The US–Canada trade war

The US–Canada trade talks have broken down and they are now refusing to negotiate with each other. And Trump is threatening to impose a lot of tariffs on Canada. Basically, prohibiting Canada from exporting alcohol, steel, dairy products to the United States. That's the general theme of tonight's lecture. Where is Canada heading in the next 10, 20 years?

Three questions about Canada

To establish this talk, I'm going to ask three questions or three paradoxes that have been troubling me for the past 5 years because even though I've not been in Canada for the past 5 years, I've been observing just because I have family back here. I have three questions that maybe you guys can help me answer or answer together tonight. The first question is: why are there so many immigrants? Just as a warning, I'm going to offend a lot of people tonight. I was in the United States. They're very rude down there. I was probably infected with their rudeness. As some of you may know, I was also on a couple of comedy podcasts, Kurt Metzger and Sam Hyde, and they're very offensive.

And if I'm being offensive tonight, it's their fault. It's not my fault. Maybe a couple more weeks and my Canadian niceness will return to me. But the first question we have is why do we have millions of immigrants coming into this country these past 5 to 10 years? It's all very sudden right after COVID and it's really causing a lot of friction within Canadian society. For example, it's almost impossible for a young person to afford a house. At the same time, the wages are being driven down and you would think that because of all the friction being caused by mass immigration, they would put a moratorium on immigration.

Instead, Mark Carney visits India. He visited India, I think last year, and he told the Indians, "Please send more. In fact, we'll give you scholarships to come here." That's just weird.

Immigration is causing a lot of friction in Canadian society and you are encouraging more of it. This is a paradox. Why? Why migration? The second thing is I remember growing up in Canada in the 80s and 90s. Canadians were known for their niceness, being polite, being nice, being very friendly. But I've been back in Toronto for about a day and a half and I take the subway and I walk around in order to get a sense of the milieu of this place. And I've been startled by a couple of incidents.

For example, I got off a subway with my son and I saw a very angry young man get into an argument with an old man. The man was probably in his 70s. The young man gets very upset and violently pushes the old man down and against the wall. And I think that in the 80s and 90s that would never happen because it takes a lot for a young person to violently attack an old man who is basically defenseless.

The old man took some time to get up and people were just walking past him, including myself. I didn't know what had happened. I didn't want to get involved. I walked past him. But I'm pretty sure in the 80s and 90s there would have been people who went to help him get up or at least call the police. That's one incident that I saw yesterday. Yesterday as well I was walking on Bloor and around Koreatown and I saw a huge argument between two people just walking around. I feel a sense of aggressiveness in this country that didn't really exist before.

For example, in the 80s and 90s people would make sure to give each other space, right? To respect each other's space. Now it seems as though there are certain individuals that are trying to provoke others by infringing other people's space. There's a certain meanness to this country that didn't really exist before. That's the second paradox which is: how do you get nice people to become mean? What happened? And then the third paradox is why is Mark Carney prime minister?

And you're like, well, duh. Well, we voted for him. But my question is why did you vote for him? Because, I mean, I'm the furthest from a conspiracy theorist, as you know. But I will say that there are certain things about the general election between Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre which basically confused me. I mean Justin Trudeau was not a smart guy. He probably never had an original thought in his life. Someone was giving him these ideas.

And it was probably not himself. It was probably Mark Carney, right? And I think it's pretty obvious that Mark Carney was a shadow leader of the Liberal Party. If you're upset with Justin Trudeau because he was in power for 10 years, he screwed things up, why would you put his puppet master in charge? And then the general election between Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney was kind of strange because the Conservatives had a huge lead and Poilievre, for whatever reason, decides to just implode. He basically doesn't even try.

There's one line of attack that he could have used which he did not use during the general election, which is, "Hey, Mark Carney, you're a carpetbagger." Yes, you're a Canadian, but you spent most of your adult life either in New York or London working for Goldman Sachs or the Bank of England. Most of your assets are foreign. Your family is overseas. You're a carpetbagger. You're not a true Canadian. A very simple, easy and effective attack. And we know this because previously there was a man Michael who was a Canadian but he was a Harvard professor.

He came back to become leader of the Liberal Party and he lost twice.

Why? Because his opponent just said this guy's a carpetbagger. Yes, he's Canadian, but he spent all his adult life in the United States. He's come back in order to steal from us. This attack is very effective. For whatever reason, the Conservatives did not use it. We have these three paradoxes. Why is there so much immigration in Canada? How have the Canadians turned from niceness to meanness? And the third is why do you guys elect Mark Carney? Why not elect change?

Canada as a corporation

The answer to all three questions is—and I know this is going to offend some of you—but Canada is not a real country. Canada is not a nation state. Canada is a corporation. That's my main argument to you today. A corporation. And this is what's leading to a lot of current trends. And once we understand this, then it will help us better understand future trends. The point of my teaching is not to make judgments. The point of my teaching is to provide deep analysis so that you can come to your own conclusions. Right? That's my argument to you today. The solution to these three parts is the fact that Canada is not a real nation state, a real country. It is just a corporation that is controlled by the City of London.

Three models of the nation state

First, what many of you will ask: well, what then is a nation state? Well, historically, we've had three major examples of nation states. And they're all different examples. The first is France, which basically gave us a concept of a nation state. Second is Germany. The third is United States. These are all three different conceptions of the nation state.

Let's start with France. If you know your history, France has something called a social contract. And this was a theory developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his book called The Social Contract, which is we're born free. Our freedom is our most precious gift from God. We choose to surrender our freedom in order to work in society, in order to create a society. But in return for our freedom, we must be given rights.

And this creates the idea of the citizen. And even today, if you go to France, I'm not sure if any of you have lived in France, but they take this idea of citizenship very very seriously. And it's created a lot of conflict in France because there are many Muslims who want to wear the hijab and the French are like, "No, we are a secular nation state with a social contract. We don't allow that. We're not religious."

But what made the social contract possible was not a piece of paper. It was through blood. Specifically the French Revolution, right? And the Napoleonic Wars. That's what established France as a nation state, the sacrifice of the people in return for eternal and inalienable rights guaranteed by the state. That's the French model, a social contract brought about by a people's revolution. And it's still in effect today. And as I said, the French are very proud of this achievement. Then you have Germany.

For Germany, it's iron and blood. It is the language. It is theritage, the culture that makes you German. And this is interesting. And this idea was proposed by Johann Fichte, who was considered the father of German nationalism. And at this time in history, and you guys don't really appreciate this, the Germans were not a united people. They didn't even speak the same language. And so it was up to philosophers like Johann Fichte to come up with a conception of Germanness.

It was really the Prussians through their conquest that created the modern nation state of Germany and people like Hitler will reinforce the German ethnic identity. And the idea of German nationalism is you are born into this culture, this land, this language, this blood makes you who you are. Therefore, you might sacrifice everything in order to make the nation state great. This is a very different conception of nationalism. And it's Germany. The last example of the nation state is the United States of America. The US has something called the Constitution.

It is best to think of the Constitution as a game. You come to the United States and as long as you have ambition, you can become rich and that is guaranteed to you by the Constitution. For the United States, what matters is ambition. We don't care who you are. We don't care where you come from, but if you come here, you work hard, you're talented, you're ambitious, you will succeed. And that's the idea behind American nationalism. As you can see, all three are very different, but they all work.

• France: “Social contract”; citizen.
• Germany: “Iron & blood”; Fichte.
• USA: “Constitution”; ambition.

Canada and the Crown

Why I say Canada is not a nation state is the Canadians, us, we don't have any of this history. For example, the French had a revolution. Canada never had a revolution. And you guys may not know this, but Canada is not even owned by the government. It's owned by the Crown. 89%. 89% of all Canadian land is owned by the Crown. You're like, "Wait a minute. Who thell is the Crown?" It literally means the king of England. Literally the king of England owns 89% of all the land in Canada.

Well, this is interesting. You go online, you ask ChatGPT, does the king of England own 89% of Canada? Because if he did, that would be a very strange thing. And ChatGPT says yes, he does. But it's all just a fiction, guys. It's all just a technicality. The real power is the government, both the federal and the provincial governments and they are empowered by the people. It's just a fiction that the king is in charge for historical and heritage reasons but in reality the people in Canada are in charge. Don't worry about this guys.

I'm telling you right now that's BS. The king of England is really in charge. And the example I use is World War II. World War II, the Germans are kicking everyone's ass and the British are forced to retreat from Europe in a very embarrassing and humiliating defeat. And Winston Churchill gives a radio address before Parliament, before the English people, and he says, and it is one of the most famous speeches in the world. I've actually taught this speech, but he basically says:

We will never surrender. We will fight on the beaches.

I'm sure you've all heard the speech. It's a very short speech. It's a very powerful speech, but there's an ending that you guys don't remember. I'm sure you guys don't remember the ending, but the ending goes like this:

We will never surrender. And providence, God is on our side. But if for whatever reason we lose Britain, it's okay. Why? Because we'll just go to Canada and we'll fight from there.

And you guys understand this? The prime minister of England, Winston Churchill, says Canada is our territory. If we lose Britain, it's okay. We'll just all move over to Canada and fight from Canada. Right? In the British imagination, Canada is just a resource colony of the British. And legally speaking, it is true. The democracy here, the separation of powers, the sort of rights and freedom, it's all just an illusion to disguise the fact that Canada is a resource colony of Britain.

And the reason why is Canadians never had a revolution. If you never had a revolution, then the people in charge are still in charge. It was the British who founded Canada through the Hudson’s Bay Company and they're still in charge. Canada is not a real nation state. The Germans say nationalism is iron and blood. Well, first of all, Canada has two languages, which is confusing. But also Canadians haven't really fought a war of expansion. Canadians don't have mythology of say France, Germany and United States. The mythology: the Americans have the American Revolution, George Washington crossing the Potomac.

The Germans have Bismarck, France has Napoleon. There's no mythology to unite the country. There's no sense of destiny.

And the United States has ambition, right? What are Canadians allergic to? What do Canadians really really hate? Ambition, right? You could also make the argument that not only is Canada not nationalistic, but it is fundamentally anti-nationalistic. That Canada was designed in a way to ensure that nationalism could never ever arise in order for Britain to maintain control over Canada.

Canada’s postwar economy

Canada is not a nation state. What does that mean? Well, for 70 years after World War II, this was actually beneficial for Canada because it allowed Canada to navigate the relationship, the very complex relationship between Britain and the United States. This is Britain far away and this is the US down south. This is Canada.

The nature of Canadian anti-nationalism allowed Canadians to basically live the easiest, happiest, best life of anyone in the world for the past 70 years.

The relationship with Britain allowed Canada to become what is often referred to as an offshore financial center. What is an offshore financial center? It just means money laundering. That's all it means. Money laundering. You think that the Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, they make their money taking your deposits. No, they don't do that. They don't need your money. What they really do is they do money laundering.

