By Thomas Jones
“There’s no avoiding the looming presence of U.S. culture on Canada, but our differences are substantive, concrete and homegrown. Our universal health care. Our social welfare system and collective sensibilities concerning the role of government, taxation and property rights. Our official bilingualism and take on multiculturalism. Our accommodations of Quebec’s cultural aspirations and of aboriginal rights and governance. Our rejection of gun culture — no constitutional right to bear arms here — and our liberal take on issues like abortion, capital punishment, drug enforcement and gay rights.”
“But English Canada, at least, never really found its footing as one of those nations [with a strong sense of identity]. (French Canada did, an essential point of difference.) Lucky for us, it is now too late, and we have no choice but to establish ourselves as something different – a culture that is many cultures, many stories, in a place that stretches across a continent and is richly occupied… ere we are in 2016, when few dispute any longer the unseemly length of English Canada’s colonial hangover. For the first century of nationhood, we didn’t bother moving away from imported and inherited customs and thinking, a stark disavowal of lived history and geography. Canada in the 21st century is certainly an energized place by comparison… we must get past one easy misconception – the outdated nation-state model – and one harder reality: the historic comfort level among Canadians with conceiving of themselves as parts of smaller, cozier self-definitions, as well an attendant incuriosity about who else lives reasonably nearby. The launching point for this project is obvious. Indigenous Canada is where we all live, in terms of geography, spirit, and history. In order for that to be real and meaningful, we must start with the stark: that a cultural genocide occurred, and most of us were unaware or, perhaps, just not concerned enough. Artistic expressions of these truths are necessary, and can only help. Overall, Canada as an experimental cultural space requires the right spirit in order to take shape. That spirit, simply, is an openness to having your history unsettled and your mind changed. As well, a certain comfort level with complexity and irresolution is probably good.”
“There is no core identity, no mainstream Canada… There are shared values – openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.”
The above are quotes from a journalist, the CEO of a pro-immigrant cabal, and the current prime minister of Canada. My country is being destroyed from within and I know this is true of a great many White countries, but to an outsider, at least, it appears as if most of them have a greater chance of resistance than Canada. This seems especially true in Europe, where the inhabitants can look back to thousands of years of historical inheritance.
In 1891 a classical liberal writer and historian named Goldwin Smith wrote that Canada was an absurd country being a forced mix of Anglo-Celts (to use an Aussie term) and French. In time he foresaw that the entirety of America north of the Rio Grande would be part of the United States. In 1986 echoing Smith’s sentiments another British-born American, Peter Brimelow, wrote The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities in which he noted again the absurdity of Canada. He didn’t go so far as to prophesise its future as part of an enlarged United States like Smith had, however. Brimelow condemned the Liberal party which has not only been in power longer than any other party in Canadian history but it has had the greatest impact in shaping identity. He noted the English-French divide but added a third division: between English East and the West which he saw as eventually developing its own identity.
Unlike Smith, I’m not advocating joining the US, as that wouldn’t solve identity issues and might actually create some, given that the majority of Canadians do still feel loyalty to the crown and what other few traditions we have. Moreover, for all our problems with immigration at least we do not have to deal with c. 13% black population we would should we become American. That said, he and Brimelow were right in much of what they said regarding the strangeness that is Canada. So far, neither man has proven to be a prophet, yet their critiques of Canada and any identity connected to it are just as relevant now as they ever were.
Canada began life as a series of British and French colonies. Eventually the French lost their North American empire to Britain, but west of the Maritimes the majority of the populace remained French. After the American Revolution there was a massive influx of loyalists northwards, and as the newcomers refused to be ruled over by French, a new colony of Upper Canada (the modern province of Ontario) was created for them. We Anglos are Anglo-Americans. We are a continuation of the English American colonies as if there had been no American Revolution. The exception to this is Newfoundland which did not join Canada until 1949. Its people are the descendants of several waves of first English and then Irish who weren’t from the Thirteen Colonies.
The most prominent political issue in Canadian history has been the Anglo-French divide. The two founding peoples were Francophones (French, Basque, Breton) and Anglo-Celts (English, Welsh, Scots and Irish). Other Europeans came here (primarily Germans but also Ukrainians, Italians, Dutch and others) but they integrated more or less into either the French or English communities. Given that the English portion is the largest, it received the greatest number of European migrants from beyond L’Hexagone and the British Isles. The French were allowed to maintain their identity far better than Anglo-Americans, which is why we Anglos are not seen as a cohesive or viable unit. They developed a siege mentality and made it a priority to expand their population through indigenous birth rates, as opposed to accepting a massive intake of immigrants. It also helped that they were cut-off from the west which, being so underpopulated, required the greatest number of migrants. This too proved a factor in the retaining of a cohesive and strong sense of identity.
The Anglo inhabitants saw themselves as British. They didn’t develop a new identity like the Americans did because, well, why should they? There was no reason to. Now Anglos have had their identity destroyed. The only tradition of the past we are allowed to hold on to is the monarchy but who knows for how much longer we can have that.
Throughout our history, there have been many disputes brought on by the friction between English and French. Some like the Manitoba schools question seem silly today, but at the time they had the power to break governments. A major and long lasting dispute was held over how close ties should be with Britain. Such disputes were easily manipulated by the internationalist Liberals of the post-war era. It was a factor in allowing them to do away with old British symbols and call for the creation of a new identity, which as we can see from the above quotes is a nihilistic non-identity. The Anglos were divided on what to do whilst the French stood together in support of it because they saw this as a form of protection.
The French didn’t realise, however, that the so-called Quiet Revolution of the 1950s-60s that took place in Quebec was about doing away with the old Canadien traditions. Thanks to the Quiet Revolution, Quebec has gone from having the largest birth rates in the country to one of the lowest, and French identity went from having an ethnoreligious base to being purely based on language; meaning that a Haitian or Algerian is to be seen as much a Canadien as a White, Canadian-born French speaker.
It was in the 1960s, also, that the Canadian experiment truly began. Initially, it was not multiculturalism but biculturalism that was being pushed. The bicultural nature of Canada that was being fostered did not need to lead to multiculturalism. As much as I personally despise Pierre Eliot Trudeau (who made multiculturalism an official government policy), his intentions had originally been to continue with biculturalism. He was pressured first from prominent members of the Ukrainian community (which had remained fairly unintegrated by being largely isolated in rural Prairie Canada and decided to get in on the identity politics game) and partly from the fact that his Liberal Conservative predecessors, Pearson and Diefenbaker respectively, had been promoting the movement of non-Whites to Canada. Diefenbaker’s immigration minister, Ellen Furclough, was clearly not that conservative given she pushed for ending White only immigration while he readily accepted it. This truly allowed the Liberals to push their radical experiments in social engineering through.
Whenever the Liberals are in power they keep up the multicultural project and expand upon it. When a conservative party is in power they simply kowtow to previous Liberal decisions and, in the case of immigration, they increase it! For example, Brian Mulroney increased Canada’s immigration intake when he came to power in the 1980s. Former Prime Minister Harper did go against the grain slightly when he brought back royal titles, epithets, etc. to the military and used the 200th anniversary of 1812 to foster a sense of Canadian identity. Problem is that their view of not two but three founding peoples (including now Amerindians) is not correct. The French fought because they figured better the devil you know, while Amerindians fought for the dream of a pan-Amerindian racial state led by Shawnee chieftain Tecumseh.¹ Harper’s 1812 mythos was an attempt to re-create history by claiming English, French and Amerindian were perfectly united with one common vision. With the exception of the Amerindians² it was also deracinated. As with Mulroney, Harper was perfectly content to increase immigration intake and cuck to them in an attempt to win non-White voters.
Our conservativism is either based on a dying Toryism or a new neocon import. The latter is unnatural and unnecessary while the former has a healthy expression of identity to it, although I think it is fair to say that it is dwindling. Moreover, it has been deracinated since Diefenbaker, if not before. Canada is devoid any sort of prominent rightist organization which is pro-White, even moderate ones akin to the assorted populist parties of Europe or the Trump movement in the States.
The liberal triumph over what it means to be Canadian is felt everywhere. Even in the west. Brimelow’s prophesised western reaction seems quite far away today. Harper was able to undermine western disaffection and use it for his own personal ambition. While many Occidental countries have de facto multicultural polices, only Canada and Australia have multiculturalism enacted into law. It was Canada that originated multiculturalism, and despite all the evidence to the contrary, it continues to be upheld as a great necessity. As our elites have admitted we are seen as one vast experiment as opposed to a real nation with roots, history and a concrete sense of values and who we are. Dr. Ricardo Duchesne has written several articles concerning the truth about immigration to Canada prior to the 1970s, but in academia, the media, political scene, et al. the truth is no matter. And on the few occasions when it is admitted that Canada was originally for Whites only, this is portrayed as a terrible evil. No valid arguments are given as to why diversity, multiracialism and mass migration are needed other than that we are an ongoing experiment and we must keep working on it. The experiment is so ingrained in the minds of the elites that it must be continued. It must be acted on until their fabled utopia is brought to fruition. More likely it will completely fail and the Canadian people as a whole will have to suffer for the twisted desires of a few.
The Canadian identity is, I fear, too connected to the current regime of internationalism, multiracialism et al., and as such may be difficult to take back. Perhaps it can’t be. One could argue the same about the American identity. One difference is that America possesses a strong sense of regionalism, something which I see precious little evidence in Anglo Canada. Can regional identities come to the fore? Can an old racial sense of what it meant to be Canadian be revived? I cannot say. All I can say with any certainty is that it would have been far better if the French and English portions had not been brought together as one nation. The divide was strong enough to allow for the creation of a multicultural doctrine, which we are meant to treat as infallible truth, and since exported across the globe. Any dissent is met with attacks from all sides and claims that you are in fact anti-Canadian. Sadly, Canadianness has become synonymous with failed ‘progressive’ experimentalism. This, we are told, is what it means to be Canadian.
1 In the case of Anglos, I should point out that at first many were quite happy to just sit back and see which way the winds went. And a small number led by a politician named Joseph Willcocks turned traitor and formed the company of Canadian Volunteers in the US army. Their destruction of property (burning down entire villages, looting etc.) resulted in many actually deciding to stand behind the crown.
2 Who, unlike Whites, are allowed to resist any attempts of having their cultures undermined, and who we are meant to view as having had a greater impact on the development of Canada they have had in actuality.
More from Thomas can be found on his blog at Instaurator 1867.