Winter 2024 Toronto Speech

Canada now, Canada forever

This was the speech I made at the Scydlings event in Toronto, on December 7th to the raccous applause of a full venue close to 100 people, and handshakes all around. I am honoured to have collaborated with Dimes, Dave Greene, John Carter, Ben Fleming, and Wilhelm Apologist.

Introduction

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for having me. My name is Fortissax.

Before I begin, I want to express my gratitude to our hosts for organizing this event here in Canada, and to all of you for attending this historic meeting in Toronto—the first of its kind and, hopefully, not the last.

An incredible amount of effort went into making this evening possible, and I hope you enjoy this time with us.

I also want to thank my colleague, Ben, for his powerful opening remarks, and Dimes for his moving speech, "Why Winning Was Never Enough." This event would not have been possible without the bright minds, strong hands, and indomitable spirit of everyone in this room. None of this would exist without you.

Now, like Dimes, I’ve had to rewrite this speech several times because of how fast this week has gone.

As you all know—the discourse never ends. Whoops! I almost stepped in some.

Last Spring, I did something I never thought I would.

I began writing again.

Writing was something I used to do throughout my youth, though mostly for myself. Sometimes I wrote personal fictions, other times, poetry. But by the time I hit my mid-to-late teens, I had completely dropped it.

The dispassionate realities of life—the day-to-day slog of living in Canada during the prime of my youth, and being hamstrung at every turn—snuffed out whatever creative passion I had left.

But in the uproar of last March, with mass layoffs sweeping across the country—including myself and two friends in unrelated fields—I decided to do something no man in my family had done before.

I became an alcoholic writer.

I have always been a Canadian nationalist.

I’ve always had immense pride in my heritage and in my nation.

But in the past 30 years, I’ve seen nothing but a relentless, grinding decline. With infinite time on my hands, I felt compelled to nail my thoughts to the digital wall and confront the new public square.

Possessed by Dionysus—half-buzzed on wine—I channelled the feelings of rage and dispossession felt by the Canadian people. I started a Substack.

And my first post, The Great Canadian Darkness, reached the fourth-highest position in the Culture section of that platform for an entire week.

I was stunned.

The people demanded more.

So, I began to write more.

That first article taught me something essential: representation matters more than anything else to Canadians. Finishing that article turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever made. And for that, I have no one else but Dimes and John Carter to thank for pushing me to see it through.

To complete this task, I had to get in touch with my French heritage.

The tradition of day-drinking and unemployment.

I dove deeply into the obscure, long-buried history of Canada—desperate to uncover the truth hidden by the managerial regime.

Because in the truth, I sought strength. In what had been buried, I sought power.

Canada’s Situation

No doubt, many of you already have an idea.

The fact of the matter is this: 25% of the people in this country are, or soon will be, foreigners. Most of them are not the children of immigrants but fresh-off-the-boat migrants.

The economy? It’s in the dump. Canada has the lowest upward mobility in the OECD for young people. One of the lowest fertility rates in the Western world. And the fastest-changing demographics in the Western world—as I’m sure you’ve all noticed here in the streets of Toronto, the old capital of Anglo-Canadians.

Think about this: approximately 4.9 million foreigners are classified as “temporary migrants.” Combine that with permanent residents, refugees, and immigrants, and that number swells to 6.2 million in just four years.

And it doesn’t stop there.

Crime is reportedly the highest it’s ever been. We have no military. The Canadian Armed Forces has faced retention issues for two decades. And what is command preoccupied with? Men’s bathrooms stocked with tampons and servicemen being “radicalized” by wearing extremist clothing like MAGA hats.

Let’s not forget foreign influence.

The Chinese Communist Party exploited the Hong Kong handover in the 1990s to infiltrate Canada, using British Columbia as their foothold. As Sam Cooper exposes in Claws of the Panda and Willful Blindness, they established a stronghold in Metro Vancouver, taking over the business community.

This “Vancouver Model,” as we Canadians ironically call it, normalizes our capitulation to foreign hostiles. Triads,working hand-in-glove with the Chinese communists, built a global drug empire. Fentanyl, mass-produced in football field-sized factories in China, is shipped to Vancouver and distributed across the entire Western Hemisphere.

