Despite what its current postmodernist secular society would lead one to believe, Canada in fact has a rich heritage of Christianity, Traditionalism, and Monarchism.

   Canada’s culture goes back long before Confederation and before the term ‘Canada’ even existed. It begins with the missionaries and settlers of the Kingdom of France, who helped to convert the Native Indians to Christianity and created New France which today is known as Québec. This settlement was invariably tied with the sacred nature of both monarchy and the church in France; so much so that originally only Christians (specifically of the Roman Catholic variety), were allowed to settle there. When the British won the French and Indian war, New France became part of British North America as the Province of Canada, but was allowed to keep its language, law, land claims, customs, and religion. This so won over the upper echelons of society in Québec (both the aristocrats and the clerics) that when the American Revolutionary War broke out the leadership in Québec was explicit in denouncing it. We also know that Bishop Jean-Olivier Briand threatened to cut off from the sacraments anyone who supported the republican rebels and even excommunicated the famous Father John Carroll of Baltimore, Maryland for his support of the revolution. Yes, believe it or not, originally, French Canada was not only loyal to the British Crown but VERY loyal, and it was the Church that was most loyal. One could say that the Ancienne Regime of the Kingdom of France survived in Québec and rather than succumbing to republican revolution, was simply placed under the protection of another Monarchy. You may take that statement or leave it, but the fact remains that the rulers changed - the traditional political system, culture, and religion did not.

   In the American War of Independence, most of the more serious Christians obeyed the Biblical commands of loyalty to Monarchy, and fought for the British, particularly those Christians of the Anglican variety, as they also had a second oath of loyalty to uphold since their King, George III, was also leader of their Church. These loyalists, along with many of the American Indians and escaped slaves, the majority of which also fought for the British, fled to Upper Canada (what would become Ontario) and settled there, bringing Christianity and Monarchism to lands that had been left mostly untouched by the French.

   The War of 1812 is often overlooked when it comes to Canada’s Christian Monarchist identity, but Canadians today should remember just what it was their forefathers were fighting for and what they were fighting against. Remember, this was not so simple as a foreign invasion as we would see it today since, for most of those involved, it was the same sort of people on each side. The biggest difference between the opposing forces was their form of government, monarchy versus republic, and the different values the two represented. This was something not lost on the participants at the time. Americans, for example, so believed that republicanism meant liberty and monarchy meant tyranny that their whole invasion of Canada was based on the belief that the oppressed, downtrodden Canadians would welcome them with open arms and rejoice at being delivered by the benevolent republic to the south. On the other side, Major General Sir Isaac Brock, who gave his life defeating the U.S. attack told his relatively small army that, “We may teach the enemy this lesson: A country defended by free men devoted to the cause of their king and constitution can never be conquered…” Make no mistake about it, the people of Canada at the time knew they were in a fight of monarchy against republicanism and had no doubt that their constitutional monarchy was greatly preferable to the republicanism of the States.

   Canada’s Christian identity also played a large, though not as visible part in the war. In addition to the usual biblical commands of loyalty to monarchy, the French Canadians, the majority of whom were Catholic, fought gallantly to remain under the British because it was the British who allowed them the freedom to retain their religion. Among the British Christians, one could easily imagine how they viewed the rebel colonists for committing the sin of treachery by betraying their Oath to King, Country, and in the case of the Anglicans, Church. Any English Catholics who escaped with the Loyalists would also have had to share their views on Church loyalty to Monarchy, what with how the orders of the Catholic Bishops in Québec on remaining loyal to the crown had to apply to the Catholics in the 13 Colonies as well.

   Before the American Revolution Canada had been mostly French Canada, but the exiled American loyalists had laid the foundation for English-speaking Canada and the victory of Canadian troops against massive American armies brought about a new sense of Canadian pride and national identity. This identity was best described as how English Canadians thought of themselves as being “Canadian first, and British second”. We were British not because of some vague citizenship papers, but because our nature itself was British at its core. Our Culture was British, we spoke the same language as the British, we were governed according to British laws, and British blood ran through our veins. This whole idea of being British was based on uniting, not dividing, the lands of the Empire. From the beginning, British were an amalgamation of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, and even some French. It tied these cultures together and showed a united culture that was greater than the sum of its parts. That is why one could be born in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or even India and still be called British while at the same time remaining one’s own nationality as well.

   When Confederation finally occurred in 1867, Canada was officially founded not as a secular, liberal democracy, but as a self-governing realm within the wider British Empire and named the Dominion of Canada after a verse in the Holy Bible, Psalms 72:8 “He shall have Dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the Earth”. Today, Canada has sadly forgotten its Christian Monarchical heritage, in favour of secular democracy, and downplayed its British (and French) nature in favour of a new, artificial nationalism. We've even seemed to take out the 'Dominion' from Canada's name and national holiday which are simply called 'Canada', and 'Canada Day' with no mention of what kind of country we are or what it actually means to be Canadian, apart from waving Maple leaves. It did not use to be this way; being Canadian used to mean something more real than a citizenship document or waving a politically correct flag. I hope that one day our true identity will be restored, but until then I shall say God save our King and Heaven bless, the Maple Leaf forever!

Hardly a crushing burden by any stretch of the imagination. Although not much talked about today, at the time, one of the acts considered most outrageous was the Quebec Act. It is not much talked about today because this was an act which granted freedom of religion to the Catholics of Canada, something which most Americans wrongly believed did not come about until the birth of the United States. The colonists were also none too happy about King George III restricting the colonial population to the colonies on the coast and reserving the territory to the west for the Native American tribes. Considering how tiny the population of the thirteen colonies was at the time, this could hardly be considered outrageous. There was hardly a dire need for “living space” when most of the existing colonies were largely empty wilderness.

Today, many Québecois believe that English culture (and by proxy, monarchism) has always been their enemy. With respect to our friends in Québec, that is not true at all.

In fact, it was Anglo-Colonialism that saved French culture in Québec from suffering the same fate as that of Louisiana in the the USA, where today the French language is rarely spoken (even the so called ‘French Quarter’ doesn’t speak it exclusively) and survives in little more than old names for places.

Now, keep in mind, this is coming from someone who sympathized with the French in the French & Indian War, someone who likes the French, likes France, and who liked the culture of Québec back in the days when they actually had one. But, I am fed up to the teeth with this constant, childish, whining and name-calling.

Listen up, to any separatists: *You are not mistreated!* You are certainly not suffering from any political oppression. You live in a monarchy and can openly call for a republic and can actually become a republic if a majority so desires it. That means you already have more freedom than the citizens of the French Republic whose constitution forbids any change in favor of a monarchy. You have every bit as much freedom as any people in any modern, western country. In fact, you have a better deal than many since the rest of Canada has bent over backwards in their slavish effort to placate you. Finally, as painful as it is to admit, you cannot even claim to be fighting to preserve the Québec culture and heritage; you pretty much destroyed that all on your own with no help from the rest of Canada. The conservative, Catholic, old French culture and traditions of Québec have been all but wiped out by the modern secularist, socialist, republican crowd who have absolutely nothing in common with the past generations of Québec. The Québec of old is dead. It is dead, and it was leftist revolutionaries like you who killed it!

Now that I have your attention,  allow me to explain things more thoroughly.

Before the Counterculture movement and “Quiet Revolution” of the 1960s, Québec’s culture was once the most Reactionary, Traditionalist, devoutly Catholic place in North America. To understand this, one must understand that the France who founded New France, built Montreal, established the Fur Trade, and intermingled with the Aboriginals -creating the Métis- is a very different France than what we call France today. In fact, the two are so different, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

There are those who think that the republic and the whole “culture” of the revolution has been around so long that there is no separating France from it; they are one and the same. Not true. There was an older France, a more noble and sacred France that has virtually nothing, whatever, to do with the strutting poseurs who occupy the halls of Paris today. I think about those (quite attractive) propaganda posters featuring the image of St Joan of Arc urging people to give to help the war effort. Very nice, very inspiring but the painful truth is that St Joan of Arc would not even recognize France today or even then. That was a different France. That was the France of Clovis, Charlemagne, St Louis and Versailles; not the France of guillotines, multiculturalism and moral relativism.

