The Canada Question

by Richard Heathen

Richard Heathen examines the motivations behind the Canadian ruling classes’ reaction to Trump’s tarrifs and the pivotal crossroads facing the historical Canadian nation.

Since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, tensions between the US and Canada have begun to rise. While this relationship is usually characterized by the laid back and even passive stance by both Canadian politicians and the public at large, Trump’s hostile rhetoric and the occasional suggestion that Canada should be absorbed into America as the 51st state has raised the hackles of both the political class and the average Canadian.

As I noted in a conversation with Constantin von Hoffmeister in a recent episode of the Eurosiberia podcast, the aversion of Canadians towards the American project and its proclamation of exceptionalism isn’t rooted in an inferiority complex, as is so often assumed, but by a deep-seated suspicion and even aversion to the ideals of America’s founding, rooted in the historical origins of the Canadian nation.

The Loyalists to the Crown, who survived the mobs of the American Revolution that seized their property, then tarred and feathered them, rejected the mercantile and Masonic ideals of the Revolution and instead displayed a Traditionalist fealty to King and country. Indeed, if one word describes the founding of the Canadian nation, it would be loyalty, and indeed this stands in contrast with American liberalism with its inherent individualism and desire for perpetual “liberation”, an element which still manifests itself in all American social movements to this day.

Thus, it’s not surprising that Trump’s heavy-handed approach and casual comments about annexation have gotten under the skin of many Canadians. We are seeing a growth of not only anti-American sentiment across the political spectrum, but a growing patriotic feeling bordering on nationalism, even among progressive-liberals, who previously had a very internationalist outlook and have championed policies that have done nothing but weaken the ethnic, cultural and economic foundations of this country.

The progressive activist class is of course represented politically by the progressive political class, and therefore, one must look very suspiciously at a ruling class today who speaks of such notions as national sovereignty, national unity and strength when over the last 80 years the combined policies of that class have done nothing but undermine the national body. To be sure, while the recent Trudeau regime has certainly accelerated the onslaught on the historical Canadian nation to unprecedented levels, it didn’t begin with Trudeau. Not even close.

A recent example can be found in the previous Prime Minister, Conservative Party stalwart Stephen Harper, who pursued further continental integration with the Americans in the years following 9/11 and who gave a speech about an “enlightened vision of sovereignty” to the World Economic Forum. Absurd conspiracy theories aside, the WEF is a forum that hosts leaders from around the world in order to build a more integrated international order based on the post-1945 liberal consensus — it is part of what one could call an informal Liberal International — and Harper’s 2010 speech was a soft appeal to this neoliberal global order in the form of promoting “international cooperation”. Harper’s policy towards continental integration with the United States is perhaps one of the least offensive steps towards the compromise of Canada by the political class, yet I mention this example to show that internationalism is a bipartisan affair.

Indeed, Canadian politicians have a long history of selling out the culture and people of this nation. Anti-Russian agitators online often accuse Russia of being nothing but a Third World gas station due to the fact that a large percent of its GDP is based on oil revenue, yet the insult could be equally applied to Canada, as the Canadian ruling class has gutted our manufacturing sectors. Canada has outsourced jobs and insourced labour, resulting in stagnating and even falling wages, effectively transforming the Canadian economy into one based on resource extraction.

Then we have the implementation of Third World immigration and multiculturalism, which has all but erased our national identity, to the point where a large section of Canadians considered it acceptable when Justin Trudeau declared that Canada was the first post-national state. Therefore, we must examine the motivation of these people who all of a sudden act as if they have been imbued with the spirits of Canada’s Loyalist ancestors.

Well, for starters, should the US annex Canada, people like Trudeau and other politicians who have been able to play the role of a big fish in a small pond, so to say, would now find their status greatly diminished. They would no longer play the role of a national elite, but would simply find themselves members of a regional elite playing second fiddle to their American counterparts who have a longstanding control of national institutions, to which they would be a class of Johnny-come-latelys. Thus, they would have to find their place in a vast pre-existing system that had little need for them, and as such would face great diminution of their importance and their prestige.

Yet, that’s perhaps not the only or even most important reason why the Canadian ruling class finds itself opposed to Canada’s integration into Trump’s America. Because, no matter what they say, it’s not a love for King and country. It’s not due to any nationalistic feeling; the very state of this country proves this is not the case. They were happy to groom the children of this nation with LGBT agitprop; they were happy to destroy our national history and our culture. Indeed, they delighted in telling us our entire history and culture was racist and backwards while replacing the founding peoples of this country via mass immigration. They had no issue eroding the sovereignty of this country through incremental continental integration with America when it was Bush or Obama at the helm, yet all of a sudden we’re supposed to believe that our elites have been overcome with a bout of nationalism? Curious, to say the least.

No, I suspect the real reason for the near hysterics (we’ll get to that) surrounding the threat to our sovereignty isn’t just the fear of a loss of power and social status, nor an exaggerated aversion to Trump, although all these are definitely ingredients in the recipe. My suspicion is that, at heart, what these people are defending isn’t Canada, but instead the liberal internationalist project that began after the Second World War, and which came oh so close to completion. That is what these people are really defending and everything they say to the contrary is just noise. They’re not interested in anything else, and they never have been.

