Global Research: So, as I understand
the narrative, despite disappointing results from recent
by-elections in which the Liberals were defeated in all the
ridings and low polling results as a permanent fixture for more
than a year, Chrystia Freeland popped up.
She accelerated the
collapse of Trudeau after being informed in a Zoom call,
apparently, that she would be replaced by Mark Carney, the
banker guy turned eco-warrior we discussed last time we spoke,
as finance minister.
Then she wrote this really explosive letter criticizing him for,
I guess, political antics and such. After that, he appeared mute
over the entire Christmas break. Then finally, on January 6, he
emerged to say he was stepping down.
Would you care to comment on Trudeau's resignation and on Chrystia ultimately being the key person to trigger his
dismissal?
Matthew Ehret: Yeah.
I mean, I've come in the course of my
research, as you know, to look upon Canada and the policies that
tend to take up various players in Ottawa. I see it in a
relatively controlled way and as a bit of a theater,
unfortunately.
Some might call that cynical, but I think that's just part of
life under a privy council-managed deep state system that's
around for over a century. I've always seen Justin as somebody
who has played a role.
That role, for those who have been his
handlers, has been to advance a certain agenda that would move
Canada ever more towards the type of outcome that we know
the Davos crowd of the World Economic Forum
(WEF) and the broader
Bilderberg Group has in mind for the entire world, which is the
transformation of once industrial sovereign nation-states into
satrapies or a supranational enforcement tool, a world
government of sorts, with a certain type of ideology shaping
that post-nation-state era.
And so Justin's role, he was marketed. He was a bit of a
prince-ling. His father is a bit of a mythical figure, a
mythical figure in the Canadian psyche.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau has been sold to Canadians as an Abraham
Lincoln-style character who saved Canada through times of crisis
and stood up against big bad American imperialists when it
mattered to protect Canada's interests.
There's this whole
mythology that's been repeated and baked into a big part of the
zeitgeist of especially baby boomer Canadians that made Justin a
valuable asset.
But when you listen to Justin speak, from his
earliest days entering politics in 2000, I guess it was 12, that
he was brought in as an MP before being, and he was always set
up to become prime minister, he could never really compose
thoughts outside of a teleprompter and outside of the comfort of
his handlers.
And whenever he was put in those few occasions outside of the
situation, it was a disaster.
GR: That reminds me, just sorry to interrupt, but every time
he's been faced with something like that, he just goes silent.
It happened during the Freedom Convoy when they came to Ottawa.
He said, oh, I have COVID or something, I can't talk to anybody.
And then it's happened again after the collapse of the move of Chrystia Freeland. Yeah, you were saying.
ME: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, exactly.
He just runs away, finds an
excuse to not be present if there's going to be somebody who
will actually challenge him in a way, which it's understood that
that will be a humiliating thing.
So he's he's served a role as, like I said, a marketing tool and
nothing really more than that. So the idea was to always simply
use him till he had nothing left to squeeze out of him. And I
think that point has come and gone.
And his usefulness is now pretty much it's over. The scandals
built up. He's embarrassed himself in India, destroyed relations
with India.
The blackface thing, he tried to ignore it. It still kept coming
back. His settlement with the family of the underage girl who he
had sexual relations with as a high school teacher kept on
coming back to haunt him.
And just his general detachment from the concerns of your
average Canadian worker, it's just too much. And so they're
flushing him now.
And so I think Chrystia being a Rhodes Scholar
of a, you know, somebody who is part of a slightly upper level
management class within the technocracy shaping Canada, was told
that now is the time to make a maneuver that would be a signal
to to shift gears as far as initiate initiating a new vote for a
replacement to Justin, which which is now what's what's
happening.
GR: Well, let's talk to people about the rise of Trudeau. You
wrote that the plans to appoint him or however you describe it
started in 2006.
Who exactly were the key players orchestrating
the decision to sculpt him into a new prime minister and why?
ME: Well, for that, one needs to go back down to the
organization, a think tank that was created called Canada 2020.
It still exists. They bring in people like Barack Obama and
other liberal behaviorists into Canada to lecture. And this was
created in 2006 or actually I think it was a first created in
2003, but it only started really hosting conferences and
becoming a more politically present force in Canadian politics
in 2006.
And some of the co-founders of it included people like John
Manley, Bob Rae, Anne McClellan, Bill Graham and Tom Axworthy
were also co-founding members of this thing.
In fact, also, I
would say Diane Carney, Mark Carney's wife, even before Mark
Carney became governor of the Bank of Canada, she was one of the
leading president of research at the Canada 2020 think tank.
So,
these are all indications that the Carney's both have been
vetted by very high up forces to play a role in determining
certain outcomes within the Canadian system.
And it was at their first conference, their big conference in
Mont Blanc in 2006, that Justin Trudeau was first circulated,
measured up if he could be made to have what it takes to be a
puppet cutout.
And he was a bit of a disaster.
He walked in,
they say with sandals, kind of like walking in the shadow of his
father, trying to always be the extroverted, big, cool oddball
was sort of his attempt to always do what his dad was able to do
with much more class, what Justin always tried to sort of do in
a more lame, awkward way.
GR: He was an acting teacher or something like that, whereas his
father, I mean, to give him credit, he was a constitutional
lawyer, right?
ME: Yeah. And his father actually had Jesuit training, could use
logic, reason, debate, he had great debate skills.
So his father
was a much more competent, democratic figure, very rigorously
minded, a vicious, vicious character.
I'm no fan, but I can respect the quality of mental power that
Pierre was able to wield. And he was the type of guy who could
go into uncomfortable situations and meet with hostile
presidents or hostile journalists on camera and hold his own
pretty well.
So Justin is just a shadow of a shadow, crippled,
emotional character whose whole life has been largely stage
managed with flatterers and handlers, including Gerald Butts or
Dominic LeBlanc, childhood friends who were part of always the
Canadian deep state, both of them.
Or Thomas Pitfield, Michael Pitfield's son is also a childhood
friend and lifelong manager handler of Justin. So you got these
guys who are brought in to be his friends. It's kind of Truman
Showy.
When I look at this stuff, that's what it reminds me of, you
know, this poor kid. But so there's nothing, there's no real
substance. He didn't have like a normal upbringing or childhood
set of experiences.
And so that shallowness was very clear at the earliest stage.
And I took him a few, took the Canada 2020 team some years to, I
think, prep him, workshop him to the point that he could be
brought out as he was in 2012 to be eventual very soon.
First,
the head of the Liberal Party after Ignatieff took his turn,
maybe then it was Bob Rae was the interim leader.
And, you know, Bob Rae is another figure who was a Rhodes
Scholar, very close to Chrystia Freeland Rhodes Scholar and gave
up his own seat so that Chrystia would become a member of
parliament and be one of the primary handlers of Justin in 2013.
So you got this whole thing.
And I would also say, too, one
thing that's important with the Canada 2020 is that they were
also, if you look at the background of Thomas Axworthy and Bill
Graham, Bill Graham was the president of the Canada
International Council for a few years, which is the Canadian
branch of the roundtable movement set up by Cecil Rhodes and
Milner.
So in America, it's the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations.
And in Britain, the mother think tank is Chatham House, or
what's known as the Royal Institute for International Affairs.
And their Canadian branch was renamed Canada International
Council.
So you had Bill Graham, who was in charge of that.
Thomas Axworthy was the personal secretary to Pierre Elliott Trudeau
for many years.
GR: He was the brother of Lloyd Axworthy, right?
ME: Correct.
Yeah. And both men together were also leaders of the task force
for the
North American Union in 2006, too, which was also, I
think, it has since been rebranded, as I think you've noticed in
the recent months, in the form of the idea of creating a North
American technate with US-Canada integration that might also
include perhaps Greenland, Mexico, and some countries all the
way down to Brazil, really, or the upper part of Brazil.
So
that's currently being floated.
It was already being designed and they had mock-up currency
built on a model of the euro, of what that would look like for
the Amero. And people could see those things online as they were
marketing this thing, testing it to see if people would buy it
at the time in 2006.
It was, I guess, they received enough
negative feedback from their impact studies that they chose to
shelve it for a bit.
But I think it's a scenario that's being brought back. And this
is where I see sort of, yeah, Justin is just, they need somebody
now in the position of the prime ministership, of someone who
actually has competence and can can sort of hold the chip
together as the system globally goes into a new phase of crisis.
You can't just have any shallow puppet.
You got to have a slightly more, you know, competent technocrat
type, like a Mark Carney, if you're going to be able to manage
that ship estate.
GR: I'd just like to maybe get you to maybe briefly talk about
the attempts to convert this confederation into a technate.
Rival factions within the Liberal Party vying for control.
There's segments of it that's resisting these sorts of
movements.