The France which built the foundations of modern day Québec was not an atheistic republic or a secular democracy. It was an officially Christian Absolute Monarchy where the line of Kings was sacred and anointed by God, ever since King Clovis I of the Franks. It was and had been so devoutly faithful for so long, it was called 'The Eldest Daughter of the Church'. Its people were devout Catholics, loyal monarchists, and were the same type of people who would die fighting against democratic tyranny in the Counterrevolutionary, royalist rebellion known as the War in the Vendée.

New France was -if anything- even more Catholic and absolutist than the French homeland, because unlike Old France which had some questionably loyal Protestant minorities in the form of the Huguenots, in New France only loyal, devout Catholic subjects of the French King were allowed to settle there. In truth, the French “mission of civilization” was often just that and in the best sense of the term. Many parts of the world owe a great deal to La Belle France.

If I have still not made clear how monarchist Québec's foundations are, allow me to be as overt as possible. The people of the Old France, who built New France were monarchist. They were monarchist by principle and believed in monarchy in general as the right form of government. It is not even so pertinent that that they believed monarchy is “better” in as much as they believed it to be “right” whether it is better or not. For example, even if one could point to a monarchy in which the people had to live very modest lives compared to a republic in which they live much more comfortably, they would still say the monarchy is better because it is not the duty of the sovereign or state to make your life easier and because even in the poor monarchy as opposed to the prosperous republic, things are in the proper order. It is a little hard for me to put into words but the land is in harmony with Heaven, things are as they should be, as both God and nature intended. It is also a fact that their measuring rods for judging what constitutes success or failure are not the same as those used by most, thoroughly modern, people. The willingness of the State to pay people not to work, to require facilities for transvestites or the availability of free birth control pills are not their standards for what constitutes “greatness” or a government truly serving the needs of the people.

I do not know how much more clear I can make this. They were monarchist, just as I am. They viewed monarchy as an absolute good, as the ideal way for things to be ordered. It is the polar opposite of those (and there are many) who say, “Well, the French Revolution was rather messy and the Reign of Terror was pretty horrible but, hey, at least they got rid of the monarchy so things were improving.” To these people, republicanism is an absolute good in and of itself. Regardless of all else, anything that gets rid of monarchy and advances republicanism they view as a good thing whereas I take the opinion of our ancestors and believe that monarchism is an absolute good and regardless of all else, anything that gets rid of a republic and advances monarchy is a good thing.

In the same way that most republicans view monarchy as inherently bad, even if it is an extremely successful monarchy or even if the monarch has virtually no power at all, the people of the Eldest Daughter of the Church would view republics as inherently bad no matter how good their economy is or seems to be, no matter how licentious they allow their populations to be. Even under the best of circumstances, any republic, by its very nature, suffers from lacking a monarch, lacking that vital link to history, tradition and religion. They may have disapproved of the polices of Islamic absolute monarchies today such as Saudi Arabia, but they would not have even considered the notion of suggesting a republic as the alternative. In the same way, even the most nominal, ceremonial monarchies (Sweden being the usual example), they would still support as well as preferable to an outright republic. Why? Because, to quote Tran Cao Van, “The sky is still there! So is the earth and the dynasty!”

I apologize for how lengthy that explanation must be, but it is necessary if we are to understand Québec from the  perspective of the people who actually created it, rather than from the perspective of the people who destroyed it.

The origins of French Canada began for the most part with the reign of King Francis I who, in 1523, encouraged the Italian explorer Giovanni da Verrazzano to explore the area between Florida and Newfoundland in the hope of finding a passage to the Pacific. It was also King Francis I who, in 1534, commissioned the intrepid Jacques Cartier to undertake a similar mission and it was he who claimed the land he called “Canada” (which Verrazzano had dubbed “New France”) for King Francis I. This was the beginning of French Canada or Québec as we know it today.

In 1608, Samuel De Champlain founded Québec and, under the great King Louis XIV, the explorer La Salle claimed the Mississippi River valley for France, naming the area Louisiana after his King and Queen and also established a French fort on the coast of Texas (ensuring that the Fleur-de-lis still flies over the Lone Star State).

New France was so intertwined with monarchy that King Louis XIV personally sponsored 800 young women who immigrated to New France between 1663 and 1673 to marry and start families, addressing the serious imbalance of the sexes that existed there at the time. The "Daughters of the King," or Filles du roi, were given a dowry and support for their passage and settlement, and they played a significant role in establishing the French presence in North America, with many French Canadians today being their descendants. 

Even after no longer being part of the French colonial Empire, being under the protection of Britain’s Monarchy spared New France from the horrors of the French Revolution and allowed its Conservative, traditionalist Catholic culture to not only survive, but to continue to thrive long after that same culture in old France was wiped out by revolutionary republicanism.

Thanks to the benevolent rule of the British, French Canada was spared the horrors of the French Revolution and actually managed to preserve genuine French culture longer than France itself did! What few people may realize is the current flag of the Republic of France is completely antithetical to the France that created French Canada. Even today, this pre-revolutionary French spirit is preserved by Québec retaining the fleur-de-lys— unlike French citizens after the French Revolution, the people of French Canada were not required to remove the fleur-de-lys from churches, bells or decorations, and as such even today Québec's most recognizable emblem remains the royalist, monarchist, counterrevolutionary symbol that was associated with Monarchy in France and the world for centuries!  

The defining moment for Québec can be traced back to the French and Indian War and the conflict between the (later rebel) Settlers in the 13 Colonies and the French Settlers in New France after it became part of British North America as the Province of Québec (encompassing parts of what would later become the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada).

When the Treaty of Paris was signed, ending the French and Indian War, Bishop Jean-Olivier Briand had a Te Deum sung in thanks for the peace and he praised British General Murray for his fairness and humanity. It was partly thanks to his appeals to London that the rights of Catholics in Canada were respected by the British Crown.

When Britain recognized the rights of the French Canadians and allowed religious freedom it encouraged the Catholic leadership in Québec and reassured them that making peace with the Crown had been correct. When rebellion broke out in the 13 colonies there was immediately talk of spreading the war to Canada and encouraging the French Canadians to take up arms again against the British. However, Bishop Briand saw this as extremely dangerous. The Protestant leaders in the 13 colonies (whose forefathers had left Britain because the Church of England was *too Catholic*) had a reputation for being very intolerant of Catholicism whereas the British had recognized their rights to maintain their religion and their civil laws. Embracing the revolution was the last thing Bishop Briand wanted. One of the gripes of the Rebel colonists in the American Revolution was anger in Puritan New England over the Crown granting civil rights to Catholics in Canada. This is not often discussed as it tends to appear quite hypocritical in light of later American claims of being driven by a desire for freedom of religion (which there already was more of in North America than in Great Britain and certainly Ireland).

One of the things I have always admired about the British Empire was their ability to learn from their own mistakes. Québec is a good example of this. In the beginning, British rule was rather harsh but they realized that this was a recipe for disaster and so they began to take a different course, particularly under General Sir Guy Carleton (who not many people know was the last commander-in-chief of the British forces in the Revolutionary War). The French language was protected, French law allowed and used, French land claims were upheld and the Roman Catholic Church was given complete freedom. This so won over the upper echelons of society in Québec (both the aristocrats and the clerics) that when the American Revolutionary War broke out the leadership in Québec  was explicit in denouncing it.

Bishop Briand worked in cooperation with Sir Guy Carleton, Governor-General of Canada, to discourage rebellion and encourage loyalty amongst the French Canadian population. The good Bishop made it clear that rebellion against the Crown of Britain would be the same as rebellion against God. He warned all French Canadians to stay away from the troublemakers and further warned that any who took up arms against King George would be forbidden access to the sacraments, even last rites. He also addressed these issues to the tiny Catholic population in the 13 colonies south of Canada. Today many American Catholics celebrate the memory of the pro-revolutionary priest Father John Carroll of Baltimore. What many do not know is that when Father Carroll tried to encourage French Canadians to join the rebellion Bishop Briand formally excommunicated him. Yes, believe it or not, originally, Québec was not only loyal to the British Crown but VERY loyal.

One need only look to how Catholics were mistreated by the American Revolutionaries, by institutional power in the American republic, and later by the KKK -along with how quickly and thoroughly the French language disappeared from everyday use in the Louisiana territory- to realize how lucky Québec was.

Occasionally, there would be conflicts that arose such as the debate over forced Conscription in WWI. However, even there, one of the things that few people realize is that the reason behind it wasn’t disloyalty -per se- but rather a (quite logical and correct) belief that Canada itself was not threatened at all in WWI and would not gain anything by a British and Allied Victory, nor lose anything by a Central Powers Victory. (In fact, history has shown us that the world as a whole would’ve been better off if the Central Powers had won WWI, because without the Treaty of Versailles pinning all the blame on Germany and the ensuing political chaos that came with the downfall of the German Monarchy, Hitler never could have rose to power and committed you-know-what).

French Canadian culture is meant to be more than just a language. The French in France speak the same language as the French in Québec (dialect aside), yet their modern day culture is still different from that of Québec . This is because language and culture -though related- are not the same thing. If one is going to talk about fighting to preserve the Québec culture and heritage; one should know that Québec all but destroyed that all on its own with no help from the rest of Canada. The conservative, Catholic, old French culture and traditions of Québec have been all but wiped out by the modern secularist, socialist, republican crowd who have absolutely nothing in common with the past generations of Québec.

The true French culture thrived well into the 20th century, only disappearing because the new secularist, socialist, republican government of Québec in the 1960s foisted a top-down “revolution” by encouraging Québec’s citizens to give up their traditional values and foster a new artificial secular “culture” with the only recognizable value being the French language. This was not unique to Québec either, as it was merely one subset of the "Counterculture" movement of the 1960s which also impacted Ontario, the rest of Canada, and the world.  This counterculture movement  of modernity has done far more damage to traditional cultures around the world than true Colonialism ever did!

Québec today is but a hollow shell of its former self. Once New France, once the most reactionary bastion of traditional authority, aristocracy, and Absolutism in North America; it now has a government that is against even the very notion of traditional authority (monarchy).

Québec, once so devoutly Catholic that its most popular flag featured the Sacred Heart of Jesus, is now the most secular, irreligious place in Canada, with the fastest growing religion in it now being Islam.

The Catholic Church that built Québec -once so respected- is now so disrespected that not only are its buildings emptying and closing down, the Québecois French dialect now has its own system of cuss words based entirely on blaspheming the holy objects of the Mass! Québec culture, once so focused on the sacred, now is one of the most profane in Canada, with most other provinces knowing Québecois for the stereotype of their workers being impolite, slovenly, gutter mouths! (And while I agree it’s a harmful stereotype, it didn’t come from nowhere!)

Québec culture, once focused on marrying, having large families and preserving its heritage, now has more abortions and fewer families than ever before, with the (non-French) immigrant population growing faster than the French population. Whether you believe it or not, these changes matter even by the left's own standards.

To see the evidence for this, you need look no further than the 1980 and 1995 Québec sovereignty referendums, in which non-French immigrants (allophones) voted overwhelmingly against separation, with a margin of approximately 95% in the 1995 vote. Their votes were a critical factor in the narrow "No" victory (50.58% to 49.42%) in 1995.

The premier of Québec at the time, Jacques Parizeau, (who of course supported secession) caused some controversy when, in his concession speech, he attributed the loss to, “l’argent et des votes ethniques” (“money and ethnic votes”). He later apologized and many accused him of being drunk. However, as Canadian commentator Mark Steyn would later pointed out, Parizeau was not wrong as the non-ethnically French population of Québec did vote to remain in Canada rather than in favor of an independent Québec.  

The next premier of Québec, Lucien Bouchard, who also favored secession, caused similar outrage by stating rather gloomily just before the referendum that the decline of the French-Canadian birthrate could harm their cause. “We’re one of the white races that has the fewest children”, he said and, indeed, French-Canadian women have just about the lowest birth rate of any Japhetic women anywhere. In other words, if French-Canadian women had still been having as many children as they had been even in the 1950’s or if the non-French ethnic minorities were not so numerous, the secessionists would have won and Québec would today be an independent republic. Mr. Bouchard also, years later and more carefully, warned again about the declining numbers of the French-Canadian population. So, again, birth rates matter and immigration matters, these things have very real political consequences. They are not, however, of equal significance because while birth rates can always be changed, demographics cannot. Once one population is replaced by another, it cannot be brought back. No one likes to deport people these days and, even if they did, once a population gains sufficient numbers they will not allow themselves to be deported.

None of this should come as a surprise. It makes perfect sense that ethnic minorities in Québec should wish to remain a part of multicultural Canada rather than be part of a uni-cultural French-Canadian nation-state. What reason does a Haitian have to be outraged over the defeat at the Plains of Abraham? Why should an Arab wish to preserve the Catholic culture of the Jesuit missionaries? Is there any objective reason why a family from China should prefer the French language to the English one? There is none. In fact, the Chinese family may wonder why the French language is given preference over their own Mandarin in Canada when English-speakers outnumber them both. In British Columbia, the Chinese-Canadians outnumber the French-Canadians after all. Again, in the two cases, the outcome was good for the cause of traditional authority but ‘sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’. This shows how demographics can and do affect the politics of a given place and the results will not always be the same.

No matter how much we pretend they don’t, populations matter. Québec’s culture has in most areas died already, and its distinctive language and dialect will undoubtedly die if mass immigration and births continue at the current rate. Unless something is done to reverse these trends, it is only a matter of time.


Sadly, Québec -though holding out the longest, to their credit- has bought into the same revolutionary poison which the British Crown once spared it from. The same deadly ideology which  killed a French Kingdom that had lasted over 1000 years and yet has had  four failed republics in less than 200 years!

The problem arises from equality being taken to its logical conclusion. To say that we are all equal is to say that we are all, essentially, the same and thus we are all interchangeable. If anyone can be the leader of France, not exclusively the King and his legitimate heirs of the Capet dynasty, why not someone who is not French at all? If everyone is the same, if everyone is equal, then what is the valid reason for restricting who is able to choose the President of France to only French voters? This then coincides with the revolutionary value of “brotherhood”. If all men (and women and these days the inexplicable) are equal and all men are “brothers” then why should there be any distinction between a Gallic citizen of France and an immigrant from Algeria or Senegal or Cambodia? This is the logical conclusion. It did not begin that way but the seeds were clearly there. After all, it was in the name of “liberty, equality and brotherhood” that the French revolutionaries set out to liberate their “brothers” from the “oppression” of their princes in The Netherlands, Belgium, the German and the Italian states. It is the reason why Vladimir Lenin, upon arriving back home in Russia from exile, was greeted by cheering crowds of his Bolshevik supporters with bands playing the French national anthem.

It is the poison of the French Revolution that prevents France and Québec from dealing with their current crises, and no solution will be a viable one in the long-term until the legacy of the Revolution is dealt with. The traditional Kingdom of France would never have had such difficulties. The Kingdom of France was not narrow or bigoted in its views, it had queen-consorts who were Spanish, Italian and Austrian and it, while remaining a Catholic kingdom, often made common cause with non-Catholic powers such as a fairly long-standing alliance with the preeminent Islamic power of the past in the Turkish Ottoman Empire. However, the Kingdom of France also had a very healthy and very specific and positive understanding of itself based on faith, history and blood. Today, anyone from anywhere can come to France or Québec, take a citizenship oath after being tested on how well they have learned the values of the Revolution, and become “French”. This would have been so laughably absurd to the people of the old Kingdom of France that I doubt they would be able to even take it seriously as a possibility.

Today, because of “equality” and “brotherhood” in particular, anyone from anywhere can by mere means of paperwork become “French”. It is all a matter of simply learning the language, passing a test and professing belief in the “values” of the French Revolution. In the past, France was more than that, was something more real than that. To be French was to be a descendant of the Gauls and Franks, to be the inheritors of the legacy of King Clovis, St Denis, Charles Martel and St Joan of Arc. France was the “Eldest Daughter of the Church” ruled over by a sacred royal line that was unique. It sent forces throughout Europe and later throughout the world to defend its religion and advance its own civilization. They were, as King Louis XVI said, a nation with ‘one King, one law and one faith’ that had a strong sense of themselves, who they were and what they were about.

The Kingdom of France had a specific ancestry, it had its own founding steeped in a sacred tradition that was unique from other peoples. Today we see the result of trying to hold together a country based on nothing more than vague, ideological slogans. If one attempts to hold to these slogans, there is no way one can counter the current crisis. If all men are equal and all men are brothers, then there is no valid reason why someone from Tunisia, Tanzania or Thailand cannot be considered “French” though none seem able to explain why the reverse is never held to be true (I would argue that Tunisians, Tanzanians and Thais have more common sense on such issues than French people who have been brainwashed by the devotees of the Revolution). And the most infuriating thing about this is that the French themselves quickly realized their mistake and tried to undo the damage only to be thwarted at every turn, sometimes, I am sad to say, by the royalists themselves who hated their royalist rivals more than they hated the revolutionary republic.

The French Revolution, in case anyone has forgotten or was never told, was not a result of the democratically expressed will of a majority of the French people. Large sections of rural France, large sections of south and western France actively opposed the Revolution and many more people were terrorized into tacit support or at least passivity by the Reign of Terror which the revolutionaries launched against all who opposed them. The French Revolution was not a triumph of the majority but the beginning of a sad history of the Parisian mob being allowed to bring down governments and ruin things for the rest of the country. After the First Republic led to the First Empire it was destroyed and the Kingdom of France was restored. However, once again, the Parisian mob brought down the monarchy and France had the short-lived Second Republic which mutated into the Second Empire. That was destroyed, not by the combined armies of Europe but by the Kingdom of Prussia and pals at which point a full restoration of the monarchy was prevented ostensibly because of an inability by the royal heir to compromise on the French flag. Divisions among the royalists allowed the Third Republic to take hold but in 1940 it died a largely unlamented death at the hands of Nazi Germany. It was succeeded by the “State of France” which, while not a restoration of the monarchy, was at least somewhat of a renunciation of the French Revolution. However, the ties it necessarily had to have with Nazi Germany in order to simply exist meant that when the war ended in defeat for the Axis Powers, the State of France was demolished and its memory forever tainted by the odium of collaboration with the hated conquerors.

Thus followed the Fourth French Republic which quickly failed to pass muster and so today France is on its Fifth Republic. Obviously, it should be considered no accident that France could have a single monarchy for a thousand years but has gone through five different versions of the republic in less than two centuries. The revolutionary republic clearly does not work, every incarnation of it has ultimately failed and yet, because of the persistence of this zealous devotion to the image of “The Revolution” the French keep being dragged back to it to try and try again. Most of the leaders who have stepped forward to save France in times of disaster knew or at least suspected such from Napoleon to Marshal MacMahon to Marshal Petain to General DeGaulle, one was a royalist, two had at least some royalist sympathies and the other promoted himself to monarchial status on his own.

The bottom line is that, as is often the case with such matters, the Kingdom of France, and French Canada was a natural, organic, living thing. It was a country, a nation, a people with a unique history and culture. The revolutionary republic is an artificial contrivance that tries to replace history and ancestry with ideological slogans. And what is the result? The result is that the church where Charles “the Hammer” Martel is buried is now in a Muslim neighborhood, part of the department with the highest proportion of immigrants in all of France. Is that not a perfect example of the state France is in today? The man who is most famous for winning the battle that defeated the Muslim invasion of France is today in his grave surrounded by Muslims whom the French government has allowed to come in peacefully to live and settle. The man who “hammered” the Saracen invaders could, were he able, probably now hear the cry of the muezzin from his resting place on a regular basis.

But, of course, Charles Martel, this great figure of French history, this savior of France, was everything that the current French Republic, informed by the values of the Revolution, considers deplorable. He did not believe in equality, he did not believe in tolerance, he did not believe that the Arab invaders of his country were to be treated like brothers, that they were indistinguishable from his own people. This, I would argue, is why his France lasted for a thousand years and post-Revolutionary France is stumbling toward oblivion. The Revolution, needless to say, is part of history and as such it cannot be made to have never happened. France and French Canada can never be exactly as it was before but the legacy of the Revolution is something that must be come to grips with if it is to survive as a nation. It cannot be undone but the mistakes that resulted from it, such as the tearing down of the monarchy, the pushing of secularism and the legalistic definition of what it means to be “French” certainly can be but it will require facing the facts about what the Revolution has done to France and breaking the spell that it currently holds over the public. 

Many people today have such a mental disconnect from history that they assume monarchy and so called "indigenous" traditional authorities have always been natural enemies.

In the first place, this relies on a misunderstanding of the two terms. When most people think of 'Monarchy' today they exclusively think of the reigning house including Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and today His Majesty King Charles III, and when they do, they tend to exclusively think of it as the "British" or even just "English" Monarchy. Rarely do they understand that the Monarchy of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland, and the Monarchy of Canada -despite being embodied by the same individual- are legally distinct entities.

It is even rarer that the average person will understand that this is by no means the only monarchy. After all, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and many other countries are still Kingdoms, Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy, Liechtenstein and Monaco are Principalities and are two of the few remaining absolute monarchies in the world (and oddly enough, two of the most prosperous countries as well)

Among the world's monarchies, we also find the Emperor of Japan, the King of Bhutan, and -perhaps surprisingly for some of you - the Dalai Llama of Tibet.

Yes, you heard me correctly. In fact, his case is possibly the best example to point to to prove that Monarchy and Indigenous traditional authority are in fact one and the same For you see, the natural system of government across all societies and all times has been something called 'Traditional Authority', which for nearly every people means some form of monarchy.

Whether it be the Son of Heaven in China, the Bogd Khan in Mongolia, the Uyghur Khans, the Dalai Llama in Tibet, the Emperor (or more accurately; Celestial Monarch') in Japan, or the Emperor in Manchukuo, all of these traditional indigenous authorities are monarchies. The same can be said for the Shahanshah (King of Kings) in Iran (Persia), the Sultan and Caliph of Islam in Turkey, the Sheikhs of the Bedouin tribes, the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, the Negusa Negast (King of Kings) in Ethiopia (Abyssinia), or the King in Afghanistan.

The same is true of the Chieftaincies among African tribes, Aborigines in Australia, or the Aboriginals of North and South America. Across all nations, peoples, and times, Traditional Authority was the capstone of any culture.

There is a long and varied history shared by the kingdoms of Europe and the American Indians (Aboriginals). Any time a more advanced civilization comes in contact with a more primitive one there are bound to be problems, intentional or accidental. All too often Europeans tended to exaggerate the lack of knowledge of the Aboriginals, generalizing them in some cases as savage beyond saving while others, even those taking a more benevolent if condescending attitude confused a lack of knowledge of things Europeans considered invaluable to a lack of knowing what was best for themselves. In reality, American Indians learned quickly how things worked with the European powers and acted in what was their own obvious self-interest in deciding when to negotiate, when to fight, who to ally with and who to oppose.

Contrary to popular belief, the primary motivations behind colonization was not usually a desire for conquest, and certainly not for extermination. Unlike previous empires such as the ancient empires of Rome, Grece, Persia, Babylon, or Egypt, the European colonial empires did not come about through military conquest, but through exploration and trade. The European colonial powers set out across the Atlantic to find new trade routes after the final conquest of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire by the Islamic Ottoman Empire cut off trade access to the Orient. Instead, they found entire continents of people who had never had a chance to hear the gospel.

When Christopher Columbus was first sent across the Atlantic, Queen Isabella was clear that the natives he encountered were, “to be treated as free men, for such they are”. When Columbus was first dispatched on his famous voyage of discovery, Queen Isabella was adamant that the natives not be enslaved or mistreated but were to be regarded as free peoples “for as such they are”, and it is often forgotten that, initially, such as in Mexico with the Aztecs, the Spanish tried to work through the native leadership. The Spanish did not arrive in the New World and immediately carry out a campaign of genocide to wipe out the native people; the vast majority of natives who died did so as a result of the Spanish inadvertently bringing European diseases with them which the natives had no immunity to. To call this an evil act is to say your neighbor did evil against you by unintentionally spreading the flu to you.

Regardless, this did not wipe them all out, as some might think, and once things settled down the Spanish did indeed begin converting the natives to Christianity, just as the French and later British would in North America.  The Spanish certainly did not always treat the Indians well but it is often forgotten how many became advocates for the Indians, particularly the missionaries who obviously were going to have a harder time converting the Indians to Christianity when they were being brutalized by other people claiming to be Christians. It is also noteworthy that when monarchy returned to Mexico in the person of Emperor Maximilian it was the Indian population that was often the most welcoming and it was an Indian who was regarded as his most loyal and upright general. This is significant when one remembers that Benito Juarez was a full-blooded Zapotec Indian himself and yet most Indians still preferred to put their trust in Maximilian because of how they had been treated by the republican government, Juarez included.

In the north of America the first -and for a time, most predominant- European colonization was done by the French who were the first to establish the Fur Trade in the region. Within the first wave of Colonialism, the Native peoples of the Americas who had previously been living a very primitive lifestyle compared to that of the Europeans were suddenly given access to the benefits of European civilization. Aboriginals in the territory administered as New France traded their furs to French merchants and in return were provided with cookware, medicine, fabrics, utensils, metal tools, traps, and guns, all of which increased the productivity of their lifestyle, allowed them to catch more food with less work, and increased their lifespan as well.  

The French had very little interest in exploitation of any kind, and had very little interest in what we today would think of as proper "colonization" in that very few settlements were actually built and very little land was actually settled. The French were interested mainly in the spreading of the gospel for the salvation of new souls, and in the very lucrative fur trade.  As such, aside from  farming communities governed by the seigneurial system, most outposts of French Colonial authority consisted of trading posts and Churches, and the French sent mostly trappers, traders and Jesuits. There were very few major cities aside from Québec City and Montreal, and even these were quite Rural, with Montreal begining as a mere trading post and remaining small for some time.

Because of this, the French were careful to avoid conflict with the Aboriginals if at all possible. They were more likely to befriend them and early on forged alliances with them. France did not want to conquer and displace the natives; the fur traders wanted to do business with them and the priests wanted to convert them and teach them Latin -both of which requires their goodwill rather than their hostility. Nor did they tend to hold themselves apart from the natives as, by comparison, the British did and there was much more intermarriage between the French and the Aboriginals which ultimately produced the mixed-race ethnic group called the Métis in modern Canada. Today, most are as “White” as any other European-Canadian but they still hold on to the special status that their original native ancestry gives them. The fact that, when war broke out between France and Britain in North America, that so many of the Indians sided with the French shows clearly that they considered their interests to be better served in the hands of the King of France than in those of the Hanoverian King of Great Britain and Ireland. This would surely not have been the case if the French had been systematically oppressing the natives or being terribly cruel to them. The French, for the most part, were not viewed as foreign conquerors but as the people who shared new knowledge with them and traded valuable goods to them which they had never had before.  

In the north of America there were numerous conflicts between the Aboriginals and Europeans but a crucial conflict was the French and Indian War -the name the British colonists gave to the conflict because of the makeup of their enemies. In the end the British were successful and those Indians that sided with the French were generally vilified. However, the fact that most Indians sided with the French was a logical ‘foreign policy’ decision to make. One reason the French faced such long odds in that was is because they had such a smaller population than the British. While the British sent over settlers, establishing colonies, growing and expanding, It was natural common sense for most of the Indians to side with the French, who mostly preached to them and traded with them, in opposition to the British whose colonists were expanding, pushing them out and claiming more and more of their land.

In any event, the end of the French & Indian War was a pivotal moment for the native inhabitants of North America. New France was surrendered to the British and no one suffered more because of this than the Indians who had been allied with the French. The fears of British encroachment and colonization that led them to align with France in the first place were confirmed and even worse was to come. Trade all but stopped, tributary gifts were not exchanged, land was taken and people were killed as the British became the dominant power on the continent. It did not take long for the Aboriginals to wish longingly for the return of the forces of King Louis. The Aboriginals had come to depend on muskets and gunpowder for hunting, long provided by the French in exchange for other goods. The British, however, refused to give the Indians weapons or ammunition in exchange for anything. Additionally, whereas few French colonists ventured onto Indian lands but instead tended to send out mostly fur trappers, traders and missionary priests, the British were serious about colonizing North America and soon large numbers of British settlers were encroaching on Indian lands. This would lead to the rise to prominence of a certain Chief.

Chief Pontiac was, for a time, the biggest problem the British Empire in North America faced and even offered the glimmer of a chance that His Most Christian Majesty the King of France might be able to overturn the results of the French & Indian War. In 1747 Pontiac had been a war chief and fought for the Kingdom of France against the uprising of Nicholas Orontony of the Huron. Later, he again fought on the side of His Most Christian Majesty in the French & Indian War against the British. 

Chief Pontiac didnèt like this new kind of Colonialism and began to rally his people and as many tribes of the Great Lakes region as he could into an alliance to rise up against the British. He and his fellows, war chiefs and shamans, called on the Indians to reject the alcohol the British traded to them (“poison” Pontiac called it) which stupefied them, to return to the traditional values of their people and to rally together in common cause to defeat the British. Chief Pontiac warned his enemies, saying in so many words that the French might have surrendered but he and his people certainly had not! He also hoped (unrealistically under the circumstances) that if he and his warriors could gain sufficient success the French would return and give them assistance. Yes, you heard that correctly; one of the first major Aboriginal uprisings was an uprising done in the hopes of restoring a European colonial presence!

After a grand council Chief Pontiac and his men besieged Fort Detroit in May of 1763. His words inspired the men of many other surrounding tribes and soon the entire western frontier of British North America was ablaze as Indian warriors attacked forts throughout the Ohio country (as it was then called). French settlements were spared and this, combined with how sudden and widespread the attacks were, convinced the British that they were the victims of a vast Franco-Indian conspiracy masterminded by Chief Pontiac.

The truth, of course, was that Chief Pontiac had no authority over any people other than his own and could only persuade others to join him and those who did so acted, not as part of a secret conspiracy, but simply in their own best interests as any people are bound to. However, despite some successes, the Indians lacked the materials for a protracted campaign and effective siege warfare. Soon British retaliation brought ruin to the native population of the region. Chief Pontiac remained stalemated at Detroit, despite winning a stunning victory over a British column at the battle of Bloody Run. Groups began to abandon Pontiac and his cause and by October the proud chief was forced to admit to himself that the French were not coming to his aid (they hardly could have) and he abandoned the siege of Detroit and withdrew to the Illinois country try to continue rallying native support for an alliance against the British. It was not until 1766 that Chief Pontiac met with British Indian agent Sir William Johnson to end hostilities. In 1769 he was murdered at Cahokia, Illinois but his name and what he had tried to accomplish would live on for generations.

