Globalist? You Keep Using That Word…

Why the Carney Conspiracy Theories Make No Sense

For people reading the comment sections on Social Media this morning, and especially the " Mark Carney is a Globalist, Elitist, World Banker, WEF Liar" stuff, I feel like I should - one time - explain what these folks are talking about when they repeat these oblique (obtuse? opaque?) talking points.

Mark Carney, Playing goal in Edmonton in his teens. How is it possible that people write posts questioning if he is Canadian? If this is not Canadian enough for you, nothing will do.

---

Maybe it’s just the day, or maybe it’s the way the world feels—heavy with tariffs, tangled in politics, headlines stacked like wet cordwood, none of them warming. When Carmen Townsend sent me this picture I wasn’t ready for it.

Look at him. On community ice. The snowbanks shoveled high, the chain-link fence bowed with the weight of winters past, the gear too big, like all hockey gear and handed down skates, because we all grew into our dreams rather than the other way around.

The pads, thick and rich, slabs of aged leather tanned the color of Grandparent’s Red Rose tea, stitched and stuffed with horsehair or whatever magic made them the last defence through seasons of slapshots off overnight ice and cracked asphalt. The old glove, deep-pocketed, oiled, and broken in just so with the hardened ends of chewed lacing, the mitt ready to pull pucks out of thin air, and the Northland stick, tape torn on the ice and balanced perfectly for battle. Look at him. That’s a Canadian boy.

For anyone still questioning Mark Carney’s Canadian bona fides, I give you this.

I know this guy like I know myself. A kid in the cold, grinning through it. A kid who laced up for the game that is half of what we are. A kid who grew up knowing that Canada isn’t a brand or a birth certificate—it’s the sound of a frozen puck clattering over uneven ice, the crack of the pond under skate blades, the way your breath ghosts in the air while you wait for a pass that may never come.

And unseen behind the camera, a mom sliding out in fur-topped boots, coaxing a pose, and clicking hopefully with her Kodak. No second chances—just faith in the moment and the drugstore developer envelope. She framed the shot like she framed his whole childhood—with care, with love, with the quiet knowing that someday, he’d want to remember this.

She certainly couldn’t have known that on some hard, heavy day fifty years later filled with world events and tariffs and the grind of modern life, someone would look at this picture, thinking about him as the next Prime Minister of Canada.

I can smell that worn-out sweater—red and white, the IGA logo across the chest. That wasn’t just a team sponsor; that was a Canadian institution. The Independent Grocers Alliance. A concept that blended the buying power of a major grocery chain with the independence of locally owned stores, and commitment to community-focused retailing and locally sourced products. Today at least, that is something that brings me to tears.

We argue, we fight, we tax and we tariff, we shout across borders and benches. But at the core, at the heart, we are this. Alone, but part of a team. Resilient. Game-faced. Frozen. Canadian.

---

Move over Robert Stanfield. Mark Carney could be the best Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Canada has never had

Calling Mark Carney a Globalist Elite is like calling the North Novas and the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division "Globalist Elite" because of all the time they spent hanging out on beaches in France, and saying they are WEF puppets because of their "elite" success in winning the war, which led to Breton Woods, the World Bank, the UN, and the IMF.

Mark Carney is a ‘globalist banker’ in the same way Bryan Adams is a ‘globalist guitarist,’ Margaret Atwood is a ‘globalist novelist,’ Céline Dion is a ‘globalist singer,’ and Marshall McLuhan was a ‘globalist thinker.’

Sidebar for the birthers and passport-obsessed: Mark Carney was born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada, in 1965. His parents are Canadian. He was raised in Edmonton, Alberta, where he attended high school before going on to Harvard University.

Yes, he worked internationally—because he was good at what he did. That’s literally what qualified him to be Governor of the Bank of Canada, where he protected Canada from the worst of the 2008 financial crash while the U.S. and Europe crumbled. Then, because he did such a good job, Britain hired him to do the same for them—like a top free agent signing, except for the economy."

