But the CNP and NCA should take some comfort in the fact that, despite being Canada’s most Fringe-Right parties, despite having been censored by big-tech, despite having been suppressed by state-sponsored NGOs and slandered their mainstream media cronies, despite being threatened and assaulted, despite being denied access to public spaces–– they were able to spread their reach and register in this past election. These parties only gained a following and a presence in various districts where they were practically nonexistent. What could start off as 10 voters in one district for one year could easily become 100 in the same district for the next year (provided each voter is able to influence at least 10 other people) and what could start off as 100 one year could easily become 1,000 and so on. This isn't even considering the influence individuals can have on other districts as well! This kind of grassroots growth can become exponential.
Last night was the first time of this campaign season that the Canadian public got a sense of what awaits them in the upcoming election. As much as this may not have technically been the first debate, it certainly felt like the first debate in light of what the previous debate represented.
In a two-party system, it is easy to ask which party is better while completely forgetting to ask whether both are good to begin with. It is when one begins to ask this question that they can change the entire paradigm... What we need aren’t two sides of the same coin, but a different coin altogether.
In many ways, the nature of the events that have unfolded within our nation reflect broader trends in the West in general. In general, we are seeing nationalist forces rising in parts of the West while NGOs (like the Open Society Foundation among others...) and supranational Globalist leaders like Guy Verhofstadt attempt to consolidate power and build an "empire". In Canada, we see NGOs (like the Canadian Antihate Network among others...) suppressing Nationalism while "Postnational" nation-state leaders like Justin Trudeau attempt to further their reign over their nation-state as puppets of much broader interests.
What we have here are nonelected, nongovernment, non-for-profit organizations, with a history of representing foreign and radical interests, who have been trying to use law-enforcement agencies, state-owned media outlets, private media outlets, policy advocacy, and the threat of radical extremist violence in order to suppress nationalism within a nation-state.
What Quebec has is a government with a party that has campaigned on reducing the number of immigrants into Quebec to 40,000 (20%) in comparison with the nation's quota of 350,000+, a party that has campaigned on banning burkas, hijabs, and kippas, a party that has campaigned on the ethnic heritage of the Quebecois, and a party that explicitly identifies as "Nationalist" before "Conservative". So what was key to the success of the CAQ?
Currently, on the world stage, we are seeing tensions in Venezuela over Juan Guaidó staging a potential US or Brazilian-backed coup against Maduro, tensions in Iran over the renegotiating of the Iran deal, tensions in Syria over Israel occupying the Golan Heights, and now the tensions between China are increasing even more than before. As if we didn’t have Chinese expansion in the South China Sea to worry about, as if we didn’t have North Korea (a Chinese proxy's missile tests) to worry about, and, as if we didn’t have the current trade war and deficit to worry about––we are now seeing the Canadian government take explicit actions against one of China’s major international brands. The biggest issue about all of this is that all of these nation-states that the US is taking action against are nation-state that are aligned with one another (plus Russia).
So these are the Liberals of today... What should be noted here isn't that the Conservatives are a better option, but that the Liberals are just as bad. If anything, Canadian Nationalists should be hopeful for the rise of a paradigm characterized by the NDP and PPC rather than the Progressive Neoliberalism of today, especially because the Economic Nationalism of the NDP greatly compliments the more National Conservatism of the PPC. It is within a paradigm like this, that there is a lot of populist potential for anyone who finds the point of compromise between Socialist Populism and Nationalist Populism.