Liberal pollster says conservatives believe in conspiracy theories — is he right?

Remove Ads

Abacus Data is a pollster we talk about from time to time, because they are very political and we’re interested in politics. I used to know their chief pollster, David Coletto — he was the house pollster for the Sun News Network, and I really enjoyed working with him. I don’t doubt Coletto’s technical skill, but I have to note that his new boss at Abacus, Bruce Anderson, is one of the most partisan Liberal shills around — huge Trudeau apologizer; his daughter used to work for Trudeau; he gets contracts from Trudeau.

So I approach anything from Abacus with that in mind — they’re really more like players than referees. So with that caveat in mind I’d like to show you their latest poll — about conspiracy theories. It just came out yesterday.

So you can see that while the science guy had a hand in this, so did Trudeau’s propaganda man. So proceed with caution. Here, let me read some of it to you:

We recently completed nationwide surveying among 1500 Canadians.  The focus was on the levels of trust people have in institutional sources of information, and belief in conspiracy theories.  This is the second in a series called “Trust & Facts: What Canadians Believe”.

That’s interesting, and you can guess why Trudeau would be interested in it. People don’t trust him; so his response isn’t to be more trustworthy; isn’t to be more transparent or democratic; it’s to tighten his grip. To censor more. To use more carrots and sticks with the idea middlemen — especially journalists, but also other institutions, like academic and courts and NGOs.

If someone says you’re untrustworthy, it’s easy to take offence, especially  someone as thin-skinned as Trudeau, someone who so obviously suffers from imposter syndrome — I mean, really, a man of his meagre accomplishments and intelligence must know that he would never have been PM were it not for the fact that he’s Pierre Trudeau’s son.

So he is defensive. In the last election, he got just 32% of the vote — so he knows that more than two-thirds of Canadians no longer buy what he’s selling. If he were a bigger man, he might actually reflect on his failures and try to amend them; if you’re under 45 you probably don’t know this, but Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 and tilted far to the left; he appointed his wife Hillary Clinton to lead their health-care nationalization campaign.

It was a disaster; the Democrats got shellacked in the 1994 mid-terms.

But instead of blaming people, Bill Clinton accepted their judgement of him. He abandoned Hillarycare. He moved to the centre. He reformed welfare; he pulled back. He’s a trickster, he’s credibly accused of sexual assault; he’s a liar, sure, of course, all those things. But underneath it all, he actually liked people, he’s a people-person, and instead of indulging his vengeance or hatred, he actually listened. He tacked back to the centre, and he won the 1996 election handily.

My point is, that’s what you want, right? You want a politician who pays some attention to the people — rather than blaming the people.

Well, not Trudeau. He’s becoming more and more bitter and vengeful — as I like to point out, he literally has four bills he’s working on to censor Canadians — C-11, which lets the CRTC regulate the Internet; C-18 which picks and chooses winners online; C-36 that provides extreme penalties for hurt feelings online; and a yet un-tabled “online harms” law that will set up a new Internet czar with the power to block or delete websites.

Four major bills or proposals — he’s obsessed with it. Does he have four comprehensive bills to make housing more affordable? To fight inflation? To get our airports fixed? Anything that real people actually care about? To help people; to put people first?

His four censorship bills all treat people as the enemy, treating them as the problem — but they’re only a problem to him. The problem is that they don’t like him, that they don’t trust him, and instead of reflecting on his failures and his personality traits that may be causing the distrust, he’s focused on blaming and demonizing others.

Oh, that, and getting out of Canada at every opportunity, to bask in the glow of foreign crowds who have no stake in Canada, have no vote here, but more to the point, still adore him like he was adored in 2015 before we found out who the real Trudeau was.

Look at this gross summit of the peacocks, when he met with the failed governor Gavin Newsom — seriously, so awful, so atrocious, that Californians actually voted to force a recall referendum on him — something that hasn’t happened in decades. Look at these two botox bandits.

Not a word about high prices or jobs or fixing his mess up here. Just a couple of guys admiring each others hair.

So that’s where this poll fits in. Trudeau isn’t wrong. It’s the people who are wrong. The fact that they don’t believe him, obey him, support him means that they must be nuts, or misled, or ignorant, or conspiracy theorists. It’s the only reason they might not support Trudeau. I mean, those truckers, right — how dare they? They must be Vladimir Putin’s stooges. It’s the only explanation that fits!

So let’s look at the poll:

44% (the equivalent of 13 million adults) believe “big events like wars, recessions and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people working in secret against us”. Almost as many agree “much of our lives are being controlled by plots hatched in secret places.”

Sounds pretty nefarious. I mean, who would believe that ridiculous theory!

Except — what we have lived through for the past two years? I mean, the pollster asked if “big events” are controlled by a small group. OK, can you think of a big event in recent years?

Anything, anything? Well, yeah — like the pandemic; its systematic propagandization; the censorship and even prosecution of critics, even doctors who dare dissent; the unprecedented suspension of our civil liberties; heretofore unheard of mass punishments — telling us when we could leave our homes; who we could have over to our homes; if and when we could go to church; if and when we could open our businesses or go to businesses; even entire populations being subject to a curfew. Children banned from school. Children forced to wear masks. Police enforcing such absurd laws.

None of that was debated in a legislature; none of that was done using our normal democratic processes. And it was so obviously designed to give exemptions for the fancy people. Your kid banned from hockey games, but the NHL allowed to play.

Suddenly Theresa Tam was our boss — who was she? Where did she come from? Who did she answer to? Who decided she was our ruler? What exactly is the WHO — and since when did they rule over us? Why couldn’t we ask about China’s virus labs? Why did Google and YouTube and Facebook and Instagram censor us for asking real questions? Why were the vaccine companies given legal immunity for any harm coming from their products — and then why were we forced to take those experimental medical products, on pain of losing our jobs and access to the public square?

So yeah — look at that question again:

“big events like wars, recessions and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people working in secret against us”.

44% of people agree — I’m just amazed that 56% of people think the last two years was some sort of normal democratic outcome.

I mean, I’m not sure if I’d put “wars” in there — Canada hasn’t been in a war in a long time; I think Afghanistan would be the one. And that one was indeed subject to a great amount of political debate. I don’t think we’re involved in the Ukraine war in any real way, other than rhetoric — but still, how did pushing Russia out of Ukraine become the world’s most important subject, so much so that we’re risking an all-out war with a nuclear-armed rival?

Forget about Canada; Trudeau is a poseur who sees Ukraine as another fun trip away from Canada, and a great photo op. But even for Americans — they approved $40B in military aid to Ukraine in a single night’s debate; there’s no declaration of war; I’m not sure how it all happened so quickly. But I do know it does meet the description that these pollsters use, above.

And in terms of a recession — I don’t know about that. But I do know that a small group of people — Trudeau, his out of control spending, and the Bank of Canada that was happy to print the money for him to spend — yeah, they really are the forces behind our inflation and cost of living, and the inevitable reaction, of rising interest rates that will make every mortgage payment higher in Canada. And again — what debate in Parliament? What debate even in the media — with economically illiterate journalists.

So yeah, if the shoe fits: a small cabal of politicians (Trudeau’s cabinet) and the elite and secretive board of the Bank of Canada did in fact collude to give us the conditions for a recession, which is surely looming.

Here’s a chart from their website:

“Much of our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places.”

Yes. Like the WEF in Davos, Switzerland, the world’s elite was there — and we were kept out of the secret meetings. It’s not a conspiracy theory to point out that Chrystia Freeland, our deputy prime minister and finance minister, is literally on the board of that secretive society. And that the boss of that secret society, Klaus Schwab, brags about that fact.

So if there were not true, wouldn’t Chrystia Freeland correct him? Wouldn’t she resign from his board? How does a cabinet minister who has to be loyal to Canada manage to be on a board, loyal to another entity, that seeks to create world economic policy?

So who is she serving — Canada’s board of directors (which is really what a cabinet is)? Or Klaus Schwab’s board of directors? You can’t serve both. 

This is a real photo, from the prime minister’s own account. That’s him, at the WEF, with George Soros and Freeland, who was Soros’s biographer before she was elected.

None of this is contested. So how could you possible answer the pollster’s question with anything other than a yes: “Much of our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places” uh, yeah. Maybe I’d add Wuhan, China, to that, too, but again, it’s a secret. Even the pro-Liberal Toronto Star wants to know what that’s all about — including the Chinese spies who were working in Canada’s top secret virus facility.

Trudeau is blocking those facts from being released. Why?

Here are some specific questions: “WEF group of elites with secret strategy to impose on the world”. 20% say yes, 37% aren’t sure and 42% don’t agree.

Well, it’s incredible to me that 20% of people even know about the WEF — there is no mainstream media coverage of it, other than to deny that it’s a thing. We sent six reporters there this year, but there were almost no other media, other than our friend Andrew Lawton from True North. I should be more precise — there were other media there, huge media, but they were there, in on it. As part of the meetings. They paid to be there. They weren’t reporting on it. They were inside, scheming.

Remember this?

Here’s another question: "secret societies control the world”. 22% say yes, 31% aren’t sure and 47% say no.

Well, I don’t know. The WEF is secretive. The UN is secretive. George Soros is secretive.

Here’s his official website, the Open Society Foundations. Slowly scroll down it — you can see all of the places they’re involved propping up left-wing activists, undermining local sovereignty and democracy. He even has funded violent revolutions in the past — the so-called colour revolutions in Eastern Europe. You can see they brag about having spent $18B, and all the way down, you can see that Soros has pledge $32 billion of his fortune.

So yeah — I’m not sure if that’s a secret society, but it’s secretive. And it’s undemocratic. And it absolutely has a huge impact on the world, including Canada — and you can’t vote him out, can you?

I think when you say “secret society” people think of a cult, something quasi-religious maybe, or a sex cult or whatever. They think of the freemasons, that sort of thing. The Illuminati. I don’t know a lot about them — but I am aware of some other secret societies

Like the “casting couch” culture in Hollywood, where countless actresses were extorted into sex, or actually raped, by Hollywood producers — or else they’d be blacklisted from the industry.

That’s not politics per se; but would you agree that Hollywood is a major source of political ideas, of cultural ideas? Politics is downstream from the culture; Harvey Weinstein the rapist was a huge Democrat, huge Hillary Clinton donor. And there were child actors who complained about being raped; but they were treated as kooks or liars. When in fact everyone knew about it; they were all just too cowardly to say it publicly, because they put their own careers first.

Here’s Courtney Love back in 2005 — a dozen years before Weinstein was finally taken down:

They all knew. But if you said anything, you were a kook. And that’s nothing compared to Jeffrey Epstein, who ran a worldwide child trafficking ring for the world’s richest elites — oligarchs, billionaires. 

Bill Gates met with Epstein dozens of times. Do you think they were talking about computers or something? Epstein was a child rapist, and a pimp of children to other rapists. Why did Melinda Gates take so long to speak out?

Did Bill threaten her too in some way?

Why is it that we know every detail about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp — every meticulous, titillating detail — but we don’t know the client lists of Epstein and his helper, Ghislaine Maxwell?

A conspiracy you say? Yeah, a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. Here’s a journalist, caught on a hot mic, leaked by someone in the control room, saying that there was a cover-up. Here’s Amy Robach of ABC saying exactly that — watch for one minute: 

Do you believe that Epstein hanged himself? Do you believe that it was just by chance that the security cameras in his cell were turned off?  Do you think it’s a coincidence that the guards to his cell falsified records? And that the government cut a deal with them to avoid a trial? I mean, the CBC believes all that.

I’m just wondering which explanation is more plausible — that there really was a global network of billionaires and politicians who raped children, and when the kingpin got caught his clients arranged that he be “suicided” to protect that client list — or if, no, the official version is the real one. That it was a series of whoopsies! And that we should believe he hanged himself, and we should be fine with never knowing his client list. And we shouldn’t ask questions or we’ll be called crazy. Like Courtney Love was.

I mean, now that Queen Elizabeth has stripped her son, Prince Andrew, of his remaining affiliations and duties because he admitted he paid an Epstein victim an enormous settlement, and now that Melinda Gates is effectively calling her husband a child rapist, can we acknowledge it? Or do we have to keep pretending?

So yeah. What’s the wording of that poll question again. “Do secret societies control the world?” I don’t know. They don’t control me. But I'm pretty sure that whoever controlled Jeffrey Epstein’s global pedophile operation wasn’t doing it for the money, but rather was doing it for the blackmail power.

So, control the world? Yeah, a bit. Secret societies? That’s Epstein’s world. If you add in secret UN and WHO and WEF meetings, I’d say, “partly yes”. I mean, let me know when Chrystia Freeland contradicts her boss.

Let me read one more question“Bill Gates uses microchips to track and affect peoples behaviour” 13% say yes, 21% don’t know, and 66% say no.

I mean, those kooks, right? Who are those 13% who say yes! Ha ha they’re crazy. Probably believe in UFOs or the sasquatch.

Now, I don’t think Bill Gates is doing that. He used to run Microsoft, but since then he’s been doing strange things like buying up more farmland than any other American — but saying we have to get off animal meat, and start eating synthetic meat. And telling us to drink what he calls poop water. And proposing a scheme to put billions of tons of dust into the air, to block out the sun, to reduce global warming.

That, and awkwardly answering questions about Jeffrey Epstein.

So, I don’t think he’s tracking us. And I don’t think the COVID vaccines track us either — though here’s Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, talking approvingly about literally putting a microchip in your pills, so your pill can report back to Pfizer or the government or whoever that you have obeyed and taken your dose:

So yeah, some conspiracy theory, eh? It’s so funny — all of these things are visible if you look. If you agree with them, that’s good. If you disagree with them, they gaslight you — saying they’re not real, they’re a conspiracy theory.

But I think that, for most people, Bill Gates is simply synonymous with Big Tech. It’s shorthand for Big Tech CEOs, who are maybe a bit creepy. You could put the lizard king Mark Zuckberger on the list, too.

So if you ask someone: is Big Tech tracking you and trying to affect your behaviour, I think that’s the same thing — or at least, that’s what some people would interpret the question as asking. It’s weird to name Bill Gates as an individual person, rather than the massive tech company he built, or other tech companies in the same space. So I think that’s a flawed question.

But if you asked someone: are tech companies tracking you? How could you answer that other than: yes?

Have you heard of an Internet “cookie”? Here’s how they’re defined by Norton, a computer security site: It’s very well-written, let me read a few sentences to you: 

What are cookies?
Cookies are small files sent to your browser from websites you visit. These files track and monitor the sites you visit and the items you click on these pages.

Retailers use cookies to remember what the apparel and shoes you've clicked on, the items you've stored in your online shopping cart, and the products you've purchased in the past. News sites use them to remember the stories you've opened in the past. Some sites might use cookies to remember your password and username so that they fill in automatically when you visit the site’s login page.

This might seem intrusive, and it's true that many users resent cookies following their activities across the internet. But companies and advertisers say cookies improve your online experience.

An example? A news site you visit each day can use the information it has collected through cookies to recommend other stories you might want to read. A retailer might use the information compiled through its cookies to suggest products you might like to buy based on the handbags, laptops, and smartphones you've clicked on its and other retailers' sites.

And that’s just cookies. That’s just from surfing the Internet. If you actually log in to an account somewhere — Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google — they don’t even need cookies, because they grab every single word you type, every photo you upload, every place you go. They track far more than cookies. If you ever read the terms of service for one of these apps, you’ll see you’re granting them a licence to use all of your photos. You “own” them; but if you put them on Instagram or Facebook, you’re giving them a right to use them for their own purposes.

And of course the biggest thing for sale is you — that’s why all these sites are free.

It’s sort of funny to phrase it, as these pollsters do, that “Bill Gates uses microchips to track and affect peoples behaviour,” like they’ve planted a chip in you. That’s so silly — they only do that for pets for now! Here’s a video from ten years agoOf course, you don’t need to do that to people. Because they’re carrying in their hands not just a little microchip, but a powerful computer, with a GPS tracker, a camera, a microphone, and all their emails and photos in it.

If you have a phone and use almost any app, you surely see the question: allow the app to access your camera? Your GPS? Your photos? So sometimes you’re warned — and, sure, you can say no. But then the apps might not work — and obviously apps based on your camera, like TikTok, wouldn’t work.

So yeah. What kind of nut thinks Bit Tech is tracking you? What kind of nut thinks that Big Tech is creating a database about you, and is using that information to affect you — whether it’s your shopping habits, or your political habits? Only a crazy person would believe that!

I want to show you one more slideThis is the demographic breakdown of people who answered the WEF question — You can see the national average is 22% of people who believe the WEF has a strategy to impose their ideas on the world. I have to say, that isn’t even a matter of opinion. They do have a strategy to do that. Whether or not they’re successful; whether or not they’re moral — those are up for debate. But they explicitly have a goal, a plan, a strategy to do that. It’s not even a matter of opinion that they have such a strategy.

But back to the results.

You’ll see that PPC supporters are the most convinced of that, 61%. Conservative Party of Canada voters are 30%. Other parties are, too, including 18% of Liberals. But you can see, by ideology, the right is twice as concerned as the left. Maybe because the ideas of the WEF are essentially leftist and authoritarian, so what’s the worry — that’s their team.

You can see the real purpose of this poll in the next line — to smear Pierre Poilievre as a kook leading the kooks, since 34% of Poilievre’s supporters are worried about this Compared to only 13% of Charest supports who are worried about this.

And the last three lines are interesting too — basically, if you don’t trust the media or the government, you’re worried about this. I get it. Makes sense. But it’s not that being a Poilievre supporter makes you skeptical of the WEF. It’s the opposite — if you are skeptical of power, of secrecy, of hidden elites, of oligarchs — who on earth would you support? Trudeau, who loves to hobnob with them? If you are worried about these things, how could you possibly support forces of the establishment status quo?

What this is really about is coming up with an alternative reality for why Trudeau — and the establishment elites — are unpopular.

Trudeau is not unpopular because he’s a shallow, vain, slippery politician who denounces people as racist if they disagree with him. He’s not unpopular because he put Canada under a form of martial law and threw his enemies in prison and seized their bank accounts. He’s not unpopular because he’s ruining our economy. No, no. He’s unpopular because we, the people, aren’t worthy of him, we don’t see his greatness, and we’re being tricked and conned by conspiracy theories.

Like the outlandish idea that unelected people had power over us during the lockdowns; or that our cabinet pays more attention to George Soros or Klaus Schwab, than do ordinary Canadians.

But here’s what the pollsters say in conclusion. I’ll just pick out a few lines:

Only recently we’ve witnessed how a massive demand for the protection offered by Covid 19 vaccines fostered a strenuous effort by those who disbelieve government and media to deny the value of those same vaccines.

Yeah no. Massive demand? I guess if you threaten to fire anyone who doesn’t take a vaccine, and then ban them from stores and restaurants and gyms and schools and airlines, yeah, I guess you’ll get demand. And I don’t know about you, but I have never heard anyone calling for vaccines to be banned; just the freedom to choose. They say these vaccines have “value” — they don’t mean to Pfizer; they mean to citizens. Yeah, again, I guess that’s up to the individual.

Here’s how they conclude:

Perhaps the most disconcerting thing in these numbers is the fact that mistrust of institutional accounts isn’t simply neutral skepticism – it is often accompanied by a willingness to believe dangerous contrarian theories. This threatens to undermine the ability of political parties, businesses, civil society groups, and governments to help build consensus and make progress together.

Hey guys. It’s dangerous to be contrarian. It’s dangerous to disagree with us. We need to a consensus — you need to agree with us, though. We don’t have to agree with you. We’re normal. You’re contrarian. We’re safe. You’re dangerous. We’re neutral; you’re radical. Don’t you understand?

They’re doing what they’ve been doing since the beginning: redefining anyone who disagrees with Trudeau as dangerous, stupid, evil, a non-personal.

That’s 67% of us, by the way.

GUEST: Spencer Fernando (@SpencerFernando on Twitter)

FINALLY: Your letters to me!

Remove Ads
Remove Ads

Start your free trial

Access exclusive members only RebelNews+ shows, event footage, and documentaries


Don't Get Censored

Big Tech is censoring us. Sign up so we can always stay in touch.

Remove Ads