This is why certain Canadian politicians have become certifiably unhinged, particularly Chrystia Freeland, who during the Liberal Party debates suggested that Canada should join an anti-American nuclear alliance with France against the US. What she described sounded something along the lines of a neoliberal NATO, but instead of targeting Russia it would target America. This is insanity. Ironically, Freeland is of Ukrainian descent and it was exactly this type of thinking that provoked the Russian invasion of that country. In fact, Putin cited Zelensky’s statements about possibly obtaining nuclear weapons as one of the reasons for Russia’s “Special Military Operation”. At the time of Russia’s military incursion into Ukraine, I stated that if either Canada or Mexico posed a credible threat to America’s national security, America would invade. I still hold this opinion, and while I think such a military adventure would be nothing but a quagmire for the Americans, it would devastate Canada and kill untold numbers of people. While Freeland is an outlier, the fact that she was a serious candidate for leadership of the ruling party is striking.

Thankfully, the Liberals decided against the insane Ukrainian woman. No, instead they picked the globalist central banker Mark Carney. Carney was the Governor of the Bank of Canada and later held the same position at the Bank of England as well as being a reported attendee at the infamous Bilderberg conference attended by other luminaries of the Liberal International, such as Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brezinski.

Like all the other members of Canada’s political class, Carney’s career has centered on establishing and supporting the existing social and international order, an order that has lowered the standard of living for not only Canadians, but people all over the West and has seen them marginalized in their national homelands. Thus, it bears repeating that none of these people had any nationalistic qualms when America was at the head of the international project but now that they’ve changed course, there’s a problem.

This is because they no longer have a seat at the table and they’ve all sacrificed their national interests on the altar of this shared project. Now that the forces that control America have allowed Trump to change course, these people find themselves out in the cold, and now they cynically appeal to patriotism as a last resort. There is a quote, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel,” which actually refers to the false appeal to it. How fitting.

Thus the outliers of the global international order are scrambling for public support and falling back on Canada’s historical aversion to the American project. This is unfortunately working in no small part due to Trump’s bellicose language. The Americans have often found themselves underestimating the resolve of their northern neighbour, sometimes thinking that that real estate up there looks quite nice and that it should be easy enough to obtain, and well, the next thing they know the White House is on fire.

I suspect that Trump, whatever his design might be, thought that Canada was easy prey, that he could rattle his sabre and Canadians would fall into line in short order. Unfortunately, his tact, which is the exact opposite approach he should have taken — as American displays of their assumed “exceptionalism” are very grating on the Canadian mentality — has provoked a defiant response that only plays into the hands of Canada’s corrupt ruling class. Instead of cowing the people, Trump has emboldened them, and has given popular support to the corrupt elite to fall back on in their defense of liberal internationalism, as his threats to the Canadian economy give them nationalistic cover.

For instance, before Trump’s election, the Conservative Party had a 30-point lead over the Liberals, who were severely unpopular under Trudeau. Yet, after Trump began his talk about annexation, tariffs and Canada “ripping off” the US, the Liberals recovered in the polls, even while still under the leadership of Trudeau, to the point where the Conservative lead dwindled down to single digits. This is due in part to the fact that the Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre appeared very weak in his initial response to Trump, to the point where he looked like a kid who was just told Santa didn’t exist. Whereas Trudeau, for all his many faults, came off much more assertive and decisive.

That’s not to say that the Conservative Party is anything other than the Liberal Party lite. This can be seen in a recent speech where the Conservative leader said that Canada’s nationalism is one that doesn’t recognize race or ethnicity. Ok then, that statement marks the Conservatives as just another neoliberal party that seeks to finish the transformation of the Canadian nation into an open-air marketplace.

What these people don’t understand, but are in the process of learning, is that you need a people with a sense of place and loyalty to actually secure the nation and thus secure the position of the elite. A nation isn’t an open-air marketplace but is made up of a people in a reciprocal relationship to its ruling class.

Oh, you can get by great when times are good by ripping them off, shipping immigrants into the country to work their jobs for a lower wage, and telling them they are racist for having a problem with it. You can make huge profits disenfranchising your people, making millions from a real-estate bubble while paying record low wages because of immigrant-induced labor inflation.

Yet, when times are hard and you need people to stand up for the good of the country, who will fight your wars for you? Well, as we’ve seen in Canada and the US, immigrants are coming here to benefit from the preexisting wealth, not to sacrifice for the nations. When hard times come, more often than not, they’ll return to their country of origin, because at the end of the day, that’s where their loyalty lies. You can see this very clearly when the various immigrant communities fly the flag of their country of origin.

Yet, why should Canadians whose ancestors built this nation sacrifice for it when its institutions have been weaponized against them? Why would anyone in their right mind fight for an open-air marketplace that has them placed at the back of the line? Who in their right mind would stand up and fight for a country that not only puts foreigners ahead of them, but also flagrantly displays contempt for them? Well, if we examine the failure of the military to meet its recruitment goals, it looks like not many have.

So, while nationalistic feelings are beginning to be revived in many Canadians, the question must be asked, which Canada are they defending? Will they stand for the true nation represented by the Red Ensign or the multicultural post-national state represented by the Maple Leaf? This is the essential question, because if the Canadian nation is going to be mobilized for the defense of the project of the Liberal International, perhaps it would be better if Canada just laid down to die and let Trump take over. There is nothing to be gained from a blind and sentimental charge into the arms of the political class who has disenfranchised the people of the nation, so they can maintain their floundering international project.

If, on the other hand, we are to stand for the nation of the Red Ensign, the true flag of the true nation — the one that was founded by men who stood with unbreakable loyalty to their King and their country in defiance of the revolutionary mobs that attacked them, men whose loyalty was stronger than fire and who withstood the torments of the sadistic rabble — then that is a country worth standing for. If we can revive the memory of that spirit, one with an unbreakable will and a principled rejection of the modern deviation of American liberalism, then that is a Canada worth defending and worth fighting for.