THERE (PROBABLY) WON'T BE A CANADIAN REVOLUTION. HERE'S WHY.

One fifth of Canadians are French, and the French were never really Canadian.

Hey Folks,

Recently, I posted something pretty negative for Canada Day.

I actually felt a bit guilty about posting this, because I know I’m being a big hater. I won’t lie - I have my gripes with Canada. But it’s my homeland. I definitely don’t hate my homeland. In fact, if we were to go by the dictionary definition, I’m kind of a patriot.

If you were to call me a Canadian patriot, however, I would object, because I don’t think that Canada should exist.

As an anarchist, I’m absolutely opposed to the Canadian state. And Canada wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the Canadian state. As I have pointed out many times before, Canada is not a sovereign country. It is a colony of the British Empire. The head of state of Canada is Charles III, an inbred British yokel who has never done or said a single intelligent thing in his lifetime.

(Correct me if I’m wrong!)

“Okay,” you might be thinking, “well, there just needs to be a revolution so that Canadians can throw out the colonial yoke and become an independent country.” After all, that’s what the U.S. and Mexico did.

There’s a big problem with that notion, though - one quarter to one fifth of Canadians don’t want to be Canadians.

It is no exaggeration to say that the French were historically oppressed in Canada, though that has changed in the past three or four decades. Anglo-Canadians quickly forgot about all the oppression, but the French definitely haven’t.

If you have spent sufficient time in Quebec, you will know what I am referring to. If you don’t know that the Quebecois were never enthusiastic participants in the Canadian project, you should. It’s not like they’ve been hiding their true feelings.

Case in point: Canada Day is not celebrated in Quebec. In Montreal, July 1st isn’t known as Canada Day. It’s known as “moving day”, and it seems to be state policy to prevent anyone from enjoying it.

Obviously, French people didn’t choose to be ruled by the British Crown. They are subjects of the Empire for one reason and one reason only - they were defeated militarily by the English.

For hundreds of years, the Quebecois have resisted assimilation. In many parts of Quebec, it is seen as a noble and patriotic thing to refuse to learn English, despite the obvious advantages of being bilingual. The Quebecois have made the French language the linchpin of their resistance to British rule. Say what you want about Quebecois nationalism, but it has been an effective strategy at resisting assimilation.

I could get into talking about the separatist movement, but what’s the point? If you’re Canadian, you already know what I’m talking about - the Quebecois do not want to be subjects of the British Empire. Never in the history of Canada has this not been true. They didn’t want to be ruled by the English in the 1700s, and they don’t want to be ruled by the English now. And who can blame them? Do you want to be ruled by the French?

If the essence of “the social contract” is the “consent of the governed”, then Canada has no social contract and is not a legitimate polity. Perhaps one could say that there is a social contract amongst English-speaking WASPs, but the social contract in Canada does not include the French. And that’s to say nothing about indigenous people or more recent immigrants.

Do you see where I’m going with this? After all, what is a revolution but an attempt to create a new social contract? Why should Quebeckers be forced to sign a social contract that includes the rest of Canada? Why should they be obliged to participate in the Canadian project? After all, they already control a vast geographic area which includes everything that a country needs.

CANADA NEEDS QUEBEC, BUT QUEBEC DOESN’T NEED CANADA

The fact of the matter is that Quebec has everything it needs - agriculture, clean water, natural resources, tidewater, transportation infrastructure, and so on. Quebec does not need Canada. But Canada needs Quebec for a very simple reason: geography.

If it weren’t for Quebec, Canada would not be a contiguous land mass. In order for someone to travel from Ontario to Newfoundland, Labrador, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia, they would need to cross a border twice - once to enter Quebec and once to leave it.

To be fair, there’s no real reason why this need be a deal-breaker. There are other countries which are non-contiguous. For example, Russia bases its Baltic fleet in Kaliningrad, which is bordered by Lithuania and Poland.

Another example would be Denmark, which controls Greenland. And let’s not forget about Hawaii and Alaska.

Federalists like to pretend that a non-contiguous country is unimaginable, but it’s not. But there’s no question that an independent Quebec would make conducting commerce more difficult for Canadian businesses. And that’s what the crux of the matter is. At the end of the day, Canada is still a resource colony. Do you really think that logging companies are going to want to pay taxes to two different national governments?

Plus, you have to realize that all goods being shipped to or from Ontario, which is the most densely populated part of Canada, would need to be shipped via the St. Lawrence seaway. In other words, it would need to go through Quebec.

If Quebec were fully independent, then all imports and exports to and from Ontario would need to either:

1. Go through Quebec

2. Go through the U.S.

3. Go through the West Coast

This gives Quebec a lot of bargaining power in Canadian politics. After all, the third option isn’t really a viable option if we’re talking about global markets - Canada’s West Coast is over 4000 kilometres from Toronto.

A CANADIAN REVOLUTION IS LESS LIKELY THAN A QUEBECOIS REVOLUTION… AND STANDS A LOWER CHANCE OF SUCCESS.

Simply put, a Canadian revolution is much less likely than a Quebecois revolution. It is easy enough for me to imagine a revolutionary working-class movement in the prairie provinces, but it is very difficult for me to imagine Albertans and Quebeckers working together towards a common goal. If they did collaborate to bring down the federal government, they would almost certainly then form separate polities. Given that this is probably what would happen if there was a Canadian revolution, I think it would be better to be prepared for this prospect ahead of time. There is no real reason why Canada should be saved. Indeed, there is no such thing as Canada. There have always been two Canadas - Upper Canada and Lower Canada. There is no reason why one of them should have sovereignty over the other.

LE QUEBEC AU QUEBECOIS

If the Quebecois had a revolution, I think it would almost certainly be strongly ethno-nationalistic. For all the obsession with racism in recent years, there are still many Quebecois who unapologetically believe in the slogan “Le Quebec au Quebecois”, perhaps best translated as “Quebec is for Quebeckers”.

If there was a Canadian revolutionary movement, it would require bilingual organizing. Quebecois people would obviously dominate French-language organizing, and Quebecois people would prioritize the issues that were most important to them. It would be extremely difficult for Albertans and Quebeckers to come to consensus on a shared political strategy, and honestly I think Quebeckers would be the greater political force. There’s a lot more Quebeckers than Albertans, they’re a lot better organized, and they’re honestly holding more cards. You gotta hand it to the Bloc - they were most certainly planning ahead. Quebec is a major exporter of electricity, for instance. All those hydro dams are going to come in handy down the line. Just saying.

Speaking as an anarchist, there is no reason why the interests of Albertans and Quebeckers need be at odds. After all, anarchists favour more local forms of decision-making. Alberta and Quebec are separated by thousands of kilometres. There isn’t a good reason why the two movements would need to be in agreement on everything. But if the goal were to “fix Canada”, which is to say “reform the Canadian state”, you would certainly have competing visions for what that means. Quebeckers would never carry a revolution through to its conclusion without seeking to establish its long-cherished dream of having their own sovereign country. And that makes a Canadian revolution seem less likely than a revolution in the U.S. or in France.

The question then becomes: how should anarchists relate to social movements which are strongly nationalistic?

That’s a loaded question, but I’m confident saying this: There is a big difference between “Nationalism From Above” and “Nationalism From Below”.

Nationalism From Above is the type of nationalism that European colonists had during the Conquista. It is closely associated with white supremacy, militarism, and a sense of cultural superiority over “savages”, which often justified itself in religious terms.

But what about Mexican nationalism? Mexican nationalism is pride in a mestizo identity, and can be seen as a rejection of the white supremacy of the Spaniards. Furthermore, Mexican identity involves a very colourful syncretism of Catholicism and pre-Hispanic beliefs. During the Mexican Revolution, which was started by anarchists, nationalism was was an ideology of resistance. This is what I’ll call “Nationalism From Below”.

Whereas Nationalism From Above is often characterized by pride in a privileged social status, Nationalism From Below is characterized by resistance to assimilation.

The two actually are quite different. I know that nationalism is a dirty word for anarchists, but I feel we should examine it. Is nationalism always bad? Not really. After all, there is such a thing as Acadian nationalism, but as far as I’m aware, it has never been a problem for anyone else in the entire universe. Maybe Nationalism From Below isn’t all bad.

Also, can anyone really say that the American Indian Movement wasn’t nationalistic?

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR CANADA?

So what does the future hold for Canada? I’m really not sure. After all, we are in the midst of a global conflict between the Zionist-Anglo-American World Empire and the upstart BRICS alliance. It’s no exaggeration to say that Canada will face some serious threats to its “sovereignty” in the years to come.

For example, there is the fact that Arctic sea ice is melting, which means that Arctic maritime shipping routes are becoming more commercially viable. Russia has an entire fleet of nuclear-powered ice-breakers, and is well-positioned to take advantage of the Northwest Passage.

To make matters worse, China wants in on the action. Not only have they joined the Arctic Council as a “near-Arctic nation”, they have also built at least two nuclear-powers ice-breakers using Russian technology. Neither the U.S. nor Canada has any such vessels.

The U.S. is No Match for Russia when it comes to Arctic Warfare

In terms of Arctic capabilities, Russia is so dominant that I assume it’s only a matter of time before they get their way. Nor do I think Canada should try to stop other countries from sending ships across the ocean. The only legitimate intervention I can imagine would have to do with preventing environmental disasters, which is a real concern. But it’s not like the Canadian government is good at protecting the environment. Remember Mount Polley?

All this makes it seem likely to me that the meaning of “Canadian sovereignty” will change drastically between now and the end of WWIII. I’d say it’s strongly probable. Indeed, I personally feel that Stephen Harper sold Canada to China when he signed the Foreign Investment Protection Act, a trade deal which everyone seems to have forgotten about. But that’s a subject for another day.

Has the CCP Taken Over Canada?

The fact of the matter is that Canada is part of the Anglo-American Empire. It is basically a U.S. military protectorate, and it is key supporter of the Zionist project. And if you hadn’t noticed, the Israeli regime is on its last legs.

Furthermore, the Trudeau regime has managed to make enemies of powerful geopolitical actors, such as China, India, and even the Philippines.

Now, to be fair, geopolitics is complex. No one knows how the cookie is going to crumble. But I’m confident of this much — the winds are not blowing in Canada’s favour.

Trudeau has managed to rack up an insane amount of debt. Unbeknownst to most Canadians, Canada has to pay interest to a foreign bank on all of the money it borrows - the Bank of International Settlements. And given how much money Canada owes at this point, Canada no longer stands a snowball’s chance in hell of repaying the money it owes. This means that globalist bankers basically now have Canada by the balls.

THE ONLY SOLUTION IS REVOLUTION, BUT…

So, I think the situation is basically this - the only solution to Canada’s problems is revolution, but I don’t actually think that the ideal strategy would be to organize on a national basis. I think that it would be preferable for different groups of Canadian revolutionaries to organize on a more local basis.

Due to geographic, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural factors, I think that Quebecois people would be well-advised to seek to pursue its own interests by revolting against Ottawa’s illegitimate rule and seeking to institute more local forms of political decision-making. I think it would be a mistake for Quebeckers to intervene to “save Canada” through the types of aggressive anti-corruption measures that would be necessary to restore Canada to the type of “liberal democracy” we had thirty years ago. If you ask me, to even attempt to do that would be a fool’s errand. The hour is far too late for such interventions. Quebeckers would be much better-advised to invest energy in creating more regional autonomy. And like it or not, this would necessarily involve organizing alongside nationalists, many of whom are, at the end of the day, ethno-nationalists.

As an anarchist, I am an anti-nationalist, and I hope that Quebeckers continue on the trajectory that they have been on in the last 30 years vis-a-vis the movement for truth and reconciliation. The Quebecois have acknowledged their history of colonization and have taken many steps towards improving relations with indigenous people. The fact is that Quebeckers have a history in which they were oppressed… but they were also oppressors. French colonial administrators were just as bad as the English ones. If one considers how few reserves there are in the most densely-populated parts of Quebec, or the fact that the Huron-Wendat are nearly extinct, or the fact that the Mi’kmaq were educated in English to keep them apart from the French, it is clear that Quebeckers have skeletons in their closet that they can’t blame on the English.