They allow dirty money that was won from the drug trade and wars and arm smuggling and all that to be recycled back into Canada. That's the real function. Britain allowed Canada to be an offshore financial center as well as a land of immigration. And immigrants bring energy, wealth and ideas to Canada. The relationship with the United States was also really good because the United States was a growing manufacturing power and so Canada provided resources to the United States. Resources.

As you can see, for the past 70 years, Canada did really well because there were three main sources for Canadian wealth. They were selling resources to the United States and Canada has an infinite amount of resources; becoming an offshore financial center for Britain for the City of London basically; and allowing immigration into Canada. The nature of the Canadian economy basically then formed the structure of Canadian society.

The structure of Canadian society

Let me explain to you what the structure of Canadian society looks like. As I said, Canada's owned by the Crown, but when we say Crown, we literally mean the king of England, but it's not really the king of England who's in charge. It's the City of London that's in charge. Why? Because historically, it is the City of London which has lent money to the Crown and therefore the City of London can dictate the policies of Britain. When we say the Crown, we actually mean the City of London. Now the City of London does not really care about everyday operations in Canada. Instead there are these CEOs that are responsible for the everyday management of Canada and we call them the Laurentian elite. The Laurentian elite.

And they're basically the prime ministers, the ministers. And a lot of this is hereditary. Justin Trudeau is part of the Laurentian elite. The people around him are part of the Laurentian elite. And it is best to think of them as pseudo aristocrats. I would say pseudo aristocrats. People who like to read Jane Austen, basically manor lords. It's very easy to be part of the Laurentian elite. You don't have to do anything because the economy just functions by itself. You're at the crossroads of the British offshore financial center as well as the US manufacturing power. And so they don't have to do anything. And so they just live a life of leisure and aristocratic virtue very much like Jane Austen if you read her novels.

Their life is basically mirrored in the life in the novels of Jane Austen and they aspire to that sort of life a sort of pseudo British aristocracy. Then around the Laurentian elite is the bureaucracy, basically the government that actually runs Canada. And then around the bureaucracy are basically white Canadians, Canadians who have been here for more than two, three generations. And what keeps this system going, because quite honestly, these guys don't really do any work, is immigration, continuous immigration.

The pillars of Canadian culture

And this structure allows Canadian society to function. But once you have the structure, that determines the very composition or nature of the Canadian culture. And I would say there are three aspects to Canadian culture. Or the three most salient pillars of Canadian culture. The first I would say is following the rules. Because remember, Canada is a corporation. It's a bureaucracy. What's really important is just follow the rules. When you go to school, what are you taught? Follow the damn rules.

That's number one. Number two is be polite. You think that being polite just means being nice. Actually, what being polite really, really means is respecting the social hierarchy. Understanding your place in the social hierarchy and investing yourself in it. Which leads us to the third characteristic of Canadian society, which is mediocrity. Mediocrity just means a lack of ambition. Again, in Canada, the worst insult you can throw at someone is "This guy's ambitious."

That's like saying this guy's a pedophile or something, right? These are the three main characteristics of Canadian society. Everyone has to follow the rules. You have to be polite and you have to be conventional. You have to be mediocre. Being ambitious is wrong. And if you are too ambitious, then you should do everyone a favor, move to United States, which is what I did and what Cathy did, right? This is what has worked in Canada for the past 70 years. And this helps us explain why Canadians are so nice because the point in Canada is to maintain a status quo because the status quo works for everyone.

Corporate restructuring

This is fine, right? Why would the system break down? Why are we seeing massive immigration? Why are Canadians being mean? Why is Mark Carney being prime minister and starting a trade war with Trump? And you guys will know the answer if you've watched my lectures, but the answer is elite overproduction. You've got too few positions of power and you've got too many elite competing against each other. And to put this in very simple terms, what this means right now is the City of London is not doing well economically and so it needs to put more pressure on Canada in order to create more profit and more revenue.

Before the City of London was perfectly happy to get a certain return on investment. But as time passes, as the City of London faces pressure, financial pressure, it needs to exert more pressure on Canada to create more revenue. The problem with Canadians is they are too polite and they are too mediocre. If you're a company, you're the investor and you look at a company, you're like, wait a minute here, the middle management, if they're not actually working that hard, what do you do? You replace them.

We call this a corporate restructuring.

That is literally what is happening in Canada today. Right before your eyes, there's a restructuring going on where the old Canadian guard is being replaced by immigrants. That's why they're doing this to generate better return on investment in Canada. Canadians like the environment. Canadians care about family. Canadians care about being polite. "We don't want that crap. We just want a higher return on investment. Go and destroy the environment. Abandon your families. Stop being so nice. Start making more money for us." This is why this is happening. And it's very clever what they're doing because Canadians can't respond because of the anti-nationalism that has been indoctrinated in you in the education system. Specifically this idea that's been very popular which is this land in Canada does not belong to anyone except the native people, right? On the plane from Boston to Toronto, Air Canada puts on an ad about this land and the native people. Why are they doing that? It's to diminish or reduce resistance to this corporate restructuring. If this land does not belong to Canadians, then it's probably fine to give it to the immigrants. Right? In fact, you have these court cases in BC where they're trying to take private property and return it to the indigenous people.

Right? There's corporate restructuring going on and there's really nothing the Canadians can do about it because of the anti-nationalism in this country. You can make the argument that anti-nationalism was part of the Canadian education system in order to make the restructuring fast and easy.

Zionist capital and Hindu labor

But then you're like if there's restructuring going on who's coming in? And if you're the British people, if you're the City of London, you're an investor. Historically, you recognize that there are two groups of people that offer you the best return on investment. What we're seeing in Canada is an invasion. It's not really an invasion, but it's a restructuring of an alliance between Zionist capital and Hindu labor. This is why the vast majority of immigrants are Indians and there is Zionist capital that's supporting this movement.

This is what the corporate restructuring looks like. And then you ask yourself, wait, wait a minute here. If it's clearly population replacement, why isn't the Laurentian elite opposing this or why are they even supporting this? And the answer is because if you are the middle management, you're just trying to keep your job for God's sake. You just want to keep your job. If you're like, you know what, if I go with a stupid restructuring, then maybe I can continue being a manor lord and an aristocrat and my children can continue to be so.

But no, no, no, that's not how restructuring works. In restructuring, everyone goes, especially the old management. And eventually—maybe not now, but eventually—the Laurentian elite or certain factions of the elite will recognize this in which case what is their play? What is their strategy? It's to join the United States. Right.

This is over the next 10, 20 years, the conflict in Canada. As the Laurentian elite become much more clear about what's happening, that there's a restructuring going on and the City of London wants to replace everyone in order to make Canada more profitable for the City of London, there'll be certain factions of the Laurentian elite who are like, "We're actually better off being with the Americans."

The Falkland Islands and Alberta

You think that what's happening is a trade war between Canada and the United States, between Mark Carney and Donald Trump. No. Mark Carney, his boss is not the Canadian people. He works for the City of London. And if you don't believe me, consider what's happening in Argentina where Trump has come out and said that Argentina should reclaim the Falkland Islands. Why is he doing that? Have you guys seen the map? Argentina is in the middle of nowhere, man. It's far away. Who cares about these stupid islands? Trump is doing this in order to enforce the Monroe Doctrine or the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine which is like "The entire Western Hemisphere is the United States, guys. City of London, get out of here."

The first major litmus test is what happens with the Falkland Islands because Argentina wants to reclaim the Falkland Islands. Trump will help Argentina do so and we will try to see Britain's response. How will the City of London respond? The second big litmus test is Alberta. If all my predictions, all my analysis is correct, what will happen is this. The people in Alberta will vote to secede from the Confederation. And then this will go to the Canadian Supreme Court. And the Canadian Supreme Court will then tell the reality to everyone which is guys, you think Canada is a democracy.

You think the people are sovereign? No, that's not true. Actually everything belongs to the Crown. Therefore, Alberta, you can't secede. Why do you think you have sovereignty? The Crown owns all the land. You cannot secede. And this is going to cause Trump to intervene and say, "Maybe I'll send a peacekeeping force to Alberta in order to make sure there's freedom of democracy in Alberta." If my analysis is correct, there will be, in the next two years, two major points of friction. The first is the Falkland Islands.

The second will be Alberta. And Alberta will be the major test if my analysis is correct or not. I think what will happen is that, one, the people of Alberta will choose to become independent.

They won't join the United States because they cannot but they can choose to become independent. This referendum will pass but then it will go to the Canadian Supreme Court who will rule for I don't know what reason they will say but they will rule this referendum is not constitutional. It is unconstitutional. Alberta cannot secede. This will draw Trump into the conflict. That's what I think will happen.

Canada’s long-term choices

Long term, it is very hard for Canada to maintain its current way of life. You either have this massive restructuring where Zionist capital and Hindu labor become the new elite, where it's basically population replacement. To put it in very simple stark terms, it is population replacement. Or you could have Canada divide up into different provinces. If Alberta goes, the western provinces will go as well, then Quebec will go, then the Maritimes will go and the only place left will be Ontario.

Ontario will become Canada. But the question then is: well, Ontario by itself, is it really a sustainable, self-sufficient economy? And the answer is no, it's not. I would say that is the stark choice Canada is facing. I will also say both will probably happen. You will have population replacement and you will also have the provinces break up and some like Alberta will choose to join the United States, some will become independent, and maybe Ontario will be the last province standing in Canada.

Questions and answers

How can Canada split up if the land belongs to the Crown?

Audience question:

You just mentioned that there's a possibility of Canada splitting up at the end in the long term, but all the land belongs to the Crown. But then the Canadian people are not going to revolt against the Crown. There's no revolution. How are they able to split up if everything belongs to the Crown legally?

Professor Jiang:

That's a really good question. And what we need to appreciate is that Canada is a series of fictions. And these fictions can be contradictory. One fiction is the Crown controls all of Canada. But it's a fiction because unless you have the military to enforce your claim, then it's just a fiction, right? And that's what Trump is saying. Trump is saying, "Well, technically, yes, the Crown controls 89% of Canada, but we are the United States and the Western Hemisphere is ours because of the Monroe Doctrine. What's going to happen is if we roll our tanks into Toronto, is Britain going to send their 5,000 troops over to protect Toronto?"

Probably not. The idea that the Crown controls 89% of Canada, it's just a fiction. The idea that Canada is a democracy, that's also a fiction. There are different fictions in place. And what Trump is doing, but not just Trump, but also Putin. What they're doing is just saying, well, let's test these fictions. Does that make sense?

Could Canada set up its own system?

Audience question:

Yes. What if neither the Laurentians nor the Canadian people prefer to be the underdog of the US or the Crown? If they play their cards right, will they be successful in setting up their own ruling, their own system?