Ultimately, Chief Pontiac had failed in his aims and indeed the odds were always vastly stacked against him. However, his war ended up having some very far-reaching consequences. The British, showing their genius for learning from their mistakes, were never again quite so harsh toward the Aboriginals as they had been. They recognized that such wars could endanger British rule in North America and for that reason they did everything in their power to prevent future conflicts and to try to encourage the natives to see them as friendly allies as they had been previously with the French. Because of Chief Pontiac and the struggle he launched, His Britannic Majesty King George III ultimately declared all lands west of the Appalachians to be the domain of the American Indians and forbid any further encroachment of the region by British colonists. In a short time this act would become one of the primary causes for the American Revolution. (along with again, anger from the rebel colonists about granting freedom to French Catholics in Québec).

As such, most of the Aboriginals sided with the British Crown against the rebel colonists of the soon-to-be United States. Their suffering and the horrors inflicted on them are one of the least known aspects of the Revolutionary War. Many books tell of their attacks on colonial settlers, and there were such attacks and they were quite brutal affairs -such was local custom. However, few American history books relate how the Continental Army went on a punitive campaign against the American Indians, endeavoring to wipe them out completely, destroying everything they had, killing men, women and children alike and leaving nothing behind so that the survivors would starve or freeze to death. How many people know that the idealized George Washington, because of this campaign, was given a name by the Iroquois that meant, “Burner of Villages”? After Washington became the first President of the United States, for a long time many American Indians still used the term “Burner of Villages” as the title of every American President. Again, most American history does not talk too much about the part played by Aboriginals at all, however, those that do try to play up the minority who allied with the rebel colonists or they, again, blame Aboriginal atrocities on the British and paint the American Indians as being duped by more clever British officials into supporting their side.

In fact, most Aboriginals displayed a clear grasp of the political situation at the time and had for many years. They acted in their own rational self-interest which, unfortunately, meant choosing the side that was to lose. Just as in the French and Indian War they looked at the British who were sending over colonists and the French who mostly sent over Jesuits and fur traders and most decided it was in their best interest to side with France; in the Revolutionary War, even more looked at the colonies continuously reaching westward and the British Crown trying to keep them confined to the coastal region so as to avoid costly conflicts and quite logically sided with the British.

Again, this was a very rational thing for them to do as King George III of Great Britain had already recognized the rights of ownership the Aboriginals had to the lands they occupied, while the colonies had already claimed the same land for themselves extending all the way to the Louisiana Territory. It was also during the American War for Independence that the U.S. forces gained their first unsavory reputation for destroying Indian settlements. This left such an impression that the first name the Indians gave to the President of the United States translated to “the burner of villages”.

One need only look at the list of alleged "crimes" that were leveled against His Majesty King George III to see why the Aboriginals were Loyalists.

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Here Jefferson is referring to the offer of freedom to any African slaves who escaped their bondage and fought for the King, so Jefferson is blaming the King for any potential slave rebellion. I doubt many would sympathize these days. He also will not win many admirers by referring to the Native Americans as "the merciless Indian Savages". But, it is true, most Indians fought for the British as the King had recognized their right to all the land west of the Appalachians to the Mississippi River, lands which the Americans wanted to colonize. So, again, Jefferson is not entirely wrong here. Those "merciless Indian savages" did indeed fight for their land not to be taken from them.


There was also, it must not be forgotten, still lingering rivalry long after the American Revolution. Much of this focused on the Aboriginals and their treatment by both sides. Many Indians had sided with Britain during the Revolution since the American colonists were eager to expand westward and seize the land Britain had granted the Indians only a short time before. During the frontier conflicts after the Revolution Britain continued to support the Indians in the Northwest Territory as they resisted the incursions of United States settlers. General William Henry Harrison had defeated an Indian confederacy led by the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh in 1811, but the Indians were not pacified and continued to look to British forces in Canada for support. Chief Tecumseh would prove to be a vital commander in the upcoming conflict, to be known as the War of 1812.


Queenston Heights

At the Battle of Queenston Heights, the Crown Forces laid down a withering fire on the advancing Americans, killing many and forcing many more to turn back. But, there were other US troops already across the river and seeing the devastating effect the British guns were having on his countrymen, US Colonel John E. Wool led his men in a reckless charge up the heights to capture the British artillery. This proved crucial as the Americans pushed the British off the hill there and quickly ensued a series of attacks and counter-attacks over control of the cannon. General Brock bravely led his men forward and was killed by an American sharpshooter at one in the afternoon. The Crown forces were pushed back and the American troops continued to advance. However, it was at this point that the American attack began to fall apart. US troops on the heights were stunned by a violent attack by the loyal, brave, and courageous Mohawk Indians fighting for the British and to make matters worse for Van Rensselaer, many of his militia refused to cross the river into Canada, despite seeing British reinforcements on their way to attack those already across. The General pleaded with them, but they refused to leave New York and the boatmen working the river would not evacuate those on the opposite shore. As the British troops under General Roger Sheaffe formed up for battle, and with Mohawk war cries filling the air, the US troops broke ranks and retreated in a panic. Those who did not, under Colonel Winfield Scott, quickly surrendered. The second arm of the invasion of Canada had ended in abject failure once again, thanks to the bravery and loyalty of the Aboriginals who fought alongside the forces of the Crown.


Later, in an extraordinarily audacious move some 700 British soldiers, Canadian Militia and Indian troops commanded by John Vincent launched a pre-dawn surprise attack against 3,500 Americans under William Winder and John Chandler at Stoney Creek, Ontario on June 6, 1813. Both American generals were captured and the rest of the invasion force retreated once again. The Crown forces won another remarkable victory soon after at the Battle of Beaver Dams on June 24 which decided control of the Niagara peninsula. The British commander, Lieutenant James FitzGibbon was warned of the American attack by the heroic loyalist Laura Secord and decided on a bold attack. With only 50 soldiers and 400 Indians he ambushed 575 US regulars, bluffing them into believing that he had a massive army behind him and convincing the Americans to surrender. It was yet another embarrassing end for a US effort to invade Canada. 

It was Canada standing together with forces of British Canadians, French Canadians, and Aboriginal peoples that won the War of 1812 and secured Canada's independence from revolutionary republicanism. What the Canadians fought for (successfully) in the War of 1812 remains still for modern Canadians to defend. Of course, Canadians will do so with the utmost restraint and politeness, but American bombast is not the side to be confronted. It is, rather, the treasonous Canadian republicans who speak as though they wish the United States had actually conquered our country 200 years ago. They would never say so of course, but is that not the logical interpretation of their argument; that the U.S. is an independent country and Canada is not? It seems they are still waiting for their American cousins to “liberate” them but loyal Canadian monarchists must set the record straight. If the Canadian monarchy is so unimportant, which is the same as saying there is really no important difference at all between the U.S. and Canada, they might consider the following question: Why did so many American loyalists, American Indians (First Nations), escaped slaves and others risk life and limb to flee the “Land of the Free” for the soil of Canada where the Crown held sway?

It matters. It mattered then and it matters just as much now. Hopefully, those who read these historical articles will begin to realize the the truth of what Canada actually should be, rather than what the modern media wants it to be.
 

For many, many years later, when the United States was engaged in the conflicts known under the blanket term of the “Indian Wars” after 1865 it was still the monarchy of Canada that was seen as the preferred safe haven for those Indians under attack by the US. Some did flee to Mexico, but the (republican) government there was often as bad or worse to deal with than the US and so you would see huge numbers of refugee Indians enduring immense hardship to escape north to the relative safety and security of the Dominion of Canada. For anyone interested in reading more about this subject you can review profiles of Tomas Mejia, Chief Joseph Brant and Simon Girty. More examples will be looked at in future posts.



If that were the end of the story, then there would be very little conflict today. However, there are two major events which happened later that continuously contribute to tragedy on all sides of the issue, even today - like wounds that keep flaring up. One which is far too complicated to cover adequately here is the Residential Schools. There are of course, legitimate grievances that the Aboriginals have with them, and I do not deny that they exist. However, I also will not deny that -more often than not- the media, political partisan institutions, and leftist activist groups all work together to use these legitimate grievances -not as a way of actually seeking truth and reconciliation- but rather as merely a means of enflaming political conflicts to keep the country divided and easy to control.

With that being said, I will give a brief outline of the  things the media refuses to say about the Residential Schools, as well as provide  links to multiple  reliable sources for those interested in hearing more from groups that aren't biased toward enflaming tensions further.

I would not oversimplify by calling the Residential School system 'good' any more than I would take the leftist approach by denouncing it as 'evil'. With that in mind; they certainly weren’t what the media and radical leftists would have you believe they were.

Consider for a moment the following:

A) Not one grave was found.

B Media often deliberately misled people and sensationalized the issue.

C) Even if graves had been found, that in itself would be evidence of nothing more than the extremely high child mortality rates of the Victorian Era and early 20th century, which we are so far removed from today that most of us don’t even comprehend how common death was before the vaccinations, sewer systems, and advanced medical care we have today. Between 1830 and 1900, the child mortality rate averaged at around 300 or so deaths per 1000 people. This means that as many as one third of all children did not make it to adulthood. What do you think happens when children die? We bury them. Rural families or urban families with large estates would usually bury them on that estate in a family cemetery. Lower class urban families would usually have their children buried in their Parish's Churchyard, which always had a graveyard in those days. Residential Schools, in much the same way as any boarding school operated by a Church (including those for European families), would bury any child that died in the Church's graveyard onsite. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041751/canada-all-time-child-mortality-rate/?srsltid=AfmBOooIkp_CU4SONjjipmRJ0_1Jxz6G6zRDNh8aKE3k7Yya1dvXDwXz

D) Corporal punishment was common in all schools and homes for most of human history (sometimes abused, sometimes not), so this wasn’t designed specifically to abuse one particular race. To accuse Residential schools of abuse for using corporal punishment is to accuse nearly every parent and institution of every race prior to the mid 20th century of child abuse! My mother received corporal punishment via spanking from my grandparents, my grandparents received corporal punishment via a leather strap from their own parents, and my family records show that just a generation before that corporal punishment was administered in my family via "caning"! The fact is, we cannot look at history through a postmodernist lens and attempt to judge our ancestors by the standards of today. Our Postmodern Western ethos is a novelty by historical standards, and it isn't even common in non-Western cultures, as in many cultures today, particularly those indigenous to Asia and Africa, corporal punishment is still the norm!

E) Many tribes’ chiefs or elders asked for the Residential schools. This was not a system imposed on the m against their will, but one which many of them actively sought.

F) Even if we were to assume that the residential schools were downright evil, it was neither the Monarchy (which had almost no power due to being constitutional) or the Church(es) (who were in fact stepping in to do what the government told them as they were the ones with the finances to do it) who are to blame for the schools, but rather Parliament!

In other words, if you are to accept the notion that the residential schools are downright evil, that’s an argument against Parliamentary democracy, not Monarchy or Christianity!

The same Parliament who authorized the residential schools was the one that “investigated” them, and -rather conveniently- found nothing to incriminate the institution of Parliament itself. “We have investigated ourselves, found no evidence against us, and judged ourselves innocent” says Parliament. How convenient that the one system which holds unchecked power over Canadians today is the one claiming to be untarnished by scandal.

The fact is, there will never be Truth and Reconciliation as long as the media sensationalises grievances (real and imagined), leftist political parties spread misinformation, and leftist activists commit acts of political violence against their perceived enemies. If you wish to put an end to this vicious cycle, here are several resources which you may find most helpful.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-church-and-the-native-americans

https://c2cjournal.ca/2017/09/remedial-reading-for-ontario-teachers/

https://www.tfp.org/why-does-the-left-accuse-the-church-in-canada-of-its-crimes/?PKG=TFP210713a&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Left+Accuses+Catholic+Church+in+Canada+of+Its+Own+Crimes&utm_campaign=TFP210713+-+%22Transgendered%22+Rats+Produced+in+China%3F&vgo_ee=snu7zMuZxQdsZe0LSThMYW0QiHcOnR%2BKr%2F%2BEt7SZIMw%3D

https://hymie.substack.com/p/sir-john-a-macdonald-versus-the-historically?sd=pf

The Liberal Party and many self proclaimed activists claim to care about the Aboriginal peoples, but more often than not what they really care about is keeping them angry with the English and French Canadians so that the three groups will forget what they could achieve if they were united.  The irony is not lost on people like me when socialist political parties claim to be the party of native peoples.

Friends, Romans and countrymen, there is no better group to look to than the boriginals to see how socialism "kills with kindness". To sum it up, there is no group in Canada that is given more benefits and social welfare than the Aboriginals and it is no coincidence that there is also no group in this country more worse off than they are.

Of course, many years ago, settlers in Canada displaced many Aborginal groups by settling areas with little regard for their traditional land usage. That is a legitimate grievance, and it would be shameful enough, but the crimes of the old settlers pale in comparison to the crimes visited on the Aborginals by the bleeding heart liberal socialists who claim to be so concerned about them. They have showered them with social welfare to the point that a great many of them are now totally dependent on the government. The settlers displaced them but the socialists have enslaved them to the very system that brought about their downfall. Today unemployment is commonly rampant on the Indian Reserves (they live off their pensions from the government) as is alcoholism. Many waste their whole lives in such a fashion while others move away, intermarry with non-Aboriginals and over time who they are is completely lost. It is a tragedy greater than any they have ever suffered from outright violence.

I see it this way. Place the blame wherever you like but the fact is there was a succession of Wars in North America, the Aboriginals chose the side that was in their own rational self interest, even if it didn't always end in victory. However, at least then, despite all of their suffering, they fought well, they kept their dignity and they died in honorable battle for their traditional way of life. They lost their land but they kept their pride knowing that there is no shame in falling before a superior enemy. Then, however, the socialists came along and tried to sympathize with them and make everything better with government hand-outs. Already robbed of their nomadic way of life -whether by being pushed out of America into Canada or displaced to Reserves- they soon were robbed of much of the rest of their culture as well through the "gift" of modern education. Many of the tribes became democracies with the once proud role of chief being reduced to the level of a sleazy politician with a ceremonial headdress. (Despite what a leftist activist would have you believe, the traditional authority structure of the natives was not Greco-Roman Western style democracy). Government payments robbed them of their independence and over time made them dependent on the government and so all of the other social problems mentioned have been the result. Nor are they the only such example.

In the past, I've touched on the history of the Mongols, another proud people of nomadic warriors who once very nearly conquered the world. That, of course, was before socialism and their takeover by a communist government. Since that time they have been robbed of their culture in much the same way, only more quickly and blatantly so. The communists destroyed their religion, destroyed their nomadic way of life turning the bulk of the population into urban dwellers. Socialism robbed them of their pride and independence to the point that most of the big businesses in Mongolia import Chinese workers because too many Mongols will quit after getting their first pay check to feed their alcoholism.

If we seem to be going off on a tangeant here, rest assured there is a point to this, which is that the same socialist ideology which pretends to be the friend of the Aborginals while destroying their culture also did so to other cultures.

Mongolia was actually the first country in the Far East to fall prey to communist aggression and although it is not often remembered, few if any countries suffered as much from communism. The first time republican rule came to Mongolia was when nationalist troops of the Republic of China marched in and forced the ruling Buddhist monarch, the Bogd Khan (Holy Emperor) to submit to them (he was later deposed and arrested). This situation was relieved in 1921 when the White Russian general Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg drove out the Chinese and restored the Bogd Khan to his throne. However, even by that time the Bolshevik-inspired Mongolian People’s Party had already been formed and one of the founders was Damdin Sukhbaatar. They worked with COMINTERN agents to form a communist front to take over the country.

