Are we all just a bunch of enclave communities? Pockets of distinct cultures without relation to each other except through trade and a basic legal code? Are there going to be "no-go-zones" in Canada where Parliament can't enforce a final arbitration on the use of force? Will Sharia Law become the norm in some parts of the GTA?
The Liberal Party of Canada – especially after Justin Trudeau's reign of arrogant incompetence – has destroyed the word 'liberal' once and for all. Depending on your bias, the term 'conservative' is also tainted. In the past, some Canadians have defined themselves as Tories. "Red" Tories, "Blue" Tories, or, as I have here, a Tory anarchist.
Tory anarchism, while sharing many of its anarchist traits with the American "right-wing" libertarians, is influenced by the streak of Toryism that has run through Canadian history since the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists in the wake of the American Revolution.
Because historians espouse democratic narratives, a retelling is in order. Only then can we contextualize anarchist philosophy as the logical conclusion of Canadian Toryism. As opposed to an authoritarian variant of liberalism, which most conservatives – even Pierre Poilievre – are guilty of today.
The Englishmen of the Thirteen Colonies didn't have representation in Parliament, nor were they even given access to the common law. They demanded the same rights as their English brethren. Being a colony didn't exclude them from the reforms made in the Mother Country. King George disagreed, and the rest is history.
A group of colonists who did not wish to revolt against the monarch fled north to the remaining British colonies. This influx of people created new settlements, including Upper Canada, later called Canada West, then Ontario.
We call these settlers the United Empire Loyalists. In the mid-20th century, the narrative around this group divorced itself from reality. Neo-liberal historians will still call them Tory egalitarians who believed in the "common good" and rejected the rugged individualism of the American Revolution. This viewpoint is nonsense.
The Loyalists, like the Revolutionaries, were classical liberals. They believed in private property. The first thing they did upon arrival was denounce the French civil system and demand a legislature. They wanted the same rights as Englishmen. This time, not wanting another revolt, King George III gave it to them. Of course, The Constitution Act of 1791 didn't entail the same liberties the Americans had created for themselves. But the Crown argued theirs was better.
The main difference between Loyalists and American Revolutionaries wasn't some appeal to egalitarianism. If anything, the beliefs went the other way. The American Republic embodied egalitarian principles that denounced monarchy and aristocracy. Having the hindsight of both the American and French Revolutions, the Constitution Act of 1791 balanced monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic principles.
When the Americans tried to impose their will in 1812, Canadians fought back. Veterans of this war would become the natural leaders of Upper Canada. History calls them the Family Compact. Conventional neo-liberal history decries this group as conservative white males who hated political reform and democracy. And technically, this isn't a lie. But they tell it like it's a bad thing.
When we consider the Tory values they espoused, we find strains of anti-democratic thought that would later influence the Tories of the 1840s-60s and, eventually, the country's founding.
We can learn from the Tories of Canadian history. That is, to consider a social order comprised entirely of private property owners. Indeed, in 1867, there was no universal suffrage. One had to own property to vote.
What is a Canadian Tory?
A Canadian Tory recognizes that conflicts arise from scarcity and that private property is essential for conflict avoidance. You could say a classical liberal or libertarian acknowledges this as well. But Tory anarchists' beliefs in the power of family, faith and fraternity make free markets possible.
A Tory doesn't argue for a "nightwatchman state." They believe the voluntary associations of society can make national defence plans. A Tory doesn't advocate for a State, public property, taxes, or "human rights." There is only liberty and property. These are the core tenets that should unify Canadians.
Tories who favour government intervention in markets and state welfare (instead of regional charity and local fraternity) are merely socialists under a different name. They are not natural Tories at all. They don't have faith in their social conservatism; they believe it must be enforced from the top down.
These Tories are authoritarians who, through the State, will inadvertently create the moral and social degeneration they claim to be preventing.
Pierre Poilievre represents the new, younger conservative that is more libertarian in outlook. Good, but not great. Almost Tory anarchism, but not quite. Maxime Bernier is another example. As is Jordan Peterson. You could even throw Rex Murphy, Don Cherry, Tamara Lich, and everyone at Rebel News and Truth North into that mix.
What makes these guys great is their opposition to the elites, global warming scams, and the thought control of the State, media, and academia. They oppose social degeneracy. Some also oppose mass immigration. All of them resist the modern left's victim status and liberal guilt-pride. They reject the "woke."
But unlike the views I'm espousing here – Tory anarchism – conservative figures lack a unifying theory.
For example, Jordan Peterson is good on liberty and property except when foreign policy is involved. Like Poilievre, outside of Canada's borders, he sounds like a common war-mongering neo-liberal.