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. That's a really good question because it is possible for Canada to triangulate because it's already at the nexus point between the City of London and United States. The problem in Canada and the reason why Canada is able to maintain the status quo for so long is ignorance and self-denial. Maybe because you guys are used to me and you're willing to put up with this. You're willing to hear this out, but I guarantee most Canadians do not want to hear any of this crap.

They would call me racist. They would say, "I'm stupid." But most would just tune out. It'd be cognitive dissonance. They would just not do anything and they walk out and they would forget everything. Canada is in a state of self-denial. And the problems in this country, no one talks about. I mean, no one ever talks about COVID and what happened with COVID. No one ever talks about the fact that Mark Carney was able to be anointed as prime minister. It was not a real leadership race from the Liberals. No one talks about this stuff.

There's no strategy in this country. These people in charge, the Laurentian elite, they're just basically feudal manor lords who are interested in raising sheep. That's about it.

What would happen to healthcare?

Audience question:

Yeah. I'm curious if your hypothesis is correct, right? And Alberta is kind of amalgamated into the United States and slowly kind of Canada fractures in the state that it's currently in. What do you think will happen to healthcare? Because I know healthcare is like a source of great pride in Canada. If Alberta becomes part of the states, they're all going to lose their healthcare and independent provinces aren't going to be able to kind of provide the resources necessary. Can you kind of address that?

Professor Jiang:

That's a great question. If you're of a certain age don't expect to have a pension, don't expect to have healthcare and just getting by will be enough. One thing that I don't think Canadians really appreciate is the idea of scarcity. And there are a lot of immigrants coming into this country and they're tough people, meaning they have lived through the worst lives. They've lived through famine, they've lived through violence, gang warfare, all that. Canadians don't really know what's coming. But the Canadian economy is in deep deep trouble because as I mentioned there's three pillars to the Canadian economy.

There is the offshore financial center, the money laundering, immigration, and the resources. Well, because of the trade war, the Canadian economy is gonna be screwed. I don't know why people think Mark Carney is a genius. Look, United States is the buyer. Canada is the seller. You don't piss off your customer. You don't do that. Trump knows he has all the cards and you will have a massive recession in Canada very very soon. And there's no hope because this is not a trade war.

This is a fundamental conflict between the United States and the City of London. The United States will win this war. And United States will win this war by inflicting as much pain as possible on the economy which will then provoke people in Alberta to vote for independence and it will cause a lot of pain in Canada. A lot of people will want the United States to invade. Look I was on Kurt Metzger’s show, Mystery Boys. I was joking about this how the United States should stop attacking Iran and start attacking Canada. And there were Canadians in the comment section who were like, "We welcome this. Thank you very much."

Because they understand that what's really going on is population replacement and maybe Trump can save them from what's going on. I would say next 5 to 10 years will be pretty bad.

Would Canada follow Britain’s immigration pattern or become a superpower?

Audience question:

Since Canada, as you're saying, is a corporation of UK, UK tried this immigration model and probably is now trying again with Canada bringing in more immigrants. If we have to predict future patterns that would happen in Canada should we look at UK what has happened in UK in the past 10, 20 years that might be exactly what is going to happen in Canada. Secondly now as you said immigrants are being brought in to raise ambition they bring in ambition and the three countries that you gave example like France, Germany and US ambition was connected to US. Now since ambition would rise here in Canada, is there a slightest possibility that Canada might actually become the next US, and the US is declining as per your other theories?

Professor Jiang:

These are two great questions. Let me summarize. The first question is will the immigration here kind of be like Britain? Now we know the major problem in Britain is the Islamification of Britain. There are a lot of Muslims in Britain that's causing a lot of social conflict within the country. That's the first question. Second question is well in theory if you have all these ambitious immigrants come into this country that would kind of become like the United States and therefore maybe a dominant power. Both really interesting questions. I will spend some time on the analysis.

Britain and Canada are not the same place. Britain is a nation state. People in Britain have a heritage. They have a language. They have a culture that they're very proud of. And this Islamification of Britain is causing a lot of social conflict because of that. You have lots of people who are standing up and quite honestly I think Britain is very, very close to civil war. In fact, it's almost at the tipping point. What you need to appreciate is the City of London and Britain are not the same thing.

The City of London is the center of transnational capital. All the City of London is interested in is trying to create as much return on investment for the investors as possible. Britain is actually a nation state. The City of London is a parasite on Britain. It's possible for the City of London to move anywhere around the world if they need to. Canada and Britain are not the same thing. You won't have the resistance to immigration that you had in Britain. But now you ask the question, but now you bring in Zionist capital and Hindu labor.

And so theoretically, wouldn't that make Canada in the future a superpower? There's something called a century project where by the end of the century, they're hoping 100 million Canadians and it's all part of like the idea that Canada can because of its resources, because of its size become a superpower as well. And the answer is no. Let me explain why. If you're the City of London, Canada for you is almost the ideal place to corporate restructure because of the people. The people will not resist you.

Therefore, you can find the ideal combination in order to restructure the society in order to generate the most return on investment for you. There is Zionist capital and Hindu labor. First let me explain Hindu labor. Basically it's easy to understand. India is one of the fastest growing populations in the world. That's a problem. You have too many young people in India and you let them sit in the country, eventually they will revolt. And this is already happening in India. Basically, young people are protesting against the corruption in the school system. Right. Your only solution long term is to export your people overseas and we're already seeing that to Canada, but you need to export even more to Canada. Now Zionism controls capital and what's really interesting about Hindu labor and Zionist capital is it's actually a pretty good combination. Because Zionism, look, to put it in very simple terms, Zionism is about racial supremacy. They don't say this, but if you actually look at what they do and you look at their belief system, it's about supremacy where the Zionists, the Jews are at the very top, and everyone else is basically a servant. But you enjoy being a servant because they'll treat you well.

Hinduism, casteism. You can imagine a relationship where Zionism marries into a Brahmin class and then they're able to control Hindu labor, right?

Pretty simple relationship. In fact, what's really interesting is that India was one of only four countries in the world where Israel has a net favorable rating. I was in Austin and an Indian American told me he went back to India and he was asking people where they were planning to immigrate and a lot of them say "We're going to immigrate to Israel."

This is the combination that the City of London wants in not only Canada but also Australia, Ukraine, Argentina, other places as well because for them it's the best return on investment. Because Indians and Jews are pretty hardworking and they're really talented. It makes a lot of sense but you're like what's the possibility of them making Canada a superpower? None. Why? Because the Hindus and the Zionists also practice their own racial supremacy. Zionism is loyal to Israel and Hindu labor is loyal to India.

Rather than becoming a resource colony for Britain, what will happen in the future is that Canada becomes a resource colony for India and Israel. But it's the same thing. Canada is resources to be extracted. But this is only assuming United States goes along with this plan and the United States will not go along with this plan. The United States would rather Canada break up into different provinces and divide and rule Canada.

Does Canada’s immigration system attract ambitious people?

Audience question:

Fundamentally I kind of see where you're going with the thesis, but I fit into your archetype. I'm Hindu Brahmin from India and I'll tell you why I think I can push back on this thesis. First of all I know you say Hindu labor but I think my friend here can correct me as well. Most of the Indians that come here are actually Sikhs from Punjab and almost none of them—a very small minority—are Brahmins, which are the upper caste that come to Canada. I don't know if you're aware of the immigration application system to Canada but there's an application system where you have points.

I studied in the US. I went to CMU for my undergrad and I was at Northeastern for my grad school and I was a senior AI engineer at Amazon. I applied to the immigration system of Canada for 8 years. I was on the wait list and I had the minimal points because I was not married. I didn't have kids. I didn't speak French. I did the English language test and I got like a perfect score because I'm from the UK. I grew up there. Those still didn't give me any points.

And I had a lot of friends from my sort of circles of the similar profile. None of them got into the Canadian system. But the people that actually got into the system were a lot of people from India that are from the lower castes, not Hindus, didn't have an education, and most of them, when they come here, they do odd jobs. They drive trucks, they do grocery stores and everything. And I wanted to come here as a senior AI engineer and I was very ambitious. I ended up getting my green card in the US first.

I kind of pushed back on the ambition because I don't think Canada is looking to attract the top tier talent which maybe Israel would like. I'm not sure what the overall thesis is. I do fundamentally agree with the Indian labor theory and the cockroach party and all of the stuff but I don't understand why I would not be allowed into the system whereas people much less qualified get here with all the perks and also put pressure on their housing system and stuff because they bring families and the extended relatives and so on.

I don't know your thoughts on this.

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. I really appreciate the push back. Let me explain how I think, right? I am not saying there are people in a boardroom discussing how to do this, nor am I saying that policies are developed in order to promote this. I use game theory, which is to say: given the structure of the world and given people's incentives, how are they most likely to behave in the future? These are predictions. I'm not saying that there are people in charge who want this to happen. I'm not saying that they are planning to replace the population.

I don't think anyone is like that. But I'm just saying that given the current state of the world, given the particular structure of Canada, what is most likely to happen in the next 10, 20 years? As you point out, there are millions of Indian students in Canada right now that do not have legal permanent resident status. They have no path to citizenship, and they're here just doing odd jobs.

They're here as students. But then you ask yourself, how can Canada make them go home? And the answer is you cannot. If tomorrow Carney says we are going to make every Canadian go home, you can't do it. They will apply for refugee status. They'll pile up the court system and they will continue just being here. So I'm not saying this is what they want to happen. I'm saying this is what's going to happen over the next 10, 20 years because of the particular pressure and friction within the Canadian economy. Does that make sense?

Should people build cells of resilience?

Audience question:

I have pretty much a scientific mind. And I have done my PhD as a Fulbright scholar. I went to Harvard to MIT to specialize in AI and I studied system dynamics coming out of MIT trying to understand where the world is going and what I found out is that the Bible is very much informing us about what's coming in the book of Revelation. Everything is aligning in that direction and we can read there that it says:

Nation will rise against nation. Those are the birth pains, the beginning of the pain.

I love that you talk about the different layers of the narrative, but I think if we can go a level deeper into the narrative and what's coming. Would you agree that what we need to do is to build cells of resilience? Yes, all these noise things are happening, but shouldn't we put our focus and attention into building cells of resilience that would have the resources and the support system and the community support to withstand what's coming?

Professor Jiang:

I can agree. I think like one of the things that have made people weak is a heavy focus on individualism, right? And if we're to survive what's coming, then there has to be a commitment to other people, right? I think as human beings we do two things that make us truly human and which have allowed us to live the best possible life. The first thing is to make promises. Making promises means building community. We promise to come together and work together. But the other thing is also forgiveness, to forgive other people's mistakes. And so any community should be based on these two basic principles, and if they do these two basic principles, then the community really becomes resilient and is able to survive heavy calamity that goes off.

Would the forecast change without Trump?