Two Mongol communists, Danzan and Choibalsan immediately sought out Soviet agents and requested that the Red Army invade their country to ensure a communist victory. The Soviets had, at first, put off the Mongolian Reds but they were stirred to action by Ungern-Sternberg who, after defeating the Chinese and restoring the Bogd Khan openly planned to forge a pan-monarchist coalition to invade Russia and restore the Romanov monarchy. Toward the end of May the Baron was defeated by a Russo-Mongol communist army twice his size and the Reds seized power. Promising to leave religion alone (a lie) they took over the government, forcing the Bogd Khan to hand over power to them. However, the Buddhist faith was so strong in the country that they dared not remove the Emperor himself and he remained symbolic head-of-state until his death in 1924. The Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party declared his incarnations to be at an end and announced the birth of the Mongolian People’s Republic.

The primary leader of the communist forces was Sukhbaatar, Minister of the Army, who oversaw numerous executions but died in 1923. In recognition of his leading role in the revolution the Mongolian capital was renamed Ulaanbaatar (Red Hero) in his honor. Free enterprise was banned, herds were collectivized and property of the nobles, princes and monasteries were seized. However, bad as things were they became much worse when the Soviet Red Army occupied the country in 1937 on the pretext of defending Mongolia from the Japanese. Choibalsan, surely one of the most ruthless communist dictators ever, was a fawning sycophant of Joseph Stalin and tried to mimic his rule in Mongolia.

The Mongol economy was reworked to simply serve the needs of the USSR and Choibalsan unleashed a reign of terror the likes of which had never been seen. Any potential rivals were murdered in a series of purges, virtually all of the monasteries were destroyed after the people had been pumped full of propaganda films portraying the monks as greedy and cruel. The youth especially were mobilized and countless works of art, priceless Buddhist scriptures and ancient temples were destroyed in an orgy of violence. Tens of thousands of nobles, monks and anyone suspected of being an enemy of the regime were massacred. Some estimates put the number of victims of the communist regime as high as 100,000. Choibalsan made himself the “mother, father and teacher” of the people and demanded religious-like veneration of himself.

The devastation may have reached its height under Choibalsan but it by no means started or ended with him. Mongolia became a part of the USSR in all but name and in just a few years went from being one of the most religious countries in the world to one with virtually no religion at all. All reminders of the glorious past and all traditional culture were stamped out. Families forgot their own names, Buddhist rites were forbidden until no one remembered how to perform them. Even the memory of Genghis Khan was almost erased. Streets were named after communists, new buildings were built in box-like Bolshevik style, the nomadic way of life the Mongols had lived for uncounted centuries was destroyed as the communists crowded everyone onto farm communes and smoke-belching factories in the capital. The old felt tents were destroyed and replaced by crude, boxy houses in the name of “progress”. Even to this day the Mongolian language is written in Russian rather than the Mongolian style. The memory of the last emperor, the Bogd Khan, was smeared at every opportunity and statues were erected of men like Sukhbaatar, Choibalsan and Stalin.

In few, if any, other countries where communist purges occurred was the erasure of what had come before the red regime so complete. As the USSR deteriorated the Red Army withdrew its forces in the late 1980’s and early 90’s. In 1990 the first open elections were held in Mongolia but the work of decades had been done well and the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party still won by a wide margin. It was not until 1996 that they were voted out of office and even then, after a simple name change, they have continued to hold power more often than not ever since. None of the butchers of the communist era were ever brought to justice and though the statue of Stalin was taken down and packed away in the middle of the night, the monument to the tyrant Choibalsan remains standing, as does the huge statue of Sukhbaatar and the capital still carries his name. As for the Bogd Khan, the last Holy Emperor, his reincarnation was recognized by the Dalai Lama and he performed a belated enthronement for him in Mongolia but, thanks to the continued rule of the leftist elite, he still lived in exile in India until his death.

Take note, this is what Socialism brings to traditional peoples, and what it will eventually bring to all people if left to its own devices. What is all the more sad and outrageous is that in the case of both the Aboriginals and the Mongols, they have been the victims of a totally foreign ideology imposed on them by outside forces.

I have the greatest respect for these cultures and it absolutely kills me to see the state they have been reduced to by "caring", "compassionate" liberals preaching "social justice". Others might not have the interest or concern for these people as I have, but everyone should pay attention because no one is inferior or superior to anyone else and if socialism and communism prevail everyone will end up in exactly the same condition; hopeless, struggling people totally dependent on big-government and the small ruling elite to see that we continue, not to live, but simply exist from the crumbs they distribute from the table they are feasting at. Parliament can give an Indian elder a medal but it cannot and will not give them back their pride, their independence and their traditional way of life.

Our final words of warning to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada are as follows:  leftism is not your friend.  Mass immigration today is displacing  European-Canadians at a faster rate than settler-Colonialism displaced Aboriginals -and while I'm sure some may be tempted not to care about that or even to cheer it on- one should realize that the implcations of this do not bode well for Aboriginals either. After all, the oaths and treaties which govern the native peoples today exist with the Crown- not with Parliament, and not with the ever shifting Canadian population. If those things change,  the Indian Act and all other  treaties are essentially null and void.

If the monarchy were abolished, Parliament would be under no obligation to continue giving the Aborginals the land rights the treaties entitle them to. In fact, they would be under no obligation to recognize any of them as distinct peoples separate from the general populace. For that matter, why would they want to? The essence of Parliamentary democracy and the liberal republican mindset is that all people are equal, which is to say they are all the same and interchangeable. Why would a republican believe that tribes should be allowed to retain their traditional way of life in this day and age? A tribe, band, horde, or native group is just another outdated authority structure to them like monarchy.

For that matter, if the monarchy were abolished, the Aboriginal Chiefs, councils, and elders would be next on the chopping block. After all, why should some people get to have a chief if all are considered equal? Why should a local council be allowed to govern when all are supposedly represented by Parliamentary democracy? Lastly, why should your elders be deserving of respect and leadership simply because they are older? If anything, they probably deserve less respect since the elderly are more likely to have diseases such as dementia which cause cognitive decline.

Neither I, nor we as The Society of Augustus believe these things, but nevertheless they are the logical conclusion of the liberal republican worldview. You can see this today in any culture, even ones that have retained their traditional authority in some form. When the liberal republican mindset of "equality" becomes prevalent, respect for all traditional authority is lost, whether it be at the spiritual level with religion and religious authorities, the national level with monarchs, the local level with community elders, or the personal level with one's own parents.

I'm willing to bet that many of the Aboriginals who have been convinced into championing "equality" would be utterly horrified to learn how the non-native activists for said equality speak to their own elders, or even parents. Yet, that is the logical conclusion of the ideology they champion.

Is it any coincidence that in the Western world, where respect for Monarchy has been lost, parents and the elderly are treated with such blatant disrespect, while in the few countries in the Far East that were spared the imposition of postmodernism such as Japan, both the monarch and people's parents and elders are treated with the utmost respect and even veneration?

In the Postmodern Western culture -a byproduct of the liberal republican mindset- parents are disrespected at every stage in their life. They are disrespected by the governments which belittle parenthood as less important than career, by social activists who claim that having more children is bad, by their young children who take tones that previous generations would have been corporally punished for, by their grown children who often place them in the nearest old age home upon the first sign of decline, and by the medical system which encourages them to seek assisted suicide over trivial issues.

Meanwhile in places that have retained their monarchist culture fully -such as Japan- parents are  respected at every stage of their lives. They are respected by the government, which is introducing policies to  encourage family building, by social activists who defend them against  what is usually imposition of Postmodern Western ideas, by their young children who speak to them with respect and admiration, by their grown children who physically and financially care for them in their old age, and by the medical system which does everything in its power to help ensure their good health.

Finally,  one last word of warning. If enough  of a certain group of  people who  shall not be named  immigrate here and establish Sharia Law -as many of them have said they want to-  your treaties won't be worth the paper they're printed on, and  you will be treated the same way any other conquered tribes were by the  many Caliphates,  all of which  would have treated your far more poorly than even the most brutal European colonial power.