Others latch onto the Tory tradition of economic protectionism. While popular in history and even currently, protectionism empowers the State and doesn't make any financial sense. A good Tory favours free market principles backed by a socially conservative culture.
This emphasis on voluntarily-funded institutions of civil society is crucial, for it separates the Tory anarchist from the conservative who merely wants socialism for white people. When the Canadian right-wing lacks a solid foundation in liberty and property, they end up directly or indirectly promoting an egalitarian agenda.
Whether they realize it or not, the true conservative, the Canadian Tory, must be anti-state.
Tory Anarchism & Multiculturalism
What about anti-Western immigrants already invited to live here by the State? Or the naturally-born Canadians radicalized by universities and media? Is Canada too late to save? Should a Tory give up on finding a unifying theme for the country?
Are we all just a bunch of enclave communities? Pockets of distinct cultures without relation to each other except through trade and a basic legal code? Are there going to be "no-go-zones" in Canada where Parliament can't enforce a final arbitration on the use of force? Will Sharia Law become the norm in some parts of the GTA?
The answers will depend on the cultural customs of the revolutionary Tory generation. That said, the outline I'm sketching here has two built-in caveats.
A federal Parliament (the only Parliament save for autonomous regions that adopt the Westminster system for local governance) can intervene if the House and Senate agree that a community practising Sharia Law is counter to a more general, universal rule of law.
Likewise, surrounding neighbourhoods of the community practising Sharia Law may make a case to independent third parties that the proximity of anti-Western practices constitutes an act of aggression. Future posts will examine more closely what constitutes "aggression" and "defence."
For now, peaceful cohabitation suggests a common culture, language, religion, custom, and convention. Since Canadians differ considerably, respect for liberty and property is our unifying theme. Any additional customs or conventions will arise with successive generations.
This attitude reflects that of Sir John A. MacDonald, who, after giving Canada a barebones liberal constitution, suggested that the natural elite and culture of the country would unfold as we did "great things together."
But people and their ideas aren't a stable fixture in reality. The essence and culture of a people change with time. A Tory anarchist society embraces that fact and creates a framework for a recognizable, dynamic Canada to thrive in the long term. That is, a system that doesn’t produce an entrenched parasitical class.
That was, in effect, the goal of constitutional law.
Every new generation of Canadians has to stand on guard for their freedoms. Not only against neighbours advocating for the eradication of the Jews but against socialism and democracy, too. We shouldn't outsource our protection and justice to the federal government if we expect results.
With private property the highest ideal, no one has the right to enter a commons – privately owned by its local users and open for guests – and spread their propaganda under the guise of "free speech." This principle is what separates the Tory from the liberal. There is no absolute right to free speech. There is only the right to private property.
There are cultural differences and inequalities. Not everyone has the same values. Some values are better than others. The egalitarian approach is flawed. It's not realistic.
And the real victims are taxpayers. A Tory can never forgive the destruction of natural social bonds between families, communities, and ethnic groups. Canada needs both a Protestant Reformation and the Nuremberg Trials.
With the real victims ignored and fake victims exalted to top victimhood, it's little wonder the demographic of the Canadian Tory is likely to be white, married, Christian or agnostic, and a tax producer (works in the private sector without government subsidies.). They are most likely to be receptive to this message. Because of this, critics will call the philosophy "racist."
Fortunately, the Establishment is losing legitimacy. Like most political and social movements today, we can bypass intellectual elites and gatekeepers.
Skin colour has nothing to do with being a Tory or a liberal or a “true” Canadian. We are all homo sapiens; it is the neo-liberal order (backed by leftists) that destroyed the colour-blind society we were successfully building. They're reverting us to an age where we judge people by skin colour and ethnic identity rather than the content of their character.
Rather than admitting the absolute failure of the neo-liberal criminal justice system, they instead turn on the population and divide us into racial groups, making up crackpot theories that some groups have "inert" racial bias, and that explains "systemic racism" rather than the moral and economic failure of the neo-liberal order.
When it becomes clear that Poilievre can't solve these issues via the PMO, the Tory anarchist will be here. When it becomes clear that Poilievre is selling out to the neo-liberal establishment, the Tory anarchist will be here. For, Poilievre has already turned his back on key conservative issues: war and immigration.
The False Promise of Pierre Poilievre
What separates Tory anarchism from Tory statism? Aside from the compulsory funding part of governance?
A Tory advocates for a foreign policy of non-intervention. We are not interested in global organizations like the World Bank, the United Nations, or the International Monetary Fund. Certainly, cabinet ministers won't visit the World Economic Forum in Davos.
And we're not interested in NATO or starting World War III.