Audience question:

Professor, just a quick question because the analysis that you made seems like whatever the effects or consequences going to happen in Canada, it's all based on the friction between the United States and Britain. Do you think that it is all because we have Trump here in United States and if Trump would not be there because I know one of the predictions that you have that could come for the third term but the past trends that we saw that having Mamdani in one of the areas and in Minnesota there is AIPAC versus non-AIPAC people are coming up and rising up.

Do you still think that the Trump would come and go for the third term and if Trump would not be there, will that consequence of what you said about Canada remain the same or not?

Professor Jiang:

Great question. United States for the longest time was an empire that governed by consent. The United States was very popular around the world and people believe the United States should be the hegemon. But over time because of severe mismanagement, you have a $40 trillion debt. You have these wars overseas. You have inequality, corruption in Washington DC. America's global standing has gone way down. But just because you're not popular anymore doesn't mean you surrender the empire. It just means you're now forced to have an empire by force. Now, before you were an empire by consent, now you are an empire by force.

The problem is a transition because most people don't want to be assholes.

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, yeah, they're politicians and they're very ambitious, but they don't want to be perceived as assholes. They care about their legacy. There's only one person in the US political system that's willing to be an asshole and is proud to be an asshole, and that's Donald Trump. This I think helps us understand why he's in power because remember in 2020 the entire elite, the entire American elite coalesced against Trump. $6 billion was spent on defeating this guy in 2020 and bringing Joe Biden to power. What happens then? What happens afterwards?

Putin comes and invades Ukraine and embarrasses the American Empire and Biden was too weak to resist Putin. In 2024 the empire is basically, "We need somebody to be the scapegoat." The scapegoat just means like we know the empire is collapsing. Let's get someone to be the scapegoat so everyone blames this guy. We also want to maintain our empire. That means being an asshole to Canada, to Europe, to Japan. And so we need someone who's willing to do all this. And that person is Donald Trump, right?

And not only that, but this transition might take some time. And so if he can't finish in the second term, we can't trust Democrats to come in and follow through on a lot of his policies. We might have to give him a third term. Also, what's really interesting about Trump is he's unique in American politics in that he is able to capture the entire attention, consciousness of the global public. It's really strange. Go back to 2003.

United States invades Iraq and there are huge protests around the world saying there's a war for oil. No one's like George W. Bush is a moron. They're all like, "No, it's all for oil". Fast forward to today Donald Trump invades Iran. No one's like this war's for oil. Everyone's like this guy's a moron. That's really strange. But if you're part of the elite empire, this is really useful. Who else can you get to do all this evil crap? And they get all the blame for it.

I think Donald Trump will get a third term because for the empire, he is indispensable.

What role would France play?

Audience question:

While Downing Street is fighting the White House, presumably—

Professor Jiang:

It's not Downing Street. It's the City of London.

Audience question:

The City of London.

Professor Jiang:

Yeah, it's not the same thing.

Audience question:

My apologies. While the Commonwealth, the City of London, is fighting the White House, what is France doing? Because they have Quebec here and so they presumably have a bit of a say in the Northwest Passage. Is the Élysée coming to save us? Are we going to have a revolution here from the yellow-jacket French?

Professor Jiang:

The French don't see Quebec as part of France.

Audience follow-up:

But could they?

Professor Jiang:

No. No. If you said a French person should go back, I'm pretty sure you'd be like, "We don't want this problem." No. No. No. Quebec. No. No. France does not want anything of Quebec.

How could Canada become a nation state?

Audience question:

Just in theory. Even if in practice it's futile which is the implication that I'm getting from you. But just in theory how would Canada become more of a nation state?

Professor Jiang:

In theory, how can Canada become a nation state? Well Canada needs to stand up and fight. In theory, this trade war could be an opportunity for Canada to become a nation state where the Americans are putting a lot of pressure on Canada and Mark Carney rallies the people to say, "We will, as a people, bear this pain, bear the suffering, and we will become independent." If you were to do that then that would help Canada become more of a nation state. But Mark Carney does not care about Canada, does not work for Canadians. He works for the City of London.

For him as a banker, it's like how do I make the best deal for my investors? In other words, Mark Carney at a very critical point will eventually sell Canada.

What did the truckers’ convoy reveal?

Audience question:

Yeah. Just an observation now. Considering how you've set up the power structure in Canada, do you think that explains their reaction of the elite towards the trucker convoy back in 2022?

Professor Jiang:

That's a really good point. Justin Trudeau was the scapegoat, right? It was Mark Carney that was actually running things and what Canada did to the truckers I think was really unfair. Not only to the truckers but I think you gave a dollar to the truckers you got debanked. I think you're right that the convoy response you could in theory predict it from the structure of Canadian society.

Audience follow-up:

I think in the Globe and Mail or somewhere in the papers Carney made a comment about why they should be debanked and I can't believe that people forgot that he actually expressed an opinion of why they should be debanked.

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. It's really interesting how Canadians vote and how they think. Because most Canadian voters, and when I mean most voters, I'm actually talking about the baby boomers and the white class of voters, they understand the system subconsciously. And so their mentality, their response is if I play along with this system, then I can maintain my privileges. Because they think that if they're white, they can have these privileges and they don't appreciate that it's population replacement.

The way that Canadians vote is not indicative of democracy. Right? If it's a true democracy, then the voters would not be afraid to overturn the government. And Canadian voters are very unique. I mean, I don't understand why people voted for Mark Carney. And the idea that, oh, Mark Carney will stand up against Trump, that's retarded. I think that the voters are conscious of the system. They play along in order to maintain the privileges. Yeah.

Could Canada’s resources give it an advantage?

Audience question:

I'm one of the Hindu laborers that's taking over this country. I'm sorry, guys. Everything that you've described here the kind of the structure of how Canada is controlled by the Crown just on a ground level as people with all the natural resources that we have in this country, the fresh water, the fertilizers, all that kind of stuff, isn't it an advantage for us to be in Canada? And also you've seen Trump what he's saying with Lake America. Maybe he's interested in the freshwater of Canada. He's trying to kind of set that all up. I'm just wondering could you speak more about the fertilizer situation and how that's going to play and also maybe if you can go into Mark Carney how he kind of got conservatives to cross the line. Right.

Professor Jiang:

Right. That's a great point in that Canada is objectively speaking the richest country in the world. And Canada has almost unlimited freshwater resources, energy, land, and very low population. In theory, Canada is the richest country in the world. And you would think that Canada has a very bright future. But historically, wealth and resources does not necessarily lead to the best outcome for a nation. It is often referred to as a resource trap. In that you have too much wealth. It leads to corruption. It leads to inequality. It leads to complacency in society. We see this all the time in Africa, places like Nigeria which is extremely wealthy with resources but it's always been corrupt.

Canada is not as corrupt. Canada is one of the least corrupt countries in the world but people here are complacent. People here are not going to work very hard. One thing that we need to factor in is the mood and the energy of the people where in theory if Canadians got together, worked really hard with its resources, Canada would have a great future, but often in times of decline, you have exhaustion. You have people who are just lazy and want to do as little work as possible in order to get by.

And that's why this population replacement is happening, right? Because Canadian people are like, you know what? Things are not as good as they used to be. Let's work harder because we're the wealthiest in the world and if we stand together, we'll be better off, right?

Instead, the attitude seems to be like, ah, whatever. In which case, this is forcing the restructuring of Canada. This is forcing the population replacement because again the City of London wants return on investment.

What about raising a family in Canada?

Audience question:

What would you recommend for someone who's thinking about having a family here?

Professor Jiang:

I have three young kids and a couple of years ago, I was thinking of actually returning to Canada and living here and given what I've seen these past two years, I came to Canada with my two kids last summer, and I will say that on the surface Toronto looks like a great place to raise a family. It's quiet. It's prosperous. It's peaceful. It's safe. But I'm not optimistic about Toronto, Canada's long-term prospects. And I think that Canada is in decline. One question that you need to ask yourself is can I buy a house?

And the answer in Canada is often no, I can't buy a house. Or I will suffer if I buy a house. My honest advice is to look for a place where you can afford a house because often a place where you can afford a house is often a place in which they're family-friendly. They're growing. They welcome families because they want to grow the population and they want to grow the economy. A place like that is Austin, Texas. I'm not sure if you've ever been to Texas, Dallas, Houston, Austin, but you can still buy a very large house, a four-bedroom for maybe half a million at a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

That's really good. I think like they have that in order to entice young people to go. Ask yourself, not where you would rather be, but ask yourself where I will be welcome.

And that's actually more important. Where they value my contribution where I can be part of a growing community and Toronto is definitely not welcoming.

Could the United States face dictatorship or civil war?

Audience question:

I came 33 years ago to Canada and I can say that we as Canadians because I consider myself Canadian basically lost the passion for Canada. On the other hand, Americans, because I worked over there for many years, have a passion for United States. Now, United States divided as it is in my opinion can survive by having a dictatorship, or it will have a civil war. Can you comment a little bit about it because that's the only way through history that an empire, or better say remnants of an empire, will survive.

Professor Jiang:

It's interesting because the United States is in imperial decline, and when an empire declines it causes all sorts of havoc to itself as well as to the world. An empire in decline tends to be overaggressive and it overextends itself and engages in wars or conquest throughout the world. That's why he wants Canada. That's why they want Cuba. That's why he invaded Venezuela. But also the empire in decline tends to rupture internally. That's why it's very likely in the next 10 years there will be a civil war of some sorts in the United States.

And the civil war will be a long-term thing where the states are in defiance of the federal government. Maybe Trump has a third term. In response, New York, California, Massachusetts, these very liberal Democratic states, they are openly defying Trump. And this could lead to conflicts between federal law enforcement, ICE basically, and local law enforcement. And I think this will be a very long-term thing. It's a very strange thing where within the United States there's civil conflict and this civil conflict is externalized by going and conflicting other places.

The civil war in the United States—the Americans are much more likely to come into Canada in order to resolve their internal disputes.

Audience follow-up:

With that turmoil, Canada doesn't have a chance, in your opinion?

Professor Jiang:

Canada doesn't have a military. I mean, how do you resist the US military? Canada doesn't have a military, guys. I'm sorry. I mean, yeah.

What does Zionist capital mean?

Audience question:

Yeah. I wanted to understand more about the Zionist capital side. I understand like the Hindu labor, but does the Zionist capital look like buying up of Tim Hortons and all of those corporations and what exactly makes it Zionist? Is it because it's going back to funding like the war in Israel and the greater Israel project?

Professor Jiang:

Yeah, I mean Zionist capital often just means Jewish capital. There are Jewish diaspora around the world and a lot of them have access to a lot of wealth and they were able to, because of the religion, because of the community, they're able to coordinate the application of this wealth. They're able to invest together. There are Jewish bankers who have had access to gold for a long long time, right? The Rothschilds and over time your investments just grow and grow and Zionism just means that you care about Israel and your investment, how you choose to apply your capital, you are doing it in a way that benefits Israel.

