Lucy Biggers was not on the fringe of the climate movement. She was deep in it. Over a hundred million views on Facebook. Interviews with Greta Thunberg and AOC. She pushed the Green New Deal, got plastic straws banned, helped change her newsroom's language from "climate change" to "climate crisis." For five years of her twenties, this was her identity, purpose, and tribe.

Then COVID hit. The world shut down, plastic was everywhere and nobody cared, carbon emissions dropped by maybe five percent… and Lucy started doing the math.

If a global shutdown barely dents emissions, what exactly does net zero require? The answer, once you follow the thread, is the dismantling of modern life. And that was the first crack.

She picked up Michael Schellenberger’s Apocalypse Never and Steve Koonian’s Unsettled. Both written by people with credibility the movement couldn’t dismiss — a former green activist and an Obama appointee. What she found inside was that the science doesn’t say match the headlines. The UN reports don’t say what the summaries say. The summaries don’t say what the journalists say. And the journalists don’t say what the memes say. Seven layers of telephone between the data and the public. By the time it reaches your feed, the original finding is unrecognizable.

Lucy went quiet for five years. Took a behind-the-scenes role at the Free Press, had two kids, and slowly, piece by piece, rebuilt her own thinking from the ground up. She describes it as decolonizing her own mind. Not a political shift but a cognitive one. Relearning how to ask what she actually believed about each topic rather than downloading the approved answer from the group.

This conversation covers the full arc. How she got in. How the groupthink works at the newsroom level — the Slack channels, the social punishment, the purity tests with no redemption clause. How the climate movement maps onto religious psychology: a fallen world, a revolution, a purgatory, and a promised utopia on the other side. How the media frames weather data to imply danger that the underlying science doesn’t support. And how none of this requires a grand conspiracy to function. You push the first domino and human psychology does the rest.

We also get into the geopolitical angle. China as the world’s largest oil importer, manufacturing the solar panels and wind turbines the West is told it must buy, funding NGOs that push the narrative forward. The strategic logic is hard to argue with. Undermine your rival’s energy independence and sell them the replacement parts. It doesn’t need to be a tinfoil theory. It just needs to be good strategy.

The thing that sets Lucy apart from most people talking about this is that she has no interest in dunking on the people still inside. She was them. She knows what it feels like to carry climate guilt, to self-censor over a reality TV show, to believe you’re saving the world while never once checking the numbers. Her aim is simpler than combat. She wants to give young people the context they were never given and let them decide for themselves.

Deaths from natural disasters are down ninety-nine percent in a hundred years. The planet is greener than it was fifty years ago. We are safer, more prosperous, and more capable than any generation before us. Yet, we toy with the idea of throwing it all away.

If you’re interested in hearing the full conversation, you can listen to The Blendr Report EP161 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Today, Canada’s “democracy” operates as a procedural husk — a system that retains every formal structure of democratic governance being repurposed to serve the political class rather than the public it claims to represent.

Over the past five years, the governing party has called elections to bury active investigations into national security breaches and financial corruption. Parliament sat for just sixteen percent of the available days while MPs collected full salaries and per diems for the other eighty-four.

More than 121,000 ballots went uncounted in a single federal election. A riding was decided by one vote after an Elections Canada employee printed the wrong postal code on dozens of ballot envelopes — and the Supreme Court had to annul the result. A 298-vote Conservative lead in another riding disappeared overnight and surfaced as a 29-vote Liberal win, chalked up to “data entry errors.”

A foreign power interfered in two consecutive federal elections, funded at least eleven candidates, and faced no meaningful consequence. A sitting Liberal MP publicly encouraged people to collect a bounty placed by the Chinese Communist Party on a Conservative candidate. The current Prime Minister was initially installed by 131,674 Liberal Party members — roughly one-third of one percent of the Canadian population — and governs with a cabinet largely comprised of people who served the man that resigned in disgrace before him. And in the months since, five Members of Parliament elected under one banner have crossed the floor to hand that Prime Minister an impending majority no Canadian voter ever granted.

Not one of these events has triggered a constitutional crisis. The Governor General has not intervened, the courts have addressed only the most egregious case, and the media has covered each as an isolated story — a bad recount here, a questionable floor crossing there, a foreign interference inquiry that found “troubling” events but assured Canadians the overall outcome was not affected.

That is how a democracy dies. Through a slow and methodical dissolution of integrity, where each violation is absorbed, normalized, and filed away as an exception rather than recognized as part of a pattern.

This piece documents the pattern. Over the following sections, we trace a five-year arc of democratic erosion in Canada, from the Winnipeg Lab cover-up in 2021 through the manufactured majority likely to take hold next week. Every claim is sourced and every event is a matter of public record. Taken in isolation, any one of them could be dismissed as an anomaly. Taken together, they form a case that the country’s democratic institutions have not merely failed. They have been repurposed. While the husk may still remain, the substance is gone.

Elections as Escape Routes

There is a question Canadians ought to ask every time a federal election is called: what was Parliament about to find out?

In the summer of 2021, the House of Commons was closing in on one of the most serious national security breaches in Canadian history. Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Keding Cheng — both scientists at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Canada’s only Biosafety Level 4 facility — had been fired in January of that year after CSIS determined that Qiu had “intentionally” worked to benefit the People’s Republic of China. The scope of what she had done was staggering. Qiu transferred live Ebola and Henipah viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, collaborated with People’s Liberation Army Major-General Chen Wei on published research, allowed PLA-affiliated personnel access to Canada’s highest-security lab, and was listed as co-inventor on two Chinese government patents for innovations related to the Ebola and Marburg viruses — work that was the direct product of her position inside a Canadian government facility.

The House of Commons demanded answers. Opposition MPs passed a motion ordering the government to produce unredacted documents about the firings and the security breach. The Trudeau government refused. The House ordered it again. The government refused again. Over the course of months, four separate orders of Parliament were defied — a level of contempt for the legislative branch that has almost no precedent in Canadian history. When the Speaker of the House ruled that parliamentary privilege had been breached and prepared to enforce disclosure, the government did something extraordinary: it took the Speaker of the House of Commons to Federal Court to get a judge to block the release. The executive branch of government sued the legislative branch of government to prevent Canadians from learning what had happened inside their own national laboratory.

And then, before any of it could be resolved, Trudeau called a snap election in August 2021. The dissolution of Parliament killed all four House orders, ended the court challenge (which the government quietly withdrew during the campaign), and buried the investigation entirely. A Special Committee would eventually reconvene and produce a report with twelve recommendations — including adding the Wuhan Institute of Virology to Canada’s list of Named Research Organizations — but by then the political moment had passed. The documents were not produced during the election. The public moved on. The RCMP investigation into Qiu and Cheng remains open with no charges laid.

Three years later, the pattern repeated.

In June 2024, the Auditor General released a report on Sustainable Development Technology Canada — a federal foundation responsible for distributing hundreds of millions in public funds to clean-tech companies. The findings were damning. The AG found that SDTC had awarded $334 million across 186 cases in which board members held direct conflicts of interest, $59 million to ten projects that were entirely ineligible for funding, and an additional $58 million to projects where basic terms and conditions were never verified. Internal whistleblowers had secretly recorded a senior civil servant describing the mismanagement as “outright incompetence.” In total, roughly $390 million in taxpayer money was either misappropriated or awarded under conditions that should have disqualified it from the start.

The House of Commons passed a motion ordering the government to produce unredacted documents related to the scandal and to refer the matter to the RCMP for potential criminal investigation. The Liberals refused. The Speaker ruled that the government had “clearly not fully complied” with the order. The Conservatives seized the House with a privilege debate, and all legislative business ground to a halt on October 3, 2024. Rather than produce the documents, the government chose to let Parliament die. The House did not sit for a single productive day from that point until well into 2025 — a stretch of nearly eight months during which Canadians were governed without a functioning legislature.

The same playbook, twice in four years. An investigation reaches the point where disclosure becomes unavoidable, and the governing party reaches for the kill switch — dissolution in 2021, procedural paralysis in 2024. In neither case were the documents produced. In neither case did the public receive a full accounting. And in both cases, the mechanism that was supposed to hold the executive to account — Parliament itself — was neutralised by the very people it was meant to hold accountable.

The election is supposed to be the tool citizens use to enforce accountability on their government. In Canada, it has become the tool the government uses to escape it.

The Integrity of the Vote

Even if you set aside the corruption and the cover-ups — even if you accept the premise that Canadian elections are still called in good faith — the machinery of the vote itself is broken.

In the 2025 federal election, more than 121,000 special ballots went uncounted. Out of roughly 1.3 million mail-in ballots issued, nearly one in ten never made it into the tally. Elections Canada has not provided a clear breakdown of how many were misdirected, how many arrived late, and how many were simply never returned — a distinction that matters enormously when the integrity of an election depends on public confidence that every eligible vote was counted. CBC reported on the scale of the problem, but no satisfactory explanation has followed. The ballots were issued but not counted. And the country moved on as though that were normal.

In the Quebec riding of Terrebonne, it was worse than normal. Liberal candidate Tatiana Auguste defeated Bloc Québécois candidate Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné by a single vote — the narrowest margin in the country. The result might have stood had it not emerged that an Elections Canada employee had printed his own postal code on at least forty special ballot envelopes, causing them to be misdirected. One of those ballots belonged to a confirmed Bloc voter whose vote was rejected because it arrived at the wrong returning office. Quebec’s special ballot rejection rate ran between two and six times the national average. Over 800 ballots in British Columbia were never counted at all. The Bloc filed a legal challenge, and a Superior Court judge initially ruled against overturning the result. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, annulling the election and ordering a byelection for April 13, 2026. It took the highest court in the country to acknowledge what should have been obvious from the start: a riding decided by one vote, in an election where the administering body itself caused valid ballots to be rejected, is not a legitimate outcome.

Then there is Milton East–Halton Hills South, which may be the most troubling case of all. On election night, Conservative candidate Parm Gill led by 298 votes. It was not a razor-thin margin. It was a clear and comfortable win by any normal standard of Canadian electoral math. Then came the validation process. Elections Canada reported that Liberal candidate Kristina Tesser Derksen had in fact won the seat by 29 votes — a swing of 327 votes, all moving in the same direction, attributed entirely to “data entry and calculation errors.” A judicial recount overseen by Justice Leonard Ricchetti confirmed the Liberal win, narrowing the margin to 21 votes. Elections Canada issued a formal announcement and the result was certified.

What was never adequately explained is how a 298-vote lead transforms into a 29-vote deficit through clerical errors alone. Errors in vote tabulation are not uncommon — small discrepancies surface in virtually every recount — but they tend to distribute randomly across candidates. A uniform directional swing of 327 votes, every single one of which moves from one candidate to the other, is not a random distribution. It is a statistical pattern that demands a better explanation than the one Canadians received.

Three ridings. Three different failures. In Terrebonne, an employee’s mistake disenfranchised voters in a riding decided by the smallest possible margin. In Milton East, a candidate who won on election night lost his seat through a validation process that no one has convincingly explained. And across the country, 121,000 ballots were issued and never counted, with no public accounting of why.

The ballot is the most basic unit of democratic power. It is the one moment where every citizen is supposed to stand as an equal — one person, one vote, counted once. When that mechanism fails at scale, and when the failures consistently favour one party over another, the question is no longer whether Canadians trust their elections. The question is whether they should.

Foreign Interference — The CCP and Canadian Elections

The People’s Republic of China has been interfering in Canadian federal elections for years, and the Canadian government has known about it for just as long.

Classified intelligence documents, first reported by the Globe and Mail and later confirmed through the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference led by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, established that China’s Ministry of State Security and United Front Work Department ran covert operations during both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. The operations were not subtle. Beijing deployed disinformation campaigns on Chinese-language social media platforms, arranged for international students to work on preferred candidates’ campaigns, and funnelled money through a network of proxy donors who received reimbursement for their contributions — a direct violation of the Canada Elections Act. CSIS warned the Prime Minister’s Office in 2023 that China had “clandestinely and deceptively” interfered in both elections, and internal intelligence identified a network of at least eleven federal candidates across multiple parties — seven Liberal, four Conservative — who received funding or operational support linked to CCP-affiliated organizations.

Trudeau was briefed, yet, chose not to act. When the intelligence leaks reached the press and public pressure mounted for a full inquiry, the government resisted for over a year before finally conceding. The Hogue Commission’s first report, released in May 2024, confirmed that Chinese state actors had engaged in foreign interference but concluded that the meddling had not altered which party ultimately formed government — a finding that offered just enough cover for the political class to treat the entire affair as a closed file. The final report, issued in January 2025, identified disinformation spread through social media as a major and growing threat to Canadian democracy, but by then the political conversation had moved on to leadership races and tariff wars.

What the Hogue Commission did not do — what no institution in Canada has done — is impose consequences. No candidate who received CCP-linked funding has been charged. No Liberal operative has been held accountable for ignoring the intelligence. No mechanism has been created to prevent the same interference from happening in the next election. CSIS confirmed that at least one former parliamentarian actively worked on behalf of a foreign government to influence proceedings inside Parliament itself, and even that revelation produced no criminal prosecution.

The interference extended beyond funding and disinformation into something far more direct. During the 2025 federal election campaign, Liberal MP Paul Chiang — the incumbent candidate for Markham–Unionville — stood before a Chinese-language media conference and told the room that they could claim a million-dollar bounty placed by Hong Kong authorities on Conservative candidate Joe Tay, a co-founder of HongKonger Station and a democracy advocate targeted by the CCP. “To everyone here,” Chiang said, “you can claim the one-million-dollar bounty if you bring him to Toronto’s Chinese consulate.” A sitting member of the Canadian Parliament publicly encouraged citizens to turn a political opponent over to agents of a foreign dictatorship for a cash reward. The RCMP opened a probe into whether Chiang had broken the law. Mark Carney, by then the Liberal leader, initially stood by him. Chiang issued a brief apology calling his own remarks “deplorable,” and withdrew from the race only after the RCMP investigation became public. He was not charged. He was not expelled from the party. He stepped aside quietly and the news cycle absorbed it within days.