Let this sink in: more Canadians have died from this economic warfare than all our soldiers lost in the Second World War.

And now, there’s India.

Intelligence agencies from the Republic of India have demonstrated their ability to conduct assassinations on Canadian soil. Recently, a Khalistani nationalist and separatist was killed—a figure I’ll leave to your sympathies or judgments. Regardless, this marks a disturbing shift.

India weaponizes its diaspora against the international community. In exchange for non-alignment with China, the West—particularly the Anglosphere—uses Indian migrants as wage-slave labor to suppress costs.

The result? A disaster.

In Canada, Australia, the U.K., and increasingly the United States, we see Indians climbing the ladders of power, pursuing their own interests—often brazenly. In Brampton, part of Greater Toronto, a 50-foot statue of the Hindu god Hanuman looms.

And let’s not forget the Punjabi Sikh population. They openly support an independent Khalistan—or remain at best indifferent to the cause. They have infiltrated Canada’s state apparatus, even reaching the Ministry of National Defense, where Harjit Sajjan prioritized rescuing Afghan Sikhs during Kabul operations over broader Canadian interests.

In Surrey, British Columbia, the trucking industry is effectively controlled by Sikhs. In online spaces, Sikh nationalists demand Brampton be recognized as a province, seemingly aware that their homeland exists more abroad than in Punjab itself. The leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, serves as yet another example—barred from entering India due to his sympathies for separatism.

But foreign influence is only half the story. Among our own lies another problem: disintegration.

Decades of Western alienation and economic parasitism by the federal government are fuelling separatist movements in places like Alberta and Saskatchewan. In Quebec, the Parti Québécois is polling higher than the ruling CAQ, openly advocating for secession from Confederation.

Meanwhile, the federal Conservatives court immigrant voters, alienating native Canadians and abandoning their base.

And then there’s the economic misery.

The average Canadian home costs $700,000. The median income? Just $48,000. Upward mobility is nonexistent. The managerial regime hoards wealth and power, gatekeeping opportunity through credentialism, exorbitant tuition, and crushing taxes. 55% of Canadians have post-secondary education, and yet most have nothing to show for it. The regime is not run by titans of intelligence or visionaries. It’s run by ideologues—loyal to their cause, not to competence or merit.

The final insult: demographics.

Over the next six years, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba will become majority non-Canadian. The 50% threshold will be breached, with profound consequences for local politics.

Ontario will hover just above 50%, while Quebec and the Maritime provinces will remain over 70% and 80% Canadian, respectively. This is not a death sentence, but it is a profound transformation for Western Canada, which has historically been more propositional and less identitarian than the East.

This is where we are.

Our sovereignty is compromised. Our identity is eroded. But we are not yet defeated. What happens next depends entirely on us.

Foundational Difference

Many who’ve heard this speech or who are aware of how dire the situation is often ask a good question: If things are so bad, why don’t we just give up and join the U.S.?

I’ll tell you why.

The United States is a declining imperial power. Over the last two and a half decades, since the apex of the Pax Americana, their power is weakening. They lost Afghanistan. They’ve increased their debt by trillions. Thirty million illegals survive and thrive in the Southwestern United States, and the demographic of Heritage Americans is now the clear minority in that region.

The American deep-state is hell-bent on dragging that country into a war with Russia over Ukraine, into defending Israel over Palestine, while simultaneously trying to check Iranian power in the Middle East and stave off the Chinese from Taiwan. It’s not looking good for the United States on any front.

And here’s what Canadian republicans refuse to acknowledge: their half-baked president is only going to be in office for four years. Then what? Say Canada is annexed by the U.S.—does it sound like a good deal for Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, the Clintons, the Bushes, or any of those people to determine what happens in Canada?

Does the risk of our youth being drafted to fight wars abroad sound like a good deal?

As I’ve said to friends and detractors alike, if the idea of Mexicans in Montreal or Toronto waving American flags sounds odd to you, that’s because you know deep down it’s wrong.

