Dear Readers, if you are receiving this post by email please note that it exceeds the length that can be read via that transmission mode. Please click on the title to read it in full on Substack. Thank you.
The following is a reposting of an important analysis by Canadian journalist, Trish Wood, particularly given the upcoming national election in Canada when Mark Carney will hopefully not be officially voted in by Canadians as the Liberal Party’s Prime Minister. Other material regarding Carney’s character is appended at the end.
In my opinion, what Trish has described about the contents of the Privy Counsel Report prepared by the current Liberal government for which the UK’s former Governor of the Bank of England aka unreliable boyfriend,Mark Carney is currently holding space as the appointed – not elected, Liberal Party Prime Minister, mirrors the dystopian plans for a highly controlled segregated slave society that the nogoodniks of the Davos and other technocratic so-called “elite” cliques have been describing, dreaming about and planning with glee for years. It is their Orwellian new world order.
All hell is breaking out over a Privy Council report, compiled for the Liberal government, dated January 2025. It paints this country’s future as a bleak, modern version of Lord of the Flies. The story erupted when Joe Warmington asked Pierre Poilivre a question so shocking it sounded like a dystopian film script. I’ve found the original document and have posted it below, along with The Western Standard’s take but first here is the historic exchange.
The report outlines a grim future where affluent Canadians wall themselves off in gated communities to escape economic, political, and social unrest, while those left behind turn to survival tactics outside the law. Western Standard
Below are some highlights from the Policy Horizons Canada research paper. The report was quietly released on Policy Horizon’s website and was reported by Blacklocks’ but ignored by legacy media. I suspect this is the report the RCMP was referring to when it warned of civil war in this country based on new research predicting economic hard times.
Here are some highlights I’ve pulled:
2.3 Intergenerational wealth
In 2040, people see inheritance as the only reliable way to get ahead. Society increasingly resembles an aristocracy. Wealth and status pass down the generations. Family background – especially owning property – divides the ‘haves’ from the ‘have-nots’.
2.4 Social siloing
In 2040, people rarely mix with others of different socio-economic status. Algorithmic dating apps filter by class. Gated metaverses, like real life, offer few opportunities to meet people from different backgrounds. It is hard to move up in the world by making social connections that could lead to long term romantic relationships, job opportunities, or business partnerships. Social relations no longer offer pathways to connections or opportunities that enable upward mobility.
2.5 Aspirations and expectations
In 2040, aspirations for social mobility among youth are at odds with expectations of immobility. Advertising and marketing discourses continue to drive the desire to climb the social ladder, but economic realities leave most with limited expectations of success. Cognitive dissonance between what youth are programed to want and what they know they can expect, leads many to frustration and apathy. Only a few maintain a strong drive to innovate and succeed in traditional terms
3.6 People may reject systems they believe have failed them
People who work hard but see little reward may look for others to blame
Some may blame AI, Big Tech, CEOs, social media, unions, or capitalism. They could demand tighter regulations, tax penalties, or profound revisions of certain systems
Some may blame the state. They may attack policies believed to favour older cohorts, who benefited from the era of social mobility. In extreme cases, people could reject the state’s legitimacy, leading to higher rates of tax evasion or other forms of civil disobedience
Some may choose to blame those with capital, whether it is social, economic, or decision-making capital
Others may choose to blame immigrants, or another identifiable group. If such scapegoating becomes widespread, it could generate serious social or political conflicts
4.0 Conclusion
Declining social mobility could create serious challenges for citizens and policymakers. What people believe matters as much as the reality. It is often the basis for decisions and actions. Currently, most Canadians still believe that they have equality of opportunityFootnote6. This may change.
People may lose faith in the Canadian project. They may reject policies that promote education, jobs, or home ownership. The usual levers may seem misguided and wasteful to those who have abandoned the idea of ‘moving up’. They could lose the drive to better themselves and their communities. Others might embrace radical ideas about restructuring the state, society, and the economy.
3.4 People might find alternative ways to meet their basic needs
Housing, food, childcare, and healthcare co-operatives may become more common. This could ease burdens on social services but also challenge market-based businesses
Forms of person-to-person exchange of goods and services could become even more popular, reducing tax revenues and consumer safety
People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small-scale agriculture could increase
Governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs
This is what The Western Standard is reporting.
Here is the entire article.
[Although Trish did not provide the title for nor link it I found The Western Standard article she reposted which I am inserting below with the title and photo included]
A federal think tank is warning that Canada could face a dramatic social and economic breakdown within 15 years, including mass emigration by wage earners, a surge in mental health crises, and widespread illegal hunting for food among the poor.
Blacklock's Reporter says the stark prediction comes from a Foresight Brief quietly released by Policy Horizons Canada, a division of the Privy Council Office.
Dated January 2025 and titled Future Lives: Social Mobility In Question, the report paints a picture of a deeply divided Canada by 2040 — where few believe they or their children can build a better life.
“Many people in Canada assume ‘following the rules’ and ‘doing the right thing’ will lead to a better life,” the report states. “However, things are changing. Wealth inequality is rising. It is already common for children to be less upwardly mobile than their parents.”
Analysts suggest that growing inequality will erode hope and trust in institutions, driving many to leave the country altogether.
“Canada may become a less attractive destination for migrants,” it says, warning that even new Canadians could seek better opportunities elsewhere if the country is seen as stagnant or regressive.
The report outlines a grim future where affluent Canadians wall themselves off in gated communities to escape economic, political, and social unrest, while those left behind turn to survival tactics outside the law.