As for the ‘puppet for the rich’ angle—he spent his career strengthening financial systems that benefit middle-class savers, mortgage holders, and pensioners. If you can point to a policy of his that ‘crashed economies’ rather than stabilized them, let’s hear it. Otherwise, this is just the usual ‘WEF boogeyman’ routine."

You don’t have to like Carney’s politics, or even be aware of them apparently, but at least pretend facts matter.

Ironically, Mark Carney could easily, and maybe more appropriately, be the leader of a truly conservative party. Or a PC Party for sure. He's fine as a Liberal too. And I’ve argued in another post below that he’s a Canadian Socialist straight out of central casting. They're all just groups of people who came together to contest an election. He just doesn't fit as the leader of a "Burn it all F#$%ing down" mob, which is why we're reading all this bombastic blowback.

The Brookfield Move

Brookfield Asset Management relocated its head office from Toronto to New York in late 2024. This strategic move aimed to expand its institutional investor base, enhance access to capital, and position the company for inclusion in major U.S. stock indices, thereby increasing its stock's liquidity and appeal to a broader range of investors. ​

At the time of this decision, Mark Carney served as the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. In a letter to shareholders dated December 1, 2024, Carney endorsed the relocation, emphasizing its potential benefits for the company's growth and shareholder value. However, Carney resigned from his corporate roles in mid-January 2025 to pursue a career in politics. He has stated that the formal board decision regarding the headquarters move occurred after his departure, suggesting that while he supported the strategy, he was not directly involved in the final approval process. ​

The relocation became a contentious issue in Canadian politics, especially in the context of escalating trade tensions with the United States under President Donald Trump's administration. Critics argued that moving the headquarters could be perceived as aligning with U.S. interests amid tariff disputes, potentially undermining Canada's economic sovereignty. Conservative opponents accused Carney of dishonesty regarding his involvement in the move, highlighting the timing of his resignation relative to the board's final decision. ​

Brookfield's headquarters relocation to New York was a strategic decision aimed at enhancing the company's market position. While Mark Carney, as Chair, supported this move, the extent of his direct involvement in the final decision-making process remains a subject of political debate.

One thing is certain. It's not a factory or storefront. It employs finance professionals, accountants, bankers, economists, and investment analysts. No jobs related to its work are lost in the move.

---

One for the record books.

The Unlikeliest Path to 24 Sussex?

Mark Carney wasn’t supposed to be here.

The prime minister-designate blew his opponents out of the water with nearly 86 per cent of the votes.

A kid from Fort Smith, Northwest Territories—population 2,500—wasn’t supposed to make it to Harvard, let alone Oxford. A goalie—an amateur hockey goalie—wasn’t supposed to become one of the world’s most respected economic minds. A Canadian banker wasn’t supposed to be tapped to run the Bank of England.

And yet, here he is.

Carney has never held elected office. Never been leader of a party. Never campaigned for anything. And yet, he’s now on the verge of taking on Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative leader who just weeks ago looked like he had a 99% chance of storming to a majority.

This wasn’t supposed to happen.

Carney wasn’t supposed to be the guy dragging the Liberals back from the edge of oblivion. But somehow, against all odds, a kid from rural Alberta—who wasn’t even supposed to finish high school—might just be elected the next Prime Minister of Canada.

---

WEF... more like WTF

Carney's association with the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been a focal point for critics. As an agenda contributor to the WEF, his involvement has fueled suspicions among those wary of the organization's global influence. Some social media users have labeled him as a "WEF member" and a "professional liar," reflecting concerns about potential globalist agendas.

Carney’s affiliation with the World Economic Forum (WEF) is one of the key reasons his name gets dragged into "globalist" conspiracy theories. The WEF, which hosts the annual Davos summit, has become a totem for critics who see it as the puppet master of a dystopian, corporate-controlled future.

But here’s the thing: the WEF is not a governing body. It has no real power, only influence. It is a meeting place for the elite—bankers, CEOs, heads of state—who gather to discuss economic trends and policy ideas. Carney’s presence there is about as surprising as a hockey player appearing at the NHL awards. It’s the venue for his professional peer group.

That doesn’t mean the WEF is above criticism, nor does it mean that its ideas are universally beneficial. It certainly has its fair share of out-of-touch pronouncements (Klaus Schwab’s “you’ll own nothing and be happy” being the most notorious). But the real influence of the WEF is often overstated. It is a talk shop, not a cabal.

Carney’s participation signals that he is part of the global economic conversation—but not that he is secretly plotting a post-national world order.

Cosmopolitan, Internationalist, but Not a Globalist

It’s easy to see why Mark Carney's name sets certain corners of the political spectrum ablaze with suspicion. The man has held high-ranking positions in Canada, the UK, and global financial institutions. He speaks in the calm, measured tones of a technocrat. And, most damningly for some, his name appears in the orbit of the World Economic Forum, that favorite bogeyman of the populist right. To his critics, he is a walking, talking symbol of “globalism”—a word that, depending on who's wielding it, can mean anything from an interconnected world economy to a sinister plot to dissolve national sovereignty.

But if we step back from the fever swamps of X-Twitter and look at the man’s actual record, the more accurate description of Carney is that he is a cosmopolitan and an internationalist, but not a globalist—at least not in the pejorative sense that has become common currency in populist discourse.

Globalism is not inherently bad. At its core, globalism refers to the interconnectedness of economies, cultures, and political systems across national borders. It has brought economic growth, innovation, and cultural exchange, but also outsourcing, economic dependency, and loss of local control.

Critics argue that globalism can lead to weakened national sovereignty, exploitation of workers, and economic inequality. Natural communities need to be self-sufficient to some degree and have some sort of work that gives a sense of purpose, meaning, and a sense of destiny. Supporters highlight trade benefits, cooperation, and access to new markets and ideas. Like any large-scale system, its impact depends on execution and balance.

The Globalization Paradox by Dani Rodrik is an excellent book on the subject. It argues for balance. A major theme of this newsletter is that ALL LINES ARE CURVES. The right answer isn’t a completely globalized government or an insular world of petty fiefdoms. The right answer, Goldilocks style is somewhere in between. To know where that sweet spot is we have to know where we are and which direction to go from here. There’s a growing sense that we went too far and the returning to some more localized institutions and industries is needed for resilience and to help find prosperity, purpose, and meaning through our work and creative efforts.

Bombastic Banker or Bust?

During his time at the Bank of England, Carney implemented measures to stabilize the financial system. He was all about institutional integrity moves such as stress-testing banks and providing substantial liquidity to markets. These actions were aimed at ensuring the resilience of the UK's financial institutions during periods of economic uncertainty. ​

There are no prominent headlines or reports indicating that Mark Carney performed poorly during his tenure as Governor of the Bank of England. That's just a thing people say, repeat, probably not even wondering what they are talking about.

While no leadership is beyond critique, the prevailing view in recent reports is that Carney's tenure at the Bank of England was marked by effective crisis management and a steadying influence on the UK's financial system.

A Man of Many Capitals, Not One World Government

Carney has spent his career moving through the highest levels of global finance. He cut his teeth at Goldman Sachs, served as Governor of the Bank of Canada, then took the rare step of becoming Governor of the Bank of England—an unprecedented appointment for a foreign national. He later became a United Nations special envoy on climate finance, advising on economic transitions toward a low-carbon future.

None of this is evidence of "globalist" ambitions, at least not in the way the term is often thrown around today. Unlike the classic globalist archetype—who believes in dissolving national distinctions in favor of supranational rule—Carney has spent much of his career strengthening the financial resilience of individual countries. His work at the Bank of England, for instance, was laser-focused on protecting Britain from financial shocks, not subsuming it into some grand transnational order. His tenure at the Bank of Canada saw him steering the country safely through the 2008 financial crisis, demonstrating a distinctly national commitment to Canadian economic stability.