Does that make sense?

What about Carney’s deals with China?

Audience question:

Professor Jiang, you play a lot of poker as we know. How would you approach Carney going to China? We know that he's already, had this canola deal for electric vehicles. Was that any kind of a red line maybe for our relationship with the US? Given that we are this resource colony for a waning empire in the City of London, are there other, larger, namely China, would they be interested in our resources?

Professor Jiang:

That's a great question. Again, Mark Carney works for the City of London and the City of London sees Canada as a resource colony. What do you do if you're not doing well? Well, you strip your assets, right? You sell your assets off to the highest bidder. And that's why Carney visited China and wants to sign all these deals with Chinese. That's why Mark Carney visited the Middle East as well. Qatar, Saudi Arabia. They're trying to sell their assets to the rest of the world, right? Because they're trying to generate as much return on investment as possible for their investors.

Is that going to work? Because what people don't appreciate is that global trade, global finance, it's predicated on the United States being able to guarantee world peace, right? And so you're China and you're like if I put in a trillion dollars in the Canadian real estate, how can I make sure this is safe for me? Because again, remember before it was United States which guaranteed that people could trade peacefully. But now the United States is going into decline. The United States is very aggressive especially towards China. Are the Chinese certain that if they put this investment into Canada, they will be able to maintain it? Basically, another way of saying this and it's hard for us to appreciate is all the traditional paradigms that we grew up with are collapsing right before us.

All these fictions that we believed in are collapsing before us. If you have $5 million in the bank, you think that oh this money is mine and I can at any point take it out. Don't go try it. You can't do it. You go to the bank, you're like, "I want to take it out." They're like, "Sorry, we can't do that." You're like, "How much can I take out?" Maybe $10,000.

Try it. Try going to the bank and try to get all your money. It's a fiction. That money you think is yours. It's not yours. It's just a number they made up. All these fictions that we believed in are collapsing right before our eyes. Yes.

How would restructuring change Canada’s hierarchy?

Audience question:

Can you just explain in simple terms how does the increase in productivity generate an increase in return on investment for transnational capital and then the second question is let's say your population replacement theory is correct and let's say in a couple of generations Canada gets hollowed out and middle management is replaced how does that change the status quo of the picture that you laid out for us?

Audience question:

It's like you're saying basically the problem is that Canadians are too complacent, right? If let's say you this population replacement theory happens and we get replaced with hardworking, productive, potentially ambitious people, how does it change the complacency of Canada within the whole like Israel kind of hierarchy?

Professor Jiang:

I want to answer your question in very simple terms. Imagine this. The City of London is a landlord. City of London, landlord. I have land. Land. What I want is people to come and grow crops on it, right? And then I take a share of these crops. It's only when they use the land that my land is valuable. Just sitting there, It's worthless. The peasants come and they grow food on the land.

And the more food they grow, the greater cut I take, right? Because I get 10% of everything. I want them to grow as much food as possible. The problem though is, over time, these peasants are really hardworking and they save up a lot of grain. They have a granary.

And then the children are like, "Well, I could go work for the landlord and grow crops, but my parents have a granary, so why don't I just like, not work." And that's Canada today. If you're a landlord, you're like, "Screw this, man. This sucks." What do I do? Well, what I do is I burn down the granary, and I bring in new peasants who have no grain and so they're forced to work really hard, right? That's what's happening in Canada today, right? Not only will you have population replacement, corporate restructuring, but you will also see, in the next about 10 years, a financial collapse.

Because you have to burn down the granary in order to make the country much more productive.

Your parents, these baby boomers, who think they had like a million dollars in the stock market, $2 million in housing, and so they're good. No, no, no. Wait five years. I guarantee you there's going to be a great financial collapse in order to reset the economy. The great reset. Yes.

What would restrictions on speech mean?

Audience question:

With sticking to Canada and all the new bills that are being introduced like Bill C-8, C-22, C-32 and all the freedoms that we currently have to say what we want to say online and in public discourse and you're seeing the expansion of that Overton window in the recent past. How is that going to change with these bills being introduced? What can we do about it and how can we safeguard ourselves?

Professor Jiang:

That's a great question. As you probably understand or appreciate, a lot of these bills are being passed in order to disguise the transition, right? They are trying to restructure the economy, replace the population, and so they're trying to stifle criticism in order to make this process as smooth as possible. And that's why they are passing these laws. What can you as a person do? You can't protest. They'll come and arrest you. And maybe you don't want to flee the country because you love this country.

And so my best advice is—and I keep on saying this, but it's very important—to start focusing on spirituality, on community, and on family. And so if you just shift your focus from one of material acquisition to one of enjoying your time, the time of your family, then you'll be much more resilient.

What about AI, robotics, and a military draft?

Audience question:

AI and robotics, will that have an impact on your idea with warfare? Will that have an impact with your idea of the draft?

Professor Jiang:

The draft, yes. To facilitate this process, what Carney is going to do is introduce a draft and force Canadians to go fight this stupid war in Ukraine. Robotics and AI are overhyped. The reason why is both are very dependent on the global supply chain network. If you work in AI, if you work in robotics, you know that you are dependent on critical minerals and elements that you import from all around the world. In a time of war, these global supply chains break down and so you're not able to advance AI and robotics. And really, look, I know there's a lot of hype around AI and robotics, but the people in charge don't think in those terms. They just think about how to control the population and how to better exploit the population.

What would happen to landowners?

Audience question:

Well, you mentioned that you believe that Canadians who have their investments lying in Canada might not be too good in the near future. And I'm wondering if you think that people who have land in Canada or people that are land owners with significant pieces of land here should feel secure or if they should be looking at other options for places to be or if like their land may not be so secure in the coming future with all the things you were discussing today about how Canada might turn out.

Professor Jiang:

That's a really good question. Let's just imagine a scenario in which United States comes and invades and would they respect property rights and I think they would respect property rights because if they come and invade they would want to basically get the population on their side. The best way to do that is by respecting property rights. Remember their enemy is not the people. Their enemy is the City of London. Again 89% of Canada is Crown land. The other 11% do the Americans really care? Not really. Right. Yep.

Why would the United States and Canada compete?

Audience question:

My question is why is it necessary for them to take over Canada which is owned by the City of London? Isn't the City of London and American empire powered by the same transnational capital?

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. It's elite overproduction. Elite overproduction. Meaning you have too many young ambitious people who want power. If you just let them in the country, they'll just cause revolution. The way you resolve this issue is like guys go to Alberta or go to British Columbia and take over that place. Go to Venezuela guys. Empire expansion is about trying to relieve the domestic pressure.

Audience follow-up:

Is Trump in a different national capital? Is the US empire different from the City of London? Because the US is trying to take over Canada.

Professor Jiang:

They're different groups. Let's say London right now controls Canada 89%. The United States is like, "Well, why don't we just steal it? Let's go steal it." So, I mean, they're all thieves, but they're different groups of thieves competing. Yeah.

Could Canada form an economic union with the United States or join the EU?

Audience question:

A quick question on the state or the future of Canada. You basically said that essentially Canada will be sort of balkanized, right? Alberta, yeah, might be on its own. Ontario also and maybe Quebec might be independent. But there's some other theories that are floating around there, which is one, I think Kevin O’Leary talked about the potential for Canada to join the United States, but under an economic union, very much like the European Union. There's also obviously the theory that Trump keeps talking about, which is becoming the 51st state. But there was also a question that was posed to Carney about potentially joining the European Union.

As a way of sort of combating what's going on with the United States. And then Carney obviously had that famous speech regarding middle powers which then also kind of leads the theory that there might be some sort of tie up there in the future with the Europeans to combat what's happening with the United States. Just curious to see if you think those alternate realities are possible versus the balkanization.

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. There are two possibilities, right? The first is that Canada becomes a 51st state. Second possibility is that Canada joins the EU basically in the lines of middle powers that Mark Carney talked about in his World Economic Forum speech. My question is why does United States want Canada? Right? Because you take all of Canada you're stuck with a health care system. You're stuck with a pension. You're still stuck with a lot of government burdens.

You're stuck with the bureaucracy. For the United States, I'm like, why do I want to absorb this crap? I want Alberta because Alberta has the energy, right? It has the tar sands. That makes sense. But why do I want Ontario? Why do I want Saskatchewan? What good do these places do me, right? I'm better off just taking Alberta and then letting the rest of the country burn down because once you lose Alberta, you lose the main source of revenue for the country. You lose government subsidies.

The healthcare system goes bankrupt. The pension system goes bankrupt. You have riots on the street and then the Canadians are begging you to come and save them. But then I can choose where to go. Right? That makes absolutely no sense for me to take over all of Canada. I'm better off just balkanizing Canada and taking the parts I want. Right?

Now then you're like, "Well then what if Canada joins the EU?" Do you know how incredibly incompetent the EU is? Like have you seen this war in Ukraine? It's a disaster. I mean, the European leaders are even more idiotic than Mark Carney. The British leaders and Macron—they're just the most unpopular people that ever existed. What good would it do Canada to join the EU? Also, you know how far Europe is from Canada?

We can drive to the United States. Europe is at least 7 hours away by flight. The Atlantic Ocean is pretty big. Makes no sense for Canada to join the EU. And again, look, Canada's a resource economy. It sells resources. The United States is a manufacturing power. It wants resources. Europe is a dying museum. It doesn't need the resources. I mean, it's completely unrealistic.

Would the strategy continue without Trump?

Audience question:

I just moved from Chicago to Toronto, so I experienced a bunch of privatization of military and the police, and Chicago was in conflict with ICE, so people were terrorized. I completely understand that. My question is the military-industrial complex is trying to expand the empire and make the technate and they're trying to drive out transnational capital. Their biggest agent is Donald Trump who is getting old has had assassination attempts and is losing—people are losing confidence in him but it doesn't matter, he'll take back power with force.

What happens if the military-industrial complex loses this agent? Would someone else come and continue driving the defense strategy that they've outlined to go all the way to the technate?

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. Look, if you look at the Trump administration, they pretty much are aligned on the vision. You got people like JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, they're all aligned with this vision of the greater North America. It's a pretty broad consensus of people. It doesn't matter if Trump is still in power. The next guy will follow through. But it'll probably be a much slower process and it'll probably be a much more chaotic process, right? What's making this process so smooth is the fact that everyone's attention is focused on Trump. But if you remove Trump, then people will be much more able to analyze the structural forces at work.

Would joining a declining United States be better?

Audience question:

I have you quoted saying two different things. I have you saying Canada is better off working with the US and then also that the US is a declining country. How do we square that?

Professor Jiang:

Yeah, that's a really good question. When I say United States is declining, you have to appreciate that the decline just means that you go from a global hegemon to a regional hegemon, right? It's pretty incredible United States was able to control the entire world for the past 30, 40 years and now it needs to retreat from the world and focus on the Western Hemisphere but I mean within the Western Hemisphere there's no power that challenges the United States.

Would the United States oppose Canada’s restructuring?

Audience question:

Yeah I wanted to ask when you said about capital bringing Hindu labor into Canada and the US not letting that happen. I don't understand why they wouldn't let that happen, especially when Trump has acted not in the interest of the US with Iran and other stuff and why breaking down Canada would conflict with bringing Hindu labor. I just don't see how those ideas conflict.

Professor Jiang:

I don't think I said the United States was against the restructuring. The United States is not against restructuring. It's a question: who owns the land, who controls Canada, right? The restructuring will happen regardless if the United States is in power or the City of London is in power. Because they both are looking for the best return on investment. I never really said the United States is against restructuring. They're for this.

Where does the City of London’s money flow?

Audience question:

Can you double down on the City of London bit? Is it an economic—where is the flow of funds or the economic tie that sits there for that return on investment because it's not like we pay there's a very nominal amount yearly that's actually paid out to the UK or the Commonwealth so to speak. Where is that actual economic bit that sits like how does the City of London actually benefit year to year or decade to decade?

Professor Jiang:

That's a really good question. And we need to appreciate the City of London. It's like Wall Street, right? It's an umbrella term. Within the City of London, there are these corporations, these banks, companies. They have assets in Canada. They control mines, they control forestry, they control water rights. And so, as a corporation, you make money when the nation is productive. When we mean productive, we just mean they're energetic. They work really hard.

And these companies are global. They're everywhere. They're in Australia. They're in South America, the United States. Companies like Rio Tinto, right? Rio Tinto, a major mining conglomerate. What I'm saying is the entire Western world is in decline. Why? Because the people are not as hardworking as they used to be. They're very complacent. And so for you, if the company's not doing well, what do you do? Well, you restructure the management in order to make the workers work harder.

Another way of saying this is, in Canada, the average Canadian is like, you know what, I'm good with making enough to get by. I'm more focused on my family. I want to enjoy my weekends and my cottage. I want my two vacations a year. That's a Canadian attitude. Whereas maybe if you are Indian, and you are poor, you come here and you're like, you know what, I need to bust my ass in order to stay in this country.

The Canadian has more money, but the Indian will be more energetic. He'll do more labor and as a capitalist, I extract value from the energy and not the capital.

Could the Laurentian elite make a deal with the United States?

Audience question:

Two questions, a macro and a micro. The macro one, if you're Laurentian elite, like applying game theory, you see yourself being replaced, doesn't it make strategic sense that you cut yourself a deal with the US and sell your country to the US? Like, I mean, I'm sure they know that the US can take over Canada and like, you'll be out of a job anyway. Why don't you sell Canada to the US be and manage to hold on to power still you know agree to manage Canada.

Professor Jiang:

I hate to emphasize this point. But when I do my analysis, the people in charge are like, "This is not what we actually do, man." And so what I'm going to say is these sort of structural forces are invisible to people. And one reason why my predictions have been so accurate is I look at these social forces as the main determinant of history. The people in charge don't really think in these terms.

They don't really think that there's a population replacement going on. There's a restructuring going on. They're just trying to do the best job they can and have the biggest ROI, return on investment, they can. What I'm saying is that over time they will behave like this. Number one is a lot of these things are invisible to people. Number two is it is easier to practice self-denial than just seeing things clearly. Because obviously if you are in charge of the Laurentian elites, you see things so clearly that can only lead to dismay and these people don't want to feel bad about themselves. These things happen and no one can stop them because the people in charge practice self-denial. They are delusional.

They live in their own bubble which reinforces their own prejudices. Yes.

Could Carney pursue a New Deal?

Audience question:

Oh. The top level question is what do you think are the odds that Carney will not sell out to City of London or kind of people who are associated with him on that side but more so he does perform more for the Canadian people in light of these upcoming economic challenges being potentially addressable in the similar way that in history in the 1920s and 30s we saw FDR do kind of like a New Deal with infrastructure programs similar to how we got what, 10 billion into the railway system into Canada.

Another 10 billion electrification program into the east. Another 10 billion for the icebreaker fleet. And of course, we've heard about the submarine fleet. These domestic programs where billions are being poured in to those and their corresponding supply chains as an FDR like New Deal response that could help. This does seem to be kind of in lines with trying to help stimulate and protect the economy from that and of course the trade deals internationally as well.

Professor Jiang:

That's a really interesting question. And what you do recognize is that Mark Carney is not FDR. FDR was an American aristocrat. Very much like John Kennedy. They were both very strong willed, very independent. Mark Carney is first and foremost a creature of finance. He first started his career at Goldman Sachs. Then he went to the Bank of Canada and then he went to Bank of England and given his resume, there's no way he is independent. There's just no way. You do not climb into that position of power, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, the governor, unless you're completely controlled and you're controllable.

There's actually no way someone with an independent streak would be allowed into that position. And you could argue, well, maybe he'll have a change of heart, right? And the reality is there's nothing about his character that suggests that he cares about anything except his own status, about his own power. Look guys, look at the picture of Mark Carney. The guy's like a classic Hollywood villain. He's a cross between Emperor Palpatine and Voldemort. The face does not lie. He is pure evil. He is pure opportunism if you just look at his face, man. I mean, Mark Carney would have never ever gotten elected in the United States. Wherever you have democracy, there's no way the people would have put that guy in power.

Would a one-world government override geopolitics?

Audience question:

Yeah. You're talking about these forces that a lot of people can't see and you're talking about the divisions in the West, but isn't there a deeper force that is actually driving unification? Do you believe that we will get to the point of a one world order with digital technology that's actually controlling us more and trying to put even more—well, controlling us in the end? If that's the case, if you believe that's coming, isn't that where we should be putting our focus? What are the implications for all of us rather than us? Because I think this is all very important analysis but I find it's distracting us from the real threat.

Professor Jiang:

That's a really interesting point. It is true that there are a lot of people who suspect that the real purpose is going to a one-world government. That is true. Why is it that everyone believes that we're moving towards a one world government? And I think a lot of it is just intuition about how the elite operate and how the elite think. If you go to a world economic forum, you hear Mark Carney give speeches, if you see how these people talk, they are at the back of their minds thinking of a one world government.

But what's really important for us to understand is why would they think in those terms? Why do they want a one world government? And the answer is—and this answer is going to surprise you guys—but what I believe is that as you climb in the power hierarchy, as you become more and more powerful, as you absorb more and more wealth, you become a billionaire or trillionaire, the way that your mind operates changes.

For example, you as an average person, you see the world in terms of other human beings. But at that level you are removed from humanity. You see humans as more dots on a screen or lines on a blueprint. You stop seeing things from a human lens. You start seeing things from a systems or structural lens. You basically see the world as a blueprint. And so your mind, what happens is your mind becomes focused on creating a one world government.

Because then it's easier for you to manage society and it's only a small group of people anyway. But there's a problem or weakness to this style of thinking which is as your power increases your imagination decreases. There's this inverse relationship between power and imagination.

The more your power increases, the more your imagination decreases, which means that you develop hubris. You are not capable of understanding your own limitations. You're not capable of appreciating you could fail.

In which case you can't actually succeed. It's a very strange dynamic where never before in human history have so few people accumulated so much wealth and power for themselves. But because they've done so it creates hubris and the hubris will ultimately lead to their downfall. Another way of thinking of this is maybe thinking of this as the Tower. The one-world government is their version of the Tower of Babel, and we know how the Tower of Babel turned out.

What would life be like after a US invasion?

Audience question:

I'm just trying to have a little bit more clarity in my mind. Let's imagine what you say in terms of Canada happens. The country breaks up and then I think you spoke to it when you were in Austin that Trump would give it to his friends and powerful people and such. If the US were to absorb it. I'm just trying to understand because you tend to ground a lot of your examples with historical precedent or at least stories and mythologies. That's the one that I haven't really been able to understand because for example this one my mind immediately went to Vietnam as far as the hubris of the US.

They had all the power but they weren't able to defeat the Vietnamese and they were defeated themselves. What would it look like in your estimation if the US is able to absorb Canada and what does life look like on the ground in that reality? That's my question.

Professor Jiang:

Let me ask you: if US tanks were to roll into the streets of Toronto and declare Toronto to be annexed by the United States, how would you feel?

Audience response:

I mean, not great. Not great. Just like, oh, what's going on? Just shock kind of thing.

Professor Jiang:

Shock. But then?

Audience response:

Eventually get used to it probably.

Professor Jiang:

Yeah, you get used to it. To be honest, that would be the vast majority of the response. Maybe in the beginning you're like, "The Americans are assholes," and then the next day you're like, "Oh, whatever."

Audience response:

How do I get to work kind of thing. Yeah.

Professor Jiang:

This is what I've been saying. Canada has anti-nationalism. It's almost impossible for Canadians to resist because there's no mythology underpinning this resistance. The Vietnamese were able to resist because they had 2,000 years of resistance against imperialism. They resisted the Chinese. They resisted the Mongols. They resisted the French. The Vietnamese are very proud and very brave people. And people don't appreciate that about the Vietnamese. But when you go and you kill one Vietnamese their entire family will take up arms and fight you. The number of people that the Americans killed in Vietnam were just tremendous.

The Americans tried almost everything except nuclear bombs against Vietnam and Vietnamese refused to surrender. The Canadians aren't like this.

Could the elites turn toward good?

Audience question:

I have a question. It's not related to Canada, but one of the driving forces that you've talked about which is the rise of Israel and India and the fact that the people that drive change the most are usually the most extreme or the most eschatological. There's an eschatology in Hinduism which is we're in the Kali Yuga and where this is the age of darkness where even though we don't see the physical manifestation of demons and angels every human is basically fighting this war within themselves. It's it's the demonic powers versus the good, the angels trying to fight over what we do and our actions.

And so we truly don't define Trump or Carney, like you said, as the epitome of evil. If this fight and also I think Jewish eschatology is like there's a war of Gog and Magog eventually good will prevail. Is that what you see as well in this one world government like essentially the people in charge will have good forces or good thoughts to change or lose their evil sort of plans?

Professor Jiang:

The Kali Yuga I think we're definitely in the Kali Yuga and it's like with a lot of other eschatologies, because I look at this Lindsay Clancy case. Have you guys been following this Lindsay Clancy case? And I mean, it's shocking to me not only because she was able to do this, but also like there's so much division about what happened. There are literally millions of women who believe that she is completely innocent and the husband Patrick was the one responsible for killing the three kids. And like what kind of society, what kind of age are we in when it's so obvious what happened and then you know it's unbelievable that this was able to happen and then society is not able to come to a clear moral understanding or verdict.

I think we are definitely in the Kali Yuga. I'm not making a judgment about what happened.