Culture and traditions

Surely, you’re thinking there can’t only be geopolitical, strategic, or material reasons to not want to be American. It can’t just be about free speech, guns, home ownership, or not wanting to be dragged into wars. And you’re right. There’s more to it. Let’s talk about our culture and traditions—our deep, inherent differences from the United States.

At first glance, it might seem odd to claim we’re so different. We speak the same language, follow English common law, share economic integration, and even love the same sports. Their number two sport is hockey, and ours is football. We eat many of the same foods and share elements of cuisine. We have the shared experience of the North American frontier. These similarities are undeniable.

But the differences lie deeper—beneath the iceberg of visible culture. They are in our social expectations, norms, attitudes toward children and the elderly, our innate views on the state and its responsibilities, the balance of individualism versus collectivism, and the tension between individual liberty and the common good.

These differences are profound because Canada and the Canadian people were born from philosophies that are the polar opposite of the United States.

As George Grant, the modern father of Anglo-Canadian nationalism, once said:

"The existence of Canada depends on a will to resist the desire for American assimilation… Canada can only survive by conserving its particular traditions and rejecting the universalism of American liberalism."

This is from his 1965 essay, Lament for a Nation.

Notice that he says American liberalism. He’s not talking about the Democratic Party or AOC. He’s pointing to the founding philosophy of the United States itself—a fundamentally liberal ethos.

For most of Canada’s history, conservatism in this country was something entirely different. Canada’s founding philosophy is rooted in Toryism, brought here by 60,000 Loyalists who left the United States between the 1770s and 1790s. These Loyalists, like Aeneas and the Trojans after the fall of Troy, marched into the wilderness to build a new civilization.

They were traditionalists, conservatives, and monarchists who rejected the liberalism of John Locke and the American founding fathers. They did not have a creed or a proposition for a nation. Their beliefs were rooted in God, King, and Country. This philosophy would manifest as Canada’s national motto: Peace, Order, and Good Government—POGG—rather than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

POGG references old aristocratic notions of Noblesse Oblige—the moral obligation of the aristocracy to provide righteous leadership. In the United States, wealthy and powerful men may occasionally feel morally obligated to charity, but their liberal bourgeois society does not and never has expected them to care.

Grant himself pointed out that Anglo-Canada’s foundational philosophy stems from Richard Hooker, an Elizabethan-era political philosopher and Christian humanist. Hooker believed deeply in the connection between church and state, advocating for a society ruled jointly by secular governments (through natural law) and the church (through revealed law).

Canadians believed in community, public order, self-restraint, and loyalty to the state. These values aren’t just theoretical—they’re embedded in our founding documents. Section 91 of the Constitution Act of 1867 empowers Parliament to legislate for the“peace, order, and good government” of Canada. This centralized approach to governance has led to the creation of institutions like Ontario Hydro, the CBC, and Canadian National Railway—all state-owned corporations.

But that’s just Anglo-Canada.

French Canada, led by Quebec, shares a similar but distinct character. Quebec was settled primarily by French colonists, many from Normandy—56% of the top 30 most common last names among Quebecois are from Normandy, a famously pious and disciplined region. Unlike France itself, Quebec skipped the French Revolution, and the Catholic Church redoubled its efforts to maintain control. For over 200 years, the Quebecois averaged five children per family, maintaining a self-populating society. In Acadia, women averaged ten.

Quebec remained a theocracy well into the 20th century, with public schooling under Church control until the 1960s. Until recently, the Quebecois saw themselves as the last bastion of the traditionalist, Catholic, monarchist Ancien Régime. They viewed France’s liberal republicanism and the Revolution as abominations.

Quebec’s ideology also produced Clerico-Nationalism under figures like Abbé Lionel Groulx, a theocratic monarchist inspired by Catholic nationalist movements in Europe. Groulx and his peers emphasized loyalty to the Pope over secular governments, further demonstratingQuebec’s reactionary ethos. Quebecers today cannot escape their instincts. It doesn't matter if the province is an authoritarian, secular social democracy.

