Follow Cooper and the Honkey Night in Canada Podcast. As always, the quote blocks are my commentary.
The (((Munk)))-funded Frasier institute recently published a poll titled “Perspectives on Capitalism and Socialism”. The results, which showed positive interest for socialism among young Canadians, predictably drew ire from conservative publications.
Table 1.1a asks “What is the Ideal Economic System” to all age groups. For Canada, they identified 52% of respondents as agreeing that capitalism is the ideal economic system. This was followed by socialism (42%), communism (6%), and fascism (4%). What pissed off the prairie conservatives at the Western Standard, is that “Half of Canadians 18 to 24 favour socialism as their preferred economic system, but the majority of them do not provide the correct definition for it” .
This is kind of a silly point because none of the other three ideologies were defined.
It’s also deeply ironic, since these consubversative cowards can’t define what “woke” means. Anti-White pervert garbage would do the trick, but they’re too cowardly and pathetic to say that, so they owned by butthole-leftists asking them that simple question.
Being that communism was an option, it must be assumed there is a difference between communism and socialism. Naturally, one would view communism as a totalitarian (heavily state-involved) form of socialism. The definition the Frasier institutes provides for socialism is: when “the state controls the means of production, namely the raw materials, capital such as machinery and equipment, and buildings necessary to convert various inputs into goods and services”. This is as opposed to two other definitions the study listed:
2. “the government providing more services such as health care, K-12 education, and daycare”.
3. “the government providing a minimum guaranteed level of income to all citizens”.
If the majority of young Canadians do not provide the “correct” (first) definition of socialism, that would mean they do not want state control of the economy. For laissez-faire types, you’d think this would be a relief. Of course, boomer-cons need to take every opportunity to try and dunk on those younger than them. Western Standard commenters could not help themselves.
User Conservative Hippie: (Feb 24, 2023 12:39pm)
I have an idea!! We’ll send the half that wants a totalitarian socialist state back East take in conservative (“small c conservatives”) refugees out West and build a wall to Keep East from West until East learns it’s lesson about the evils of communism.
It worked in Germany until they took the wall down. Then it all went to sh*t again. We’ll just leave ours up until the socialists die out and when it is well and truly safe we will set up exploratory trade routes before we bring down the wall.
Due to The Western Standard’s paywall, you can no longer see these comments with the link provided. We’re sorry.
User D&D1807/: (Feb 24, 2023 8:34pm)
I guess the notion of “owning nothing but being happy” is catching on! I also guess if you don’t know any difference, it doesn’t sound that bad. 🤔 Ya mean I can make tic toc videos, take selfies and play games all day and the government will see I have a place to stay and feed me ……. awesome bro!
User guest83: (Feb 24, 2023 9:06am)
I’m assuming, judging by the results, that this poll was probably conducted out East in the greater Moronto area or in the greater Hongcouver area, hence that pathetic numbers of critical thinkers.
If you would have taken this poll in the prairies there wouldn’t have even been any poll numbers as the prairie provinces all know hard work and the merit of it.
To echo Mike Peinovich’s recent rant, I am starting to absolutely hate every right-wing community that isn’t ours. The dumb things they get worked up over, the things they should be mad about they let go without comment. The combination of cowardice and a high volume level is repulsive. The reframing of cuckoldry such as “work hard (for your owners)” as virtue is just grotesque.
I don’t need to point out the fundamental misunderstanding of the poll displayed here. I guess the logic behind these quips is the idea that young Canadians, unaware of the definition of socialism, will be duped into submitting to a WEF-run Communist state. Boomercons have bought-in to capitalism despite the immense harm it does to them and their progeny, hence the latter’s empathy with social good. I guess they think that is somehow better because “muh freedom”, “10 different types of toothpaste”, etc.
This comment is at least somewhat sympathetic:
User MLC: (Feb 23, 2023 12:59pm)
Aside from a lack of understanding in what socialism actually entails which may be derived from being exposed to selected limited aspects of it in schools, it is indicative of a belief in the responsibility of the state to increasingly support them.
Unfortunately this is a multifaceted issue; Where the funding comes from may be less relevant to a group that doesn’t believe they have much an opportunity to financially succeed (purchase of residence, raising family, etc) in what is/was considered Canadian society
[the comment goes on, but I have clipped it here for brevity]
Yes, that is exactly it. Young folks have little hope of achieving what previous generations did, economically. If “conservatives” weren’t so stupid, they’d realize that dreaded supervillian Schwab is describing the status quo under capitalism when he talks about “owning nothing”.
When it comes to defining socialism, do conservatives have any reason to balk? Isn’t this the group who does the exact same thing they criticize the Frasier respondents of doing: equating social assistance to marxism-leninism? In fact, they do it in the above comments section. This type of McCarthyism has invaded the minds of Polievere-enjoyers, and it has all the bad of such thinking (anti-collectivism) without any of the good (innate anti-semetism). Boomers are so disposed to loving big capital that they will sacrifice themselves for it. So let’s talk about socialism as a dirty word. Is “social good” a concept alien to Canadian conservatism?
I have to stop it right there and remind you all to read my pieces on Pierre Poilievre. I don’t think there has ever been a more phoned in gay’op than this career shill.
The Dorchester Review recently addressed this topic in “Canadian Conservatism & the State”. Author Graeme Garrard explains that labeling “the state as the principal enemy of freedom and the market as the natural sphere of liberty” is a uniquely American take. Canada, historically, did not see things this way. Our first PM, John A. Macdonald enacted a “National Policy” to keep foreign (American) industry out and protectionism continued to be a Conservative policy until the mid-20th-century.
Most of you are likely aware of Canadian philosopher (and Red Tory) George Grant and his book “Lament for a Nation”. Written in ‘65, Lament has been rediscovered in recent years and referred to often by our guys as a documentation of Leaf nationalism. Garrard spends a large portion of his Dorchester article discussing Grant, and his outlook on socialism. Some choice quotes:
- “[Grant does not see] anything at all conservative about market competition. That is why [he] regard[s] conservatism and socialism as sharing a belief in ‘the use of public control in the political and economic spheres … to protect the public good against private freedom,’ in Grant’s words”
- “Grant argues that conservatism in Canada had always promoted the use of government ‘to restrain greed in the name of social good,’ which is also his definition of socialism. ‘In actual practice,’ he writes, ‘socialism has always had to advocate inhibition in this respect. In doing so, was it not appealing to the conservative idea of social order against the liberal idea of freedom?’”
- “For Grant conservatism in its Canadian context necessarily implies nationalism as well as socialism, since he associates liberalism with American capitalism, which ‘has destroyed indigenous cultures in every corner of the globe.’”
What we can draw from this is that the Canadian right wing, up until at least the Diefenbaker years, was opposed to market liberalism. For boomer-cons to gravitate towards big-capitalism is against our tradition, and not in their interests. This is indicative of a larger problem: American imperialism. Boomers are so susceptible to this stuff that you can go to Alberta and see “51st state” paraphernalia for sale in gas station parking lots.
The same nonsense comes from the other side of the border. Earlier in 2023, Tucker Carlson talked about the need to “send an armed force north to liberate Canada from Trudeau”, because the USA can’t “let [Canada] become Cuba”.
Frankly, I’m not a big Batista-regime fan (mired as it was by (((Meyer Lanksy)))’s vice). That was the pre-Castro state of things in Cuba that the Americans supported.
Speaking of Jews like Meyer Lansky, we understand that Jews are behind much of the West’s decay, and their influence was carried to Canada by way of the USA. When (((Henry Morgentaler))) decided to go full-board on abortions, he waited for Roe V Wade. When (((Kalmen Kaplansky))) decided to attack White identity through the labour movement and stir up the blacks in Canada, he trained with the American (((JLC))) in New York (Lambertson, p. 287).
Even Trudeau, young and uppity Goy that he was, needed to be re-educated by Jews at Harvard to become the mass-immigration proponent we remember him as. It could be said that the USA was the natural gathering place for Jews to consolidate power, due to its size and stature. Give our forebears a little credit, though. There is an entire book, “None is too Many” which posits that Canada did less than any other “refugee-accepting-nation” when it came to accepting jews during the Hitler years.
More to the point: this level of Yankee hubris is aggravating, which is why I was very happy to read Conrad Black’s March 9th article in the National Post: “Tucker Carlson is right to criticize woke Canada, but U.S. is in worse shape”. Black does admit that the Feds’ Trucker Convoy reaction among other federal measures were an outrage, but he does not give Americans the kudos they desperately seek. Take this passage:
“Start with the annual influx of millions of unskilled migrants illegally, with literally tons of fentanyl smuggled across the southern border with them, entering a country that is still struggling with the legacy of slavery and a level of violent crime that appalls Canada and other advanced Western societies.
The open southern border has incited swarming masses of indigent and desperate people that less resembles the fabled arrival of the immigrants under the Statue of Liberty, (and up the St. Lawrence River to Canada), pledged to make their way in the new world as law-abiding citizens), than it does the masses thrusting into the late Western Roman Empire with no interest in assimilating to the jurisdiction they were entering.
The rise in Canada’s population and the decline of Hollywood have made Canada more self-sufficient in matters of culture and entertainment and the debacle of American violent woke-ism and racial division has completely eliminated any ambition or temptation Canadians might have had to seek a closer association with the United States.”
Conrad is doing a tried and true consubversative bit here. He does a 6.5/10 description of the problems in America, then sneaks in “legacy of slavery” nonsense. And rest assured, his newspaper will gleefully attack you if you do anything about those problems in either country.
I like Black’s reference to crime in the USA because it ties back to a supposed perk of American culture often extolled by the right: gun legislation. Sure, firearms culture is more prevalent in the States, but the NRA is far from respectable about supporting White self-defence. There could be no more Zimmerman’s, which is why you got the McMichaels verdict. Similarly, there could be no more Gerald Stanley’s, which is why we got the Bilodeau verdict. What’s the difference between Canada and the US? You are not allowed to protect yourself from non-White violence in either place. The McMichaels had a cooler gun? Would you want that cooler gun if it meant three times the amount of black people in this country (and 3x the murder rate)?
Mr. Black does go on to suggest that Canada will work itself out of the “woke” mess faster than the USA; I don’t think there’s much evidence for this. Both countries are in the same predicament, it’s just that some of the problems (and perhaps solutions) vary between them.
The Western Standard, Polievre, Tucker, et. al’s arguments point to the fact that in our emulation of the USA we have chosen to be more like Vermont than Texas. They posit that if we transitioned towards a red-state ideology, the situation would improve. Apart from Quebec, we don’t have the same disparate cultures within our nation as exist in the USA. The difference between Portland and Montogmery is much greater than Calgary and Halifax. Why is it useful to pursue balkanism (Western Separatism), supply-side economics, etc., all to be on the same level as American Republicans?
Actual populists in the USA are distancing themselves from that ideology. Take for example, the recent East Palestine rail disaster that has prompted renewed calls (including by the NJP) for the nationalization of railways. The publicly-funded building of railways is part of our heritage. CNR was a crown corporation until ’95. The boomer-right, though, is in favour of privatizing most everything.
Let’s turn to NJP Platform Point 19:
“Health care is a right. Health care must be removed from the control of for-profit hospitals and insurance companies and made a public service for all people. Preventative care will be emphasized and physical fitness will be promoted.”
We already have public care in Canada. Is the system broken, due in large part to older immigrants sucking out resources among other parasitical practices? Yes, but that belies the point that we need a homogenous, high-trust society, not a turn to atomism. Black’s reference to Canadian culture/entertainment mirrors the reason the CBC was created (by a conservative government). Is our state broadcaster a joke? Yes. Does this mean we should reject state media as a concept and give in to American programming? No!
Again see NJP Platform point 3 RE: nationalizing mass media. Canada’s foundations give us some precedents to work with. As 3rd Po./NS-types, we understand that a unified country is the best way to preserve them. This speaks to our strong federalist institutions.
If we backtrack to Grant’s thoughts, he rightly pointed out that:
- American capitalism is more rapacious in its dissolution of nationalisms than even communism.
- State capitalism (as expressed in the US) is “more progressive” than socialism (something that conservatives and marxists both fail to understand)
We can see this overbearing pseudo-liberalism expressed in the takeover of Canada, largely through Jew ideas. That is not to say the Americans are our misfortune. Certainly the WN movement is much stronger in the USA than here, and I’m by no means trying to argue that they are more libtarded than us. Only that we have been oppressed by these same forces that have taken root in America.
One of the more annoying constantly online Amurica’ type posting was calling Europeans or Canadians cucks or whatever, ignoring that they are client states of America/ZOG. Then you get a finklefight where people start attacking Americans as Le 56% Amerimutt and it’s all downhill from there.
In the Americans’ case, it may be that their tradition of resistance to totalitarianism extends to the present rot emanating from their country. We, on the other hand, have the gift of a founding myth directly opposed to American influence. The Americans can fight ZOG within their borders, and we can shut ours down. We do not need to superimpose anachronistic ideas on what Canadian right-wing thought. It should not be our intention to add an extra step to our liberation by first becoming the Leaf GOP, and then nationalists.
Grant, George: “Lament for a Nation”, pg. 53
Lambertson, Ross “Repression and Resitance”, pg. 287
A truly excellent piece by Cooper. I will say that, while he correctly points out that economic LOLbertarianism has no basis in historical Canadian socially right-wing thinking, it also has no basis in historical American right-wing thinking either. Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood actor, who got paid to say whatever Schlomo wanted even before he was president.
Anyone in this day and age who is economically ideological in any direction is a moron, a dupe, or a grifter. Big businesses simply do not respond to market forces, because they are natural monopolies. They compete with market forces about as much as Governments do, and it’s the height of consubversatism that they’ve taken these obviously anti-White, anti-natal, pro-pervert, pro-war oligopolies and told boomercons that anyone who is opposed to them is a SoCIaLiST, and therefore bad.
And it’s nice to see people coming at Canadian politics from a distinctly Canadian perspective. We face huge challenges here. There is massive censorship, and the country is so spread out that real life activism can be quite challenging. Nevertheless, constantly online types who want to ape the GOP are simply unserious.