There will also be no foreign aid. These are all services Canadians can provide privately, including funding mercenary armies for overseas conflicts (provided neighbouring regions don't make a case that terrorist blowback is a justified concern that prevents such excursions).
In the meantime, we can use Pierre Poilievre's allure as leverage. One area where we can score a few points is the extravagant benefits of the ruling elite. Since Poilievre calls for tax cuts and critics accuse him of wanting to cut social services, the solution is to gut the salaries and pensions of the entrenched interests destroying Western civilization.
He can start with Justin and Jagmeet.
But what really separates Poilievre's Conservative Party from the Tory anarchist is central banking. Poilevre is a neo-liberal in this regard, adopting the economics of Milton Friedman.
While Tories aren't exclusively followers of the "Austrian school" of economics, we do recognize that, at 2% annual inflation, Poilievre wants Canadians to lose only 50% of the purchasing power of their savings over thirty-five years.
So that dollar you save when you're forty will only be worth 50 cents when you're seventy-five and retired. This loss of purchasing power is the opposite of how free markets should work.
Our purchasing power grows as the economy grows. Money retains its value. States and banks are the actual thieves of "surplus value," not the nonsensical Marxian ideas about employers vs. employees.
A Tory anarchist wants a free market in banking and money. Markets have traditionally used gold and silver. Today, we also have cryptocurrencies.
Whatever people choose, it is no concern of Parliament, whose finances will be nothing special. Since money flows from the autonomous communities to Ottawa, there is no need for a Canada Revenue Agency or, especially, the Bank of Canada or "Chartered" Banks.
The separation of State and Economy is as vital as the separation of State and Church.
Signs that Poilievre is a genuine Tory and not just a neo-liberal will be in how he deals with the universities. So far, all he's proposed is a campus "free speech czar."
The solution is to stop funding all the universities. Especially ones that promote anti-Western sentiments. All laws and regulations promoting affirmative action and non-discrimination also need to go.
Does anyone expect Poilievre to do this?
He certainly won't hand over the reins of protection and justice services to us, the private sector.
A Poilievre Government should actively transition Canada from a centralized state to a decentralized civil society. But the best we can hope for is an end of "woke" justice. The courts - including the Supreme Court - are still stacked against us. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still the law of the land.
A Poilievre Government can at least bring back colour-blind enforcement and culture – one hopes. But we can't expect a total abolition of firearm restrictions for law-abiding citizens. Ottawa's established interests will never allow it. Yet, people should be able to defend against crime and terrorism without approval from incompetent bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Likewise, we can't expect a Poilievre Government to abolish all welfare programs. Despite how the State worsens social problems by subsidizing them. And how, historically, we took much better care of each other through the voluntary means of civil society.
Compulsory public education, initially aimed at creating obedient citizens, has led to indoctrination. We must privatize education and decentralize control. State-controlled education is the root of all social pathologies in the West. Yet, Poilievre's parents were school teachers.
And besides, it's provincial jurisdiction.
You can't trust a Poilievre Government, even if he is personally faithful to the cause. Pierre Poilievre will fix Canada's Trudeau problem, and that’s important. Essential. But ultimately, democratic politics feeds the cancer. Especially at the federal level—money and power corrupt the process.
The Tory anarchist wants to eliminate politics as much as possible and rely instead on private law. The only politics would be occasional sessions of Parliament to deal with national defence and the northern borders since the military bureaucracy runs itself.
That said, Poilievre can be trusted to call out political correctness or "wokeness." Inserting guilt-pride into the Western civic religion is an attempt to control the masses. It's how the Church manipulated people in the past, through the guilt of original sin and by the redemption found in Christ.
The Church bastardized the Christian message for social control. Likewise, extremist professors flaunt the ugly parts of the West's past as its only accomplishments. All the good of Western civilization is ignored, denied, or redefined as bad.
But will Poilievre's Government, along with the enthusiasm of his supporters, successfully flip the narrative back to being pro-Western?
It won’t be one thing, person, or event that does it. And it’s not just about Canada, but all of Western civilization. From the possible reelection of Trump to Argentina President-elect Javier Milei. From the public’s general discontent with the power elite to their moral and economic failings.
Little cuts and scrapes and stabs. Slowly but surely, the legitimacy of the ruling elites, academia, and corporate media will fall by the wayside. Western civilization has the power to renew itself and move forward, just as it has in the past.
That’s why a Tory anarchist goes further than the statist who merely calls themselves a Tory. It's not enough to boldly reject politically correct narratives and ideologies.
A genuine Tory denounces democracy for the mob rule it is. Liberty and private property are the bedrock of society. Democracy is synonymous with communism.