The point is clear: Canadians, by nature, are right-wing authoritarians. Whether you call them statists, collectivists, communists, socialists, fascists, totalitarians, or Nazis, the truth remains: Canada was founded by two reactionary groups—British Loyalists and French Royalists.

This foundation has shaped our evolution as a nation. It’s why we tolerate state intervention to a degree unimaginable in the United States. Just yesterday, the “liberal” government banned 324 firearms without discussion. Two years ago, they used martial law to disperse protests against COVID lockdowns. Quebec enacted curfews, fining citizens $5,000 for being outdoors past 8 PM.

Canadians have rights—firearms ownership, self-expression—but we’re not allowed to use these rights for self-defence. Extrajudicial tribunals police our speech. And yet, most Canadians accept this because we value the common good over individual freedoms.

Even now, under a left-liberal state ideology, Canadians are iliberal in their character. Canadians enforce these norms. If tomorrow the ideology flipped to something more right-wing, most Canadians would enforce that just as zealously.

This is why populism in Canada is so viciously opposed. Populism here is a regional, prairie phenomenon, alien to the core of the country. It emerged in Alberta and Saskatchewan, regions shaped by waves of American settlers, and it remains a cultural outlier. The Canadian state sees populism as a threat to public morality and the old order—and it fights back as fiercely as the Loyalists and Royalists did against liberal revolutions. They can't escape their instincts.

Canada was built by reactionaries to resist the universalizing, homogenizing liberalism of the United States. To embrace American liberalism would be to abandon our identity, and create an unstable society.

Ethnogenesis: The Unique Identity of the Canadian People

Everything I’ve said so far can be backed up by the ethnic and demographic composition of the Canadian people, who are a country with two supermajority nations.

I don’t call myself a racial nationalist. Not for any fear of accusations of racism, but in the simple truth, I am an ethnic nationalist. My people are the Canadian people. This identity goes far deeper for me than race alone.

I believe that White nationalism is a post-war reaction to the American Civil Rights movement and its consequences, as well as the deracination of European ethnic communities through suburbanization, leaving the only thing to rally around as the concept of the White race, in contrast to increasing numbers and proximity to other races.

This is not to say I don’t support White advocacy or White solidarity, or that I don’t think Western civilization shouldn’t loosely unite on shared attributes. It’s that I believe race is too broad a category for most people to reason with.

In the Canadian context, we are simply not just “White.” Canada is not, and never has been, a melting pot. As of the 2021 Census from Statistics Canada, approximately 72% of the population was Anglo-Canadian or Quebecois. These two categories are calculated by combining self-identification with any British Isles or French-derived ethnicity.

On that note, it is no coincidence that the Arms of Canada, also known as the Shield of the Red Ensign flag has become the official symbol of Canadian nationalists rather than the symbols associated with White nationalist movements around the world. Ethnicity goes deeper than race—it is more personal, more colloquial, more relevant. Canada already has an explicit ethnic nationalist presence in Quebec.

According to Dr. Ricardo Duchesne in his book Canada in Decay, in 1867, Canada was 92% Anglo-Canadian and Quebecois. Canada was originally founded by 60,000 Loyalist Americans abandoning the Thirteen Colonies. They settled in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. This group was bolstered by settlers directly and exclusively from the British Isles: 1.9 million Englishmen, 850,000 Irishmen, and 200,000 Scots. Almost all of these newcomers spoke English and melded into the distinct Loyalist American culture, rather than “Britishizing” Canadians further. In a process similar to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes melding into the new Anglo-Saxons.

At the same time, the population grew through mostly Norman Frenchmen, who had already built and maintained a separate civilization in Quebec. Quebec City and Montreal were already around 150 years old by the time of Confederation. Settlers, mainly from Normandy, created a society where French women had an average of five children per family for 230 years. Acadian women, on the other hand, had an average of ten children per family. The managerial regime deliberately leaves out details of Canadian history such as the immense natural population booms from high birthrates.