“People may start to hunt, fish and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations,” it notes. “Governments may come to seem irrelevant.”
Access to postsecondary education is projected to become a luxury only the wealthy can afford, while homeownership for first-time buyers will depend almost entirely on family wealth. Inheritance, the report says, may become “the only reliable way to get ahead.”
Mental health outcomes are expected to worsen dramatically, driven by a deep sense of frustration and hopelessness.
“Frustration could leave many people deeply unhappy with negative consequences for their family and loved ones,” analysts wrote.
The report does not disclose who ordered the research or for what purpose, though all contributing authors are federal employees. Policy Horizons Canada emphasizes the scenario is not a forecast but a plausible outcome if current trends continue unchecked.
[Trish Wood finished her eport with the following comments:]
Understand that Prime Minister Mark Carney would not only have known about this report but is partly responsible for the economic conditions that could lead to these feudalistic outcomes.
Stay critical.
#anytribebutLiberal
Please also see this interesting key blog published by Lisa Laframboise yesterday:
Then-governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney hosts a press conference in London in 2016. Photo by JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP
Before Mark Carney became Liberal leader and Canada’s 24th prime minister, he served as governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. It’s fair to say these two countries would’ve had the most intimate knowledge of his personality, views and ideas.
Britain, unlike Canada, has always been more brutally honest about what they like about Carney — but mostly what they don’t like. The wide range of criticism included Carney’s left-wing politics, such as his championing of radical environmentalist policies like net-zero emissions, along with his opposition to Brexit, his political inexperience, dull personality, volatile temper, lousy track record at the Bank of England and more.
This led to an interesting dichotomy between Canadian and British media coverage of Carney during the Liberal leadership race. The former tended to be a balance of positive news reporting and middle-of-the-road analysis, with the natural exception of right-leaning columnists and political pundits.
The latter was far more negative and critical in its analysis, including from left-leaning pundits. Indeed, the dislike of Carney on both sides of the British political spectrum was rather remarkable to see.
Now that the dust has settled and Carney is prime minister, what’s our country potentially in for? Two post-leadership analyses from our British cousins — one from the left, the other from the right — paint an equally gloomy picture of the future.
Larry Elliott — who served as economics editor of the Guardian, a left-wing U.K. daily, from 1996-2024 — wrote a fascinating op-ed about Carney on March 11. It’s a dreary portrayal of the man who had just won the Liberal leadership with 85.9 per cent of the vote two days prior.
Elliott acknowledged that Carney was a “strong believer in open markets and free trade” and “if he chose … could be charming.” Yet the negatives far outweighed the positives. “From the moment he took over as governor from Mervyn King in 2013,” Elliott wrote, “it was clear Carney considered himself to be the smartest man in the room and wanted to make sure everybody knew it. He was not a man to suffer fools gladly.”
While Carney was “intellectually self-confident and worked ferociously hard,” Elliott noted he had a “central banker’s caution when it came to public statements.” This was revealed in their first interview. “His answers to questions often went on for several minutes, making them pretty much unquotable,” wrote Elliott. “Given a 30-minute slot, I realized after 25 minutes that he had said nothing that would remotely make a news story.”
His final paragraph is jaw-dropping: “There was another side to Carney’s character. Journalists sometimes caught a glimpse of his volcanic temper and bank staff were wary of getting on the wrong side of him. As a governor he was respected but not especially liked.”
Indeed, Canadian journalists have already caught a mild snootful of Carney’s intemperate behaviour. CBC News Network’s Rosemary Barton was told by Carney in no uncertain terms to “look inside yourself,” and that, “You start from a prior of conflict and ill will,” when she expressed genuine doubt about his blind trust and any possible conflicts of interest he may have due to his years in the private sector.
Matthew Lynn’s March 10 column for the right-leaning Daily Telegraph newspaper was remarkably similar. The financial columnist acknowledged that Carney has “global experience,” “proven leadership skills” and “connections,” but that’s a small part of the story. “It takes only a cursory glance at his record to work out that Carney’s reputation is completely overblown,” he wrote. “In reality, he has been over-promoted all over again.”
As Lynn noted, “Over eight years at the Bank of England, Carney was at best an indifferent governor, and, at worse, a disappointing failure.“ Despite his huge salary of more than £600,000 a year, more than any of his predecessors had been paid, he seemed to have little feel for the role. The City quickly nick-named him ‘the unreliable boyfriend’ for his constant changes of direction on interest rates.”
By the time Carney left the central bank, he had “created a mess which his successors have struggled to clear up. Inflation spiked up to a peak of 11.1 per cent in the U.K., compared to 5.2 per cent in France or eight per cent in Italy, hardly a country known for controlling prices effectively, largely because the bank had printed too much money.”
Here’s the real kicker: “Carney is the epitome of a remote, globalized, technocratic elite. He is very good at self-promotion, at collecting trophy jobs and of course negotiating fabulously generous salaries and expenses for himself along the way. He is just not very good at delivering.”
Canadians should keep Lynn’s analysis in mind when they eventually head to the polls. Indeed, the British media warned about Carney for years. Many on the left and right didn’t particularly like him, and often spoke out strongly against him. Canada’s Liberals either weren’t aware of what was being said, didn’t heed the warnings or ignored them entirely. If the Carney experiment fails, we’ll know exactly who to praise — and who to blame.
I certainly hope that Canadians will heed the warnings about Mark Carney that have been and are being transmitted from across the pond and elsewhere.
Read how "Mark Carney firm offloaded farms linked to deforestation and human rights abuses in hypocrisy-ridden 'slash and sell' strategy" linked below:
