Red Tory, Blue Tory, or Canadian Tory? (Pt 2.)
Immigration, Multiculturalism, and the Tory Solution
A recent poll indicates Canadians are uneasy about mass immigration. Not only the economic pressures – housing and health care – but cultural clashes are now apparent. "Right-wing" talking points about diversity are now commonly accepted as fact. Namely, that not all cultures are created equal.
Under a liberal "rules-based" order, people have freedom of speech. Any Canadian, whether they arrived twenty minutes ago or twenty years ago, can walk onto "public" property and blur the line between free speech and calls for violence.
With Tory anarchism, there is only private property. We will push dangerous elements of religions and cultures to the fringes of society. Their neighbourhoods will be economically isolated, and thus poor, and likely fenced in by surrounding neighbours. They will be welcomed back into the world market and civil society only when they denounce their dogmatism.
While this may sound harsh, even discriminatory, this is the reality of Canada's multiculturalism. Non-European immigrants primarily move to the cities and form ethnic enclaves. A Tory anarchist Canada formalizes this process and ceases all future immigration that private property owners don't approve. It then isolates radicals and either forces them off the continent or to give up their anti-social ways.
Obviously, not every ethnic enclave is a hotbed for dangerous radicals. And don't think this is only for immigrants. The Tory Revolution will do the same for people holding radical "liberal" views such as progressivism, neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, types of socialism, and other authoritarian ideologies that threaten coercive means. We will also shame fellow Tories who suggest Parliament expand its powers beyond national defence.
Using violence (especially the State) as a means to an end should and will be considered repulsive. Counter to all that is peace, order, and good governance. A Tory follows the Kantian principle that people are ends unto themselves.
Arctic Sovereignty
One may ask where the "anarchism" comes from if a federal Parliament controls the military and national borders. As discussed in previous posts, the bottom-up social revolution flips the power pyramid. Individuals and families consent to protection and justice via contracts with entrepreneurs in an open, free market. The result is small and numerous autonomous communities (city-state, rural society, micro-nation, precinct, principality, etc.)
Each community elects a member of Parliament. The money for Parliament flows from these new "ridings" to Ottawa. At any time, if one or more of these communities no longer consent to Ottawa's rule, they can leave without requiring the consent of the other parties. Their borders and defence become their responsibility. Neighbours will treat their property boundaries as international borders.
Then again, the social organization I am describing may be like using landline technology in a world of smartphones. We don't necessarily have to associate citizenship with geography.
So why the federal government? Why should the Dominion of Canada still exist after the Tory Revolution? What if national defence becomes an old-fashioned idea? We'll assume this won't happen, for Canada's borders stretch to the Far North. The Arctic archipelago is primarily uninhabited and apt for exploration and development if the planet becomes warmer and ice-free.
But first, the State's no-homesteading rule on Crown Land must go. However, unoccupied virgin territory is ripe for the taking by anyone who can physically get themselves there. The Arctic will need defence if Canadians wish to keep it under their sovereign control.
The Arctic needs defence by a) one or more voluntary-funded defence organizations motivated by profit or b) one large monopoly of violence arranged around the rules of the Westminster system and voluntarily funded by its clientele.
Assuming option B, Parliament decides on the status of Crown land. But what of homesteading open frontiers? That Canada's colonization of the western frontier was more "civil" than the "wild west" of the American scrambles for land is one of those common Canadian myths. The kind that associates central planning with order and unbridled liberty with chaos.
That said, as private property owners take control of the country back from the elite and populists, the question of Crown Land will be dealt with according to the customs of the time. For now, I speculate that sections will be gifted to Indigenous families as private property, while Parliament will hold other sections in trust for environmental conservation.
Other parcels of land, of course, will be homesteaded by individuals. Especially if the Arctic warms to more habitable standards, we may find entire generations abandoning the old cities' ad-hoc infrastructure to build new cities designed according to "green" markets instead of state subsidies and "public utilities."