Consider the full picture. A foreign government interferes in two consecutive Canadian elections. Intelligence agencies confirm it. The Prime Minister is briefed and does nothing. A public inquiry confirms the interference but assures Canadians the outcome was unaffected. A sitting MP promotes a foreign bounty on a domestic political opponent and faces no criminal consequence. And then the new Prime Minister — the one installed after all of this — flies to Beijing within months of taking office to forge a strategic partnership with the same regime.

The word for this is not diplomacy. When a foreign power interferes in your elections, places bounties on your candidates, collaborates with scientists inside your highest-security laboratory, and your government responds by deepening the relationship, the word is capture.

The Installation of Mark Carney

By January 2025, Justin Trudeau’s position had become untenable. His party was collapsing in the polls, his caucus was in open revolt, and a no-confidence vote was looming that his government almost certainly could not survive. The democratic resolution to this crisis was straightforward: face the confidence vote, lose, and let the Canadian public decide what came next in a general election. Trudeau chose a different path. On January 6, 2025, he prorogued Parliament — suspending the legislature entirely — and announced his resignation as Liberal leader, triggering an internal leadership race that would determine who governed the country without Canadians having any say in the matter.

The race itself was a formality. Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, entered as the prohibitive favourite and won on March 9, 2025, with 85.9% of the vote. The official results show that 131,674 Liberal Party members cast ballots — out of 163,836 who had registered to vote. In a country of roughly forty million people, Canada’s next Prime Minister was chosen by one-third of one percent of the population. Candidates who did not align with the party establishment were blocked from competing. The outcome was never in doubt.

What followed was not a transition of power in any meaningful sense. Carney kept the same Trudeau-era cabinet ministers in their posts — the same faces who had presided over the Winnipeg Lab cover-up, the Green Slush Fund scandal, the parliamentary gridlock, and the refusal to act on foreign interference. The personnel did not change because the governing apparatus did not change. A new name sat at the top. Everything beneath it remained identical. Jagmeet Singh and the NDP immediately pledged to prop up the new government, ensuring that the confidence of the House — the one remaining democratic check — would not be tested.

Carney then called a general election for April 28, 2025, and won a minority government. That election is now the democratic mandate he points to. But what preceded it matters. The prorogation was not a neutral act — it was a tactical manoeuvre designed to prevent the House from expressing non-confidence in the Liberal government before a new leader could be installed and a campaign launched on favourable terms. Canadians did not choose between Trudeau’s government and the alternatives. They were presented with a rebranded version of the same government, under a new leader they had no role in selecting, running on a timeline the outgoing Prime Minister engineered specifically to avoid accountability.

Within months of taking office, Carney made his priorities clear. In January 2026, he became the first Canadian Prime Minister to visit Beijing since 2017, announcing a new “strategic partnership” with the People’s Republic of China focused on energy, agri-food, and trade. The agreement included tariff reductions on Canadian canola and commitments to expanded agricultural exports. Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne travelled alongside representatives of Brookfield Asset Management — Carney’s former employer, which had already invested over $3 billion in China before Carney took the helm in 2020. The Bureau documented the depth of Carney’s financial entanglement with Chinese state-linked entities during his time at Brookfield, and the East Asia Forum noted that Canada’s turn toward Beijing, while framed as trade diversification away from Trump-era tariff pressure, carried significant strategic risks that the government appeared willing to absorb.

The sequence deserves to be stated plainly. A Prime Minister prorogues Parliament to avoid a confidence vote. A leadership race selects his replacement from within the party, chosen by fewer than 132,000 people. The new leader governs with the same cabinet, propped up by the same coalition partner, and calls an election on a timeline of his own choosing. He wins a minority. And his first major foreign policy act is to deepen Canada’s relationship with the authoritarian regime that his own intelligence agency confirmed had interfered in two consecutive Canadian elections, whose military collaborated with compromised scientists inside a Canadian government lab, and whose bounty a member of his own party promoted against a Canadian political candidate.

Mark Carney was installed as Prime Minister. 131,674 Liberal members elected him to lead their party, and a minority of Canadian voters gave that party the most seats in a general election that followed. Those are not the same thing, and the distinction matters — because every decision Carney has made since taking office flows from a mandate that was engineered, not earned.

Taxation Without Representation

The phrase is older than Confederation. It was the rallying cry of the American Revolution and a foundational grievance of every democratic movement that followed — the principle that a government which taxes its citizens without granting them a functioning legislature to oversee how that money is spent has forfeited its legitimacy. In Canada, between October 2024 and May 2025, that principle was not violated in theory. It was violated in fact.

When the House of Commons ground to a halt on October 3, 2024, over the Liberals’ refusal to produce documents related to the Green Slush Fund scandal, the conventional expectation was that the standoff would resolve within days or weeks. It did not. The privilege debate consumed the remainder of the fall sitting. Christmas recess arrived with no resolution. And then, on January 6, 2025, Trudeau prorogued Parliament entirely — not to break the deadlock, but to avoid a no-confidence vote his government could not survive. The House did not reconvene until March 24, 2025, and when it did, it sat only briefly before the election was called for April 28.

According to the Library of Parliament’s own records, the House of Commons sat for just 73 days out of 455 available days between October 2024 and December 2025 — a rate of sixteen percent. For eighty-four percent of the time, Canadians had no functioning legislature. No bills were debated. No committees met. No government spending was scrutinized. No questions were asked in Question Period, because there was no Question Period to attend. The executive branch governed unimpeded by the legislative branch for the better part of a year.

Throughout all of it, every Member of Parliament continued to collect their full salary. The base compensation for a Canadian MP is $194,600 per year, with additional allowances for housing, travel, and office expenses. Members received per diems for days they were nominally “in session” and continued to draw from taxpayer-funded budgets for constituency offices that had no parliamentary business to report on. The House of Commons sitting calendar tells the story: vast stretches of blank space where sittings should have been, interrupted by the occasional cluster of days that achieved nothing of substance before the next recess.

The cost of this arrangement was not abstract. During the months Parliament did not sit, the federal government continued to spend, regulate, and govern by Order in Council. Tax revenues continued to flow. Programs continued to disburse funds. Regulatory changes continued to be enacted. All of it happened without the oversight mechanism that exists specifically to ensure the executive does not spend public money without legislative approval. The entire premise of responsible government — the system Canada inherited from Westminster, in which the executive can only govern so long as it holds the confidence of the legislature — depends on the legislature actually sitting. When it does not, responsible government is a fiction. The government is responsible to no one.

What makes this period particularly corrosive is that Parliament did not shut down because of a crisis, a natural disaster, or a national emergency. It shut down because the governing party was caught in a corruption scandal and refused to comply with a lawful order of the House. The Liberals could have produced the Green Slush Fund documents, allowed the RCMP referral to proceed, and continued governing. They chose instead to let the legislature die rather than face accountability — and then used the resulting vacuum to engineer a leadership transition, install a new Prime Minister, and call an election on their own terms.

Canadians paid for every day of it. They paid the salaries of MPs who did not sit, the operating costs of a Parliament that did not function, and the price of a government that spent their money without anyone in the room to ask where it was going. The phrase “taxation without representation” is not a metaphor in this context. For nearly eight months, it was a literal description of how Canada was governed.

Manufacturing a Majority

Mark Carney won a minority government on April 28, 2025. Six months later, he began assembling the majority the electorate refused to give him.

On November 4, 2025, Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont — elected as a Conservative — crossed the floor to the Liberal caucus. On December 11, Toronto-area MP Michael Ma followed. On February 18, 2026, Edmonton MP Matt Jeneroux became the third Conservative to cross. On March 10, NDP MP Lori Idlout, representing the vast riding of Nunavut, left the NDP to join the Liberals. And on April 8, four-term Sarnia–Lambton MP Marilyn Gladu became the fifth. Five crossings in five months, each one bringing the Liberals closer to the 172 seats required for a majority. With Gladu’s defection, they sit at 171 — one seat short, with three byelections scheduled for April 13 that could deliver the rest.

In every one of these ridings, voters cast their ballots for a specific party. The residents of Sarnia–Lambton elected a Conservative. The people of Nunavut elected a New Democrat. Those voters did not choose a Liberal representative, and no one has asked them whether they accept one. The ballot they marked and the member who now claims to represent them belong to two different political parties — and under Canadian law, there is nothing they can do about it until the next general election.

Gladu’s crossing is the most revealing. In January 2026 — three months before she herself crossed — Gladu publicly stated her position on the practice. “We elected you under this banner,” she said, “and if you don’t want to be under that banner, then we deserve a chance to have a redo.” She backed proposals that would require floor-crossing MPs to face an automatic byelection, giving voters the final say. The principle she articulated was clear and correct: the mandate belongs to the voter, not the member. By April, she had abandoned it entirely. The mayor of Sarnia and the president of the local Conservative riding association both called on her to resign and face a byelection. She has not done so. Carney has not asked her to.

The public’s view on this is not ambiguous. Angus Reid polling found that just one in four Canadians believe an MP who crosses the floor should be allowed to finish their term with the new party. Seventy-five percent believe some form of democratic accountability — a byelection, a recall mechanism, or an automatic trigger — should follow. The political class has ignored this consensus completely. There is no law requiring a byelection after a floor crossing, and no party in power has any incentive to create one, because the practice only benefits whichever party is doing the recruiting.

What makes this particular wave of crossings different from historical precedents is the arithmetic. CBC’s own analysis of floor-crossing history shows that it is rare for so many MPs to cross to the same party in such a compressed timeframe, and rarer still for those crossings to carry explicit strategic weight — each one narrowing the gap between a minority and a majority. This is not a handful of disaffected backbenchers following their conscience. This is a coordinated accumulation of seats that transforms the composition of Parliament without a single Canadian casting a vote.

The Hub framed the problem directly: Carney is “undemocratically winning a majority.” The word is precise. A majority government carries enormous power in the Westminster system — it controls the legislative agenda, dominates committees, and governs with near-impunity between elections. That power is supposed to be granted by the electorate. When it is assembled instead through backroom recruitment of individual MPs who switch their allegiance after the fact, the mandate is manufactured. The voters who created the minority Parliament on April 28, 2025, did not consent to the majority Parliament that is taking shape in April 2026.

Floor crossing is legal in Canada. It is also, in the plainest sense of the word, undemocratic. The voter chose one thing. The system delivered another. And no one with the power to change it has any reason to try.

The Husk Holds

On April 13, 2026, three federal byelections will determine whether the Carney government crosses the threshold from minority to majority. If the Liberals win even one of them (which they almost certainly will), they’ll hold 172 seats and command the House of Commons without needing the NDP, the Bloc, or anyone else. A government that was never supposed to have a majority will have obtained one through a combination of floor crossings no voter consented to and byelections triggered by the very scandals documented in this piece.

And waiting on the other side of that majority is a legislative agenda that should concern every Canadian who still believes the state answers to the citizen rather than the other way around.

Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, passed third reading in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate. The bill creates new criminal offences for the “wilful promotion of hatred,” expands the definition of hate crimes, and — most critically — removes a long-standing religious-expression exemption from Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code that protected Canadians who spoke in good faith on the basis of religious texts. The exemption had never once been successfully invoked to defend hateful speech. It was removed anyway. The bill also eliminates the requirement that the Attorney General approve hate-propaganda charges before they proceed, stripping away a prosecutorial safeguard that existed specifically to prevent politically motivated charges. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association warned that the bill’s vague language could be used to criminalise peaceful protest and silence unpopular expression. The Canadian Labour Congress raised concerns about its potential to infringe on freedom of association. The Canadian Constitution Foundation called it a direct threat to the Charter right to freedom of expression.

Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, was tabled in March 2026 and would compel telecommunications providers to retain Canadians’ metadata for up to one year and grant police and CSIS expanded powers to access it. The bill originally appeared as part of Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, which was so sweeping in its surveillance provisions that the government was forced to split it into separate legislation after public backlash. Digital law professor Michael Geist warned that dangerous backdoor surveillance risks remain even in the revised version, and the government has not disclosed what the mass metadata retention regime will cost — either to taxpayers or to the telecommunications companies who will be forced to build the infrastructure.

The Online Harms Act — the previous incarnation of which died on the order paper when Trudeau prorogued Parliament — is being prepared for reintroduction. The original Bill C-63 proposed the creation of a Digital Safety Commission with regulatory power over online speech, provisions that critics including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said amounted to government censorship of lawful content, and penalties that included the possibility of house arrest before an offence had been committed and life imprisonment for certain categories of speech.

And then there is the broader architecture of executive power that Carney has been assembling since taking office. The One Canadian Economy Act, passed in June 2025, allows Cabinet to declare any infrastructure project to be in the “national interest” — at which point all regulatory findings required under any federal law are deemed to have been made, and the Minister can issue a single document authorizing the project to proceed. The government has invoked emergency-powers rhetoric to justify everything from housing construction to trade corridors, framing routine policy priorities as crises that require bypassing normal democratic processes. And in March 2026, the Carney government asked the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn two lower-court rulings that found the invocation of the Emergencies Act during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests was unlawful and violated the Charter. Two levels of court agreed the law was used unconstitutionally. Carney’s response was not to accept the rulings but to appeal them — seeking to establish the legal precedent that a future government can invoke emergency powers to crush a protest it finds politically inconvenient.