This is the essence of cosmopolitanism in the restrictive sense: he is comfortable on the world stage, fluent in the language of global finance, and at ease working across borders. But his focus is always on strengthening individual nations within that international system, not eroding them into some borderless entity.

At heart, Carney is an internationalist in the most pragmatic sense. He understands that Canada does not operate in isolation. He knows that financial crises, trade wars, and economic shocks don’t stop at borders. His work has consistently been about navigating these realities in a way that strengthens national economies, rather than submitting them to some nebulous "globalist" overlord.

This is why his recent ascension to the role of Canada’s Prime Minister is fascinating. He is not a traditional politician. He is a banker, an economist, and an operator within international institutions. His challenge will be translating that expertise into a political leadership style that resonates with voters who are, at best, skeptical of technocratic elites.

The great irony is that while Carney is accused of being a “globalist,” his biggest challenge as Prime Minister may be proving that he is, in fact, just the opposite: a leader committed to navigating Canada through a turbulent global landscape without surrendering its sovereignty or economic independence.

Whether he succeeds in that mission will determine whether he remains an internationalist in service of Canada or whether he gets swallowed by the very forces his critics fear.

When Did “Elite” Become a Dirty Word?

Once upon a time, to be “elite” was a mark of distinction. It meant you had excelled, risen above, demonstrated mastery in your field. Elite athletes were Olympians. Elite scholars were Rhodes Scholars. Elite military units were the ones sent in when the stakes were highest.

But somewhere along the way—particularly in the last few decades—elite transformed into an insult, a smear, a shorthand for detached, out-of-touch, self-serving power. In populist rhetoric, “the elites” are not just the best at something; they are the manipulators, the architects of suffering, the hidden hands pulling the strings of ordinary people’s lives.

The shift raises questions: when did this happen, what does it reveal about those who use the term as an insult, and if we don't want elites... what do we want?

Elite, but Accountable

Not all elites are villains. Many highly competent individuals in business, government, science, and culture have genuinely improved the world. But the shift in how we talk about elites reveals something important: we are living in a time of deep institutional distrust. Those in power can no longer assume that credentials or expertise alone will earn them respect. They must be transparent, accountable, and willing to engage with those outside their bubble.

Perhaps the solution is not to abandon elites altogether, but to redefine what a true elite should be: not insulated, not detached, but the best among us in skill, virtue, and service.

On The Other Hand...

The voters who consider themselves true conservatives are flocking to a guy who isn’t conserving a damn thing. And I'd like to talk about this.

If it’s about responsible governance, economic stewardship, and competence, then Carney is more of a conservative than Poilievre will ever be. If it’s about cathartic destruction of the status quo, then Poilievre is the guy—just don’t call it conservative.

Poilievre is a mean-spirited populist, and bitter, sour populists don’t conserve—they disrupt. He’s running on a platform that defines itself less by what it seeks to build and more by what it wants to burn down.

I get it. I beleive the federal and other bureaucracies have grown too fast, too big, too powerful, and too unaccountable, especially under this last Liberal term, and they MUST be brought into check before their political power exceeds our own as non-bureaucrat regular citizens. I am concerned that, because Mr Carney is counting on their vote that he is not incentivized, at least not before the election, to speak to this real and pressing problem with our democracy.

However, Mr. Poilievre has aligned himself with a brand of populist conservatism that thrives on grievance politics. His base isn’t necessarily drawn to classic conservative values of prudence and stability, but rather to the feeling of fighting back against Trudeau, a guy that we literally hired for his 'sunny ways', and an establishment they see as corrupt, elitist, and out of touch.

This shift reflects a broader global trend where conservatism is increasingly less about conserving and more about disrupting. The Progressive Conservative tradition in Canada—one that governed through negotiation, institution-building, and economic pragmatism—is largely dead at the federal level, replaced by something more akin to the American-style populist right.

For the fairest possible view, I think this is the best light in which to view Mr. Polievre. Here he has the time and intellectual space to fairly layout the strengths, opportunities, threats, and weaknesses he sees in Canada. It's a great discussion!

RELATED: