More Hypocrisy from the G7 Leaders

While many of us continue to live under the diktats of our elected ruling class overlords as a result of the global pandemic, those who seem to enjoy their positions as unquestioned dictators are enjoying themselves at the G7 Summit at Cornwall in the United Kingdom.

 

Here we have a video showing the G7 leaders posing for yet another photo opportunity. physically distancing for the photo with only Angela Merkel wearing a mask and, as they leave, they are touching  then touching each other, totally ignoring physical distancing rules as they move to their next photo op:

Here we have a another video showing a small fraction of how the elected rulers have entertained themselves at taxpayers' expense:

Here is a tweet from Boris Johnson celebrating the wonder that is the Royal Air Force Red Arrows:

 

 

Here are the two photos that accompanied his tweet:

 

You will notice that there is not a single mask in this group and that they are all tightly grouped together, well within the 3 foot or 6 foot physical distancing rules put in place by their respective governments.

 

This begs two questions:

 

1.) Why are we even listening to any of the pandemic diktats issued by these buffoons?  They quite clearly are not afraid of contracting the "world's most deadly virus ever".  I know that some of you may believe that they've all been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, however, the science is still "out" on whether any of the vaccines prevent transmission.

  

2.) Why are they allowed to participate in events that create significant volumes of greenhouse gases solely for their own entertainment while we are being told that there is a climate emergency?  The flights for the leaders and their staff to the meeting, the emissions from the vehicles that have moved them from one venue to the next as well as the Red Arrow display produced far more greenhouse gases than most individuals would create living their normal suburban lives.

 

This is just another example of "rules for thee but not for me" because I'm a "high value individual".  I say that you are all a bunch of hypocrites.

We're all being had.  The sooner we figure that out, the better.

The Ruling Class and Virtue Signalling

After last weekend's G7/8 Finance Minister's meeting, I posted a brief missive on how Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Prime Minister wannabe and World Economic Forum Board of Trustee member provided the world with a clear example of how the ruling class is using virtue signalling to send a strong message to the unwashed masses about the endless need to control a virus.  With the G7 meeting now in full swing, let's look at another example of virtue signalling by the powers that be.

  

Here is the group being greeted by U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson upon their arrival at Cornwall where the G7 meeting is being held, performing for the cameras, noting that the motto of this meeting is "Build Back Better", a phrase right out of the World Economic Forum's Great Reset playbook (first ten minutes of the video):

Here is a group photo showing the elected ruling class properly physically distanced from each other:

 

Here is another group photo, showing the elected ruling class properly socially distanced from Her Royal Majesty, the 95-year-old Queen Elizabeth II:

 

After all, it simply wouldn't do to get too close and cause a health problem for the aging Queen, would it?

 

Or, would it?  Here is a video showing the group meeting with the Queen noting that no masks are being worn by anyone despite the fact that many citizens of the nations represented by the G7 are still under severe restrictions regarding the wearing of masks and controls regarding the number of people that can meet together (not to mention the fact that none of this group underwent a 14 day self-quarantining period before the meeting):

Just before the video ends, you will see Canada's very own virtue-signaller-in-chief and beta male walking within hand-holding distance of the Queen which, for some reason, brought this to mind:

That's Justin Trudeau's father, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau doing a respectful pirouette behind the Queen back in May 1977 at that year's edition of the G7 meeting.

I guess in their haste to rub shoulders with real royalty, the elected ruling class forgot all about the laws that they have put in place for their sweaty, virus ridden citizens.  Ah, but then again, apparently there is nothing like virtue signalling and a bit of pandemic hypocrisy by our political leaders and their significant others, is there?

It's reassuring to know that while the useless eaters are forced to hold virtual meetings, these high-value individuals are allowed to meet in person, isn't it?  After all, surely they only have our best interests at heart.

The G7 Rapid Response Mechanism - Protecting Democracy or the Anti-Russia Narrative?