This is the legislative programme that a manufactured majority will be asked to pass. Criminalization of speech the government deems hateful, with fewer safeguards against abuse. Mass surveillance of Canadians’ digital metadata. A regulatory framework for online content that hands a government commission authority over what can and cannot be said on the internet. Executive power to bypass environmental and regulatory law by declaring projects to be in the national interest. And a legal campaign to establish that the Emergencies Act can be wielded against citizens who dissent.

A minority government would face opposition, amendment, and compromise on every one of these bills. A majority government faces none. With 172 seats, the Liberals control the legislative agenda, dominate every committee, and pass legislation without a single opposition vote. The bills listed above move from contentious proposals to foregone conclusions.

That is what is at stake on April 13. Not merely which party holds a few extra seats, but whether the legislative checks that remain — the last thin barriers between proposal and law — survive the week. The husk of Canadian democracy has absorbed every violation documented in this piece: elections used as escape routes, votes that went uncounted, foreign interference met with partnership rather than prosecution, a Parliament that did not sit, a Prime Minister no one elected, and a majority no one voted for. Each one was treated as an isolated incident. Each one was normalized. And each one made the next one possible.

The husk holds. It absorbs. And if the majority falls into place next week, it will have served its final purpose — providing the appearance of democratic legitimacy to a government that has spent five years systematically dismantling the substance of it.

The sharp rise in homelessness has brought this debate into focus, especially after a shocking report from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The report outlined a dramatic rise in homelessness, noting an increase of 107% between 2020–2022 and 2024. Ontario alone recorded more than 85,000 people experiencing homelessness in 2025.

Homelessness has grown to the point where the Commission now calls it a human rights crisis. The report clearly identifies the problem. The solution, however, is far less clear. The Commission reflects what many Canadians instinctively believe: when there is a problem, government spending should fix it.

Yet there is little evidence that this spending and these programs have solved the problem in any meaningful way.

Over the past decade — especially since COVID — Canada has undertaken one of the largest expansions of social policy in its modern history.

Federal and provincial governments deployed tens of billions toward poverty reduction, housing stability, and homelessness prevention. Through income transfers, eviction moratoriums, emergency benefits, and large housing programs, policymakers promised to protect the most vulnerable and maintain social stability during an unprecedented disruption.

However, the results tell an uncomfortable story that many Canadians seem reluctant to confront, in part because Canada remains a deeply pro-welfare society. How long will Canadians tolerate the economic burden created by these policies? Especially future generations who will inherit the cost of today’s political decisions.

Despite this surge in intervention, key indicators have moved in the opposite direction. Housing affordability has fallen to historic lows, homelessness has risen sharply, and a growing share of working Canadians now live in financial precarity.

According to Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada’s Everyone Counts 2024 report, nearly 60,000 Canadians experience homelessness on any given night. This is nearly double the level observed just six years earlier, before COVID. Even more striking is the shift in severity: unsheltered homelessness, including encampments, increased from 14% in 2018 to 28% in 2024.

These trends did not occur in the absence of government action. They occurred during a period defined by aggressive spending and intervention — market restrictions, prolonged lockdowns, eviction moratoriums, income replacement programs, and large housing subsidies — all intended to reduce poverty and prevent homelessness.

The central question is no longer whether governments acted, but whether their actions addressed root causes or instead distorted the systems they were meant to stabilize.

The pandemic period offers a useful lens for examining this divergence. Lockdowns and economic restrictions hit lower-income workers hardest, particularly those in service sectors. At the same time, asset prices — especially housing — rose rapidly. This dynamic widened the wealth divide: those with assets saw their balance sheets grow, while those without faced rising costs and declining stability.

While it remains difficult to isolate how many people were pushed into poverty or homelessness directly because of these policies, the broader pattern is clear. Economic disruption combined with housing inflation increased vulnerability across large parts of the population. These were policy choices, though many remain uncomfortable acknowledging that fact. Inflation is a policy choice, not an act of God or nature.

COVID itself did not dictate these decisions. Lockdowns, the closure of small and medium businesses deemed “non-essential” while large corporations remained open, curfews, quantitative easing, and near-zero interest rates all contributed to the domino effect of regressing socioeconomic conditions we all see today.

These conditions also coincided with rising mental health problems. Drug and alcohol abuse increased alongside depression and suicide, driven by isolation, fear, and financial strain. This aligns with data showing homelessness nearly doubling since 2019, according to the Everyone Counts 2024 report.

This raises a basic question: if spending and intervention increased so dramatically, why did outcomes continue to worsen?

A common assumption is that poverty and homelessness persist because governments have not spent enough — that more funding would produce better results. But this assumption deserves scrutiny.

Federal homelessness spending alone has increased roughly 374% compared to the previous decade, averaging more than $561 million annually through programs such as Reaching Home, alongside billions more committed through recent budgets. Yet the persistence — and growth — of the problem suggests the relationship between spending and outcomes is far from linear.

Figure 1. Actual & Planned Spending on Homelessness Programs

People assume that more government spending is always the solution, yet in business we know that spending does not equate to results or success. So why does this fantasy correlation prosper in the political realm?

How did we get to a place where we believe politicians with short-term objectives and little to no understanding of basic economics trick us into allowing them to keep expanding debt, which we citizens must bear without holding accountability for those failures?

According to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s 2024 Federal Spending to Address Homelessness report, achieving a 50% reduction in chronic homelessness would require an additional $3.5 billion PER YEAR, Meanwhile, Budget 2024 proposed $1 billion over four years to stabilize Reaching Home, plus $250 million over two years to address encampments and unsheltered homelessness.

Notice the pattern — more intervention, more spending, and the promise of improvement.

The continued rise in homelessness despite increased spending raises another question: what is the government actually doing with the money? To explore this, we can look at Red Deer as an example.

In 2019, Red Deer launched what it called an ambitious plan to end homelessness. The plan proposed spending $273 million over five years. At the time, the city had an estimated 150 homeless individuals — implying a cost of roughly $1.82 million per person.

The justification was that 1,800 additional people were at risk of homelessness, and the city wanted to act proactively. In practice, this meant preparing housing capacity rather than preventing homelessness upstream.

The more realistic conclusion is that when governments announce spending to “address homelessness,” they often mean managing homelessness — not reducing the number of people who become homeless, but transitioning them into publicly funded systems after the fact.

It is therefore not surprising that two years after the end of this five-year plan, homelessness in Red Deer continues to rise and the city struggles to keep up with shelter demand.

Self-interest is a basic principle of human behaviour, and governments are not exempt from it. Governments must justify their existence, and so must the NGOs that depend on government funding. If a government-funded shelter sees homelessness decline, its funding may also decline. That creates incentives that do not always align with solving the problem permanently.

With this in mind, it is notable that the 2019 Red Deer plan was not the first attempt to end homelessness there. An earlier five-year plan launched in 2014 aimed to end homelessness by 2018. The 2019 plan followed when that goal was not achieved.

Recently, Red Deer announced a third plan beginning in 2026 called Project Nexus, involving a range of publicly funded programs, including addiction support, healthcare services, and temporary and long-term housing.

Despite hundreds of millions in spending across multiple plans, homelessness continues to rise. Rather than eliminating homelessness, governments appear to be building permanent bureaucracies to manage it. Big business for the Welfare State.

It is therefore unsurprising that the NDP has now elected a leader proposing to double down on this approach with even more expansive federal programs.

Avi Lewis claims his platform will “end homelessness” through coordination across all levels of government. Yet, as the Red Deer example shows, even at smaller scales, governments have struggled not only to end homelessness but even to reduce it.

Understanding poverty and homelessness in Canada requires looking beyond headlines and intentions. It requires examining policy design, incentives, and unintended consequences — in other words, basic economics.

If the goal is not simply to manage poverty but to reduce it, then the key question is no longer how much governments spend, but whether the current intervention model can solve the problem at all.

Is welfarism truly the solution?

“Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded. Once suspended, it is not difficult for those who assume emergency powers to ensure the emergency never truly ends.”

- Friedrich August Von Hayek

*Paid subscribers can find the ad-free version of the episode at the bottom of this article.*

Canada isn’t falling apart because of a few bad decisions, but because the system is built to expand state power at every opportunity.

In Episode 160 of The Blendr Report, Bruce Pardy explains that the problem is not bad leadership or flawed policy but the model itself. Canada has become a managerial state.

A country built on the rule of law is meant to restrain power. Laws apply evenly, Governments act within defined bounds, and Individuals are left to make their own choices, for better or worse. But what we have now is something else. The state doesn’t just enforce rules—it shapes outcomes. It intervenes, adjusts, corrects, and expands.

And it rarely pulls back.

You can see it in the numbers. Government spending makes up a massive share of economic activity. Entire industries operate under protection, subsidy, or quiet coordination with the state. Telecom, banking, airlines, even parts of education—they don’t behave like open markets but managed systems.

It looks private but it isn’t.

That same logic has spread into law. The shift from rule of law to rule by law is subtle, but once you see it, you can’t unsee it. Laws are no longer stable guardrails. They’re tools. Flexible, expandable, selectively applied.

During COVID, rules could change overnight. Not through long legislative process, but through announcement. Press conferences became policy and directives became law. That is how the system truly works.

At the same time, enforcement has become uneven. Small violations are punished quickly and consistently. Miss a technical rule, pay the fine. But larger breakdowns—violent crime, institutional failure, corruption—are often ignored. Pardy describes this as a kind of anarcho-tyranny. Tight control at the bottom and looseness at the top.

Meanwhile, most people go along with it.

That may be the hardest part to confront. The system persists because it is supported. Not always consciously, but culturally. Canadians have been taught to expect solutions from the state. More services, more protection, and more intervention. Each demand expands the same machinery that limits them.

Even the legal foundations are shifting. Property rights, once assumed to be stable, are becoming conditional. Court rulings and political frameworks like UNDRIP are introducing competing claims over land and ownership. The details are complex, but the direction is clear: certainty is being replaced with negotiation.

And a system without clear ownership is a system open to control.

None of this fits neatly into left versus right. That frame is too narrow. What we’re really looking at is a divide between those who believe society should be managed, and those who believe it should be constrained. Canada chose management.

Reversing that isn’t a matter of electing different people. It would require rethinking the role of government itself, which requires a cultural shift.

If you’re interested in hearing the rationale behind this perspective, Listen to The Blendr Report EP160 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Extended and Ad Free Version of Blendr Report EP160: Canada’s Hidden System of Control Explained by a Law Professor

Read more

Pierre Poilievre opposing the $90 billion Liberal high-speed rail project has caused quite the controversy. And if you look at who’s screaming the loudest, the reason becomes obvious pretty fast.

The Laurentian Elite who loot Canadian taxpayers stand to gain BILLIONS from this project. They want major backlash against anyone who threatens their impending goldmine of corruption. The media, the consulting class, the construction lobby, the politically connected firms who always seem to end up with the contracts, need you to believe this is about trains…

BUT IT’S NOT ABOUT TRAINS.

So let’s do the math they don’t want you to see.

The Base Cost

The sticker price is $90 billion. That’s what the Liberals want you to hear. But that number is a fantasy before the first shovel hits dirt.

According to Joe Carson’s Diagnosis Red Tape, for every dollar paid in federal taxes, 26.72% never re-enters the private economy. It’s consumed by bureaucracy. Not fraud or corruption. Just the ordinary cost of government machinery processing money through its own bloated system.

That means a $90B public project carries roughly $24B in administrative overhead baked in from day one. The true taxpayer burden before anything goes wrong: ~$114B.

There are roughly 20 million taxpayers in Canada. That’s ~$5,700 per taxpayer.

All so that 12 million people in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor can have access to rail.

Already a hard sell. But here’s the problem….

THINGS NEVER GO ACCORDING TO PLAN!

Bent Flyvbjerg is an Oxford professor who has assembled one of the largest megaproject database in the world: 16,000+ projects across 136 countries going back to 1910. His findings are disheartening to say the least.

91.5% of megaprojects go over budget, over schedule, or both. The mean cost overrun is 62%. And less than 1% of megaprojects are completed on time, on budget, and deliver the benefits promised.

One percent.

According to long time friends of the Liberal Party, McKinsey & Company, rail projects specifically go over budget by an average of 44.7%, and their demand is overestimated by 51.4%.

Applied to Alto: $114B × 1.447 = ~$165B. That’s ~$8,250 per taxpayer.

Meanwhile, the Liberals’ projected $35B yearly GDP increase?

If demand is overestimated by half, which is exactly what the data says happens, that’s closer to $17B.

Remember that number because it will become important later.

The Eglinton Precedent

You don’t need to look at Oxford databases or McKinsey reports to understand what’s coming. You just need to look at Toronto.

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT was originally projected at ~$5B.

Final cost: $13B.

It took 15 years of construction.

Businesses along the corridor were destroyed.

Communities were wrecked by noise, dust, and road closures for over a decade.

This isn’t conjecture—I lived on Eglinton for five years during the construction. I saw it firsthand, and I even worked for a business that went under because of it.

Premier Doug Ford refused to hold an inquiry and nobody was held accountable.

The Eglinton Crosstown is 19km long. Alto is ~1,000km. That’s 53 times longer.

The Eglinton Crosstown cost $684M per kilometre. If Alto hit a similar per-km cost, you’d be looking at $684B. That’s obviously absurd — but the directional point is devastating. Canada just proved, in real time, in its largest city, that it cannot build 19km of light rail on time or on budget. The proposed answer is to build 1,000km of high-speed rail?

The Eglinton’s cost multiplied by 2.6×. Apply that same factor to Alto: $114B × 2.6 = ~$296B.

That’s ~$14,800 per taxpayer.