This is the ethnogenesis of the Canadian people: two supermajority ethnic groups, distinct yet united. As I mentioned earlier in the speech, in 2021, approximately 72% of Canadians are still Anglo-Canadian and Quebecois. The liberal cultural mosaic myth is so pervasive it had Canadians for generations believing that we were a melting pot of Anglo-Canadian, Quebecois, German, Ukrainian, Polish, Italian, Czech Slovak, Greek, or Italian, to justify mass migration from outside the Western world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canadians are far more European in their ethnic homogeneity, and this is part of why Canada for centuries was regarded by all as a the crossroads between Europe and the United States.

The Impact of Immigration Policy

In 1967, under Lester B. Pearson, Canada adopted the points-based immigration system, marking the first overhaul allowing non-Westerners to enter. Prior to this, Canada’s immigration system favoured Anglo, French, or Northern European settlers. Then in 1971, Pierre Trudeau introduced the Multiculturalism Policy. This policy, trying to out-do the Americans in their right-liberalism by adopting left-liberalism, rejected the “melting pot” style of assimilation embraced by the United States and emphasized the preservation of ethnic differences. In 1988, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act further entrenched these policies, promoting the formation of ethnic enclaves on Canadian soil. Canada has not assimilated foreigners for approximately 49 years.

This demonstrates how Canadians cannot “do” liberalism effectively. They wanted foreigners to be Canadian without expecting any form of integration. In their attempt, they abolished state recognition of Canada’s own founding nations. But as we know, nations exist whether states recognize them or not. Scotland, Brittany, Quebec or Catalonia are all nations and once unrecognized by their states.

Ironically, the Canadian state preserved its differences through these very policies. We are now adrift, with micro-nations in our borders, attempting to grow into micro-states.

Comparison to the United States

The United States in my view, made a decision that led to its demographic and cultural fragmentation starting as early as the 1790 Naturalization Act, which declared America a proposition nation for “free White men.”

By the 1860s, Yankee elites, reeling from the losses of the Civil War, flooded the country with millions of Europeans to replenish their population. These immigrants settled in different regions or enclaves within cities, and while they nominally adopted Anglo-American culture over time, their shared ethnic identity dissolved. The result was a disparate European diaspora with no unifying identity other than race, which became a reactive force in contrast to other racial groups in the country.

The Anglo-American elite attempted to maintain their cultural dominance. Strongmen like Teddy Roosevelt aggressively pursued “total Americanization.” But by then, it was too late. The demographic differences were too vast, and the cultural fragmentation too deep. John F. Kennedy was the first "White ethnic" president.

Even today, while a majority of White Americans remain predominantly British in ancestry, significant regional and cultural differences exist. There is no shared ethnic identity. America’s liberal assimilation project was doomed from the start. Over time, the proposition nation shifted from being defined by Anglo-Americans to all Whites, and then to incorporating Blacks, Hispanic Catholics, East-Indians, and other groups.

Canada never suffered the mass immigration from Europe that led to what Americans once called “White ethnics” demographically displacing Anglo-Americans, where they only truly exist in northern New England, Utah, Appalachia and parts of Dixie.

Coast to coast, Halifax in Nova Scotia, to Victoria in British Columbia, Canada remains Anglo-Canadian and Quebecois. The only exceptions are regions of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are still majority Anglo-Canadian and Quebecois, according to the 2021 Census.

The True Canadian Identity

A true Canadian nationalist knows he is not American. Canadians are not a proposition nation. Our identity is rooted in something much deeper.

I argue that Canadians not only socially select for communal, pro-social authoritarians but that this tendency is reinforced epigenetically. We are bred for this. This is the ethnic character of the Canadian people.

MAGA populism, for all its appeal, remains right-liberal globalism. It is the universalizing, homogenizing force of the United States—a modern Rome or Tower of Babel.

Global Populism and American Influence

You hear this now in Britain, Germany, or the Netherlands. Populist politicians in these countries speak of “fundamental rights,” “inalienable rights,” and are deeply tied to American right-wing media. Many figures have American flags in their bios or conduct all of their content in English. Maxime Bernier was associated with Christine Anderson of Alternative für Deutschland. Viktor Orbán of Hungary showed up at a GOP event. Eva Vlaardingerbroek and Naomi Seibt, both from the Netherlands and Germany, primarily address both their native people and the English-speaking world in English.