And so, I mean, does that mean that they are, that
one is good for the people and one is bad for the people? Or are
they just kind of rival factions, both trying to cement power
control for the elites? I mean, what do you think of that?
ME: Good question.
The way I tend to see it is that one, there definitely are
fissures of ideology, but there's a certain set of agreements as
well on general needs to get over nation states, move the full
powers of decision-making to a completely unelected
intelligentsia that has full control of the powers of
production, consumption, banking, and other things that will be
completely detached from any type of accountability by
institutions that could be represented by the people, whether labour unions or parliamentary or constitutional forms of
institutions within society.
They want to be liberated from all
of that and have sort of power of gods.
So, I think you
generally have an idea that that sort of configuration is what's
desirous, but how to get it is where I think you see some
fissures and disputes amongst the Western sociopathic elites.
And some of those ideas, some conceptions, I would say, give you
more space if you're a patriotic activist with a commitment to
natural law and fighting this thing. There's more space to work
with within some of those groups. Now, let me give you a quick
example.
Just to illustrate my meaning in a visceral way, you could see
that dynamic expressed in the form of the battles within the
British aristocracy of the 1930s over whether or not to continue
to support the Hitler New World Order agenda.
And for decades
before 1936, when King Edward VIII was ousted by a controlled
sort of scandal to eliminate him and replace him with a slightly
more competent figure as king, he was the Nazi king. And he
wasn't alone.
A big chunk of the British aristocracy, Lloyd George, was hyper
pro-Nazi. Members of parliament, very pro-Nazi. Oswald Mosley
was just one of many.
Chamberlain was also relatively favorable to a Nazi-led Europe
and Russia.
And the idea was, you know, they were going to have
a dividing up of the control of the world with Wall Street
aristocrats having jurisdictional control over a big chunk of
North America.
Britain would have most of its colonies still
maintained.
Hitler would control Russia and most of Europe. So, there was a
big chunk of the Wall Street-London axis that wanted to continue
with that.
And then another faction that realized that Hitler
was not the thing that they thought he was.
He wasn't as obedient to the prompts he was expected to follow
and had visions of being the senior partner in the New World
Order instead of the junior partner.
And so, there was a big
fight. We could see it between groupings.
Nobody was good, but there was a fight. And they decided to
ultimately abort their Hitler program and fight another day,
right?
So, if you didn't have a Franklin Roosevelt, if you
didn't have a Stalin, if you didn't have a Mao at that time that
had carried out a type of struggle, a battle against the systems
of empire, then the world would have looked much bleaker.
And
the fact that you had this configuration of like authentic
nationalists for all of their problems, but they were not on the
side of this population and technocratic agenda, they were able
to force a much different paradigm, which took many decades to
undermine during the Cold War.
So, what I see with the case of Canada, we have in the Liberal
party a sort of tradition expressed by the old guard of like
Jean Chrétien, who was typically in resistance to this type of
program of the technate idea you alluded to.
John Turner,
another guy who was prime minister for two seconds, generally
was resistant to NAFTA and that orientation of world government,
at least it seems so. Definitely, Jean Chrétien was certainly
resistant to it.
And I think that they were, for all their corruption,
representing still a bit of a nationalist reflex that was seen
by those who had a bit of a memory of C.D. Howe, Mackenzie King,
William Lyon Mackenzie King, O.D. Skelton, and the old guard of
Laurier liberals of the 20s and 30s and 40s and 50s, who did
represent that like authentic nation building.
They wanted to
really build up a true sovereign nation that could stand on its
own two feet. They wanted that, they were not ideologically
Malthusian.
And they wanted to use the power of the nation state, the
instruments of the national bank as much as they could to build
our infrastructure and to do something for the next generation.
So you have that, but then you have this other thing. And that
other thing is reflected by these, I mean, Canada 2020 is just,
they were set up to reorganize the Liberal party to de- Chrétien
it.
It was the de- Chrétienification of the Liberal party during
that time when the Liberals were taken down in 2005 through a
scandal.
And then there was a purge of party leadership and a
restoration of more technocratically minded assets under
Ignatieff and then Bob Rae that came out dominant.
And that sort
of same thing was done earlier on in 1960 with the thinkers
conferences that Thomas Axworthy also participated in with a
network of Liberal technocrats in 1960 to 61.
Well, after C.D. Howe died and Diefenbaker was in power for five
years, that five years was a purge period where all the C.D.
Howe Liberals were taken down.
