Ten years ago, a professor of mine in my Introduction to Asian Studies course, was describing the anti-Asian riots of Vancouver which broke out in 1907, and he brought up the issue of ghettoisation of people based on ethno-cultural origins. He related it to the city’s North Central neighbourhood – a heavily Indigenous area of the city. He sadly described North Central and the rest of city as being “like two solitudes”. I don’t recall exactly how the half-dozen other students in this night class responded, except that nobody vociferously opposed what he had to say. Far from being an SJW, he was actually a clergyman as well as a professor, so he, as with a surprisingly significant portion of the academic staff, was relatively based. But he was also a humanitarian, and having lived in Saskatchewan for years and ministered to various kinds of people, he was aware that the FN people of North Central experienced a different lived reality than those of the White majority in other areas of the city.
Even if the reader is unfamiliar with cities like Regina, Saskatoon, or Winnipeg, it is easy enough to get a taste of the picture through Google Maps. Although in the centre of the Canadian dustbowl, most residential areas of Regina are relatively clean and pleasant-looking areas to live. North Central, on the other hand, looks quite literally like a dump in many places. Tour yourself through the back alleys of this neighbourhood, observe the unmown lawns, the deteriorating siding, the low chain-link fences, the scattered old children’s toys, and the various Indigenous gang tags on fences and garages. Definitely not the kinds of things Canadians of breeding, taste, and class would care to be seen associating with, even if they do present a front of progressivism.
North Central Regina
But this kind of life is quite fine for some Canadians. Which Canadians, you might ask?
Libertarians.
Recent events in Canada have reminded me of a section of my book The Second Enlightenment titled “The contradictory desires of the libertarian & why libertarianism is the least moral of the minarchist philosophies”. I felt that, being as how we at the Council of European-Canadians are facing the Liberals’ proposed Online Harms Act, I wanted to get this off of my chest before all of us are sent to prison for “hate speech” for critiquing our de facto state religion of multiculturalism.
A reader of my book may have noticed that I take no stand on the Israel/Palestine conflict. This is mainly because I didn’t see its particular pertinence to the internal cultural destruction of Civilisation. No doubt the reader is aware that in Toronto, Montreal, and perhaps some other Canadian cities, thousands of Muslims (the vast majority of whom I doubt have any familial connection to Gaza) have been loudly protesting not only the actions of the Israeli “Defense” Forces (F-16s and Merkavas are not defensive weapons), but also the lack of vociferous opposition to Israel by the Government of Canada. Many commentators in alternative and even in some semi-mainstream media (I am thinking specifically of the Toronto Sun here) are wondering out loud in astonishment why the anti-Zionist mobs have been allowed to intimidate families out shopping for Christmas presents, threaten patients at Montreal’s Jewish hospital, etc. I am less angry than these commentators are, having been following Europe’s identitarian nationalist movements for about fourteen years and thus having long seen what European police frequently allow their Muslim populations to get away with. I actually find it more amusing, and I will explain why to the reader.
In the socio-cultural conflict playing out in Canada’s biggest cities between pro-Zionist and anti-Zionist throngs (it is important to remember that it is not as clean-cut as Jews vs. Muslims; there are Jews of communist leaning who actually are anti-Zionist; likewise, there are moderate Muslims, some of whom have Israeli citizenship, who are loudly anti-Hamas, etc.), Canadian law enforcement and political figures being called on to take a stand one way are another are caught between two very powerful forces:
- the strong soft power of the Jewish lobby, &
- the strong (implicit) hard power of the Muslim lobby.
Relating to the first of these, for the past eight decades Canadians and Americans have been trained fairly successful by Category 1 to be passive, or active, Jewish sympathisers. We’ve been shamed into ignoring the immense influence & privilege North American Jews live in relative to the population average and instead view this wealthy, globally mobile cultural club as God’s long-suffering, persecuted children.
In the U.S. (although it seems less so in Canada), there remain very well-funded and intimidating pro Jewish lobby groups that exert significant cultural power, far outweighing their proportion to the total population. It is understandable thus why only a few radical Leftist politicians in the NDP and such have come out firmly on the anti-Zionist side in Canada. Although it doesn’t carry the stigma it once did (perhaps due to overuse of the term), being labelled “anti-Semitic” still leaves a bad odour on anybody hit with it.
Relating to Category 2, ever since the September 11th attacks, and later reemphasised by self-identified ISIL operatives, there has been a quiet understanding that aggrieved Muslims may react with ultra-violence against those they have perceived to have wronged them. This has been to the cultural advancement of Muslim settlers here, whether or not they would individually consider taking up arms against us kaffirs. In any modern army, only a minority of the troops are actually combatants. All combatants are backed up by a much greater number of support staff and financiers. Muslim groups in Canada and the USA may say things like “Islam means ‘peace’”, that they are against terrorism, etc. But the images of violent Muslims were in our minds even before the Hamas October attacks, and in spite of the militarily-unnecessary cruelties inflicted on Israeli citizens by Gazan anti-Zionists, enough people with Canadian citizenship have turned to the streets in support of Gaza to give pause to any law enforcement personnel here considering arresting and laying charges to even one of their number. Thanks to employment equity hiring, most of these officers probably assume that there are silent supporters of the anti-Zionist movement within their departments, who could leak the names and addresses of any officer who arrested a pro-Palestine demonstrator. A few minutes of doxxing could reveal the names of immediate family members of these officers, where their children attend school, etc. The shameless, rabid, anti-Zionist mobs could then turn their sights on them, potentially forcing these officers to quit their jobs, perhaps relocate to another province, and even change their names to escape back to peace and privacy. Very understandable why so few arrests have been made.
What does all of the above have to do with the headline of the article, you might ask?
Over the past dozen years, many alt-media and political figures claiming to represent ignored small-c conservatives across Canada have revealed themselves to be not truly conservatives, but rather libertarians. People whom you and I once trusted to defend our beliefs and values have shed their cloaks and revealed their true orientation, like the Germanic tribes comprising the legions of the late Roman Empire turning on their masters and sacking Rome.
In my humble opinion, there is no more annoying political orientation (out of many very good candidates for that title) than the libertarian. I will omit names, but I count two of the most irritating among their number a certain yarmulke-wearing American political commentator who is now on the record for being indifferent to the Great Replacement (which I term in my book as “The Influx”); and a certain ginger who has been a Sun Media commentator for years and recently ran an unsuccessful campaign for mayor of Toronto.
Far from being the most accepting of different people and cultures in this country, the libertarian is the exact opposite: he despises all cultures equally, viewing culture as possessing an inherently non consentual presence in the life of the individual. The libertarian’s deceptiveness comes from how he carries himself with a smile, creating a positive image of himself. This is not a smile of acceptance of others, but a smile of satisfaction out of self-love. The libertarian views himself as a person of superior advancement, existing beyond the bounds of cultural norms.
Far from having a superior appreciation of the nuances of different cultures, the libertarian in reality sees cultural affiliation and political orientation in black and white. The libertarian’s classic strawman argument is to mischaracterise anybody who disagrees with them as being an authoritarian or totalitarian – belonging in the same pile as Pol Pot, Lenin, etc. Since being associated with figures such as these is not popular in this country, the libertarian easily puts his opponent on the defensive, dismissing the need for actual substantial polemics in pursuit of a low common denominator.
But more than just being annoying personalities, libertarian ideals are dangerous to society. In my book, I write:
The libertarian desires for individuals in society to do as they please – without infringing on the rights of others to do the same. Yet, without a massive social consensus on accepted rules (which the libertarian also despises), there is no possible way for an individual to live so freely without disturbing others. Cultures are a necessity for a functional society — created out of a common consensus on accepted rules that provide predictability, stability, and a feeling of safety. Yet, the libertarian condemns this consensus. Worst of all, without these unwritten social laws, the state (or a non-governmental actor that aspires to become the state equivalent) would need to step in to enforce the order needed for a stable society.
I wrote these words eight or nine years ago. Lo and behold, what has Canada been left with today? An authoritarian neo-Marxist state!
I write further:
The purist libertarian turns the role of the state on its head: to be an enforcer of non-culture, instead of an enforcer of culture. The purist libertarian does not believe in multiculturalism – that would mean blocs of socio-cultural figures competing for the greater whole of society. The purist libertarian is instead an aculturalist, viewing “common culture” as an interference in the life of the individual.
(Others have noticed this development lately as well, dubbing it “anarcho-tyranny”. While it gets the point across, strictly speaking it is inaccurate, given that there is still the presence of state power in today’s scenario.)
Ultimately, to distill the libertarian down to his or her core, the libertarian is merely the opposite side of the same coin that the multiculturalist occupies. Neither believes in the value of the stability of one socially-accepted dominant culture. Both sides like to accuse the other of being “fascist” (using the word as a slur rather than as an accurate description). Both sides are hostile to the idea of the dominance of a common Eurocanadian heritage and culture.
They simply express their similarities differently.
It takes that “special” kind of cultural relativist to want to live in a society where, as they have described it, lesbian couples guard their cannabis grow-ops with firearms. Unfortunately, many so called conservative commentators in the alt-media and many prominent political leaders the reader may have been planning to vote for are very much on board with this agenda. In the case of the mainstream political candidates, they may be less overt in this regard as their counterparts running on explicitly libertarian platforms, but the end destination is still within the ballpark.
One of the libertarian’s favourite quotes is that from the leading figure of the French Enlightenment, Voltaire:
I wholly disagree with what you say and will contend to the death for your right to say it.
There are two problems with sharing this quote.
For one, it is something of false advertising when one flippantly reposts this quote on one’s social media platforms, implying that Voltaire speaks for them. I doubt very much that many people in this country, even those who would count themselves as libertarian, would actually follow through with this self-sacrificing defence of freedom of speech.
For two, following through with this leaves the libertarian with a rather significant problem: they are dead.
And there is no enlightenment for the dead.
This is why libertarianism doesn’t work. It is an inherently indefensible and self-contradictory philosophy.
In order to maintain a functional society, every participant in it (or at least, more than 90% of it) has to be on the same page. The only way to be on the same page is to convince everybody to be there. And there are only two ways to do this: reason, and force (or threat thereof). Not everybody is educated enough, or capable of being educated, to respond to the former. That leaves only the latter. And the libertarian does not believe in the use of force on others, except as a means of enforcing aculturalism and combatting perceived infringements on their liberties, like opening fire to fend off nosy neighbourhood kids from raiding one’s cannabis garden. Thus, libertarianism dessicates the sinews holding society together, giving way to atomisation, disillusionment, distrust, and the pursuit for a new god, such as environmentalism or a New Age religious cult, like Romana Didulo’s followers.
It has been about three centuries since the birth of the philosophy of classical liberalism, which has now evolved into libertarianism. Yet, it has largely not succeeded in most of the world, including in liberal democracies such as the USA and Canada. Libertarianism is the gateway drug to sociopathic egotism. Those of us born and raised here have become lonelier, more aimless, and more selfish than ever before. Meanwhile those who have ties to elsewhere in the world (and even some who don’t) have found meaning in their lives by standing with a particular faction in conflicts abroad – such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, as described above.
Justin Trudeau’s “post-national state” has gone from being a home for Canadians to clearing house for interests located anywhere but here. Until political leaders read books like The Second Enlightenment and recognise that liberty alone is an insufficient ingredient to create meaningful existence for the people of this country, Canada’s decline will continue.
Postscript: For further reading, even though it is from a MSM publication, I highly recommend Geoffrey James’s 2011 article for CBS titled “Top 10 Reasons Ayn Rand was Dead Wrong”.
I was interested in Ayn Rand, I will admit (having long been interested in alternative philosophies), about ten to eleven years ago. I enjoyed her short book Anthem a great deal, and I think it holds a valuable place along side Orwell’s 1984 as a philosophical stand against totalitarian collectivism. On the other hand, Atlas Shrugged (from which the term “going Galt” came), was a painfully boring novel. It took me five months of almost daily reading to complete, most of which was about as stimulating as eating an oversized bowl of cold, underseasoned oatmeal. The characters were as wooden and long-winded as its author, and ultimately the protagonists only won a Pyrrhic victory.
