“The purpose of life is consumption… The border is an anachronism” – On Grant’s Lament For A Nation, And Why America Is The Only Country In The World That Can Be Truly Nationalistic
Bonjour and Hola friends and frenemies, I welcome you to my little lair… As far as I’m concerned, the question of Canadian nationalism has not only not been adequately approached by any of my contemporaries: it has not been poked, nudged or even gently titillated with a 20 foot iron rod held by a Moutie wearing a hazmat suit. If that joke falls flat, it’s because you’re gay and retarded. Go watch Mark Normand or something. The use of the words “Canadian” and “nationalism” in the same sentence may seem like an oxymoron to certain readers. I was talking to my American friend the other day and I mentioned that I was reading this book on Canadian nationalism and he said and I quote “Canadians have a nation?” to which I responded “It’s a complicated question”. It is a complicated question. In the sense that Canada has borders and a flag and a nominally independent government, yes, it is a nation. But that’s not enough, is it? A nation is a people, a people that is sovereign and fundamentally distinct from those not within their nation’s borders. If that’s the operative definition, then no, Canada is not a nation. As Grant repeatedly emphasizes throughout his work, Canada has long become a satellite state of the United States. It does not escape me that America is not entirely sovereign itself, and certainly in this day and age that fact has been made increasingly evident. I will not delve too much into the topic of the American elite’s incestuous relationship with a certain Middle Eastern government; in part due to the fact that it is not the subject of today’s article, but also because others have already done that for me. If you are interested in the topic, I suggest you watch someone like Nick Fuentes or Alt Hype. Regardless of what you believe on the matter, it is an undeniable fact that American capital has fundamentally and irreversibly reshaped the identity and socioeconomic landscape of Canada.
The years following the Axis powers’ defeat in the Second World War saw to the creation of a new global empire that was unparalleled in its influence to none other except perhaps the Roman. The growing geopolitical dominance of the United States had taken its first meaningful foothold on the global stage during the wake of the First World War. In the decades that followed, it would have to share its place under the sun with other Western powers like France, Germany, and Great Britain. The culmination of the Second World War signaled a great transformation to this previously established equilibrium. Though each of the Allied powers was ostensibly victorious in the defeat of their apparent adversaries, it was only the American and Soviet interests that truly gained something tangible in the process. In 1945, people all over the world rejoiced at the prospect of a bloodless existence free from global conflict and violent, transnational antagonism; if only they knew that in most meaningful respects, the worst was yet to come. Soon enough mankind would be split in half, nations coerced to choose the lesser of two grand hegemonic evils and to stand by their respective sovereign until death did them part. Of course, the pages of history are filled with many such manifestations of imperial domination, oppression and conquest. It is in no way a break with tradition to witness the rise and fall of global superpowers, America included. However, the American phenomena was different from its predecessors in some very crucial respects, chiefly in the methods through which American venture capital exercised dominance and control over its country’s allies. Though America and the USSR were generational contemporaries, the way in which America wielded and enacted its power was far more progressive and advanced than anything that the Soviets were technologically and ideologically capable of. American capitalism and foreign policy measures have permanently transformed not only the political landscape of Canada, but of the entire Western world. Canada’s example though, is uniquely idiosyncratic from all others, if for no other reason than due to its cultural and geographic proximity to the United States. Under the custodianship of Prime Minister William L. Mackenzie King and spearheaded by American businessman and politician C.D. Howe; Canada welcomed with open arms hordes of foreign investors, venture capitalists and industrialists, each frothing at the mouth to get a piece of the virgin land. The Canadian people, blinded by optimism and wishful thinking, mistook these representatives of transnational capital as little more than their freedom-loving cousins from down south. As is so often the case, the truth was much more sinister. Within the next two decades, continentalist financiers would meticulously insert themselves into every aspect of Canadian life, to the point that they become completely unidentifiable from the indigenous population. Sound familiar? By the early 1960s the average English-Canadian cosmopolitan saw next to no difference between himself and his American contemporary, perhaps since there indeed was none. The children of those who only several decades prior would pride themselves on their British heritage and culture, saw themselves as little more than Americans under a different flag. Our government and elites did little to stop this transformation, after all, why would they? Indeed, it is a far more lucrative prospect for the rootless and power-hungry; to line their pockets with green loot and ill-gotten gains rather than fight for the sovereignty of their electorate and constituency. Though the Liberal party was by far the most egregious and militant offender; it is not for nothing that C.D. Howe himself was a staunch Liberal: it is also clear that the Conservatives were not only not opposed, but in fact plenty happy, to accept American payoffs to sell off their country. Prime Minister John Diefenbaker was one of the few select, thin on the ground politicians who refused to accept this new modus vivendi as an undisputed given.
By 1963, the name ‘John Diefenbaker’ had become synonymous with one specific word: ‘indecision’. The man who only 5 years prior, was looked upon as a hero by millions, and applauded for his unwavering courage to uphold the principles of national sovereignty was now being mocked, rejected and ostracized by his own party. By the end of his term, Diefenbaker became a laughingstock in the eyes of civil society; A poster boy for the obsolete and unenlightened anti-American masses with an irrational vendetta against progress and world-peace; a relic of a by-gone era that Canada desperately wanted to forget. He was in fact, the last truly nationalistic Prime Minister that Canada has had and will probably ever will have. Though Diefenbaker’s critics accurately point out the naivete behind some of his policies, they tend to mischaracterize him as being either a malicious actor or a stupid buffoon. He was neither of those things, and though by no means an ideal leader, I don’t think one could possibly and in good-faith argue that Diefenbaker didn’t have Canada’s best interest at heart. What is perhaps most interesting about Diefenbaker’s case is the viscousness with which he was attacked for his role in the Cuban Missile Crisis, by the press and the public at large. Funnily enough, the stances that he took during the crisis and the years leading up to it were among his most significant and impactful political accomplishments. The crux of the conflict lies in Diefenbaker’s refusal to aid America in their plans for nuclear armament and storage. As of the 1940s, the United States and its subsidiary branch NATO made its expectations of American allies explicitly clear. Countries of the Western Block, such as Canada, Australia, Britain, West Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and others, were given explicit instructions as to how they were entailed to best serve the interests of their benevolent ruler. In Canada’s case, their chief responsibilities assumed the production, development, accommodation, and management of nuclear and non-nuclear military technology. In the mid 1950s, Canada had planned to appease these demands through the construction of the CF-105 Avro Arrow, a supersonic interceptor aircraft that was intended to be completed by the mid 1960s. Due to the high costs associated with the development and manufacturing of the Arrow, Diefenbaker made the difficult call to officially cancel the project in 1959; a decision that has proven to be heavily controversial to this day. In 1958, in order to preemptively placate NATO and the American federal government, he purchased American CIM 10B Bomarc (Boeing Michigan Aeronautical Research Center) surface-to-air missiles and agreed to store them on Canadian soil. Diefenbaker’s only condition was that he refused to accept the nuclear warheads that were necessary for the Bomarcs to function as intended. A lifelong opponent of Canada’s nuclear armament, Diefenbaker proved his stance to be highly principled; the same cannot be said about his 1963 election opponent Lester Pearson, who quickly flipped his previously militant anti-nuclear stance for the sake of political gain. In 1960, the refusal sparked a national outcry from the Canadian public, the majority of whom were furious with Diefenbaker’s failure to collaborate with Canada’s greatest ally and adequately participate in the Cold War effort. It is ironic how passionate the Canadian electorate was about the issue, considering the nonchalant tone and flippancy with which Robert McNamara, America’s Secretary of Defense, addressed the matter in a 1962 press conference, stating: “At the very least they would cause the Soviets to target missiles against them and thereby increase their missile requirements, or draw missiles onto these Bomarc targets that would otherwise be available for other targets”. Over the course of the following three years, Diefenbaker painstakingly and fruitlessly attempted to find some sort of compromise that would appease everyone. These attempts were not met with generosity or given the benefit of the doubt, but would instead be mocked and ridiculed, ultimately earning Diefenbaker the unfortunate “indecisive” label. Among his most common criticisms was the accusation of being anti-American, which Diefenbaker vehemently denied; reaffirming time and time again that his only concern was the status of Canadian sovereignty. By 1962 and the commencement of the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis, concerns which were previously the matter of civil debate and diplomacy became entirely irreconcilable. Diefenbaker stood strong in his initial assertions and refused to cave to American pressures. As a result of the warhead question remaining unsettled at the time, the Canadian Bomarcs were not deployed in Cuba in any capacity. President John F. Kenndy, who had undoubtedly expected Diefenbaker to eventually capitulate to American pressures as outlined in the now infamous Rostow memo, was outraged with such an open act of insubordination. He made his contempt for Diefenbaker a matter of extreme personal grievance. In the years following the crisis he would consistently and emphatically show his support for Lester Pearson, the leader of the Liberal party and Diefenbaker’s primary political opponent. Kennedy’s government was instrumental in the merciless media propaganda campaign that would be levied against Diefenbaker, and in the eventual overturning of his administration in 1963. In light of McNamara’s comments on the matter and considering what we now know about the nature of the conflict, it is clear that Kennedy’s frustration wasn’t motivated by any direct security concerns. More than anything, his intense resentment of Diefenbaker lay in the fact that he refused to let Canada become a puppet state of the United States. In the grand scheme of things, the issue at the heart of the matter is of far lesser significance than that which it symbolized. Upon leaving office, Diefenbaker was shunned by the majority of the Canadian populace; his name and reputation permanently ruined through media defamation and slander. Knowing what we know now, it is unsurprising that this is how Canada treated its last remaining advocate. I guess it’s all water under the bridge now. Diefenbaker has been dead for over 40 years, and those who are still alive and can remember the fated election are old, senile and in retirement homes. We seem to have this notion, at least in the dissident-right, that those who came before us were somehow better, wiser, more willing to look beyond the brainwashing of mass media. It’s a comforting idea to have in some sense, though I personally find it hard to subscribe to.
It is difficult to pinpoint the exact start of the capitalist global transformation. Depending on how far back you want to go, the inception of capitalist imperialism can date back many, many centuries. While the primary focus of this article is the 20th century, I really hope to impress upon the reader the deep limitations of such analysis should one ignore the historical context that had led to these trends. The progressive sentiments of Canadian 19th century merchants were virtually indistinguishable from those of the likes of Pearson and Mackenzie King; the disregard of virtue and genuine love for one’s country in favor of profit-making is a feature, not a bug, of transnational capitalism. Capitalism in general, I guess. Fortunately for 19th century Canada, such sentiments were still far and few between. The harsh realities of the Great White North made it impossible for liberal ideas to spread beyond velveted cigar rooms and university classrooms. People were forced to accept the limitations of their being, with the only ‘viable’ form of transcendence being provided within the confines or religious and clerical intuitions. Liberalism, though undoubtfully stronger than ever before, did not have the same impact that it would after the First World War, and the subsequent strides in technological and scientific advancements that would be made in the Western world. Technology not only offered a form of escapism from the realities of human beings’ profoundly flawed nature; it also provided the financial elite with a powerful tool to wield against their subordinates. Like a child being given extra screen time for good behavior, so too the ruling class of corporations and business conglomerates would use scientific advancements as a method of manipulation and control. I don’t think that I need to convince the reader of how difficult it would be for the average Canadian to refuse the past 100 years of technological advancement. Canada has one of the most brutal climates and topographies in the world and the very act of survival lies beyond the pale of imagination for most of its current inhabitants. The existence of modern technology; even in the 1960s when Grant first published Lament For A Nation, and certainly in the current age; makes it impossible for truly conservative ideas to flourish. Conservatism isn’t exemplified by the 1950s, Q-Anon or Pro-life protestors; at its core, conservatism is the belief in the fundamentally flawed and unchangeable nature of man. Marxists believe that they can ‘perfect’ the man, and that once removed from material injustices and oppression the individual ought to be free to choose to do as he pleases in so far as it benefits the public wellbeing; liberals go even further by preaching the absence of natural limitations in general. Technology makes it very easy for people to get completely absolved into the liberal framework. Grant states on a number of occasions that he believes conservatism and nationalism to be inseparable and that nationalism can never exist in a liberal state. This is where an important distinction must be made between Canadian and American conservativism. America is the only country on earth that is liberal to its core and by the very nature of its existence. With few notable exceptions, American conservatives have only ever advocated for a conservation of an older, anachronistic version of liberalism. This didn’t start with Charlie Kirk and TPUSA; it is an inescapable reality of America’s founding. Though it would be unfair to compare traditional constitutionalism to its now fully matured, mutant offspring that has been terrorizing the entire world with its antics for the past century, it is nonetheless its direct and only offspring. The apple sure did fall far from the tree, but man was it a corrupt tree to bring forth such a deeply, evil fruit.
Founded long after the toxic roots of liberalism and modernity have taken a hold in Western soil, America symbolically severed its remaining ties to the Old World and then twerked on its corpse, pissed on its grave, vigorously rubbed its little Jew hands together, and did an evil villain laugh *muahahahahahaha*. So how was Canada any better? How is Canada’s version of conservatism and nationalism any different, or better for that matter? Since it’s conception as a European colony in the early 17th century, and arguably to this day, though granted now in a purely ceremonial respect, Anglophone Canada has maintained a close, almost paternal relationship with England. Everything from culture, education, religion, and social customs has been given to us by England. To a certain extent the same can be said of America, however the nature of the relationship was fundamentally different post Revolution. As a result, Canadian conservatism is a much ‘purer’ form of conservatism that, at least in theory, finds it’s origins millennia prior to the country’s official founding. It is not simply a nostalgia from an era gone by, but rather an inherited set of values and beliefs about the nature of being that has been established in a civilization which centered its existence around the eternal and the sacred. Canada and England shared what was essentially a parental bond, and as England’s influence on Canada began to diminish and eventually ceased entirely post Second World War, so did any meaningful distinction between Canada and America. It is interesting that the same cannot be said about Quebec, as the French population in Canada tended to be much more satisfied with finding an identity district from not only from their Anglophone countrymen, but also from the mother country herself. The French are a disagreeable people to a fault, though in many ways it appears that this quality has proven itself be a successful defense mechanism in the long run. After all, Quebecois politicians of the 1940s, 50s and 60s were the only such group in Canada that offered a meaningful strategy of organized resistance against the American continentalists. Grant takes special note of two such individuals: René Lévesque and Maurice Duplessis. While serving as Quebec’s 16th Premier, Duplessis offered what was perhaps the most obvious solution to the issue of American capital and the chokehold that it was beginning to have on Canadian institutions. His plan was pretty straight forward: leave the economics to the Americans and the culture to us. Though I am obviously simplifying the terms of the compromise, that was essentially the essence of what Duplessis attempted to do. Even at a cursory glance, I trust the reader to be able to infer that such an approach was bound for failure. It may be sustainable in the short run, what happens in 20 years post-inception? 50? What happens when the children educated in the traditional Catholic education system grow up and realize that the values instilled in them during childhood are fundamentally irreconcilable with their existence as adults? What happens when those who have come of age and found material success and comfort in the American modus operandi are placed in charge of the society whose ways they have long forgotten and rejected? Of course, these questions are entirely rhetorical and only seek to illustrate the underlying flaws of Duplessis’ strategy. René Lévesque is a more interesting case in my opinion. A staunch nationalist, Lévesque made the brave though unusual choice of using a form of partial socialism as a means of protection against the continental powers. He was instrumental in the nationalization of Canadian Hydro companies and later founded Mouvement Souveraineté-Association (Movement for Sovereignty-Association), a Quebec separatist movement now known as Parti Québécois. During his time a Premier, Lévesque was far more outspoken than his predecessor, Duplessis, on the issue of American infiltration. He sought to establish a government and a social elite that was indigenous to Quebec and composed of those who held its interests at heart. He was largely triumphant, at least as much as he could have been. Continental capital permitted the charade to go on for the time being, because they always knew they would win in the end. He got what he wanted but at what cost? The fact of the matter remained that Quebec needed American capital to industrialize and keep up with the rest of Canada. Even if separatism was a viable alternative, what would Quebec’s existence look like years in the future, as an independent micronation that was lightyears behind the rest of the Western world? Of course it never got to that point, but it is important to understand why that is the case. Ultimately, any attempt to stand against the overwhelming surge of continentalism, no matter how well organized or planned out, would have been fruitless. Grant correctly points out that the only nation that can maintain its national identity in the age of technology and capitalism is one which identifies itself with progress. For better or for worse, this nation is America.
That’s all for today friends and frenemies. I hope you enjoyed this edition of Gypsy Death, and please stay tuned for more BASED DINGO content from us in the future. XOXO much love from Tangier <33
