurance00:07:18
No property, but now no privacy.
Let me read a bit.
Welcome to 2030.
I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.
How can that possibly be?
How can you possibly be happier than ever if you own nothing and you have no privacy?
No sane person would say that.
No real person would say that.
No one human would say that.
Property isn't some capitalist theory.
It's an expression of our interaction with the world.
Crazy example.
If you take a tree stump and carve it into a marvelous sculpture, that piece of property, that thing, it's now an expression of your mind and your heart and your hands, of your time and your effort.
You mixed your labor with the world and look what you made.
It's not property in a capitalist sense, though it might be worth quite a bit.
It might be enough to make a living.
But if you have mixed yourself into that tree stump, it's part of you now.
A working definition of slavery is that you do not own the fruits of your labor.
Someone else just takes it.
Isn't that really what being a slave is?
If someone owns everything you do, everything you make, isn't that tantamount to them actually owning you?
And the right to privacy, that is an ancient right, actually.
We use the term more expansively now than in history.
The idea of vast government or corporate databases, that's pretty new.
Tracking your online activities is pretty new.
But the idea of privacy, of having a place where others can't be with you, can't look at you, can't bother you, can't track you, that is ancient.
One of the ancient sources is the castle doctrine.
A man's home is his castle.
Not even the king or queen can enter a man's house without cause or without warning.
So the idea of no-knock raids by police, that's been illegal for centuries.
Here's how the British court put it in 1604.
The house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose.
So you can hide in your house.
You can be safe in your house, or you can just sit around in your house.
It is your castle.
Even the king himself cannot come in without justification.
That's privacy, physical privacy.
But you also have the right to privacy about your life.
You have the right to keep certain confidences.
That's ancient too.
You could even say it's connected to the law against self-crimination, as in you can't be compelled to testify against yourself.
You're allowed that form of privacy.
You have a common law form of privacy with your employees if you're a boss.
Historically, husbands and wives can't be pitted against each other for reasons of privacy.
In a company, you owe each other a duty of privacy not to run out and tell the world your trade secrets.
These are ancient customs that have hardened into rights and laws over centuries, over millennia even.
Let me prove it to you.
Here's a publication of the Statute of Westminster of the year 1275.
You heard me right.
It's almost 800 years ago.
This outlines what the king himself has to do if he wants to enter another man's house, even to recover stolen property.
I'm going to read a bit.
I love the language.
Now, it wasn't actually even written in English in 1275.
It was written in Norman French.
In this version we're looking at, you can see the French on the opposite side of the page.
I'm going to read the English, of course.
It's still pretty old-timey.
I'm just going to read a little bit, just one line, because I want to tell you how ancient our rights of property and privacy are.
I'm quoting from chapter 17 of this ancient law.
Let me just read this beautiful old language for one minute, okay?
Stay with me.
The remedy if the distress is impounded in a castle or fortress.
All right, bear with me.
It is provided also that if any from henceforth take the beasts of another and cause them to be driven into a castle or fortress, and there within the clothes of such castle or fortress, do withhold them against gauge and pledges, whereupon the beasts be solemnly demanded by the sheriff or by some other bailiff or the kings, at the suit of the plaintiff, the sheriff or bailiff, taking within the power of the shire or bailiwick,
do essay to make replen of the beasts from him that took them or from his lord or from other.
Now, I'm going to stop there because that old-timey English is a little bit hard to understand.
But this is a chapter in that ancient law about how to deal with cattle rustlers.
Did you pick that up?
If the beasts are taken into some other castle, or people who steal grain.
That's what this chapter is about.
You have to sue them the word plaintiff and then you have to get the sheriff or the bailiff to go to the thief's castle to ask for them back.
You can't just break into his castle yourself and the cops can't.
The sheriff, they can't just break in either.
They have to ask first and they have to have some rights to do so.
I won't read the whole thing because it's really tough English, but it's sort of wonderful and it's almost a millennium old and of course, it's based on much older laws and much older customs, still probably going back to Romans.
Property and privacy the two things being balanced here in this ancient law.
They're essential to civilization, especially Western civilization, especially the Anglo And Christian civilization.
We are not slaves in the west.
We are not serfs.