Now Add Corruption

Everything above assumes the money is merely wasted through incompetence. But Canada has a well-documented history of something worse.

The Charbonneau Commission (a provincial inquiry that ran from 2011 to 2015) established that mafia-linked cartels inflated Montreal public contract prices by up to 30%. A retired government whistleblower told the Globe and Mail in 2009 that the Mafia controlled roughly 80% of road contracts in the Montreal region, with prices inflated up to 35%. Economists estimated that up to $500 million was misappropriated in Montreal alone between 2004 and 2009.

And it hasn’t stopped. As recently as 2024, the top five firms captured 76% of infrastructure contract value in the sector, with estimated overcosts of at least $40 million in a single year — approximately 20% above fair market price.

Then there’s the “Green Slush Fund” scandal. The Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, with an estimated $150-390M in misappropriated funds. That’s roughly 17-45% of the fund’s total approvals funnelled to insiders. Board members were approving grants to each other’s companies. The bonus structure incentivised rapid disbursement without oversight. When Conservatives demanded documents, the Liberals shut down Parliament rather than hand them over.

Applied to Alto’s $90B base: $15-40B in corruption.

Applied to the Eglinton-style $296B scenario: $50-133B in corruption.

BUT IT GETS WORSE

Everything above treats this project as though the government has $90 billion sitting in a vault. It doesn’t because Canada is running deficits.

That means THIS PROJECT WILL BE FINANCED WITH DEBT.

And debt has interest…

The Canada 30-year government bond yield currently sits at ~4%. That’s the rate taxpayers will be charged to borrow money over decades to finance this project.

Here’s what nobody in Ottawa wants you to think about: interest compounds during the entire construction period BEFORE A SINGLE DOLLAR OF GDP BENEFIT IS GENERATED. Every year, the government borrows billions more to keep building. Every year, interest piles onto the previous years’ borrowing. By the time the last rail is laid, the total debt is already far larger than the sticker price.

Alto’s own timeline projects full completion by 2043 — roughly 15 years of construction. Let’s run those numbers for each scenario.

Read more

*Paid subscribers can find the ad-free version of the episode at the bottom of this article.*

Canada’s decline is becoming something people can no longer ignore in their day-to-day lives.

Over the past decade, GDP per capita has largely stagnated while government spending has continued to expand. At the same time, quality of life indicators have moved in the wrong direction. Canada has fallen from 5th to 25th on the World Happiness Report, healthcare wait times have stretched to nearly 29 weeks, and food bank usage has doubled since 2019.

What stands out most, however, is not just the decline itself but how unevenly it is being experienced.

Older Canadians still rank among the happiest in the world, while younger Canadians fall far down the list. The contrast is difficult to ignore, and it points to something deeper than a temporary economic cycle.

For older Canadians, rising asset prices have largely offset the broader economic slowdown. Many own homes that have appreciated significantly, and their cost of living, while higher, remains manageable relative to their accumulated wealth. For younger Canadians, the same dynamics have had the opposite effect. Housing prices in cities like Toronto now sit at roughly 12 times average household income, with Vancouver even higher.

Over time, that changes how people relate to the future.

You can push yourself to earn more, take on more responsibility, and delay gratification, but there is a threshold where the basic milestones, such as owning a home, starting a family, and building something stable, move out of reach for the average person. When that happens at scale, it doesn’t just affect finances but perspective as well.

When people can’t see a path forward, work begins to feel disconnected from progress, and the long-term incentives that hold a society together start to weaken. Family formation declines, fertility drops, and the sense of direction that once came with building a life becomes harder to maintain.

Policy responses have struggled to address this shift in any meaningful way.

Take housing. Ontario’s decision to remove the HST on new homes may save buyers up to $130,000, but it does not lower the cost of building. Development charges have risen dramatically over time, and margins for builders remain tight. In practice, policies like this often lead to higher prices rather than increased supply, as developers adjust to capture part of the savings.

The same structural issue appears in immigration policy. A recent Auditor General report found that more than 153,000 potential immigration violations were flagged in a single year, yet fewer than 4,100 were investigated. Over 98 percent went untouched. Revealing a with known gaps and almost no enforcement.

Across these areas, the pattern is consistent. Policies are introduced that address symptoms, but the underlying incentives remain unchanged. Housing remains constrained, costs remain elevated, and the pressures on younger generations continue to build. The result is a steady shift in expectations.

Older Canadians look at the present and assume things will stabilize, because they always have. Younger Canadians look at the same data and see a trajectory that is harder to reverse. They are not just reacting to where things are but where things appear to be going.

And that difference in perspective is beginning to define the country.

Listen to The Blendr Report EP159 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Extended and Ad Free Version of Blendr Report EP159: Canadian Youth Struggle, Liberal Immigration Fraud, and Housing Crisis

Read more

We always heard when we were young that “curiosity killed the cat.” But now, as an adult, I find myself asking a different question: what killed curiosity?

The sheer number of my peers who have become completely incurious astounds me. The way many of them have shown themselves susceptible to state and ideological propaganda completely blows my mind.

I would blame the school system for failing to equip my peers with the critical thinking skills needed to bypass propaganda, but I’m increasingly convinced the system was not ineffective — it was very effective at carrying out its actual objective.

It does not seem to me the school system my peers and I went through was ever designed to enable critical thinking, curiosity, individual thought, or the pursuit of truth. Instead, it seems to lead people toward the conclusion that there is only one right answer to a question, one solution to a problem, and one correct way of doing things.

I started noticing what set people apart when it came to critical thinkers and what I would call the NPCs of society. Independent people and entrepreneurs, I noticed, had far less tendency to believe false narratives. These were often the people who questioned COVID policies, did their own research, distrusted official messaging, and doubted the effectiveness of certain government mandates.

However, when I went to the OSAP protest in downtown Toronto and debated protesters on their positions, something else revealed itself to me — something I had started noticing more broadly among people who disagreed with my positions. Many of them were highly educated and placed enormous weight on institutional validation when deciding what positions people should hold in society.

Share

Then I thought back to an interview between Dr. Jordan Peterson and Dr. Simone Gold. Dr. Gold spoke about her experience as a doctor and the structure of medical school. She described many of her peers as incurious after news of COVID became widespread. When she tried to discuss it at work, many colleagues seemed uninterested in examining it deeply, particularly in discussions around treatments such as hydroxychloroquine.

She described doing her own independent research on the drug and asking colleagues whether they were considering it for their patients. According to her account, they showed little interest at the time. Then in March, after Donald Trump publicly mentioned hydroxychloroquine and media coverage turned sharply negative, she said many of those same colleagues suddenly became very vocal about how bad it supposedly was.

She also spoke about how medical school taught students much like any other school. Students were presented with material by a teacher — the authority figure. They were told to take notes, memorize the information, learn it, and reproduce it on exams. She highlighted that students were largely led to ask only approved questions, and that there was little true critical thinking, particularly in the first two years.

People who went through the school system often see nothing strange in this. Many believe this is simply how school should function. But Jordan Peterson pointed out the implicit assumption underneath this structure: what you are taught is presumed correct, and your role is to learn it and demonstrate possession of that knowledge.

That kind of thinking may function inside the boundaries of a classroom. The real world does not operate like that.

Read more

*Paid subscribers can find the ad-free version of the episode at the bottom of this article.*

The Chinese Communist Party has spent fifty years building a deeply entrenched influence network in Canada.

In Blendr Report Episode 158, I sat down with Canadian historian and national security analyst Dennis Molinaro to discuss how the CCP operates with near impunity inside our borders. Not with tanks and troops but relationships, incentives, and systems we assumed were benign.

The story starts in the 1970s, when Canada formally opened relations with the People’s Republic of China. What seemed like diplomacy and trade created access. And access, when paired with strategy, becomes leverage.

Molinaro walks through how that leverage has grown over time.

It begins with business. Early intermediaries helped Western companies enter Chinese markets, acting as gatekeepers between two systems. But those relationships did more than open trade—they built dependency. Once economic ties are in place, influence follows. Not always through direct pressure but through quiet alignment of interests.

From there, the focus expands into academia.

Canadian universities, like many in the West, operate on openness. But that same openness can be abused. Programs tied to Chinese state interests have offered funding, partnerships, and access, often with conditions attached. Intellectual property flows outward, sometimes legally, sometimes less so. And when civil research overlaps with military use, academia and national security become intertwined.

This is where Molinaro highlights a key concept: civil-military fusion. In China, the boundary between civilian institutions and the military is thin. What looks like academic cooperation can, in some cases, feed directly into state objectives.

One of the most eye opening parts of the discussion is the role of the United Front Work Department. Which is an arm of the CCP tasked with cultivating relationships abroad. Its goal is to build ties with influential people and organizations, shape narratives, and align outcomes over time. Not through overt control but influence that feels voluntary.

Molinaro also details cases of transnational repression. Which include intimidation, threats, and pressure directed at individuals living in Canada. Dissidents, activists, and members of diaspora communities have reported harassment that reaches beyond borders.

What makes this conversation is the response. Or lack of one.

While countries like the United States and Australia have taken more aggressive steps to counter foreign interference, Canada has been slower to act. The issue is often framed as a trade-off between economic ties and national security, as if the two cannot coexist.

Molinaro rejects that belief. A nation does not preserve prosperity by ignoring risk. You preserve it by understanding the environment and acting accordingly.

Canada is not immune to global power dynamics. And the systems we pride ourselves on, such as open markets, open research, and open society, only work when paired with awareness and restraint.

If you want to understand how this all fits together, including the history, the mechanisms, and where it may be heading, you can listen to The Blendr Report EP158 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Ad Free Version of Blendr Report EP158: China’s Assault on Canada Explained by Security Expert

Read more

*Paid subscribers can find the ad-free version of the episode at the bottom of this article.*

Canada’s political class spent the past week demonstrating just how fragile the country’s “democratic” institutions have become.

Three separate developments: an “anti-hate” bill pushed through Parliament, an MP crossing the floor to strengthen the Liberal government, and testimony from a former CBC anchor—paint a troubling picture of the country’s political trajectory. Each story on its own would raise serious questions. Taken together, they highlight a political system that is becoming increasingly insulated from public accountability.

The first issue concerns Bill C-9, which MPs voted to advance after halting months of debate. Supporters say the bill is meant to combat rising hate crimes. Critics argue it risks eroding free expression. The most contentious change removes a long-standing Criminal Code exemption protecting individuals who quote religious texts from hate-speech prosecution.

This change may sound technical, but the principle matters. Liberal democracies traditionally protect speech even when it is uncomfortable or unpopular. Once governments begin regulating expression based on whether someone feels offended or targeted, the line between preventing harm and policing opinion becomes difficult to maintain.

The concern is not simply about one bill. It is about the broader direction of lawmaking. The legislation would make it easier to prosecute “hate” propaganda, create new criminal offences around displaying certain symbols, and remove the requirement that the attorney general approve some hate-related prosecutions before charges are laid.

When combined with subjective definitions of intent or symbolism, such powers invite uneven enforcement.

At the same time, another development in Ottawa revealed how easily parliamentary representation can shift without voter input. Nunavut MP Lori Idlout crossed the floor from the NDP to join Mark Carney’s Liberals, bringing the government within two seats of a majority.

Floor-crossing is legal in Canada, but the practice remains controversial. Voters elect representatives under a particular party banner and policy platform. When that representative changes sides without seeking a new mandate, constituents are effectively represented by a party they may not have chosen.

In a parliamentary system, these changes can alter the balance of power in government overnight. With three upcoming by-elections, the Liberals could soon secure a majority—giving them the ability to pass legislation with far fewer constraints.

Finally, testimony before Parliament from former CBC journalist Travis Dhanraj raised fresh concerns about the country’s publicly funded broadcaster.

Dhanraj alleged that internal editorial control limited which political guests could appear on programs and that questioning these practices led to professional consequences. He described a centralized system where decisions about political interviews were tightly controlled and dissent within the organization was discouraged.

For a broadcaster that receives roughly $1.4 billion in public funding each year, the credibility of its editorial process is critical. Public trust depends on the perception that coverage is fair, transparent, and open to competing viewpoints.

When critics argue that the broadcaster increasingly reflects the priorities of the government that funds it, the problem becomes larger than one newsroom dispute. It becomes a question about the health of the country’s information ecosystem.

You can’t have democracy without friction—open debate, competing viewpoints, and the constant pressure of accountability.

When those forces weaken, the system may continue functioning on paper. But the substance of democratic governance begins to erode.

Listen to The Blendr Report EP157 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Ad Free Version of Blendr Report EP157: Carney Pushes “Anti-Hate” Bill, CBC Exposed, and Liberals Near Majority

Read more

The Liberal government has a bad—and I believe intentional—habit of introducing legislation framed as ensuring safety, but which ultimately gives the government excessive power to take away the freedoms of Canadians.

I see these laws as a kind of “Trojan horse,” based on the story of the Greek warriors in the Trojan War. Disguised as a gift, with the aim of lowering the guard of the receiver, what appears harmless on the outside can conceal a much greater threat within. When you finally look inside, you may find something far more dangerous than expected, such as, the fall of a nation like the story depicts.

Recent developments suggest these Liberal Trojan horse bills may no longer need to be hidden. They may now pass into law with little resistance, whether it is what Canadians voted for or not.

At this point, it appears increasingly likely that Mark Carney’s Liberals will secure a majority government—not through a fair and free election, but with the help of floor crossers from the Conservative and NDP parties.

His government currently holds 170 seats, with three by-elections approaching. If the Liberals win two of those three races—which appears likely—they will reach the 172 seats required for a majority. With that, they will be able to pass any legislation they wish, provided it is approved by the Senate.

The floor crossing of NDP MP Lori Idlout has effectively ensured a Liberal majority government. Two of the three ridings in the upcoming by-elections are already Liberal strongholds.

Bill Blair was the former MP for the riding of Scarborough Southwest. He resigned after being appointed High Commissioner to the U.K. on February 2. In the last election, his riding voted 61.5 percent Liberal, while the Conservative candidate received only 30.6 percent.

It is reasonable to expect the riding will vote in a similar way in the upcoming by-election, securing that seat for the Liberals.

Chrystia Freeland resigned to take an unpaid role as an adviser on economic issues to the president of Ukraine. It seems the Liberals have made a tradition of failing upwards.

Her riding of University–Rosedale voted 64 percent Liberal, with the Conservatives a distant second at 23.5 percent.

These are the only two ridings the Liberal government needs to secure a majority, and it is reasonable to expect that is exactly what it will get.

Share

After these by-elections, Canada will be governed by what I consider an illegitimate Liberal majority government. Based on the bills they have already attempted to pass, we may move toward something resembling totalitarianism very quickly.

In light of these developments, it is worth revisiting some of the laws and amendments that were only altered or failed to pass because the Liberal government lacked a majority. It is very likely these measures will be reintroduced and passed once the government secures one.

Each of these laws represents, in my view, a reduction in privacy, security, and freedom for Canadians.

Bill C-8 was poised to be one of the most devastating laws because of the sweeping powers it would place in the hands of the Minister of Industry. It would give the minister the authority to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything—or refrain from doing anything—deemed necessary to “secure” the Canadian telecommunications system.

The bill was framed as a necessary step to increase safety for Canadians, but critics argue that, upon closer examination, it would allow the government to decide who can and cannot access telecommunication services in Canada.

If this law passes as written, wireless services in Canada, in any form, could effectively be placed under complete government control.

In this case, the bill would allow the government to force a telecommunications service provider to stop providing services or products to any person the minister deems a threat. This would give the government the ability to remove anyone from internet, telephone, or satellite services.

It would also allow the government to prevent telecommunications providers from receiving products or services from certain individuals or businesses, giving it significant leverage and control over the telecommunications industry.

Anyone who goes against these orders could face serious fines. For individuals, penalties could range from $25,000 to $50,000. In other cases, fines could reach $10 million to $15 million.

In theory, this would give the government powers similar to those seen in China over businesses operating within its borders, where industries can be crippled at any time.

It is no surprise that this bill alarmed many Canadians and led other parties to vote against it. Once the Liberals achieve a majority, however, those parties will no longer have the numbers to meaningfully block such legislation.

For instance, if this bill had been in effect during COVID, businesses that tried to keep operating after being ordered to shut down might not have posed much of a problem for the government. It could have been as simple as cutting off their phone lines and internet access, making it extremely difficult for those businesses to continue operating.

Not only has the government proposed laws that could financially cripple companies and individuals, it has also introduced legislation that could give certain businesses an overwhelming economic advantage.

Read more

*Paid subscribers can find the ad-free version of the episode at the bottom of this article.*

War has a way of clarifying the world. It strips away the polite language of diplomacy and reveals the incentives underneath.

That is precisely what we are watching unfold with the escalating conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States.

For years, analysts spoke about a coming confrontation with Iran as if it were a distant possibility. Now it has arrived. Israeli and American strikes on Iran have pushed the region into a new phase of instability, and the consequences will reach far beyond the Middle East.

At stake is not simply the fate of the Iranian regime. The conflict sits at the intersection of the global energy market, the balance of power between the West and its rivals, and the fragile architecture of international order.

Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil moves through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime corridor beside Iran’s coastline. Any disruption there would ripple through the global economy overnight. Energy prices would spike. Supply chains would tighten. Nations dependent on imported fuel would scramble for alternatives.

The war is also unfolding within a broader geopolitical struggle. The United States and its allies see Iran as a destabilizing force and a long-time sponsor of terrorism across the Middle East. China and Russia, meanwhile, have treated Iran as a strategic partner within a wider contest against Western influence.

In other words, this conflict is not isolated. It sits inside a larger contest for power.

Against this backdrop, Canada’s political class appears uncertain about how to respond.

Mark Carney recently described international law as a “useful fiction” in a speech at Davos. The comment was accurate in one sense. International law has always lacked enforcement.

Yet as the Iran conflict escalated, Carney quickly began invoking that same international law as a moral authority for condemning military action. The contradiction is hard to miss. If international law is largely symbolic, citing it selectively begins to look less nothing more than political positioning.

Pierre Poilievre, by contrast, has taken a more direct approach. In a recent interview, he framed Iran as a hostile regime and argued that its removal could ultimately benefit both the Iranian people and the West.

Whether that outcome is realistic remains uncertain. History is not kind to regime-change operations. Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan serve as reminders that removing governments often unleashes forces far more chaotic than those that came before.

For ordinary Iranians, the situation is especially bleak. Many oppose their regime but face brutal repression whenever dissent emerges. If the state weakens, they may find themselves trapped between internal collapse and external war.

Wars rarely unfold according to anyone’s plan.

What is certain is that this conflict is reshaping the geopolitical chessboard and Canada will eventually be forced to decide where it stands.

Listen to The Blendr Report EP156 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Ad Free Version of Blendr Report EP156: Trump and Israel's Iran War, Carney’s Contradictions, and Poilievre’s Take

Read more

As independent or non-government-funded media has grown, so too has the widespread use of the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist.” These labels are often applied to narratives and individuals accused of undermining or delegitimizing governments by alleging secret plots carried out by powerful actors. The term first appeared in the New York Times in 1863, describing a belief that British aristocrats were secretly working against the United States during the Civil War. Since then, it has often been used to discredit those spreading unpopular opinions or controversial claims about governments around the world.

Recently, the Media Ecosystem Observatory, run by McGill University and the University of Toronto, released a study detailing the “conspiracy theories” currently circulating on social media in Canada and suggesting ways to combat them. The report refers to these as “anti-institutional conspiratorial claims,” defined as “narratives that transform institutional skepticism into claims of covert elite coordination and harm, often detached from factual evidence.”

In their methodology, they make it clear that the framing used to identify posts pushing a “conspiracy” is “a natural language inference task,” where they “try to find whether the claim follows from the textual content of the post.” In other words, they are not determining whether the claims made in these posts are true or false. They are simply assessing whether the post is making such a claim based on its context.

They collected 14 million posts from prominent Canadian accounts across X, TikTok, Instagram, and Bluesky. The study was conducted on the premise that these “conspiracy theories” challenge the legitimacy of democratic institutions and undermine trust in governing bodies and public officials.

The findings indicate that most of the highly viewed and interacted-with content labelled as conspiracy-related originated from a relatively small number of online creators. Just 100 users accounted for about 68% of the posts, capturing 90% of views and 86% of likes. The study also found that many of these users posted about multiple different “conspiracy theories,” not just a single topic.

The users’ positions on some of these subjects can be misrepresented or generalized. However, the data remains valuable for understanding how many Canadians are beginning to be exposed to different narratives.

Share

Although only a small number of people actually believe these “conspiracies,” many Canadians are aware of them. The average Canadian surveyed was aware of 3.49 “conspiracies” and believed in 0.91 of those they knew about. Men were significantly more likely than women to both encounter and believe these claims. Younger Canadians aged 18–34 were aware of more “conspiracies” than older groups but were less likely to believe them. Middle-aged Canadians, between 35 and 54, showed average awareness but were more likely to believe them than any other group.

The survey was administered to 1,459 Canadians between October 30 and November 7, 2025. The most prominent theory in terms of awareness concerned health threats, mostly centred around COVID-19. The claim is that the threat was highly exaggerated in order to expand government powers over Canadians and push an untested vaccine intended to harm them. Sixty-three percent of respondents said they were aware of this theory, while only 13 percent said they believed it was true.

The claim most widely believed was the idea that schools are indoctrinating children with radical gender ideology without the knowledge or consent of parents or guardians through programs such as SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity). According to the survey, 54% of respondents were aware of this claim, while 21% said they believed it was true.

The second most widely believed claim is the idea that elites control the media or that public opinion is manipulated through state-funded media. These claims suggest that mainstream outlets such as CBC or CTV are controlled or biased in favour of governments and powerful actors behind the scenes, often said to be influenced by corporations, the World Economic Forum (WEF), or other elite groups. Polling suggests that 47% of respondents are aware of this claim, while 16% say they believe it.

The five least prominent, though still notable, “conspiracy theories” identified in the study were election fraud, the deep state, digital ID, intentional wildfires, and the climate hoax. Each had about 8% of respondents reporting belief in the claim, with awareness ranging from 46% to 29%.

Unsurprisingly, the social media platform X was the dominant platform for engagement with these ideas, accounting for 70% of the likes and hosting the largest share of posts about them. Users of X were significantly more aware of these claims and were also the most likely to endorse them.

Although Canadians have become more aware of these subjects, that awareness also presents potential risks. Particularly in how these ideas are evaluated and how they may be interpreted by mainstream media and government institutions. We have already seen increased efforts to regulate online speech, along with legislation that raises privacy concerns for Canadians, such as Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act.

Numerous Members of Parliament across political parties have discussed measures to crack down on what they describe as “hate speech.” In the conclusion of the study, the researchers also put forward several troubling recommendations for how to suppress these kinds of narratives.

Read more

I once had a fairy-tale view of Canada.

Growing up in a small town where everyone knew at least one of your relatives and you could go out for dinner without locking the front door, it was easy to believe we were a cohesive, high-trust society. Canada’s global reputation for being “nice” made that story effortless to internalize.

That view has been fading for more than a decade. It hasn’t felt like changing my mind but like waking up from a dream.

The illusion first cracked when I watched a family business install heavier security year after year. It began with cameras, then gates, then heavy equipment blocking entrances at the end of each day.

After moving to the city, I watched the homeless population change. They no longer looked like addicts struggling to get back on their feet but like fentanyl casualties—vacant, barely present, as if consciousness itself were flickering. I began hearing more stories of home invasions. While managing a bar at King and Bathurst, I arrived one morning to find thousands of dollars’ worth of liquor stolen from our storage area.

Then I started paying attention beyond my immediate surroundings. Articles about rising violent crime, extortion becoming routine, and organized criminal networks multiplying.

It all felt abstract. Yes, it was happening… but why?

Then I picked up Wilful Blindness by investigative journalist Sam Cooper and everything clicked: crime has not merely grown in Canada. It has been absorbed into the system.

As one veteran investigator in Cooper’s book put it:

“Organized crime doesn’t exist on drugs. It exists on money. Drugs are just the path of least resistance to making money fast. But you have to recycle it to use it. And thus, the profession of money laundering—an extraordinary economy employing thousands of Vancouverites—was born.”

That’s what is important to recognize: crime is not the entire story—money is.

Cartels generate staggering amounts of cash. In 2019, Global News reported that Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán’s Sinaloa cartel was clearing more than $3 million a day in Canada, according to a former DEA agent.

And Sinaloa is just one organization.

The RCMP now estimates there are more than 4,000 organized crime groups operating in Canada — up from roughly 800 in 2011.

Canada became attractive to international criminals for three simple reasons:

1. A weak immigration system with minimal vetting in key periods

2. Outdated laws and hesitant enforcement

3. Government-run casinos willing to accept massive volumes of cash

Cash is king in underground economies. But it is bulky, risky, and hard to store. So it has to be cleaned.

The process is simple: earn, refine, launder, invest.

First, earning. Mexican cartels ship cocaine north and Chinese criminal networks distribute fentanyl precursors, while small time gangs sell the drugs on Canadian streets.

This creates mountains of cash—mostly small bills—but international criminals don’t want piles of Canadian twenties. They want usable money in Mexico, China, or elsewhere.

And this is where things get interesting.

Share

After the money is made — whether through drugs, extortion, scams, theft, or other criminal activity — it is deposited into underground banks.

These “banks” are not formal financial institutions. They don’t use wire transfers or the SWIFT system. There is no conventional paper trail. Instead, they operate on mirrored ledgers.

A cartel hands bulk drug cash to a Chinese underground banker operating in Vancouver, Richmond, or Markham.

On the surface, this banker runs what appears to be a legitimate business — a currency exchange, investment firm, “massage” spa, auto shop, restaurant, or trading company. Except the real function of the business is an intermediary.

The underground banker contacts a counterpart in China, Hong Kong, Mexico, or elsewhere. That counterpart releases an equivalent amount of funds in local currency to whoever the cartel designates.

No money physically crosses borders. The books are balanced through debt accounting between underground banking nodes — a private settlement system built on long-standing criminal relationships and trust.

Silver International, an underground bank operating in Canada, is described in Willful Blindness as “a stunning and terrible operation, laundering more than $1 billion each year in Vancouver for Chinese, Mexican, and Iranian crime cartels.”

So at this stage, cartel cash sits inside Canadian underground banks run by Chinese triads. Meanwhile, affiliated networks abroad release matching funds to the cartel.

The question is: what happens to the cash in Canada?

China has strict capital controls. Citizens are limited in how much money they can legally move out of the country each year.

Now imagine you are a wealthy Chinese citizen concerned about political risk. You don’t want the CCP to have the ability to freeze or seize your assets. You want liquidity outside China — preferably parked in foreign real estate.

So you go to the triads. You transfer Chinese currency domestically to an underground banker in China. That banker instructs his Vancouver counterpart to release Canadian dollars to you. Those dollars are the original proceeds of cartel drug sales.

Now the system is complete.

Cartels get their money settled abroad, Chinese elites get Canadian cash in Vancouver, and underground bankers take a cut on both sides.

Everyone wins… except Canadians.

You might think this financial scheme doesn’t affect you but it does—in very real ways.

The wealthy Chinese client receives his transfer in hockey bags of cash, typically small bills collected from street-level drug sales.

He walks into a government casino, buys chips, plays minimally, then cashes out. The money now emerges as casino cheques, bank drafts, or $100 bills wrapped to banking standards. It looks legitimate.

That “cleaned” money then flows into:

• Real estate

• Luxury vehicles

• Development projects

• Loan sharking

• Political donations

• Trade-based laundering schemes

This scheme inflates Canadian assets, pricing our citizens out of markets now dominated by criminal finances.

Police research found that more than 10 percent of Vancouver-area property sales priced over $3 million in 2016 were tied to buyers with criminal records, and 95 percent of those were believed linked to mainland China crime networks.

At this point, you would reasonably ask: why does government allow this?

Three comforting explanations are often offered. First, revenue dependency: casinos are major provincial earners. Second, political naivety: leaders mistook capital inflow for growth. Third, structural blindness: institutions lacked tools or coordination.

But those explanations don’t hold up when you consider Cooper’s reporting:

“Fintrac had provided BC police with evidence of $40 million in suspected casino money-laundering transactions in several years.”

And yet:

“Suspicious transactions in BCLC casinos had surged from 459 in 2011 to 1,013 in 2013. None of these suspicious transaction reports were investigated by the RCMP.”

When a specialized illegal gaming enforcement unit attempted to expand investigations inside casinos, it was disbanded.

“In April 2009, BC’s government did disband IIGET… Pinnock was so disturbed by the decision that he burned his police files.”

This is where responsibility becomes harder to untangle. While provinces profited from casino revenues, the RCMP is federal. So why didn’t Ottawa treat this as a national security threat?

Perhaps part of the answer lies in a scandal.

During his first term as Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau met with Paul King Jin, a businessman based in British Columbia. But Jin was no ordinary businessman. He would later become a central figure in BC’s commission of inquiry into money laundering.

Read more

*Paid subscribers can find the extended, ad-free version of the episode at the bottom of this article.*

Canada, much like the rest of the world, is at an inflection point.

In this week’s episode of The Blendr Report, we examine three defining pressures facing the country. These include who controls speech, who pays for policy failure, and whether Canada is still capable of defending its own institutions.

First, speech.

Mark Carney has positioned large social media platforms as a threat to democratic stability and national sovereignty. Under his leadership, legislation such as the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), amendments to hate-related provisions through Bill C-9, expanded cybersecurity powers under Bill C-8, and the Online News Act (Bill C-18) form a censorship machine. Supporters argue this is a necessary modernization of governance in an age of extremism and foreign interference. Critics counter that vague definitions of “harm,” steep penalties, and regulatory discretion create powerful incentives for over-censorship. When the cost of hosting controversial speech becomes existential, platforms will suppress first and ask questions later. The deeper issue is not whether harmful content exists — it does. The issue is whether the state should sit at the centre of deciding what Canadians are allowed to say and read.

Second, cost.

Conservatives tabled a motion to restrict federal healthcare benefits for rejected asylum claimants under the Interim Federal Health Program. What began as a targeted humanitarian measure has expanded alongside a growing backlog of claims and rapidly rising expenditures. Poilievre argues that rejected claimants should be limited to emergency life-saving care and that foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes should serve full sentences and face deportation. Liberals defend the program as part of Canada’s humanitarian and constitutional obligations. When Canadians struggle to access family doctors while rejected claimants remain eligible for supplementary coverage, frustration is predictable.

Third, institutional resilience.

Recent research mapping CCP-linked organizations in Canada suggests a density of influence activity unmatched among peer democracies. Analysts describe a long-term strategy of elite capture, civil society embedding, and quiet policy influence. Canada’s openness, immigration pathways, and Five Eyes membership make it strategically valuable. If infiltration occurs through networks rather than overt confrontation, the respon

se cannot be symbolic. It must be structural.

Taken together, these issues converge on sovereignty: informational, fiscal, and institutional. The direction Canada chooses will shape the next decade.

Below, for paid subscribers, we discuss a fourth story: the killing of El Mencho, CJNG retaliation, and what escalating cartel violence means for North American security.

Listen to The Blendr Report EP155 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Extended + Ad Free Version of Blendr Report EP155: Carney’s Censorship, Poilievre’s Refugee Motion, and CCP Infiltration

Read more

There are rare cases where limits on speech are considered acceptable. For example, even most “free speech” nations treat certain forms of lying as criminal acts, such as false advertising or defamation.

With the rise of gender ideology, however, we have seen a shift in how the legal system approaches speech and discrimination. Laws have traditionally been based on objective, observable truth—favouring what is provable and penalizing what is false or illegitimate.

In Canada, there are now cases that suggest this principle—and even truth itself—is no longer upheld when it conflicts with certain ideological narratives. The traditional ideals of Lady Justice appear increasingly fragile. The law is meant to be blind and impartial, symbolized by the blindfold. It is meant to be balanced, fair, and grounded in evidence, symbolized by the scales.

However, a case in Quebec has further exposed that the law favours some over others, deception over truth, and has put pressure on businesses—whether small or big—to conform to new societal norms, even when they are not grounded in truth.

A hair salon named Station 10 was ordered to pay $500 to Alexe Frédéric Migneaul, a self-identifying non-binary person who filed a complaint because there was no gender-fluid option on the business’s website, forcing them to select either male or female. This may seem small, but it paves the way for businesses to face lawsuits if they require clients to select “male” or “female” when applying for services.

This case is not the first of this nature, and it likely won’t be the last. What was promoted as acknowledging people’s feelings and addressing them with the proper pronouns has quickly made its way into law—spreading throughout our legislative system in the form of “human rights” codes.

Misgendering someone, or declining to treat a person according to a gender identity that differs from their biological sex, can now expose individuals and businesses to complaints or lawsuits at both the provincial and federal levels. Even in cases where the person retains the natural body parts of their biological sex.

Consider the case in Windsor, Ontario, where a local waxing spa was served with a human rights complaint and ordered to pay $35,000 after declining services to a biological male who identified as a transgender woman. The complainant alleged that the business had engaged in discrimination, arguing that the refusal was based on gender identity and gender expression. The stated basis for seeking compensation was what was described as “immense harm to my dignity.”

However, when you dig into the details, a different picture emerges. The service the trans woman requested was a “Brazilian wax,” which entails removing the pubic hair from the front (genitals) to the back (butt strip) and everything in between. It is a deeply intimate service and usually preformed by women to women and by men to men. As the waxing business’s clientele is 98% female, all of his staff are also female; however, they do wax men’s arms and backs from time to time.

In this particular case, the spa owner told the transgender person that they “have no male wax staff” and would be unable to provide that service to someone with male genitalia. Not to mention, the employees working that day included a practicing Muslim woman who refrains from physical contact with males outside her family, validating the refusal of service.

Share

Conformity in both cases did not resolve the issue. In the instance of the salon that lacked gender-fluid options on its website, the business updated its forms to include an “other” category, yet the complainant proceeded with the lawsuit regardless.

Similarly, the spa owner who declined a Brazilian wax stated that his business had no policy against serving transgender clients, emphasizing: “I once again reiterate and state my position and the position of Mad Wax Windsor Inc. that all clients, regardless of sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, are welcome.” Even so, the statement offered no protection in the outcome of the case.

We have blurred the lines between discrimination and truth, while inserting that principle into our laws. This is the result of integrating gender identity into our legislation, which is solely based on feelings and has no roots in objective reality.

If legal punishments in the name of gender ideology persist, companies and individuals will be forced to self-censor—and lie—in order to operate. This isn’t just a problem for businesses; individuals have been punished for saying what they believe to be true outside of professional settings. It has exposed a double standard in the system, furthering our descent away from true fairness.

Consider the case of nurse Amy Hamm. While working as a nurse and educator in B.C., she was suspended and asked to pay $94,000 for making “discriminatory and derogatory statements” about transgender people. This case takes the issue out of the professional realm and into the personal.

In 2017, Jordan Peterson warned that amending the Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act to include “gender identity” and “gender expression” would result in legal chaos. He argued that refusal to use someone’s preferred pronouns or denied and refused to acknowledge their gender identity, then the state could effectively compel individuals’ speech. While many legal scholars at the time argued this wouldn’t harm speech in everyday dialogue, the case of Amy Hamm clearly disputes that argument.

Read more

When Mark Carney entered Canadian politics after a career spanning Goldman Sachs, the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of England, he did not arrive as a retail politician. He arrived as an institutional figure—a steward of systems, a manager of crises, a man accustomed to steering complex structures through turbulence.

His supporters saw steadiness. His critics saw something else: a governing philosophy shaped in elite, transnational circles where stability is engineered from the top down.

Now, as Prime Minister, Carney has turned his attention to what he describes as one of the most pressing threats facing modern democracies: the influence of large social media platforms.

In public forums and interviews, Carney has argued that “large American online platforms have become breeding grounds for racism, misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and hate in all its forms,” adding that his government “will take action.” Framed in this way, the policy objective appears uncontroversial. Few Canadians would defend criminal incitement or harassment. Few would deny that digital platforms have amplified extreme rhetoric.

But the question facing the country is not whether online harms exist. It is how far a government should go in defining, regulating, and ultimately controlling the boundaries of acceptable speech.

Beneath the language of protection lies a far more consequential transformation: the gradual repositioning of the federal government from regulator of industries to architect of the national information environment itself—asserting the authority to define what constitutes harm, and constructing the legal machinery to enforce that definition.

The Language of Protection and the Language of Power

Carney’s phrasing is precise. By emphasizing “large American platforms,” he reframes the issue not merely as one of moderation but of sovereignty. By his definition, these companies are not simply negligent corporations; they are foreign actors shaping Canadian civic life.

That framing echoes themes he has articulated beyond media policy. At the World Economic Forum in Davos in early 2026, Carney warned of a “rupture” in the global order, a “new world order,” and urged middle powers like Canada to assert greater “strategic autonomy.” Though those remarks centred on trade tensions and geopolitical fragmentation, the through-line was clear: in periods of disorder, authority must consolidate.

Applied to digital governance, that instinct translates into national reclamation of informational space. Regulation becomes an assertion of control over the arteries through which public opinion flows.

Carney’s rhetoric intensified during renewed friction with Trump, a moment when skepticism toward American corporate power resonated domestically. In an era where Meta, X, Google, and YouTube shape what billions see and share, Carney’s government argues that Canada must assert regulatory control to protect democratic integrity. But sovereignty over platforms inevitably intersects with sovereignty over speech.

When the state disciplines infrastructure providers, it also reshapes the incentives governing which ideas survive within that infrastructure. This is where skepticism becomes unavoidable.

Digital platforms have not merely amplified hate; they have also exposed government failures, mobilized grassroots protest movements, and disrupted entrenched power structures. The trucker protests, pipeline battles, and decentralized online campaigns demonstrated that information no longer flows exclusively through legacy institutions.

For governments accustomed to message discipline, that decentralization is destabilizing. Regulation, then, can serve two purposes at once: addressing genuine harms—but far more importantly for the governing power structure—restoring predictability to an unruly public square.

From Economic Management to Information Management

Carney’s career was built on the management of financial systems under stress. During the 2008 financial crisis and Brexit-era volatility, intervention was not ideological — it was operational. Stability justified coordination.

That managerial worldview now appears to be extending beyond markets and into discourse itself.

The governing assumption seems to be this: left unregulated, complex systems produce risk. Risk must be mitigated through centralized oversight. The logic that once applied to liquidity and capital flows is now being applied to speech and information.

The shift is subtle but consequential. Canada is moving from regulating industries to shaping the informational environment in which democratic debate unfolds. The difference is enormous.

The Legislative Framework: A Converging Architecture

Several pieces of legislation—some inherited from prior Liberal initiatives, others introduced or revived under Carney—form a developing architecture of digital oversight (and control).

The Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)

Marketed as a response to child exploitation and severe online abuse, the Online Harms Act establishes a Digital Safety Commission with authority to investigate platforms and impose penalties reaching up to 6 percent of global revenue. The law outlines categories of harmful content and creates a complaint-based enforcement structure.

Bill C-63 does not stop at regulating platforms; it also establishes a sweeping penalty framework for individual Canadians. The bill will enforce fines reaching as high as $75,000, pre-emptive restrictions aimed at individuals deemed likely to commit an infraction, retroactive consequences for past expression, and in the most severe cases, the possibility of life imprisonment for speech-related offences.

The intention, supporters argue, is to bring accountability to companies that have too often relied on reactive moderation. However, the concern lies in scope and elasticity. Definitions of “harmful content” can, and will, evolve over time. Regulatory bodies, once empowered, tend to interpret mandates expansively—especially when public pressure mounts following high-profile incidents.

In practice, this dynamic incentivizes platforms to over-censor. When the penalty for failing to remove harmful content is severe, but the penalty for removing lawful speech is minimal, risk-averse companies err on the side of deletion.

The result may not be overt government censorship in the beginning. It may be algorithmic narrowing—an environment where controversial debates on immigration levels, gender policy, energy development, or public spending quietly disappear from visibility because they sit too close to regulatory red lines.

Bill C-9 and the Expansion of Hate Provisions

The government’s amendments to hate-related provisions in the Criminal Code seek to streamline prosecutions and broaden the interpretation of hatred. Proponents contend that modern digital environments require updated tools to address coordinated harassment and extremist symbolism.

The tension emerges in the boundary between incitement and offence.

Canadian law has long distinguished between speech that is deeply offensive and speech that meets the high legal threshold for criminal hate propaganda. Lowering procedural barriers and widening definitions risks compressing that distinction, and suppressing dissent of any kind.

Legal scholars have repeatedly noted that criminal law must be precise, particularly when it intersects with expression protected under the Charter. Vague or subjective criteria will create uncertainty, and uncertainty chills speech even before a single conviction occurs, but perhaps that’s the entire point.

Cybersecurity and Surveillance Authorities

Through Bill C-8, the federal government has expanded oversight powers related to cybersecurity and critical digital infrastructure. In an era of foreign interference and ransomware attacks, the case for enhanced defensive capabilities is clear.

Yet the line between cybersecurity coordination and data access is thin—in fact, it’s non-existent. Mandated reporting requirements, inspection authorities, and information-sharing frameworks will increase state visibility into all digital systems. Even if rarely abused, the capacity itself alters the balance of power between citizen and state.

The long-term concern is not that Canada will become a surveillance state overnight. It is that the technical capacity for comprehensive monitoring, once normalized, becomes politically difficult to unwind. The concern, then, is that Canada will become a surveillance state incrementally—expanding oversight inch by inch, step by step until the cumulative shift is recognized only after the balance has already tilted. And, as we know, governments rarely relinquish power once acquired.

Information Control Through Economic Levers

The Online News Act (Bill C-18), introduced before Carney’s premiership but still emblematic of the broader trend, forced digital platforms to negotiate compensation with Canadian news organizations. The immediate result included news blockades and a restructuring of how journalism circulates online.

While designed to sustain domestic media—which is nonsense to begin with—critics argue it strengthened legacy outlets while disadvantaging smaller independent voices. Economic pressure, rather than explicit censorship, reshaped visibility.

When combined with digital harms legislation, economic regulation and content moderation begin to converge. Platforms must not only comply with payment schemes but also align with content standards defined by government-appointed bodies.

Over time, this convergence creates an informational ecosystem in which state policy and platform policy reinforce one another.

The Cultural Consequences

Legal authority is only one dimension of power. Cultural adaptation often follows regulatory change.

If digital expression becomes increasingly policed—whether by state agencies or by platforms responding to regulatory threat—institutions adapt. Universities recalibrate acceptable discourse. Corporate HR policies mirror federal language. Media outlets narrow guest lists to avoid reputational or regulatory exposure. Once these powers are entrenched, it would take only a few actions by the legal system to suppress dissent, setting the stage for a new, tightly controlled order to take hold. If you’re wondering where we’re at in this cycle, all you have to do is read yesterday’s news - Former B.C. school trustee ordered to pay $750K for hate speech, discrimination.

Citizens quickly grasp cause and effect, and even if they disagree with the rules, they begin to internalize boundaries and weigh the risks of crossing them. The effect is rarely dramatic—instead, the margins of debate contract incrementally, and topics once contested become socially untouchable. The public square becomes managed not through overt censorship but through layered incentives.

Over time, the country drifts toward a form of managed democracy—one in which elections remain competitive, but the informational environment surrounding them is curated, stabilized, and sanitized. In other words, true democracy is left behind.

A National Turning Point

Canada is not Russia, nor is it China (yet), but trajectory matters.

Liberal democracies do not lose freedoms abruptly. They erode gradually, through expansions of authority responding to genuine problems. Each crisis—misinformation, hate speech, foreign interference—expands the justification for oversight. Each oversight becomes institutionalized. Each institution develops incentives to justify its continued existence.

Carney presents his approach as modernization, as responsible governance in a networked age. And it is true that digital platforms have introduced new challenges to the world. Yet the remedy carries risk of its own.

When governments define the outer boundary of acceptable thought, political temptation is inevitable. Today’s definition of harm can expand tomorrow. Today’s protection can become tomorrow’s enforcement.

The core question is not whether online abuse should be addressed. It is whether Canadians are comfortable concentrating informational authority in institutions that are themselves political actors—institutions that benefit from censoring criticism, and punishing dissent.

Once the oversight architecture is fully established, with empowered commissions, standardized penalties, and institutionalized monitoring frameworks, rolling it back becomes extraordinarily difficult..

So…Canada stands at a crossroads not between order and chaos, but between competing visions of democratic resilience: one that tolerates friction and risk in exchange for wide latitude of expression, and another that prioritizes stability, even if that stability narrows the range of permissible dissent, and enforces harsh penalties for stepping out of line.

Mark Carney has made his choice clear. The country must now decide whether it agrees.

*Paid subscribers can find the extended, ad-free version of the episode at the bottom of this article.*

Why does victimhood carry moral authority? Why do ideas that clearly harm working-class communities gain traction among the highly educated? And why do revolutions so often seem to be led not by the poor, but by elites?

In Episode 154 of The Blendr Report, we sit down with social psychologist Rob Henderson to unpack the deeper psychological forces shaping modern culture — status, envy, prestige, dominance, and what he famously calls “luxury beliefs.”

What is social status? Drawing on evolutionary psychology, Rob Henderson explains the difference between dominance and prestige — two very different paths to influence. Dominance relies on coercion and intimidation, while prestige emerges from competence, usefulness, and earned respect. While both routes exist, prestige hierarchies tend to be more stable and more aligned with cooperation.

Rob also explains his idea of “luxury beliefs.” These are ideas that signal status among the affluent while imposing real-world costs on those with fewer resources. These beliefs often appear compassionate on the surface, but the incentives behind them are rarely examined. Henderson argues that in a world where material goods no longer clearly signal class, beliefs themselves have become status markers.

We also explore the psychology of envy — benign versus malicious — and how resentment can disguise itself as moral righteousness. This concept is discussed in the context of revolutionary movements, elite overproduction, and even the literary warnings of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. The patterns are not new. What feels modern may simply be a recurring feature of human social competition.

Finally, we examine the “virtuous victim effect” — research suggesting that perceived victimhood can grant moral credibility and social leniency. In certain environments, positioning oneself as harmed can become a strategic advantage. That dynamic has implications for institutions, universities, and broader cultural norms.

This episode is about political and cultural incentives. Namely, the psychological rewards that quietly shape behaviour. If we want to understand why certain ideas spread, why status competition intensifies, and why moral language is so often weaponized, we have to begin there.

The full conversation goes deeper into these themes, including gender dynamics, modern dating, and how status functions differently across men and women.

Listen to The Blendr Report EP154 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Extended + Ad Free Version of Blendr Report EP154: The Psychology of Victimhood, Envy, and Social Status with Rob Henderson

Read more

*Paid subscribers can find the extended, ad-free version of the episode at the bottom of this article.*

The February 10th massacre in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia left eight people dead and dozens wounded. In the aftermath, there has been very little willingness to examine the deeper institutional layers surrounding the accused — including mental health treatment, antidepressant use, and the rapid normalization of youth gender transition.

In this episode, we examine what is publicly known about the shooter’s mental health history, online activity, and reported struggles with gender dysphoria. We also discuss the broader data: rising rates of antidepressant prescriptions among youth, the significant overlap between psychiatric disorders and gender clinic referrals, and the long-term physiological effects of hormone suppression. These are not easy conversations. But avoiding them does not make them disappear.

There is also a cultural dimension that cannot be ignored. What happens when confused and distressed adolescents are told that radical medical intervention is the solution to identity turmoil? What happens when institutions — schools, media, political leaders, and even medical bodies — are structurally incentivized not to question the trajectory they’ve endorsed? We explore the possibility that what presents as compassion can, in some cases, mask a failure to address underlying mental health crises.

The episode also turns to the institutional response in British Columbia, including questions about emergency healthcare access in rural communities and the allocation of public resources. Tragedy exposes more than one fault line.

In the second half, we shift to Washington. Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie publicly named six individuals they believe were improperly redacted in the Epstein files. The decision raises uncomfortable questions about transparency, political protection, and the extent to which powerful networks are shielded from scrutiny.

If you want a deeper exploration of the data, the arguments, and the broader implications, the full episode unpacks each layer carefully. These are complicated issues. They deserve more than headlines.

Listen to The Blendr Report EP153 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Extended + Ad Free Version of Blendr Report EP153: Tumbler Ridge Massacre: Gender Ideology, SSRIs & Media Silence

Read more

*Paid subscribers can find the extended, ad-free version of the episode at the bottom of this article.*

As of now, it remains unclear whether the Epstein files will lead to any real consequences. Many expected a reckoning—clear villains, crimes, and accountability. What arrived instead was a catalogue of names and never ending redactions. In the absence of justice, the files still offer something else: a rare glimpse into the architecture of a global power network.

Jeffrey Epstein is often treated as an anomaly—a singular moral failure who exploited his proximity to power. The files suggest something more complex. He appears less an outlier and more an intermediary: someone who specialized in access, coordination between entities rarely seen as connected—such as government and organized crime—and the accumulation of leverage over powerful people. He held no formal title and wielded no official authority, yet he was plainly useful to those who did. When political leaders, financiers, royalty, and celebrities all orbit the same figure, the question shifts from what he did to why he was needed.

The files seem to confirm an old suspicion: modern influence is not concentrated in offices or elections but dispersed across overlapping systems of finance, intelligence, media, and culture. No single actor commands it. Many, however, have a stake in keeping it intact.

What makes this network durable is not secrecy alone, but psychology. Systems of this kind do not survive merely because people are coerced; they persist because participation is often rewarded and resistance is costly. Compliance is easier than confrontation. Silence is safer than dissent. Over time, the distinction between complicity and self-preservation becomes blurred, and the system sustains itself without requiring overt force.

Episode 152 of The Blendr Report discusses both the structure and human behaviour underlying this network. It examines why unsettling information is so easily absorbed without altering belief or action. Why facts that threaten identity or stability are filtered, reframed, or dismissed. Why exposure does not automatically lead to accountability. History offers a consistent answer: when truth demands too much—status, security, social belonging—most people look for a way to live alongside it rather than act on it.

The Epstein files are troubling not because they revealed something entirely new, but because they confirmed something many prefer not to admit. Power rarely collapses under exposure. More often, it absorbs scrutiny, sheds a few expendable figures, and carries on. Scandals pass. Structures remain.

What remains after reading the documents is less a sense of shock than of incompleteness. Not because the record is empty, but because it points toward implications that sit outside the usual boundaries of scandal and punishment. The files do not resolve the story; they widen it, inviting a deeper look at how power actually operates and how rarely it aligns with public expectations.

Listen to The Blendr Report EP152 on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Rumble.

Share

Extended + Ad Free Version of Blendr Report EP152: The Epstein Files Expose a Global Power Network

Read more

“It is chiefly in times of physical, political, economic, and spiritual distress that men’s eyes turn with anxious hope to the future, and when anticipations, utopias, and apocalyptic visions multiply.”

Carl Jung made this observation in 1957, having lived through the creation, sustainment, and collapse of totalitarian systems. It is a sharp insight: before societies impose systems of total control, there is often a widespread psychological disorientation—an erosion of moral confidence, judgment, and shared reality.

No matter whether you’re left, right, centre, or determined to avoid politics altogether, most people sense that we are standing on unstable ground. We haven’t merely argued ourselves into confusion or grown more hostile in public debates. A more accurate description is that something deeper has shifted. People seem… spellbound.

As personal, social, and economic conditions worsen, populations become more receptive to collectivist promises—tempted to trade freedom for comfort and certainty. Fyodor Dostoevsky captured this bargain with chilling clarity through the figure of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov:

“In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say… ‘Make us your slaves, but feed us.’”

This is the pitch at the heart of every totalitarian movement: order, bread, and moral certainty. In times of anxiety and dislocation, the offer is profoundly seductive. Dostoevsky warned that “anyone who can appease a man’s conscience can take his freedom away from him.”

From Bolshevik and Maoist revolutions to Iranian theocracy and European fascism, the pattern repeats. Different symbols, different enemies—but the same psychological mechanics. A small cadre of psychologically disordered revolutionaries promises utopia, while large numbers of otherwise normal people—confused, fearful, and morally exhausted—are drawn into movements that offer certainty in place of responsibility.

This is where the work of psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski becomes indispensable. Having lived under communist rule in Poland, he concluded that totalitarian systems are not primarily ideological failures. They are psychological takeovers—marked by the systematic elevation of disordered personalities into positions of power, and the gradual reorganization of society around them.

Dostoevsky named the temptation and the sales pitch; Lobaczewski explains the mechanism. But neither he, nor Jung, nor Dostoevsky believed that totalitarian systems emerge simply because a tyrant imposes his will on a passive population. The darker truth they each circled, in different ways, is that such systems require participation.

In this sense, totalitarianism is not imposed so much as it is accepted. It is a deal with the devil—made not because people are evil, but because they are afraid, disoriented, and searching for relief. Understanding that bargain is the first step toward understanding how free societies quietly consent to their own inversion.

The Missing Lens

It is often useful to analyze political systems through the lenses of political science, economics, and ideology—focusing on what systems claim to do. But these frameworks routinely fail to explain something more unsettling: why certain systems behave in profoundly inhuman ways, and why the same kinds of people reliably end up running them.

Marxism, fascism, and theocracy are typically understood as economic arrangements, belief systems, or struggles for power. Those descriptions are not wrong—but they are incomplete. They cannot account for the surreal cruelty, the obsessive lying, the inversion of moral language, or the way radically different movements produce eerily similar outcomes.

Why do systems that promise liberation, justice, or salvation so often converge on repression, fear, and brutality?

Andrew Lobaczewski’s work helps answer these questions. Born in 1921, Lobaczewski grew up in rural Poland, served in the underground resistance during Nazi occupation, and later lived under Soviet-imposed communism. His family estate was confiscated by the regime. He did not study totalitarianism from a safe historical distance, but from inside societies that had been psychologically reorganized.

Lobaczewski was not primarily interested in whether one ideology was better than another. He asked a different question altogether: what kind of people rise to power under certain conditions, and how do normal people become reorganized around them?

From this inquiry emerged his discipline of political ponerology—the study of how evil arises in political systems, understood not morally, but psychologically. While evil is often treated as a religious concept or a metaphysical abstraction, Lobaczewski approached it as something observable, patterned, and diagnosable. Moral language tells us that something is wrong; ponerology explains how it takes hold.

Every society contains a small percentage of psychologically disordered individuals. Under healthy conditions, they remain marginal. But as social stress rises and moral clarity erodes, rational judgment weakens, emotional thinking dominates, and pathological traits begin to gain social traction. Carl Jung warned that when collective emotion overwhelms reason, “a sort of collective possession results which rapidly develops into a psychic epidemic.”

Jung estimated that for every manifest case of insanity, there are ten more latent cases—individuals who appear outwardly normal but whose thinking is influenced by unconscious distortions. Lobaczewski recognized that during periods of collapse and uncertainty, such individuals begin to cluster, network, and gain influence, while healthier personalities retreat, adapt, or are pushed aside.

This initiates a destructive feedback loop. Social hardship increases psychological instability; instability elevates pathological actors; pathological leadership deepens social hardship. Over time, a process of negative selection takes hold: competent and ethical individuals are removed or sidelined, while disordered personalities are promoted and celebrated. As institutions—from education and media to politics and culture—undergo this inversion, language itself is reshaped to normalize the abnormal.

The goal, then, is not to argue over what people believe, but to understand who is attracted to power under these conditions—and why. Communist, fascist, and theocratic nightmares are not sustained by a single tyrant alone, but by a recognizable cast of psychological types, each playing a predictable role in the maintenance of pathocratic systems.

1. The Psychopaths

Type: Apex operators
Driver: Power and domination
Tool: Coercion, intimidation, leverage, violence
Danger: Ruthlessness without conscience
Failure mode: Overreach, cruelty, and paranoia

Psychopaths do not merely behave badly; they experience reality differently. They see the world as something that owes them—status, power, pleasure, or dominance—and they feel no internal restraint about how those things are obtained or preserved. Terror, torture, murder, and mass extermination are acceptable tools when conditions allow. When they do not, reputational destruction, career annihilation, and social exile work just as well.

To the psychopath, life is a zero-sum contest. Morality, tradition, religion, and virtue are not guiding principles but naïve illusions. The world they envision is not one ordered by justice or restraint, but one in which they sit unchallenged at the top.

This is why their language so often mimics moral concern. Words like freedom, liberation, equality, and utopia are useful not because they mean anything to them, but because they move others. Moral language is something psychopaths deploy, not something they feel. It is not a standard they hold themselves to, but a weapon used to control those who still possess a conscience.

Importantly, psychopaths are rarely the charismatic, idealistic figures who ignite revolutions. They rise after the chaos has done its work. They wait for institutions to weaken, for rivals to exhaust themselves, and for principled people to withdraw in disgust or despair. Where ideologues start revolutions, psychopaths consolidate and complete them.

By the time they rule, cruelty has become procedure, conscience has been engineered out, and power no longer needs to justify itself. The system works—because it has been emptied of anything that would stop it.

Historical examples: Joseph Stalin, Lavrentiy Beria, Heinrich Himmler, Ali Khamenei, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Augusto Pinochet.

Pop culture analogues: Emperor Palpatine (Star Wars), Littlefinger (Game of Thrones), Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter), Ozymandias (Watchmen), Logan Roy (Succession), Agent Smith (The Matrix).

2. The Schizoids

Type: Ideological engineers
Driver: Order through abstraction
Tool: Totalizing systems, utopian logic, rationalization
Danger: Suffering justified as necessity
Failure mode: When theory collides with human reality

If psychopaths ultimately control the system, schizoids are the ones who design it. By schizoid, Andrew Lobaczewski does not mean schizophrenia, but a personality structure marked by emotional distance, weak empathy, and a powerful capacity for abstraction. Schizoids live primarily in the realm of ideas. People are not encountered as persons, but as variables. Moral concern exists, but it is conceptual rather than felt.

Their function within a pathocratic system is to supply justifying narratives, moral abstractions, and totalizing frameworks that make domination appear necessary—even virtuous. They are not typically the ones who carry out violence. Their role is more subtle and far more dangerous: they make violence thinkable. As psychopathic rulers grow increasingly cruel, schizoids supply the explanations. They construct elaborate visions of a future utopia—one that will allegedly emerge once the revolution has finished its work and resistance has been eliminated.

Lobaczewski observed that carriers of this personality structure tend to be hypersensitive and distrustful, while paying little attention to the emotional reality of others. They gravitate toward extreme moralizing positions and often display a readiness to retaliate for perceived slights. In their writings and rhetoric, a recurring theme appears: that human nature is fundamentally defective, and that order can only be imposed by a strong authority guided by exceptionally rational minds acting in the name of a higher idea.

This is the critical inversion. When the system fails, it is never the theory that is blamed. It is the people. The idea remains flawless; humanity must be corrected to fit it. Suffering, in this framework, is not a warning sign but a necessary stage of implementation.

Schizoids provide the vision. Psychopaths eventually take control of the machinery built around it.

Historical examples: Karl Marx, Mao Zedong, Leon Trotsky, Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault, Vladimir Lenin.

Pop-culture analogues: The Architect (The Matrix), Ozymandis (Watchmen), Thanos (Avengers), Ra’s al Ghul (Batman), Sister Sage (The Boys)

3. The Spellbinders

Type: Charismatic translators
Driver: Influence, approval, narrative dominance
Tool: Moralized language, emotional framing, identity formation
Danger: Mass manipulation through sentiment rather than truth
Failure mode: Narrative collapse when contradictions become visible

If psychopaths run the organization and schizoids design the system, spellbinders are the sales force. They take abstract ideology and translate it into emotionally contagious language. Their skill is not argument, but linguistic seduction—using words to bypass conscience rather than persuade reason. Spellbinders are neither architects nor apex predators. They are translators, capable of making cold systems sound humane and moral.

In practical terms, they function as propagandists—but not merely in the narrow sense of officials delivering speeches from behind podiums. Spellbinders operate wherever language shapes perception. They make art serve ideology. They intuit audience psychology. They excel at emotional framing, knowing which words soothe, which inflame, and which confer moral legitimacy. Their power lies in tone, cadence, and narrative, not in evidence.

Their primary tool of persuasion is emotional alignment, not truth or logic. One of their central functions is the creation of collective identity. Spellbinders ensure that everyone knows what the group is supposed to think, feel, and signal about every issue. Belonging is rewarded; deviation is marked. Moral consensus becomes social currency.

The spellbinder’s playbook is consistent: repetition of moralized language, erasure of complexity, elevation of compliance as virtue, and demonization of dissent as danger. In fiction this is often depicted as hypnosis, but in reality it is something more mundane and more powerful—emotional induction, reinforced socially and institutionally. This is how crowds come to experience themselves as righteous while actively defending cruelty.

In this sense, spellbinders are the emotional lubricants of the system. Schizoids design it. Psychopaths operate it. Spellbinders are the ones who convince everyone else that it is good.

Historical Examples: Joseph Goebbels, Edward Bernays, Pravda, Walter Duranty.

Pop Culture Examples: Varys (Game of Thrones), Stormfront (The Boys), Nick Naylor (Thank You For Smoking)

4. The Spellbound

Type: True believers
Driver: Moral certainty
Tool: Social enforcement
Danger: Scale and sincerity
Failure mode: Collapse when reality intrudes

Beneath every totalitarian system lies a mass of people who internalize the lie and enforce it on one another. These are not monsters or masterminds, but ordinary individuals who become active defenders of pathological regimes. The moral certainty supplied by the system gradually overrides independent judgment, until conscience is no longer consulted at all.

The spellbound are not psychopaths, nor are they cynical manipulators. They are sincere believers. This distinction is crucial. They do not pretend to believe—they believe. Andrew Lobaczewski described them as individuals psychologically inducted into a pathological worldview, who experience a sense of moral elevation through compliance. Obedience feels righteous. Alignment feels good.

If spellbinders create the moral language, the spellbound absorb it wholesale. They consume the movement’s slogans until belief becomes identity. The group then reinforces that identity by rewarding every visible signal of ideological conformity and punishing deviation. At this stage, enforcement becomes horizontal. Fear of exclusion replaces fear of the state. Neighbours, colleagues, classmates, and even family members begin to do the work the regime no longer needs to do itself.

This is what makes the spellbound so dangerous. Psychopaths harm through power. The spellbound harm through scale. Their numbers overwhelm reason. Once a crowd descends, no individual conscience remains to negotiate with.

If schizoids imagine the system, psychopaths operate it, and spellbinders sell it, then the spellbound are the ones who enforce it—loudly, sincerely, and in vast numbers.

Historical examples: Hitler Youth, Red Guards, Free German Youth, Blackshirts, child soldiers.

Pop-culture analogues: The Faith Militant (Game of Thrones), Inquisitorial Squad (Harry Potter), TVA Agents (Marvel)

Share

5. The Adapted Conformists

Type: Silent enablers
Driver: Fear and self-preservation
Tool: Compliance and silence
Danger: Legitimization and continuity
Failure mode: Moral numbness

If schizoids imagine the system, psychopaths run it, spellbinders sell it, and the spellbound enforce it, then adapted conformists normalize it. These people are not psychopaths, zealots, or propagandists. They are ordinary, rational individuals who recognize that something has gone wrong—and adapt anyway.

They are driven not by ideology, but by self-preservation. Conflict is avoided. Risk is minimized. As long as they do not stand out, they believe the system will pass them by. They want to protect their livelihoods, reputations, families, and social standing. In nearly every respect, they are psychologically normal. The danger lies precisely there. Over time, they quietly recalibrate their behaviour to fit pathological conditions.

Unlike the spellbound, adapted conformists do not imagine themselves as part of a grand moral mission. Their compromises are small and incremental. Silence is reframed as prudence. Compliance becomes professionalism. They tell themselves they are “just doing their job,” that it is “not their responsibility,” or that resistance would change nothing anyway. These justifications allow them to preserve a positive self-image while gradually surrendering their conscience.

Totalitarian systems cannot function on radicalism alone. They depend on quiet cooperation—on people who keep institutions running, staff bureaucracies, follow procedures, and make repression appear routine. The adapted conformists supply continuity, legitimacy, and normalcy. Without them, the system stalls. With them, it endures.

Historical examples: Soviet factory managers, Eichmann-era German civil servants, Stasi officers, CCP teachers.

Pop-culture analogues: Winston Smith (1984), Capitol bureaucrats (The Hunger Games), Ministry of Magic officials (Harry Potter), Vault-tec employees (Fallout)

6. The Bystanders

Type: Passive majority
Driver: Fear, confusion, disengagement
Tool: Silence
Danger: Scale
Failure mode: Regret after normalization

Bystanders are not enablers in the bureaucratic sense. They do not administer the system or actively enforce its rules. Their role is quieter and more common. They are the confused, the disengaged, the overwhelmed, and the afraid. Not ideologues or functionaries, but the passive majority.

They often suffer from political fatigue and moral uncertainty. Rather than forming independent judgments, they rely on authority, social consensus, or prevailing narratives to define reality for them. Many sense that something is wrong, but lack the clarity, confidence, or energy to respond. More often than not, daily distractions—comfort, entertainment, routine—crowd out attention to what is unfolding around them.

When discomfort breaks through, it is quickly neutralized. They tell themselves that “both sides are bad,” that they “just want to live their life,” or that events “don’t really affect them.” The regime does not require their belief. It requires only their disengagement. Apathy, not conviction, is sufficient.

Over time, the abnormal becomes familiar. What once shocked becomes mundane. Silence becomes habit. Bystanders adapt not because they approve, but because resistance feels confusing, futile, or personally risky. In this way, inaction quietly clears the path for everything else to proceed.

Historical examples: the vast majority of populations under authoritarian systems.

Pop-culture analogues: the civilians caught between heroes and villains.

7. The Resisters

Type: Moral minority
Driver: Conscience over safety
Tool: Refusal
Danger to system: Exposure
Failure mode: Isolation

Resisters are the people most imagine themselves to be—and the fewest ever become. They are rare not by accident, but by design. Pathological systems move quickly to isolate them. Resisters are not defined by victory, popularity, or even success. They are defined by refusal—the refusal to internalize a lie or accept moral defeat. They are not necessarily rebellious, violent, or ideological. More often, they are simply individuals who retain moral clarity under sustained pressure.

Their defining traits are the capacity for independent judgment, the ability to endure social isolation, and a strong internal locus of control. Most are grounded in a moral framework that predates the system itself—religious conviction, philosophical reasoning, or hard-earned personal experience. Their identity is anchored in universal principles rather than group approval, which makes them difficult to assimilate and impossible to fully control.

Resisters are targeted early because they pose a symbolic threat. Totalitarian systems depend on the illusion of consensus. The mere existence of visible dissent exposes the lie that “everyone agrees.” As a result, resisters are censored, discredited, caricatured, and scapegoated. Silencing them is preventative, not reactive.

Popular culture often romanticizes resistance. Reality is harsher. Resisting a totalitarian system usually costs status, career, financial security, social belonging, and invites legal or institutional pressure. Many lose everything the average person is taught to value. What they retain—often at great personal cost—is their conscience.

Historical examples: Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Edward Snowden, Galileo Galilei.

Pop-culture analogues: Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games), Dumbledore’s Army (Harry Potter), Neo (The Matrix), Sarah Connor (The Terminator), Aragorn (The Lord of the Rings), V (V for Vendetta).

The Ponerogenesis Cycle: How the System Forms

Read more