It’s also worth pointing out that French colonists took indigenous wives much more often than English settlers did. Although Quebec’s history of colonialism and racism can’t and shouldn’t be excused, I am hopeful that Quebecois attitudes towards indigenous people have changed forever. After all, they are part indigenous. If Quebeckers have begun to include their indigenous heritage in their national mythos, it stands to reason that the treatment of indigenous people in an independent Quebec would be better than it was under historic colonial rule.

Speaking as an Anglo-Canadian, I personally believe that this racial mixing is significant, even if it was a long time ago. This is perhaps best evidenced by the existence of the Acadians in the Maritimes. It is clear to my mind that the Acadian culture is a mixture of French and Mi’kmaq cultures. And personally, I love Acadian culture. I think that the Acadians are one of the most anarchistic groups of white people on Turte Island. Certain ethnic groups, including the Maya, Haudenosaunee, and Anishnaabe, are commonly described as “culturally anarchist”. I would say that the Acadians qualify, and the Quebecois really aren’t that far off. After all, a deep-seated cultural antipathy to state power makes intuitive sense when you’re being ruled by a foreign monarch.

I am not the only one to notice this. In recent years, there has been discussion about whether or not Acadians qualify as Metis. I personally don’t think they should identify that way, as they already have an identity - Acadian. If Acadians started trying to access government funds set aside for Metis people, for instance, I wouldn’t support that. But are the Acadians culturally distinct from other Euro-Canadians? Heck yes, they are! They’re very distinct. I’ll leave it up to the Acadians whether or not they agree with me, but to me the Acadians are culturally anarchistic. And I’m kind of hoping that the Quebecois can discover that side of themselves. After all, what’s the difference between the Quebecois and Acadians? Obviously, they speak very different dialects, but other than that, they’re pretty similar.

Some people have also taken the Quebeckers=indigenous argument too far. Some years back, I remember Quebecois anarchists being annoyed that a film called Quebekoisie over-stated the case. It must be said that Quebec does a long track record of racism towards indigenous people, so it’s understandable that some people feel that it’s disingenuous for Quebeckers to begin identifying as indigenous. But the fact remains that all ethnic Quebeckers have some indigenous blood.

NO, THE QUEBECOIS AREN’T INDIGENOUS, BUT…

My point is this: after hundreds of years in Quebec, they have become people of Turtle Island. And they clearly love their homeland more than most Anglo-Canadians do. They love the forests and wildlife and lakes and mushrooms more than WASPs do. They have preserved their folk traditions better than WASPs have. They’re more proud of who they are than WASPs are.

I’ve been around Quebecois people and WASPs my whole life. I’m not big on stereotypes, but I think I’m safe in saying that the relationship of Quebecois people to the territory they inhabit is significantly qualitatively different than that of Anglo-Canadians. If the word “indigenous” is defined by relationship to territory, both Acadians and Quebecois are more indigenous than WASPs are.

QUEBECKERS ARE MORE PATRIOTIC THAN CANADIANS ARE… AND THAT’S NOT A BAD THING.

Simply put, Quebeckers are more patriotic than Euro-Canadians are. And that’s not a bad thing. When we’re talking about a revolution, which would require many people to take great risks on behalf of something they believe in, love of homeland is most definitely a good thing. I’m sure any competent historian could come up with many examples of times of turmoil in which patriotism ultimately meant the difference between victory and defeat.

Unfortunately, patriotism does come packaged with nationalism, even ethno-nationalism, but I think that Quebeckers may well fare better than the rest of Canada for the simple reason that Quebecois love their homeland more than Anglo-Canadians do.

What do you think? Am I right? Am I romanticizing Quebecois culture? Do you think there will be a Canadian revolution? Are you expecting to see a resurgence of Quebecois separatism/sovereigntism? How do you feel about the relationship between Quebecois people and indigenous Turtle Islanders? What about the relationship between patriotism and nationalism? Should anarchists be patriotic?

We want to hear from you!

Vive le Quebec Libre!

Crow Qu’appelle