England has had a king for many centuries, but the king's power was limited.
Imagine that the lowliest peasant had the legal right to stop even the king himself from just walking into his hut and the king himself proclaimed this law, limiting himself.
How different from other, more terrifying places to live.
Name me any other place you would rather have lived if you were alive a thousand years ago?
Maybe you prefer to be a peasant in an Aztec tyranny really, maybe you'd prefer China, where Genghis Khan mowed down the population in north China from 50 million in the census of the year 1195 to 8.5 million in the census 40 years later.
Can you imagine that what?
Perhaps you prefer the slavery of Arabia?
You tell me a better place to live than England a thousand years ago.
It wasn't the natural wealth of England that made it great.
I suppose it was lucky to have been built on an island of coal, but coal's value was not known until centuries later in the industrial revolution.
But there's coal in a hundred countries.
There's timber and fish and oil and gold in a hundred countries.
The reason England and the United Kingdom and the British empire ruled the world wasn't luck and it wasn't cruelty.
It was the very rule of law that lived for centuries before it was even written down, property and privacy and the rule of law and limited government and freedom.
Three Places, An Improvement00:03:01
And now look at these crazy World Economic Forum globalists who hate the Uk.
Obviously, even though its days as an empire are over.
There are no more colonies.
You know it's funny.
Barack Obama particularly hated, hated the British and sent the bust of Winston Churchill back to the Uk because Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr, was a communist from Kenya who resented their colonial history.
But so much of the world that benefits from those British gifts resents it.
I think the British are the tops say that Statute Of Westminster of 1275, it's a long time ago, it sounds very ancient, and it was written in Norman French and I could barely speak it in Middle English, but I think that Statute Of Westminster from 1275,
I think it would be the height of progress for it to be applied as the law today in Afghanistan or Somalia or even in terms of property rights and privacy in China.
Don't you think?
It's an improvement to those three places.
So that's the ancient rights that the World Economic Forum's Global Reset wants to destroy.
I showed you the video just the other day.
Here's a refresher on their kooky video.
Yeah, that's sort of gross.
But look at this essay that they published that remains on their website to this very day.
It's written by Ida Aukin, World Economic Forum thinker and politician.
I'm going to read it to you.
Welcome to the year 2030.
Welcome to my city, or should I say, our city.
Don't Own Your Clothes00:07:14
I don't own anything.
I don't own a car.
I don't own a house.
I don't own any appliances or any clothes.
Hang on.
Are you a slave?
A naked slave?
You don't own your clothes.
Who owns your clothes?
Your clothes are not an expression of you.
You don't feel a connection to your clothes.
You don't see your clothes as part of you.
That's how you show the world who you are.
You don't own your clothes.
It might seem odd to you.
Yeah, it does, sister.
But it makes perfect sense for us in this city.
Everything you considered a product has now become a service.
We have access to transportation, accommodation, food, and all the things we need in our daily lives.
One by one, all these things became free.
So it ended up not making sense for us to own much.
What?
Nothing is free, you wicked liar.
Someone pays for everything.
Someone had to make everything.
Someone has to own everything.
It's the fruits of their labor.
That's a physical fact.
That's a legal fact.
That's a fact rooted in our very human nature.
If you don't own your clothes, can someone come up to you and theoretically just take them?
I just read to you how someone takes things back if you don't own them.
I read to you from the Statute of Westminster 1275.
If you're saying you rent your clothes, what a bizarre idea.
Okay, if you're saying you just rent them, say so.
I suppose people do rent tuxedos or other unusual clothing that we wear once in a blue moon and are so expensive it doesn't make any sense to buy them.
All right, but that's the exception that proves the rule.
And if you've ever rented a tux and I don't think I've worn one in 25 years, you know that the rental company absolutely owns them, as you'll find out if you fail to return them.
You'll get a big charge on your credit card.
This is kooky stuff, but I want to read more because this is what Justin Trudeau is talking about.
This is his club, the World Economic Forum.
First, communication became digitized and free to everyone.
Huh?
You think it's free?
Sure, it's free.
Like Facebook is free.
But how can Facebook be worth close to a trillion dollars in market capitalization if it's free?
How can Gmail be free if Google is worth more than a trillion dollars?
Well, because when you use free Facebook and free Twitter and free YouTube and free email, don't you know that that's because you are what is being bought and sold.
You, your eyes, your ears, what you've seen and heard, what will be shown to you, what will be told to you.
And more valuable than any of that, everything about you, your likes and dislikes, your history, your emotions and your moods, all of that will be owned by someone.
You may be foolish enough to think that no one owns anything, but that's just you who thinks that.
Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, they've never been worth more.
They've never owned more.
I'll read some more from this kook.
Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly.
Transportation dropped dramatically in price.
It made no sense for us to own cars anymore because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes.
We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker, and more convenient than the car.
When energy became free, how does that work?
Who pays for it then to get it?
To mine it.
You can't make wind turbines or solar panels without coal.
You know that, right?
You can't make steel without coal.
You need coal to get the iron ore hot enough.
There are not wind turbine factories that are powered by wind turbines.
You can't.
And the rare earth elements necessary for so much clean energy, they're not really that clean, are they?
They have to be mined in horrific conditions mainly in China.
But forget about that statement.
Look at this.
We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way.
That's the thing, isn't it?
You will be organized.
You will be coordinated.
You will be directed.
You will be scheduled.
You will be told where you can and can't go and when and how.
And most importantly, if at all.
Look at this dystopian blather.
No more homes, no more families, no more property, just ants in a colony.
In our city, we don't pay any rent because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it.
My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.
What?
Someone's going to come into your living room and use it for a business meeting and maybe take your stuff since you don't own it.
Obviously, you don't have any kids.
You obviously don't value time just to be alone with your family.
I guess you have no right to exclude anyone.
Forget about that man's home is his castle business.
Imagine strangers coming into your very home because it's all free.
I'll read some more.
Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself.
It is easy.
the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes.
Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home.
Why keep a pasta maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards?
We can just order them when we need them.
Really?
So you don't even want a pot or a pan because someone else will provide them.
Someone else will own them, I guess.
Someone else has never quite said who or where these things come from and on what terms you might be permitted to access it.
Do you think anything is free?
Maybe the things that are free are the things that cost the most.
And what if, I don't know, what are the odds that you just might be, what's the word again?
Deplatformed or cancelled.
What then?
Hey, I got a question.
Would Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, would they live this way too?
I'll read some more.
When AI, that's artificial intelligence, and robots, took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well, and spend time with each with other people.
The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore since the work that we do can be done at any time.
I don't really know if I would call it work anymore.
It is more like thinking time, creation time, and development time.
Really?
So who would deliver the pasta maker again?
Who would deliver that crepe cooker?
Again, who would build anything?
Who would make anything?
We're all just sitting around using free stuff provided by some godlike patron.
Who?
And in return for what?
Canadians at the UN00:14:54
You know, I was at an amazing speech in the before times given by Peter Thiel.
And he's a tech giant.
He's the inventor of PayPal.
He's the first outside investor of Facebook.
Probably the closest thing to a freedom lover in Silicon Valley.
In fact, he left Silicon Valley because he's trying to politically stifling.
He literally moves cities.
Anyways, Peter Thiel said, what scientific breakthroughs have we actually had in the past 50 years?
We haven't been on the moon in 50 years.
Where's the breakthrough?
Have we cured cancer yet?
Where are the flying cars?
I paraphrase.
And as to tech and smartphones, which is his area of excellence, he said, smartphones are basically a little distracting video game we play as we ride through the New York subway system that was built 100 years ago.
That's what he said.
I was stunned to hear him say that.
We're entertaining ourselves.
We're numbing ourselves.
We're messaging each other.
That's what tech has done.
Where are the great builders?
Where are the great industrialists?
The people who gave us the modern world.
Well, the World Economic Forum has some thoughts on that.
For a while, everything was turned into entertainment, and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues.
It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.
Really, but the World Economic Forum doesn't actually tell us what those purposes are or how they will work or what was necessary.
Maybe they're talking about this bizarre ant colony life, or maybe they're talking about, I don't know, just going to throw it out there, communism.
That's, I think, the closest thing we've heard described so far.
But let me show you the dark side here.
And this is the World Economic Forum.
Near the end, they say this.
Once in a while, I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy.
Nowhere I can go and not be registered.
I know that somewhere, everything I do, think, and dream of is recorded.
I just hope that nobody will use it against me.
All in all, it's a good life.
I swear that is their definition of the good life.
I swear I'm not making this up.
Google it for yourself.
Let me read the ending.
All in all, it's a good life, much better than the path we were on.
Really?
Where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth.
We had all these terrible things happening.
Lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment.
We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.
What do you mean we lost people?
Is this some after the revolution talk now?
What are you talking about?
They never quite come out and say what they're doing differently or what their new way is, other than no property, no privacy.
Pretty clear on that, aren't they?
No property, no privacy, no property, no privacy, no jobs, no homes.
Everything is owned by someone else.
This is their best life they're offering you.
Listen again to Justin Trudeau, and he tells you what the alternative is they're talking about.
Building back better means giving support to the most vulnerable while maintaining our momentum on reaching the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the SDGs.
Canada is here to listen and to help.
This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset.
This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and climate change.
Yeah, I think that combination of big government control and big government spending matched with no local democracy and no capitalism, I think that's called high-tech communism and globalism.
I think that's Justin Trudeau's plan.
Stay with us for more on this.
Welcome back.
Well, this whole great reset, using the pandemic as an opportunistic crisis, that sounds shocking.
That sounds like something of a internet conspiracy theory.
Oh, that can't be true.
But when you actually see Justin Trudeau say it himself in his role as prime minister on behalf of our country, that clip was actually from a United Nations press conference, you realize maybe the inmates are running the asylum.
And that's the madness here.
A conspiracy theory is often hidden.
You don't know the facts.
You're speculating.
Did Jeffrey Epstein kill himself or was he killed?
We don't actually know for 100% sure what the truth is.
So speculation fills the void.
But here, there's no guessing.
Trudeau himself said it.
Joining us now via Skype from Winnipeg is our friend Spencer Fernando from spencerfernando.com, a great critic who saw this videotape and did an excellent commentary on it.
Spencer, great to see you again.
Welcome back to the show.
Good to talk to you.
Hey, Spencer, I've always said to people who indulge in actual conspiracy theories, I've said, listen, I understand your skepticism, your hyperskepticism.
Even a little bit of paranoia these days is probably wise.
But the real scandals are just lying right out there in public.
This was not a secret recording.
This was not a hidden camera on Trudeau.
was saying this at a public press conference involving the UN.
That's what's so crazy about it, don't you think?
Yeah, it's interesting.
You know, I think, you know, I'm sure there's a lot of people not too happy with the fact that he got so much attention for talking about that.
That's probably not what they're wanting.
But again, you know, to the brazenness with which he's basically admitting, you know, I mean, this has been terrible for basically everybody in the country.
You know, tens of thousands of deaths in Canada, of course, many more deaths around the world.
The economy being absolutely devastated.
People can't see their families.
But you know what?
It's a great opportunity for us to do some things we really wanted to do but couldn't get away with before.
And it's just, it's tone-deaf and it's arrogant.
And it really shows somebody who really, you know, seems to think that he's totally above accountability.
Spencer, what I find interesting about Trudeau is that going back even to right after he became prime minister in 2015, one of his first interviews was with the New York Times.
And that's where he laid out his globalist philosophy.
He said there's no core identity for Canadians.
We don't really have a distinct identity, which is quite odd.
I mean, that's the opposite of what his father would say.
I have a theory, Spencer, that when Justin Trudeau is speaking to a global audience, he sort of forgets that he's supposed to be the Canadian prime minister and he's like trying out for a globalist mascot or something.
It's often when he's talking to the foreign press that he gets the weirdest.
I think he might have even forgotten that Canadians were watching him as he talked about this global reset.
I don't know.
He seems to do it the most when he's talking to foreign outlets.
Yeah, I think it's two things.
It's one, it's foreign outlets, but it's also when he seems comfortable, which is when he seems to reveal what he actually believes.
So, I mean, with the comments we saw recently, I've said before, and not even as a criticism, but just I think Trudeau should go work for the United Nations.
I think he'd be much happier there.
I think Canada would be better off.
It would be a win-win for everybody.