But that is in the future. The question remains: what about Canada's mass immigration problem? Canada is fragmenting into ethnic enclaves, and disputes are arising over the "commons" or public property as no one really owns it.
Insomuch that the federal government still controls immigration – what principles should guide us?
The Full Cost of Public Property
Tory anarchism accepts Canada's fragmentation into ethnic enclaves and offers a solution rooted in private property. However, until everything becomes private property, we're left with the problem of "the commons" or public property. If the State controls immigration, it should act as a trustee. The "full cost" principle should guide immigration policies.
Whether it's an immigrant, an international student, a temporary worker, or an invited resident – they should pay the full cost of using "public" goods and services during their stay. Of course, applying the full cost principle is itself a bureaucratic headache. One can imagine the State tracking and controlling all Canadians' movements and consumption of public goods to apply the full cost principle to everyone within its borders.
Yet, the statist alternative is free entry followed by subsidization and no attempt at full cost. Justin Trudeau's government has prioritized family unification over skills-based immigration. So young immigrant families can bring their elderly parents to Canada – elderly parents who have not paid fully into the health care system but can draw upon its benefits just as any Canadian would.
Tory anarchism is not anti-migration. People should be free to visit any place they desire. Provided the people already living there welcome them. Suppose Montreal becomes a city-state. All property is private, and the residents consent to a board that runs the immigration bureau. You apply to join. They check your social media, work and friend references, language skills, credit score, or, more likely, a combination of these things and more. But in the end, they determine they don't want you and reject your application.
Is this unjust? Odds are, a place like Montreal would welcome tourists or backpackers. But nobody will accept you if your reputation on the identity world market is trash (you're known to lie, cheat, and steal). You'll be physically isolated to your little plot of land, or worse, a prison since you can't be trusted to keep the peace.
The "commons" cannot be owned by a "national community." Provincial and federal governments are too large, too bureaucratic, and too statist to regulate land use. Society is far too extensive, populous, and complex.
Too many incompatible cultures claim free speech on land financed by taxpayers but owned by nobody in an absolute sense. And the State can't keep up with the record influx—mass immigration results in increased taxes, deteriorating public property and services, and other economic problems.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau once said it doesn't matter where immigrants come from. But this is only true when private property rights are sacrosanct, and no commons exist. Trudeau wanted a libertarian socialist society where only the individual and the State existed. All religious and cultural differences had to go - including Indigenous. The individual was to be "liberated" from everything but the redistributionist State.
We can view Tory anarchism as a reaction to that. And as a callback to our traditional British liberties and traditions. For example, a belief in a balance of powers. Politically, we have the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; socially, we have individuals, communities, and nations.
Neo-liberalism blends the State with the nation and undermines as much community as it can. Tory anarchism balances all three pillars by eliminating the compulsorily-funded monopoly of violence.
Anarchism is the logical conclusion of Canadian Tory political philosophy. What separatism "Tories" from liberalism (modern or classic) is the belief that culture matters. It's not a question of immigrants with the "wrong" values. Plenty of born-and-bred Canadians have some of the most anti-liberty and anti-property views you could imagine. They believe Western civilization is synonymous with white supremacy.
But there's a reason people from all around the world want to immigrate to Canada, Europe, and the United States. Adopting Western culture has nothing to do with skin colour or ethnicity. It means accepting liberty and property as core values.
The End of Multiculturalism
The multiculturalism cult is starting to buckle. The long-term consequences of Pierre Elliot Trudeau's 1982 revolution have borne fruit. All one needs to do is walk down any major Canadian city in late 2023, and a "From the River to the Sea..." poster will be plastered somewhere.
This isn't only the result of mass immigration but the indoctrination of the native population through state schools and universities. Mass immigration coupled with liberal guilt-pride aids the State's march toward totalitarian social control. But being Canadian doesn't mean you have to choose between modern left or right. The nation's core foundation is liberty and property.
To reject liberty – a person's ownership of their body and free choice to create value in their lives – is to deny Canadians.
To reject property – a person's ownership of things and land and the rules governing such – is to disavow Canadian society.
From there, anyone can take any opinion they want.
The Tory anarchist differs from a modern liberal or leftist in recognizing individual, group, and cultural inequalities. There are mental and physical differences between people. Not every idea is equal. People specialize in specific things, and markets reward them unequally. This is not a bug; it's a feature. The only illegitimate gains are through the State.
Western culture does not cater specifically to the skills and biases of "white" males. The proof is all around us. Women and minorities succeed in spite of "anti-discrimination laws," not because of them. The principles of property and liberty are universal. Anyone can adopt them.
Instead of criticisms, consider what "white heterosexual male-dominated societies" created in terms of economic achievements and ethics. Yes, in history, they treated "others" as subhuman, but consider how the "others" treated their "others." And then consider how Western males treated other Western males (until 1914, which is another topic for another day).
The reason people want to immigrate here is because of the legacy of "white males." This legacy means adhering to the principles of liberty and property. These two principles lead to higher living standards by allowing for the accumulation of capital goods in a stable legal environment. This requires a certain homogeneity in everyone's thinking: liberty and property.
When the Founders united the various British North American provinces into Confederation, they were uniting former colonies of private property owners. Land was the key driver in the New World. The spirit of Canadian Confederation respects the “negative liberty” of Englishmen and their private property rights.
Canadian Confederation is solely within the classical liberal tradition of Western civilization.
The problem is the timing. The "Long" 19th century can also be called the "Wrong" 19th century for the consequences it would create. For Canadians, it was political centralization. Alarmed at the American experiment, its democratic elements and eventual civil war, the Canadian Founders, like Bismarck and the Germans overseas, opted for centralization.
Canadian Confederation erred by centralizing power in Ottawa. It was the popular liberal trend at the time, but this trend was mistaken. While it may have avoided civil war between the Canadian provinces or the separation of Quebec, the price of centralization had its own costs unforeseen by the Founders. But as that leads us back to 1914, I'll leave it there for now.
Cultural Relativism & Tory Culture
Canadians must reject cultural relativism. We should recognize the benefits of Western civilization. The professional victim class and the ruling elite deserve zero restitution. The Tory anarchist prefers co-existence through the division of labour. We do not wish to blend all civil societies into a "national community" other than our shared interests in national defence and our core values that respect each other's liberty and property.
It's also essential to remember that Western civilization is far from perfect. Socialism and democracy are Western ideals. So, while a Tory society rejects the values of a leftist one, one hopes we can peacefully accept each other's existence on this continent and possibly even trade and visit.
But as Canada is far from some anarchist ideal – and, in fact, already has large populations with anti-Western sentiments (immigrant or not) – realism is required.
In the above examples of social shaming and isolation, it may be, if one is openly anti-Semitic, for instance, that deportation and appropriation of land are in order. Not everyone already living here is ready to embrace the core aspects of Western culture, after all.
Alternative cultures must recognize the value placed on liberty and property. And everyone must acknowledge that this openness of the West is both its greatest strength and weakness. It is only in the West that contradictory organizations, like "Queers for Palestine," can exist.
The Tory lifestyle of social conservatism – family, faith, fraternity, and free markets – will flourish while the far-left communities wallow in poverty and social infighting. The neo-liberal corporations will, of course, have been structurally weakened to the point of bankruptcy by the bottom-up revolution.
Many former politicians, bankers, and bureaucrats may even see the inside of a prison cell.
Canada's Tory Revolution can be an example for the world. We were the first nation to step into the multicultural cult and go deep. As Justin Trudeau said, and it's the way the Laurentian Elite sees it, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”
The Laurentian Elite wants us to become a postnational State. But Tory anarchism offers a way out.
We offer a return to the principles that made Western civilization great. That made Canada True North Strong and Free. But with the recognition that the biggest threat to Canadian liberty and private property is the democratic State.