Walter Lockhart Gordon played a
big role who later became the architect of a lot of Canada's
protective nationalist policies that Canadians tend to have
liked.
But in fact, I would say at the time, the motive was to
simply keep Canada more locked in to the system of the Privy
Council - the British Empire controls - which didn't like having
or seeing their American junior partners, in this case, it was
the Rockefellers, wield their economic clout and power to gain
more influence territorially over assets within Canada, which is
what they were vying for in the 50s and especially the 60s.
So,
Walter Lockhart Gordon was part of the British Empire faction
that wanted to keep Canada locked into the crown and the global
controls there.
And that's why they had to purge the C.D. Howe Liberals. So, you
have these types of conferences that Canada 2020 represented at
moments when they need to just sort of do hard shifts on the
machine, which are not going to happen gradually. They need to
do it more abruptly.
So, that's sort of the way the Canadian system is stage-managed
by the London controllers of the Privy Council. And there's
always been a battle, like I said, with their American pseudo
allies, sometimes rivals.
And I think that this convergence of
the Peter Thiel, Silicon Valley, imperial Straussians that are
currently in play right now and have gained a lot of influence
around Trump.
Trump, I don't believe is fully one of them, but I don't think
he fully understands the game either.
I think he's in danger of
being an instrument for a different kind of empire. And I think
that there is a bit of a battle right now over like there was in
those two cases I just outlined in my rant.
There does seem to be a battle line because you have Russia, you
have China, you have countries of
the BRICS that have rejected
the
depopulation agenda that are increasing their abundance,
their productive powers, their excellence.
And they're becoming
more difficult to battle if we continue on our path of
mediocrity. That's been a 60-year program of
de-industrialization, mediocritization.
So, how do we fight them against a geopolitician who's like a
cold-hearted geopolitician if you've made everybody who you need
to use stupid and unproductive?
And so, I think that there's
currently sort of a clash of the old guard, hard Nazi movement
of the British Empire, which wants to double down on their
depopulation, Green New Deal, Green Genocide Agenda, which
Mark
Carney seems to be a vicious representative of that ideological
grouping.
GR: Sounds more like Freeland.
ME: Both.
Well, they're both Oxford creatures. They're both in Oxford, I
think, around the same time before being brought into broader
intelligence operations, Freeland through Reuters, Carney
through Goldman Sachs. That's sort of the feeder school, right?
But they work together very closely.
GR: But now they're fighting each other. Yeah.
ME: That's the thing.
I think it's a circus. Fight for the drama, for the public
consumption.
But I think Carney and Freeland both represent the
eco-genocide technocrat agenda that doesn't want to change what
they've been doing as far as commitment for depopulation under
this Green New Deal thing for the past decades.
And then you've
got this other faction presenting such names as
Elon Musk or
Peter Thiel that are trying to really influence Trump heavily
right now to build up the physical productive base of the United
States, which benefit Canada, frankly, it's possible as far as
just not wanting to do it because it's good or moral, but simply
practically in order to fight Russia and China.
GR: Could I maybe just ask you one more question?
According to
polls, Conservatives are leading the Liberals now by 20
percentage points, and they've been in the lead for about a year
or more.
I find it hard to believe that any credible candidate
would want to seek the leadership of the Liberal Party in its
present state.
Why would this grand banker guy want to waste time leading an
opposition party, as looks to be the case right now?
ME: Well, I think he's been given guarantees by forces that are
much more powerful than him that this is what you're going to be
doing now.
And the elections, I believe, are only officially
going to happen probably in October, but it could maybe be
triggered earlier.
Certainly, there's already propaganda.
He's being brought into Jon Stewart. They're really doing a lot
of work to brand him again as the great Lincoln hero, the Pierre
Elliott Trudeau 2.0 who saved Canada in a time of crisis.
They're already creating a mythos around him and marketing him
to an American and Canadian audience.
He's going to be the replacement to Justin, I guarantee it. I've
been saying this for three years. I don't know.
I agree with you. It's difficult to imagine what kind of
propaganda would be needed to shift such statistics, as you just
mentioned. A 20% lead in favor for the Conservatives is a very
tough nut to crack.
I don't know. I don't know how they're going to do it. But I
know that people are very malleable.
And kind of like Julius Caesar, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar,
they can cheer for Pompey one second and then cheer for Julius
Caesar if he offers them more breaded circus and drink.
I don't
know. I don't have too much faith in the malleability of the mob
and how they're played like an instrument.