He can stop being prime minister and go do the job it seems he really wants.
But also, if you look at the comments he's made when he's comfortable, two come to mind.
First, the one where he talked about admiring China's basic dictatorship, that was at a liberal fundraiser.
And right when he said it, you could tell that he knew he made a mistake because he said, you know, it's the country he most admires.
But then Stephen Harper would love to have that kind of power, right?
He tried to throw it back on Harper.
And then you had, I think, was it maybe a year or so ago where there were some indigenous activists there talking about mercury poisoning.
And that was also a liberal fundraiser.
And he just arrogantly dismissed them and said, thank you for your donation.
So when he's really comfortable, I think that's when we see the real Trudeau, not the kind of mask he puts on with his drama skills.
That's a great point.
I think he does it when he's comfortable.
He does it when he's trying to impress people, impress, like you say, the UN.
Maybe he sees himself as a future Secretary General.
I think he'd love it, by the way.
Accountability, lots of travel, lots of snoozing, no accountability.
I think he'd love it.
I think he was actually quite hurt when he didn't get the UN Security Council seat he spent countless Canadian tax dollars lobbying for.
But the one thing, and you said it right at the beginning of our interview, that maybe the liberals weren't thrilled that this video went viral.
I'm not so sure about that because I think if you press Trudeau, Catherine McKenna, Stephen Gilbo, Bill Mourneau, if you, he's out of there now, but look, Woody, he wants to go to some global governance.
If you look at, I guess, what I would call the brain trust of the Liberal Party, I put Christia Freeland in there.
They all share this view that we've got to be chummier with China, that the UN is the center of the action.
We have to obey the Paris global warming scheme, which is, you know, Paris obviously a foreign city in a foreign country.
I think they're all actually sort of down for it.
They're all for open borders immigration.
They're all for submitting to what the UN says about global warming.
I think it was sort of shocking to hear it said so concisely, but I actually don't think they're shy about it.
I mean, they just don't usually say it so bluntly.
But I can't think of a single senior liberal who would say, no, We're not for that.
I think that's sort of what they are for.
Yeah, I think one of the big problems is, you know, they're looking to all these institutions outside the country, but most of those institutions don't have much credibility.
I mean, for example, I was actually glad to see Bob Ray a few days ago say that China shouldn't be investigated for genocide by the United Nations.
But then you look and say, okay, well, who's on the UN Human Rights Council?
And it's China and it's a bunch of other dictatorships, you know, non-democratic countries.
Basically, the UN Human Rights Council right now is the group of countries with the worst human rights record in the world.
So if you're constantly looking to foreign institutions that have no credibility, then the question is, you know, what's the end game?
What's the real point?
And I think, you know, I wrote yesterday for the post-millennial how it's, it's, you can't really have global governance and a democracy.
It's really not compatible.
A democracy depends on you being able to vote.
And then, you know, even if you don't win the election, someone in your country wins.
And then that person implements policy and that party implements policy based on what Canadians voted for and what Canadians want.
So if you have global governance, then democracy kind of becomes a sham because, oh, you're voting and parties are switching and you've got a new leader, but the decisions aren't really being made at the local level or even the national level.
It's being made somewhere far away by people you don't control and people you didn't vote for.
And I think that's really the deeper issue here is that you have a government claiming to be democratic, but then wants to kind of submit all our power to foreign institutions that Canadians don't get to vote for.
Yeah, I think that's one of the reasons the Brits voted for a Brexit, which still hasn't happened 100%.
They're deep states against it.
Hey, let me ask you a question.
I was poking around yesterday to look at, I mean, the great reset is one phraseology.
Agenda 21, agenda 2030.
There's all these big names.
And as I pointed out on the show yesterday, Stephen Harper signed on to Agenda 2030 in his final months as prime minister.
And I guess what I'm saying is I'm frustrated and I want to put this on Justin Trudeau because it was his comments we just were all fascinated by.
But I don't see a lot of anti-globalist, anti-world government talk from conservatives.
And I'm not looking for someone to sound like Alex Jones.
I'm just looking for someone to be a skeptic that our policy should be drafted in Switzerland or New York City by non-Canadians.
They don't even have to be rough about it.
They don't even have to be pizazzy like Nigel Farage.
I'm just talking about someone who's saying, you know what?
We can solve our own problems.
Stephen Harper was a bit of a globalist himself.
And Aaron O'Toole, I think so.
And I'm looking for a champion.
I mean, Maxime Bernier's hard line on this stuff.
And I like Maxime Bernier, but his party has no seats in parliament and it's at single digits in the polls.
Where are the conservative senators, MPs?
Where's Aaron O'Toole on this stuff?
Yeah, you know, I think we also remember, too, when I think Stephen Harper announced changes to, I think it was the eligibility for old age security in Canada.
And he did that in Switzerland, right?
He went to Davos and announced that there.
So again, Trudeau is not the first Canadian prime minister to seemingly go to international audiences and talk about things that should be handled within Canada.
So that's a bit of an issue.
I think I would, this is just guessing, but I would suspect a lot of backbench MPs in the Conservative Party have a lot of concerns about this.
And I'm sure right now they're hearing from their base about it.
I mean, I did a video a few days ago.
That's more, you know, more views I've ever gotten on any video I've done before.
So there's a lot of people who are concerned about this and a lot of people in the conservative base who are concerned.
But I think you have a bit of a problem.
And the conservatives, as much as they may talk about, you know, supporting independent media, I think they're still relatively concerned about what the establishment press thinks about them.
And I think they're worried that if they go against any of this stuff, or even if, as you say, they're just mild skeptics of it, they're going to get called conspiracy theorists.
So I think they need to be smart.
They need to figure out a way to talk about it that's not going to turn off the average voter.
But I think they do need to start representing concerns because I think if you polled Canadians, you'd find a lot of people are not happy about this.
And in a democratic country, those people are supposed to have representation as well.
Trudeau's Great Reset Proposal00:07:19
You know, I think one of the revelations from this little video where Trudeau was talking about the great reset is that he said the pandemic is the opportunity to seize.
And I think that that showed a little bit of bad faith because that implied when we're talking about these restrictions because of the pandemic, when we're talking about the lockdowns, when we're talking about debt and spending and new government programs, there was an assumption, a good faith assumption that, okay, Trudeau, he may be misguided, but he's doing this to fix the pandemic problem.
But when Trudeau admitted in that video that he was using the crisis as an opportunity for his big spending globalist socialist schemes, I think that was like an admission that when he looks into the camera and does his best dramatic act or voice and says, hey, guys, we have to stay locked down, that it's a trick that I feel like he gave the game away there and he confirmed our worst suspicions that Trudeau didn't really mean his blather about the pandemic.
He was just using it as an easy way to get other things done that we would have rejected.
I think that's why that video was so powerful.
Trudeau sort of admitted that all his talk about the pandemic has a collateral purpose.
I'm sure he does care about the pandemic, but he's not willing to let a crisis go by.
He wants to seize the crisis.
I think that's what was shocking about the video is Trudeau said, yeah, we're going to use the pandemic to build back better and do things we couldn't have done otherwise.
That, I think, is what's shocking.
What do you think?
Yeah, he seemed a little too happy and excited about it.
I think it's the tone, really, not just the words, but the tone that put off a lot of people.
He seemed like, man, this is great.
This is a great chance for us to do all these great things.
Meanwhile, I mean, it's tons of health damage to the country and economic damage.
I mean, it's terrible for people.
But, you know, it's also, it's kind of felt a bit like the Twilight Zone at Lee.
I mean, I did my video criticizing Trudeau's comments, and then I had people calling me a COVID denier, which is very interesting because I was one of the most, I would actually say, hardline people when this was first happening.
When I saw what was happening in China, when I saw what could be happening in Canada, I said, look, we need to shut things down.
You know, we need to lock down at the beginning.
This is right at the beginning.
We need to shut the borders down.
We need to get control of this.
Can't be letting a bunch of flights into the country.
We need to be screening people when they come in.
And as I was saying that, most people are like, no, it's not a big deal.
It's not a big problem at all.
The health officials and experts and politicians said, no, it's all about stigma.
We don't want to stigmatize people.
We're not going to do anything at the border.
You know, Patty Heidi said border controls would cause harm.
So when a lot of people in the government were taking, were not taking it seriously, I was saying this is going to be a big problem.
We need to nip it in the bud, which is what the successful countries did.
Taiwan didn't have to do many lockdowns at home because they got it before really got into the country.
But now all of a sudden, now that I'm saying things like, you know, maybe we shouldn't be letting the government tell us which holidays we're allowed to have.
But we shouldn't have politicians locking us down and controlling everything we do.
People say, oh, you're a COVID denier.
Oh, you don't believe it's a real threat.
So it's been very odd.
And, you know, I think it's, you know, not to talk about conspiracies, but it seems like when the governments had an opportunity to stop it, they didn't.
And they chose to be politically correct.
And now it's become such a big problem, and now they're able to use it to justify things that, to be honest, a year ago, we would never have considered any of this acceptable from the government.
So, you know, I'm not saying I don't at all think they planned it.
I don't think they purposely let it in.
But I think they're certainly, as you say, seizing an opportunity to do things that we would not have put up with before.
And it kind of shows you that's really what they wanted to get away with all along.
Yeah, I mean, as Barack Obama's former chief of staff, Rob Emmanuel, says, never let a crisis go to waste.
I think that's Trudeau's motto, too.
Hey, great to see you, Spencer Fernando.
Before we say goodbye, give us a look ahead.
Are you working on any projects now?
Is there something we should look forward to at spencerfernando.com?
Yeah, I'll probably be writing about Andrew Scheer hiring his sister-in-law.
No, that's again, you know, I tell people, you know, I call it like it is, and I'm gonna, I would totally criticize Justin Trudeau if he did it, and I'm gonna criticize the conservatives when they do it.
You know, it's not about criticizing Trudeau because he's Justin Trudeau, it's about criticizing him because of his actions.
So if the conservatives do similar things, then they need to be criticized, I think, as well.
You are exactly right.
And that's why you are a trustworthy independent journalist.
You're not in the tank for any party or another.
And I really respect that about you.
I know you're a member of the Independent Press Gallery, too, and I think it shows.
So congratulations on your outstanding video about this great reset.
Look forward to your piece on Andrew Scheer hiring his sister-in-law.
And keep up the fight out there.
We love to see it.
I get your emails all the time.
Folks, if you're not already subscribing, you got to do it.
Spencer is one of a handful of independent journalists.
Go to spencerfernando.com.
I really admire how fast you are on the news, too.
I can't even believe it.
You've got an eye on the news 24 hours, it seems.
I don't even know how you do it, but I congratulate you.
Thanks for being with us here today.
All righty, take care.
All right, there you have it.
Spencer Fernando.
Stay with us.
Hey, welcome back on my show last night.
Gabriel writes, keep shining a light on this stuff.
People will wake up.
Well, you know, the media, what's crazy about this is, as I was saying, Spencer, this is out there in the open.
This was not a hidden camera.
This was Trudeau at a press conference.
Why didn't the media party cover it?
Is it too weird?
They agree with it?
I don't know.
Maybe they say, Justin, don't say the quiet part out loud.
Mike writes, I'm very thankful for Rebel News.
People I know in real life say you're full of nothing but hate.
You are not.
You are filled with love for this country and are willing to fight for it.
Well, listen, I don't know about who says we're full of hate, but I look at our YouTube videos and on our average YouTube video, the like to dislike ratio, it's about 99%.
I'm not saying there aren't people who hate us.
I know there are, but we have 1.4 million subscribers.
And I think it's because people want to hear the other side of the story and they want to protect what they love about Canada.
And we're interested in the world too.
So yeah, thanks for watching.
On our newest Rebel, John writes, Welcome, Kim Clay, Kim K, sorry, that's Kimberly Klasick.
Delighted to see you here.
Keep up the good work.
I was so excited when she joined our team.
And she's so busy, so I don't know exactly how many videos she's going to do, but I hope it's at least a couple a week.
What do you think of that bizarre essay by that Danish politician for World Economic Forum?
I just can't get over that.
That's what they are proposing.
That's really who they say they are.
I think we should take them seriously, don't you?
All right, folks, that's the end of today's show.
Until tomorrow.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, DeWean Holmes, good night.