As impressive as a mic drop, though in a different way, is the mask drop. We saw this when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau admitted in 2020 that Covid gave them (the pseudo-elites) an opportunity to further advance their great “reset” of economic systems. Now another example of it has come to light, with reports that Canada’s now-deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, once said that the American “people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”
Whether Freeland, who enjoys a $420,000-a-year salary, will decide to take a pay cut was not reported. In fairness, though, none of this would apply to her because she’s not middle class.
Freeland made her comments at the Aspen Ideas Festival (AIF) back in 2013, but they’re again attracting attention. This is perhaps warranted since now, a decade later, more people are aware that such remarks reflect a dangerous pseudo-elite agenda and are not just the ranting of an unhinged economic illiterate.
Below is a video of Freeland making her statement, courtesy of PJ Media, which recently covered the story.
Note that Freeland has only become more powerful since 2013, too (espousing globalist, pseudo-elite sentiments can have that effect; see Sam Bankman-Fried et al.). In 2019, she attained her current deputy prime minister position.
Of course, remarks can be taken out of context, so I wanted to ensure Freeland wasn’t being misrepresented. And after a bit of web sleuthing, I found a 2013 piece from the left-wing Atlantic (which wouldn’t be biased against the woman) that elaborated upon Freeland’s message.
The politician was discussing how the “rise of the super-wealthy” may “require new global rules,” as the Atlantic put it; she also appeared to be lamenting “crony capitalism.” But then there was her middle class remark, in which she was actually quoting another wealthy AIF attendee. To wit:
“We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world, so if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value,” Freeland said, clearly fancying it a good point. “It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”
The Atlantic explained her precise meaning. Referencing individuals (and entities) such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, the site wrote that if “this kind of self-made, super rich individual or company contributes something that is highly demanded in the global economy, should it be penalized for creating value?”
Most of us would say no, that productive people should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor unfettered by excessive regulation or taxation. (This doesn’t mean they should be allowed to manipulate our political systems and determine who our leaders are, though, which Big Tech now can often do.)
But here’s where matters go off the rails. The Atlantic continued, “Alternatively, if members of the middle class, particularly the struggling middle class in America, don’t have skills that are as highly valued, should they expect to be paid a higher wage than people in other parts of the world?”
This is Globalism 101, the idea that it’s just Not Fair™ that fat, spoiled Americans do better than workers toiling in a Nike sweatshop in Asia. (Of course, the statists are wedded to corporate America now, so Nike gets a pass.)
Reporting on this last week, the Independent Sentinel warned that Freeland is “referencing a ‘degrowth’ vision of a future feudalistic world with them [the pseudo-elites] at the helm. We’re the serfs-to-be. Democrats seem to have bought into it.”
“As Democrats push this vision of the world with them while claiming they want the opposite,” the site continued, “they are doing whatever it takes to make the rich richer and the middle class poorer with bad policies.”
Then there was American Thinker, which added perspective on Sunday. “First off, why has the American middle class made so much more than other [countries’] middle classes?” the site rhetorically asked. “It is because it has been astronomically more productive than other [countries’] middle classes—or lower or upper classes for that matter. In fact, a case could be made that the American middle class has carried the nation—and much of the world—on its collective back for a very long time now.”
But Freeland’s idea is interesting. In fact, we should ask, if “fairness” is now the order of the day, is it just the American middle class that should take a pay cut?
Does $420k-a-year Freeland — who makes six times as much as the average American — deliver six times the value? Should she make more than the president of Botswana, who reportedly commands a mere $83,871 annually? Maybe the pay of our politicians in general should be cut to African levels.
Then, if Hollywood actors make more than Bollywood actors, is that fair? Should Western athletes be compensated more handsomely than their Third World counterparts?
And how are we defining “value” here? Why is it okay for Bill Gates and other pseudo-elites to become filthy rich based on market determinations, but not alright for the American middle class to command $70,000 yearly based on those determinations? Note, too, the cost of living in America is far higher than in most of the world.
The real issue here is a treasonous (in spirit) mentality masquerading as compassion and enlightenment. The whole idea behind a “country” is that it’s like a national family or team: It looks out for its own members. If a Western official has forgotten this, it’s easy figuring out what his value actually is — less than zero.