With very little fanfare, the G7 nations (a reformatted version of the G8 thanks to Russia's alleged annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent removal from the group) have created an institution that will protect all of us who are incapable of discerning between Russian propaganda (obviously bad propaganda) from our propaganda (obviously good propaganda).  Given the name of the institution, you might think that it somehow involves the G7 assisting nations in need during emergencies but you couldn't be more wrong.

Here is the announcement about the created of the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism from the Government of Canada:

The G7 Rapid Response Mechanism or G7 RRM was created to "protect democracy" and its Coordination Unit will share information and threat analysis to better anticipate, identify and respond to threats to democracy across the G7 nations and around the globe.

Here is a quote from the final communique of the latest full meeting of the G7 regarding election meddling:

"We commit to take concerted action in responding to foreign actors who seek to undermine our democratic societies and institutions, our electoral processes, our sovereignty and our security as outlined in the Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats. We recognize that such threats, particularly those originating from state actors, are not just threats to G7 nations, but to international peace and security and the rules-based international order. We call on others to join us in addressing these growing threats by increasing the resilience and security of our institutions, economies and societies, and by taking concerted action to identify and hold to account those who would do us harm."

In their Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats, the leaders of the G7 had this to say:

"We, the Leaders of the G7, commit to:

1.) Respond to foreign threats, both together and individually, in order to meet the challenges facing our democracies.

2.) Strengthen G7 cooperation to prevent, thwart and respond to malign interference by foreign actors aimed at undermining the democratic processes and the national interests of a G7 state.

3.) Establish a G7 Rapid Response Mechanism to strengthen our coordination to identify and respond to diverse and evolving threats to our democracies, including through sharing information and analysis, and identifying opportunities for coordinated response.

4.) Share lessons learned and best practices in collaboration with governments, civil society and the private sector that are developing related initiatives including those that promote free, independent and pluralistic media; fact-based information; and freedom of expression.

5.) Engage directly with internet service providers and social media platforms regarding malicious misuse of information technology by foreign actors, with a particular focus on improving transparency regarding the use and seeking to prevent the illegal use of personal data and breaches of privacy.

6.) Support public learning and civic awareness aimed at promoting critical thinking skills and media literacy on intentionally misleading information, and improving online security and safety.

7.) In accordance with applicable laws, ensure a high level of transparency around sources of funding for political parties and all types of political advertising, especially during election campaigns.

I thought that Point 7 was particularly interesting given that U.S. politics is rife with "dark money" which is defined as follows:

"Dark Money refers to political spending meant to influence the decision of a voter, where the donor is not disclosed and the source of the money is unknown. Depending upon the circumstances, Dark Money can refer to funds spent by a political nonprofit or a super PAC. Here’s how:

1.) Political nonprofits are under no legal obligation to disclose their donors. When they choose not to, they are considered Dark Money groups.

2.) Super PACs can also be considered Dark Money groups in certain situations. While these organizations are legally required to disclose their donors, they can accept unlimited contributions from political non-profits and “shell” corporations who may not have disclosed their donors, in these cases they are considered Dark Money groups."

Dark money groups must publicly disclose explicit political spending but not other expenditures which can total tens of millions of dollars or more.

Let's look at one of the hosts at the G7 meeting in Charlevoix.  Ms. Chrystia Freeland is Canada's Foreign Minister and was blacklisted by Russia in March 2014 (prior to Canada's 2015 election and her appointment as the Liberal Party's Foreign Minister) for her strong criticism of Russia's "annexation" of Crimea.  At the time, she advocated for sanctions against Russia which resulted in this:

...and eventually this exchange with Maria Zakharova from Russia's Foreign Ministry:

"Question: Can you comment on the appointment of Chrystia Freeland, the new Canadian Foreign Minister, who used to criticise Russia and President Vladimir Putin in the past? When will it become possible to exclude her from the list of Canadian officials covered by Russia’s sanctions?

Maria Zakharova: The appointment of national foreign ministers is the prerogative of sovereign countries. The Canadian leaders that made this decision should be asked to clarify their motives. I don’t think this is a question for me. We have noted that Canada now has a new Foreign Minister.

Regarding our attitude towards her past critical remarks and the lack of such remarks today, we don’t know anything about her future line or priorities. I believe we need to focus on the specific actions and programmes as implemented by the Canadian Foreign Ministry. Then we can comment and take action if necessary.

Regarding excluding her from the list of officials covered by the sanctions, I would like to remind everyone that, although many headlines read that the Canadian Foreign Minister was included on the Russian sanction lists, the situation is slightly different. She got on the sanction list not as a Foreign Minister of Canada, but in 2014, as a response measure taken by the Russian side. First, Canada declared sanctions against some Russian citizens, including Russian officials. In response, Russia compiled its own list that included Ms Freeland. I believe that we need to look for an answer regarding the circumstances for excluding people from this list in the context of reciprocal and symmetrical actions."

After her travel ban was imposed, Ms. Freeland had this to say:

It's certainly reassuring to know that one of the key G7 architects of the anti-Russia movement has no bias when it comes to "messing with elections".  My guess is that anything short of a Liberal Party majority in Canada after the October 2019 election will be blamed on Russia given that this has already been put in place:

...and that Ms. Freeland and Canada's Public Safety Minster Ralph Goodale recently had this to say to the world after a meeting of the G7 foreign ministers:

It is interesting to note that Ms. Freeland is most concerned about Russia's impact on political polarization.  I hate to tell Ms. Freeland but political polarization in Canada and the United States has existed for decades, long before the concept of Russian-sourced meddling was the watchword of the day.  Just ask Albertans.

Given the anti-Russia bias that took root and has become pervasive in the West since 2014 and, in particular, since the Hillary Clinton loss in 2016 which is blamed on Russian-sourced disinformation, it is comforting to see that the unbiased leadership of the G7 is doing its best to ensure that those of us who live in vulnerable democracies are being protected from the efforts of Russia to destroy our way of life.

The G7 Communique - What the Media Missed

With the world's media focussing on Donald Trump's behaviour at the recent G7 meeting held in Canada, his post-meeting tweets and the fact that the leaders and their sherpas actually managed to cobble together an official communique, little attention has been paid to the actual content of the communique, particularly as it relates to Russia, a former member of the group, back when it was known as the G8.

Here's what was said about Russia in the communique itself:

"We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing behaviour to undermine democratic systems and its support of the Syrian regime. We condemn the attack using a military-grade nerve agent in Salisbury, United Kingdom. We share and agree with the United Kingdom’s assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation was responsible for the attack, and that there is no plausible alternative explanation. We urge Russia to live up to its international obligations, as well as its responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to uphold international peace and security. Notwithstanding, we will continue to engage with Russia on addressing regional crises and global challenges, where it is in our interests. We reiterate our condemnation of the illegal annexation of Crimea and reaffirm our enduring support for Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity within its internationally-recognized borders. We maintain our commitment to assisting Ukraine in implementing its ambitious and necessary reform agenda. We recall that the continuation of sanctions is clearly linked to Russia’s failure to demonstrate complete implementation of its commitments in the Minsk Agreements and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and we fully support the efforts within the Normandy Format and of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for a solution to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Should its actions so require, we also stand ready to take further restrictive measures in order to increase costs on Russia. We remain committed to support Russian civil society and to engage and invest in people-to-people contact."

Note the use of the words' "highly likely" when referring to the Skripal incident.  It is also interesting to note that the G7 leaders are urging Russia to "uphold international peace and security" but that there is absolutely no mention of the United States uninvited participation in the Syrian civll war.  The repeated mention of Ukraine can be laid at the feet of Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs who is of Ukrainian descent, a person who has made her anti-Russian viewpoint a key part of her term as Canada's representative on the world stage, a stance that has earned her a Russian travel ban.  While she claims to be a Russophile and actually lived in Moscow, it is quite clear that she is strongly anti-Putin with comments like this from an article that she wrote for Quartz as a contributor to the Brookings Institute:

"I made the Russian list of the unwelcome as a three-fer: an activist Ukrainian-Canadian, a politician (I was elected to Parliament in 2013 to represent Toronto Centre), and a journalist with a long paper trail that frequently displeased the Kremlin, since I covered Moscow’s brutal war in Chechnya in the 1990s and also wrote a book about the rise of the Russian oligarchs. I interviewed Putin himself in 2000, shortly after he took over as president. When, in 2011, he decided to take the presidency back from his protégé, Dmitry Medvedev, I wrote a column in The New York Times arguing that Putin’s Russia was on its way to becoming a full-fledged dictatorship that would eventually be vulnerable to a popular uprising....

This subterfuge (regarding the Ukraine) is, arguably, Putin’s single most dramatic resort to the Soviet tactic of the Big Lie. Through his virtual monopoly of the Russian media, Putin has airbrushed away the truth of what happened a quarter of a century ago: the dissolution of the USSR was the result not of Western manipulation but of the failings of the Soviet state, combined with the initiatives of Soviet reformist leaders who had widespread backing from their citizens. Moreover, far from conspiring to tear the USSR apart, Western leaders in the late 1980s and early nineties used their influence to try to keep it together."

And Ms. Freeland wonders why she is banned from entering Russia.

In addition to appearing in the main body of the G7's communique, although not specifically named, Russia also appears in the Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats as you can infer from these quotes:

"Democracy and the rules-based international order are increasingly being challenged by authoritarianism and the defiance of international norms. In particular, foreign actors seek to undermine our democratic societies and institutions, our electoral processes, our sovereignty and our security. These malicious, multi-faceted and ever-evolving tactics constitute a serious strategic threat which we commit to confront together, working with other governments that share our democratic values. Defending democracy will require us to adopt a strategic approach that is consistent with universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, our international commitments to peace and security, and that promotes equality. We welcome the work of G7 Foreign and Security Ministers in Toronto to establish a common understanding of unacceptable actions by foreign actors with the malicious intent of undermining our countries’ democratic systems as the basis for our collective and individual response."

Here are the group's solutions to the "Russia electoral interference problem":

"1.) Respond to foreign threats, both together and individually, in order to meet the challenges facing our democracies.

2.) Strengthen G7 cooperation to prevent, thwart and respond to malign interference by foreign actors aimed at undermining the democratic processes and the national interests of a G7 state.

3.) Establish a G7 Rapid Response Mechanism to strengthen our coordination to identify and respond to diverse and evolving threats to our democracies, including through sharing information and analysis, and identifying opportunities for coordinated response.

4.) Share lessons learned and best practices in collaboration with governments, civil society and the private sector that are developing related initiatives including those that promote free, independent and pluralistic media; fact-based information; and freedom of expression.

5.) Engage directly with internet service providers and social media platforms regarding malicious misuse of information technology by foreign actors, with a particular focus on improving transparency regarding the use and seeking to prevent the illegal use of personal data and breaches of privacy.

6.) Support public learning and civic awareness aimed at promoting critical thinking skills and media literacy on intentionally misleading information, and improving online security and safety.

7.) In accordance with applicable laws, ensure a high level of transparency around sources of funding for political parties and all types of political advertising, especially during election campaigns."

You have to love two parts of this solution:

1.) preventing the illegal use of personal data - this is particularly egregious given that these governments are well known for spying on their citizens and using our private data for their own nefarious purposes to which we are not privy.

2.) ensuring a high level of transparency around the funding of political parties, particularly during election campaigns - given that American elections are driven by so-called dark money and by the American oligarchy, we all know that, while this sentiment is heart-warming, it will never really be enacted to any degree.

The communique from the leaders of the G7 is just another means of promoting the anti-Russia sentiment that has become so pervasive over the past few years.  The content of the communique does give us a strong sense of how isolated Russia has become, even with Donald Trump's strong suggestions that Russia be allowed to rejoin the G8.  Fortunately, most people will never read either the communique or the Charlevoix Commitment, making the propagandizing efforts of the G7 leaders rather moot.