It’s clear that this has turned into another form of Americanism, and direct or indirect American power projection by direct and indirect cultural export.

The Sacred Identity of Canada

What we have in Canada is sacred. It cannot be traded away, bought, or sold. We have a history, a heritage, and a long tradition of resistance against liberalism. It runs in the blood. Even when we embrace liberalism, we do so in an illiberal way.

Canada must resist these global forces of universal liberalism by adapting our foundations and ethnic character for the future. We must recognize Canada as a country of two immutable nations: Anglo-Canadian and French-Canadian, comprised of homogeneous ethnic blocs.

Let the Arms of Canada, the shield, be the anchor of a new nationalism, rooted in the heritage of the first four provinces of the original Red Ensign. Toronto is Canada’s Rome; Montreal, its Constantinople. All that is necessary for Anglo-Canadians is to embrace the defensive mindset and in-group preference that requires no explanation or justification seen in their French-Canadians brothers.

Vanguard Elite

I’ve been listening to Jonathan Bowden lately, and he reminded me of something vital—the necessity of vanguard elites.

We need people with unshakable resilience, people who hold firm even when things feel hopeless.

Bowden's words reminded me that, in times of crisis, it’s not the masses or populists who lead the way. It’s the few—the vanguard—who carve the path forward. The truth is, while our numbers may be growing, the real issue is quality, not quantity. Instead of focusing on demographics or sheer numbers, Canadian nationalists must prioritize quality—an elite perspective, not a populist one.

Every movement needs a vanguard, a core group of disciplined leaders who are willing to step forward when others hesitate. The problem with embracing a victim mindset is that it conditions people to think and act like victims. You see this in modern conservatives—they love to blackpill. They love to wallow in despair, to lose gracefully, rather than fight to win, even if winning means getting their hands dirty.

They’d rather complain about the state of things than take decisive action.

Canadians struggle with solidarity because we haven’t faced true adversity or existential struggle in a very long time.

We conquered the ruthless Iroquois, tamed the land, and built the Canadian National Railway through the Rockies before the United States did. These were monumental achievements of strength, perseverance, and unity. We had the fourth largest navy in the world after the Second World War, launched the third satellite ever made into space, and built the most advanced bomber interceptor the world had ever seen. We had the technical expertise and the intelligence to build nuclear weapons, but chose the CANDU nuclear reactor instead.

But over time, we’ve become vassalized by the United States—our first and oldest enemy. Intentionally or not, they remain our greatest existential threat.

This lack of external pressure has made us complacent. We’ve forgotten what it means to struggle for survival as a people.

Some Canadians, though, are beginning to wake up.

They’re starting to feel the sting of marginalization, the creeping dispossession of their identity and culture.

But this awareness will only reach a few. Most people aren’t naturally drawn to leadership or the role of a vanguard. They’ll only turn to it in moments of desperation.

Many yearn for solutions to pressing issues, like mass immigration, but they want someone else to solve these problems for them.

They avoid confrontation, hoping that someone else will take the risks and face the consequences.

In truth, many people will criticize those who act decisively while secretly approving of the outcomes.

They’ll publicly distance themselves, yet quietly feel relieved when action is taken.

This contradiction reflects the confusion many feel in a society where the CBC and the media insist that everything is fine, even as reality tells a different story.

I’ve even had overweight, green-haired, they-them colleagues privately admit their frustrations.

They’ve confided in me that they hate Indians and want them gone, even while they publicly espouse progressive values.

This kind of hypocrisy is a symptom of the larger cultural confusion we face today.

To those who see reality for what it is, I urge you to remember our tradition—the Canadian tradition.

It’s a tradition of strength, perseverance, and non-surrender.

This tradition demands purpose and action.

We are not a post-national people. The state may have abandoned the nation, but the nation is here. It lives and breathes through you.

You are its lifeblood, its strength, and its future.

The greatest threat we face today is cultural and ethnic dispossession.

But with indomitable strength and courage, we will not only resist this tide—we will have our home again.

Canada now. Canada forever.

Thank you.