Audience response:

And there was a mistrial.

Professor Jiang:

And there was a mistrial. But I'm just saying like these actions and the fact that there's so much conflict and division in society, it is definitely indicative of like Kali Yuga. But I think that what these eschatologists say is we will not enter a stage of a new world government or stability. It's just like complete and utter civilizational collapse. That's what we're really facing. The elites, I mean, if the elite were able to construct a new system then I think everyone would benefit. I think what's going to happen is just the gradual collapse of everything that we would call civilization. The breakdown of global trade the violence all around the place. It won't be very pretty. Yep.

What is the role of religion and spirituality?

Audience question:

I have a spirituality-related question similar to the last one. In a previous lecture you said something like the future will be not a battle between organized religion and atheism or materialism but between organized religion and free spirituality and with emerging ideas growing popularity of like Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism and at the same time a potential theocratic state in the US. How does that world develop if there's a theocratic state that's more traditionally Christian that's being enforced?

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. I did mention this but this is a more long-term prediction. Maybe the next 30 years. What I'm saying today is next 5 to 10 years. But the idea that ultimately you have more theocracies around the world, I think, is a very long-term thing. And when these theocracies emerge, what we know is there will be a lot of resistance to organized religion because as human beings, we first and foremost strive for connection to the Monad. But organized religion doesn't want that because it is subversive. But that is something that will happen in the long term.

How would First Nations and China fit into the conflict?

Audience question:

My question is more towards the First Nations in Canada. I know they're small and pretty unorganized, but back in 2016, they signed the China First Nations pact with the Western provinces and territories for resources like mining, water, and forestry. If China, I know you touched on China, if China doesn't have enough energy to go through with that pact, who would you see the First Nations kind of align with? I know they have only about 2 to 3% of Canadian land, but would they go with the United States or would China try and re-energize to get those resources since they're going to be quite restricted over the next 10 years?

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. Something to be clear about. When we say China in practice, it's not really China. It's companies that are Chinese. And why this is important is you have to ask yourself why these Chinese companies are coming to Canada. You think that it is about resource exploitation but really a lot of these companies are coming in order to launder money into Canada and a lot of these trade agreements are a way to launder that. Remember because Canada is first and foremost an offshore financial center and there's a lot of money that's trying to leave China and come into Canada. That's point one. Point two, and this is actually more important, is China is about to go to war with Japan and this will change everything.

Because what Japan can do is build an alliance to embargo China which will force China to retreat to basically repatriate a lot of capital and a lot of resources from overseas. On September 15th 10 days from now what's going to happen is China will restrict or close its border basically. China would basically turtle up. A lot of actions you're seeing from China of an outward expansion it will not be sustainable. Japan will put too much pressure on China. Yeah.

Could Canada align more closely with China?

Audience question:

Related point on the US and Canada trade war. Basically what you talked about with China aligning with potentially Canada? Do you see Canada potentially like, doing more trade with Canada or aligning partnering more with China?

Professor Jiang:

Yeah, certainly Mark Carney wants to align more with China, right? Again, Mark Carney represents the interest of the City of London and the City of London sees Trump as a threat. What Carney is trying to do is build an alliance to counter the United States. That's why he's reaching out to the Middle East, to China, and to Europe. But if you're China, you're like, I'm better off actually working with the United States. Because the real power is the Americans. And quite honestly, if I'm China, I need to export my goods to the world and I need to do it in a very stable relationship. I'm better off working with the United States because they have real power whereas the Canadians, the Europeans, the Middle Easterns, like who cares?

I know that Mark Carney does want to reach out to China, but China doesn't care. China wants to build a strong relationship with the United States. And at the end of this month, President Xi will visit Trump in Washington. It'll be a big thing. It'll be a state visit, a state dinner. There'll be a lot of pomp and circumstance. But not only that, there are two more visits scheduled for the rest of this year. One in APEC, another in the G20. All together this year, there are four bilateral meetings between Trump and Xi.

State leaders do not meet unless they are about to reach a major agreement. They don't meet to fight. They meet in order to sign documents.

What about Canadian oil, China, and pipelines?

Audience question:

I have a question on looking at the geopolitics through the lens of what's happening with the oil market. For example, Canada exports a lot of oil to the United States, but recently because of the conflict, they're looking to diversify. Creating the western pipeline and potentially exporting to China. I was curious about your view of how this will develop over time and also like if we look at it, China imports oil from Canada but also recently because of the Iran war they decreased their imports significantly probably because of the pressures from the US side.

This complex way of how US, China and Iran are managing the oil market. I was curious about your thoughts. Secondary question is kind of more tied to what China is doing specifically is China has a relationship with Iran and China doesn't want Iran to fall. When China reduced the import, it actually reduced the oil price a lot which kind of counters what Iran is doing with the Strait of Hormuz. I was curious about your thoughts of how they will navigate going forward. That's the second question I have.

Professor Jiang:

I hate to say this, but one thing that we need to appreciate is global leaders, their mentality has changed a lot. Maybe before, 20, 30 years ago, you had global leaders who thought long term, nationally, and strategically. Long-term is basically, I'm going to think in the next 10- to 20-year, 30-year time frame. Nationally just means like I'm going to put my national interests before my own personal interests. And then strategically just means I'm gonna consider the reactions of other parties.

And today, none of these three things apply. Right now they think in terms of very short-term results. Short term, then it's personal, and it's basically just tactical.

He hires a hitman to go kill his partner. He gives a million dollars. I'm just making the sums up. He gives a million dollars to hit man. Says, "Go kill this guy." Before, 20 years ago, the hitman would just go and kill that guy. And then the business is done. Today, what that hitman did was like, well, I could go and pull the trigger and kill a guy, but you know what? What's my best short-term personal tactical interest? I'm going to go and give half million dollars to another guy to kill the business partner.

Then the second man is like, "Well, I could go and kill the guy, but let me hire someone else to do it." So he subcontracts to the third guy, who gets $250,000 now. And then the guy's like, "Well, I'll subcontract again." And again, he gives the fourth guy $100,000, $20,000 US. And the fourth guy was like, "Well, I think they'll kill the business partner, but I can make more money by ratting out the guy." He goes to the business partner and says, "Hey, I was given $100,000 to kill you. You give me $200,000. I'll go and help you." The business partner is like, "Screw you. I'm going to report you to the police." They were all arrested.

This is how the world works today. The leaders in charge, Trump, Carney, they're all like this. You think that Carney wants to create the Western Pipeline, a 20-year project? No, he doesn't. He doesn't care. He's using it as a negotiating tactic to get the most leverage against Trump. Whenever leaders say 20 years from now or like let's do this big project, it's all an illusion. None of them actually think in these terms.

Did Trump start the trade war?

Audience question:

Yeah. I'm curious. When you were talking in your lecture previously, you blamed the trade war on Carney. Well, I want to say I by no means support Carney, but don't you think that Trump started it and he started it because of the deficit? But that deficit is driven by their imports of Canadian crude, which they then refine and sell at a much higher premium, back to Canada. As I said, I don't support Carney, but I got to give credit where credit is due. He is standing against the tariffs, right?

And related to that, another question: when you're talking about the reason Poilievre lost is because he refused to blame Carney for being just in the pocket of London, right? Don't you think he didn't challenge Carney in that way because he himself is in the pocket of transnational kind of Zionist capital, right? But Poilievre actually leans more on the side of Trump, so he wasn't able to challenge Trump in the way that Carney did, which was obviously performative, but nonetheless.

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. I never said that it's Carney's fault this trade war started. I didn't say that. What I said was Carney's response is stupid or ineffectual, right? Because the United States is the biggest trade partner of Canada, the biggest customer of Canadian resources. What I do believe is Trump did start this war and the point of starting this war is to force circumstances in a way that would create the partition of Canada. Trump, remember, before this war started, he said that he wants to make Canada into the 51st state, right? This is part of the process of turning Canada into the 51st state. But again, he doesn't want Canada as a 51st state. He wants Alberta.

What can people do about elite power?

Audience question:

My question is on freedom of speech and what the people can do. If you look at our issues, right, the City of London is basically controlled by the elite. Even Trump is actually working with the Zionists. At the end of the day, the world is controlled by the elite. It's up to our people, we the people, to revolt against that. But then some of us now can't even share a news article on Facebook, and we are restricted during COVID. Our channel gets shut down.

How do you see what the people can do and how are we going to be restricted to speak up and can you comment on that?

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. I think it is incorrect to say the people versus the elite. I think what drives the world is conflict amongst the elite. Different factions of elite are fighting amongst each other. We don't have the power and we'll probably be used as pawns in the great game anyway. But it is in our power to focus on spirituality, to focus on our families, focus on communities.

It is true that I am very doom and gloom in my geopolitical analysis. But what I also do is I also teach the beauty of the great books. I also teach the beauty of spirituality and I talk about the importance of having a family and focusing on children and so a lot of what I do is for my kids. I want my kids to learn about the world and have more control over their own destiny because eventually I will pass from the scene and my kids will inherit the future and that is what keeps me sane.

When I went to the United States, I did a lot of podcasts. I met a lot of famous people, but my focus was on taking my son around and showing him. I think if you just focus on what you can't control, that will just make you insane.

You have to focus on what things you can control and learning by yourself, learning as much as you can, being nice to people around you, educating the people around you, that's something that you can control.

Can multiculturalism return, and would Poilievre also work for London?

Audience question:

Two quick questions. Number one: for many Canadians who grew up in Canada, we really embraced multiculturalism and respecting different cultures, learning from one another. But in recent years, with an influx of immigrants, they also brought us a lot of things. I guess I don't want to use the word the bad side of cultures, but caused a lot of, I guess, conflicts between Canadians and immigrants. How do we refine this compassion to accept the immigrants that come to our country and be able to embrace multiculturalism again? And the second question is: if, let's say, Pierre Poilievre won, do you think he would also be an agent of England, the City of London, or do you think he will act differently?

Professor Jiang:

Well, let me answer your second question first. There's no way Pierre Poilievre was going to win. He's been set up to be the loser always. And the one reason why we know is after he lost against Mark Carney, he still stayed in power. That doesn't happen in politics. If you're the opposition leader and you lose election, then you're supposed to resign. He didn't resign. In fact, he lost his seat.

And what he did was he took someone else's seat. What's going on? Right? It tells us all this is being stage-managed and he's being set up as an opposition leader, not the prime minister. He's too incompetent to be prime minister and he makes a very good opposition leader. He rallies the anger of Canadian people. That's his role and he's very happy being this actor. First question about multiculturalism: look, the population is being replaced. People are angry. There's no solution to this. People know they're being replaced.

Audience follow-up:

How can we be nice to our neighbor?

Professor Jiang:

I think a lot of this anger is being driven by such powerlessness, meaning Canadians are not even allowed to articulate this frustration. You're not allowed to say, "These immigrants don't know the rules," because you'd be called racist. There are lots of systems built to ensure no criticism could arise and so this has led to a lot of anger. I think that if there are opportunities for constructive dialogue, then I think things will be a lot better. But as Canadians, you're not allowed to discuss these things. There should be town hall meetings where Canadians are permitted to discuss their concerns.

But the government doesn't care anymore. Yes.

What alternative vision could people gather around?

Audience question:

Are you aware of any consistent picture of the future that has been formulated and offered to the public after doom and gloom happens except basically what Schwab offered as a dystopian world that we're supposed to live in? That's number one. And number two, from your perspective, how many generations will be wasted in that gloom and doom picture that basically everybody is accepting will happen?

Professor Jiang:

What's the first question?

Audience question:

Are you aware of any, let's say, picture of the world, picture of the future that is offered to the public that the majority of humanity can accept as a founding, let's say, point to go into a brighter future after the gloom and doom? Schwab offered what he offered, basically, which is a dystopian picture that I think a normal man will not agree with. Now, do we have anything else consistently opened and offered to all of us that we can discuss and participate in contributing, and so on and so forth? Because, in my opinion, that's the most important part. Now the whole world is in disarray and nobody offers the future that we can gather around. Schwab offered it, but we know what that is.

Professor Jiang:

There is a consensus amongst the elite. The consensus is this. There are just way too many people on this planet. If you really go to the elites and you really are able to find them in private, everyone will agree there's way too many people on this planet. That's leading to a lot of problems. If we went from 8 billion people to 500 million people, the world would be a better place. Let's not discuss how we do this. But if we were to do this, then we could create a utopia.

There'll be enough resources for everyone and people would get along a lot better, right? Imagine how much space there would be, how much resource there would be if we only had 500 million people. How do we go from 8 billion people to 500 million people?

Well, I think God will take care of this. But what might be important is if we make this happen as fast as possible because if we were to accelerate the process, we would reduce human suffering. The options aren't, like how do we maintain peace and prosperity because we can't do that. The options are do we want to accelerate the process and make it into a 20-year process or do we just not do anything and have the process be 200 years, because empires, when they decline, tend to take about 200 years?

Would it be better if we did it in 20 years or maybe in 10 years? That's how they're thinking.

Audience follow-up:

But is there any alternative?

Professor Jiang:

Well, I mean there are these technoutopians like Elon Musk who tell us we'll go to Mars and everything will be solved. Or robots will take care of everything, but they're lying to everybody. That's not what they really think. What they really think is we need to reduce the population to 500 million people as soon as possible. That's how they really think.

Audience follow-up:

How many generations? I asked another question. In your opinion?

Professor Jiang:

They want to do it as soon as possible because that would reduce human suffering. It could be 10 years.

Did Milton first associate the serpent with Lucifer?

Audience question:

In Paradise Lost, Milton, he like interprets the story of Adam and Eve as the serpent being Lucifer. And it's my understanding, let me know if I'm wrong, but before this interpretation, that was not like commonly understood, right? He kind of started that association. Oh, he didn't.

Professor Jiang:

Yeah. I mean, this was commonly understood.

Audience response:

Oh, then. No, that's good. Yeah. Yeah.

What about the disaster near Nepal and China?

Audience question:

When reading your content or listening to your content, it's really hopeless, it seems. But my question for you today is: do you have any comments on the Nepal–Chinese border disaster? Any comment on that?

Professor Jiang:

I've not been following the news about the China–Nepal border thing, but the reality is that over the next few years these things will become much more common just because of how nature works. I think that natural disasters will be a very common thing and this is something that we'll have to get used to.

What do Xi’s purges mean?

Audience question:

I just wanted to know this week President Xi looks like he purged about 13 military and government officials. What does that mean for Taiwan, Japan, and specifically Canada? Because sometimes I do feel that there is a lot of you know infiltration with the CCP in Canada, as there is the IRGC. Just wondering if you could I know it's a multiaceted question, but—

Professor Jiang:

That's a great question, and reporting on what's happening in China is completely wrong. Reporting is: there is one guy in power. He's a horrible dictator going to purge everyone, including his own friends. This is reporting. He's purged his enemies and now he's purging his friends because he's a paranoid dictator like Stalin. That's not what's happening. What's happening is this. China is much too large a country for one person to be in control of and there are maybe different factions that are competing against each other, fighting against each other and one major consequence of this internal struggle is they're all trying to balance each other out. Maybe before President Xi had too much power. The different factions aligned against him and so what you do is you don't attack the top guy.

Because that's too obvious and it would lead to disaster. What you do is you attack his lieutenants because once his lieutenants are removed from power, he himself has actually no power whatsoever. What's been happening this past year in China is there's constant global purge where different factions are removing their enemies from position of power and so they're basically neutering each other in order to create a balance of power in China. Does that make sense? In which case what I'm saying is no one now is in charge of China. President Xi could be seen as the leader, but all he's doing is implementing a consensus they agree on.

And one consensus they agree on is we need international stability and we need to work with the United States. Why? Because Japan is coming. They agree on basic things but like right now there's really no one in command and that's why China has been so passive these past few years even though a lot of things are happening that go against Chinese national interests especially this war in Iran. The reporting around China is completely wrong. No one's in charge right now. The guy is just a figurehead. There are different political factions and they're all trying to balance each other out.

What can Gen Z do?

Audience question:

I just wanted to ask how can we prepare for what's coming essentially especially the younger generation like Gen Z beyond what you've already mentioned like get together have a family love each other build a community?

Professor Jiang:

Do you believe in God?

Audience response:

I do, but I wanted to say on an individual level what can one person do to prepare?

Professor Jiang:

I would strengthen my relationship with God. Whatever you need to do in order to strengthen your relationship with God is important. That could mean going to church. That could mean reading a Bible. That could mean doing a lot of prayer. That could mean engaging in your own spiritual practice, for example, meditation.

Could London build a coalition against Trump?

Audience question:

If Trump has been very open about a third term and potentially invading Canada, right, or at least take over one province, for the City of London from their perspective, wouldn't it make sense for them to invest ahead of time, let's say, strong coalition against Trump with military support and they could potentially trigger American civil war in advance so that their interest in Canada is protected?

Professor Jiang:

Again the City of London is an umbrella term for transnational capital interests. And its transnational capital interests are divided among different groups. I'm not saying it's Trump versus transnational capital. It's one group of transnational capitalists behind Trump versus another group of transnational capital under Mark Carney. That's a real conflict.

Would Alberta involve ground troops or support for separatists?

Audience question:

With regards to Alberta and the potential for a US trying to take claim of it, do you think it's more likely that they will send in their own military ground troops as a way to take claim of it or through the use of funding separatist groups that align with US interests?

Professor Jiang:

That's a great question. If you look at US military doctrine, their main strategy is use special forces and embed them into local insurgents. That's the way they do things. There's no way they're going to send in a ground invasion because it's too costly and unpopular. What they'll most likely do is insert special forces, CIA agents, and organize local insurgents to create guerrilla warfare.

How do God and the Monad relate to death?

Audience question:

You were saying that your advice to the younger generation Gen Z is to get closer to God. I wanted to understand the relationship between God, the Bible, the Monad, basically death.

Professor Jiang:

When I say get close to God, I mean you have to give up your materialistic understanding of the universe. In a materialistic understanding when you die, you just die. You become nothing. And that creates tremendous angst and dread in people. But if you believe the Monad, you believe that there's a source, you believe that there's structure to the universe, then what you believe is that you're just here for a purpose and that when you die, you'll come back eventually. Death is only a new beginning. You have to believe this.

Once you believe this, then everything else can fall into place. But once you accept that there is a God and that God is the source from which you come, you come here for a purpose. Then for you, what's important is to first of all discover your purpose and then rebuild your connection with God, which will lead you to your purpose.

How should an ambitious immigrant think about happiness?

Audience question:

I watch many of your videos and I feel a lot when you mention you came from a poor family and trying to establish a life here in Canada. You tried and went to Yale College and you mentioned a lot of times you were a product of meritocracy and I feel that because I could say I'm an immigrant here in Canada and I worked really hard until I find you mentioned about trying to connect with the Monad and the more we work, the more money that we earn. We go farther and distant from the Monad. But then watching your other videos like immigration trap and rat utopia. I tried to connect the dots.

And I've seen a transition when you mentioned you met your wife and you have your kids. That's when you felt comfortable with your life. But right now, I'm not married. I'm a single young working-force male. And I believe a lot of people are like me and before I get married or a young man gets married, what would be the right income number for us to be comfortable and then we stop continuing to earn more money because we also want to connect with the Monad, right? And money is extracted from our energy and time.

Professor Jiang:

I think that's a wrong way to perceive things like how much money do I need to make? You have to ask yourself: what makes me a happy person because once you become a happy person, you exude a positive energy and then that attracts people to you. You have more friends, you have more dating options. For you, it's really a question of what can bring happiness to my life? And then once you have this happiness, then this will bring happiness to others.

And I think one thing that I've learned that's really helpful is the ability to tell jokes. The ability to make people laugh. Why? Because to tell jokes, you have to be honest with who you are and you have to let go of your pride and you have to put the interest of others before yourself. I think learning to tell jokes will be much more effective than like making a lot of money, right?

What about psychedelics and spirituality?

Audience question:

Yeah. I've heard you mention the use of psychedelics to explore spiritual connections and this is something that I've been doing probably for the past four years now and I'm curious what you think about how they could be used to strengthen that connection in ways that I may not have thought of.

Professor Jiang:

Yeah, that's a good question. Psychedelics do open new channels. They remove these material constraints and allow you to see a deeper reality. But you're not here to do psychedelics. Psychedelics are a tool. You're here to love. You're here to learn. We're here to create. Your real purpose is to start a family. Your real purpose is to help others. Your real purpose is to suffer tragedy and trauma so that you can develop enlightenment. And psychedelics are a tool, but it's not the purpose.

What would the SCO mean for Central Asia?

Audience question:

I came from Kyrgyzstan where the recent SCO meeting was held. I just wanted to know your perspective on the Central Asia region or Kyrgyzstan in particular.

Professor Jiang:

The SCO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This is meant to be an alternative to the current financial system which is Pax Americana. And the idea behind the SCO is the US empire is in decline and it is trying to coerce the world to follow its will. Let's come together and let's work together cooperatively to trade with each other and bring peace to the world. That's a theory. Doesn't work in practice because there are lots of internal disagreements amongst the members. For example, Putin was very angry because there were lots of people during the SCO who were trying to get him to stop the war in Ukraine and he's like, "What? I just started this war." So, the SCO is not feasible. You need a strong leader to control this organization. It could be China but it doesn't want to do that because it would mean military commitments in places it doesn't want to be committed. It would also mean the liberalization of its currency which would cause a lot of financial problems within China.