Last night, during Canada’s 2019 Federal election, the Conservative Party of Canada lost by 36 seats despite having won the popular vote. To a certain extent, this represents almost a minor inversion of the Trump phenomenon in three ways. First of all, instead of having the polls greatly underestimate the Liberals (as they did with Trump in the US),  they only began to mildly underestimate Trudeau right before the election. Second of all, instead of having a Nationalist or Populist victory, Canada is seeing yet another victory for Progressive Globalism. Thirdly, instead of having the right-wing party win through means of regional democracy, it was a left-wing party that won.

Trudeau’s premiership is beginning to look like an inversion Harper’s premiership as well. Where Harper started off with a minority government only to become a majority, Trudeau started off with a majority government only to become a minority government. In many respects, the Conservatives should be glad that they made gains in this election, whereas the Liberals only lost seats. Furthermore, the Green Party of Canada was able to gain 2 more seats than they previously held, bringing them up to 3 seats in total. And, when it comes to career-politicians, Jody Wilson-Raybould was able to maintain her seat despite running as an independent candidate. This, presumably, had to do with the sensationalism surrounding the SNC-Lavalin Scandal.

When it comes to Nationalism and Populism, the Bloc Quebecois made considerable gains in this election, winning 4 more seats than they previously had, bringing their total number up to 14 while winning 32 electoral districts in Quebec. If anything, this should serve to further galvanize the Quebecois Nationalism represented by the current CAQ government. On the other hand, the “Pour l’Indépendance du Québec/For the Independence of Quebec” party only received 4,000 votes with 13 candidates.

With that being said, when it comes to National-Populism in the rest of Canada, the results look dismal. At one point during the election, it seemed as though Bernier was going to win in his riding, but he lost to the Conservative candidate by a few-thousand votes. From here, looking at things at face value through a Nationalist-lens, it would seem as though they get much worse. With that being said, looks can be deceiving…

Stephen Garvey’s National Citizens Alliance was ultimately only able to garner 507 votes, whereas Travis Patron’s Canadian Nationalist Party was only able to garner 284 (a difference of 223). Interestingly enough, while Garvey’s party did better, Patron was able to get more votes than Garvey. With that being said, where the NCA came in third-last, the CNP came dead last (right behind the “Stop Climate Change” Party). But, without being too pessimistic about this situation, there are a few positive things to take away from these results.

The first thing to note is that the NCA was only running candidates in 4 districts, whereas the CNP was running candidates in 3. By comparison, the SCC was running candidates in 2 districts and won 296 votes, so these kinds of results (200-500 votes) are to be expected for newer parties with a limited number of candidates. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, being an older party by contrast, was about to get over 1,000 votes despite only having 3 candidates.

Meanwhile, newer parties with 5-6 candidates, like the Radical Marijuana Party and the United Party of Canada, ended up getting around 600-800 votes. In the case of the “Canada’s Fourth Front” Party, they received 700 votes with 7 candidates running.

Parties like the Veterans Coalition Party and the Christian Heritage Party, which had anywhere from 25-40 candidates, were able to get anywhere from 6,000-19,000 votes. With that being said, it is worth noting that the CHP probably won more votes because they had more candidates and have been around longer than the VCP.

Interestingly enough, when one factors in the age of the party and the number of candidates, the Communist and Marxist-Leninist parties arguably did the worst, only getting around 4,200 votes despite having 30-40 candidates and having been around since 1921/1970. The Libertarian Party did slightly better in this respect, given that they got 8,200 votes with 25 candidates and given that they have been around since 1973.

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 one year could easily become 100 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.

In the case of the CNP, what we need to understand is that this is Canada’s first Ethnonationalist party, which increases the odds against them even more in light of the current political climate. Furthermore, the CNP was one of Canada’s most-newly registered parties, having registered right before the writ was dropped. While the CNP never called for an “ethnostate” of any kind, what they did want was to maintain a dominant-majority confederation. Perhaps the smartest thing about their position is that, while they believed in putting forward legislation to maintain the demographic status of the current European-descended ethnic-majority, they were not an ethnically-exclusivist party, meaning that they were willing to work with all minorities who showed solidarity with the ethnic-majority.

It is worth adding that the CNP had many policies that were intended to benefit all Canadians, regardless of ethnicity. In fact, one could argue that the CNP’s social and economic policy was more equitable towards POC than the NDP’s platform, and this is because the CNP wanted to provide a basic income for all Canadian citizens. It is because the CNP was not ethnically-exclusivist that 1 of the 3 candidates running for the CNP was of Indian-descent. Far from being a contradiction within the CNP’s platform, this served to show that the CNP understood the consistency of working with any willing minorities who understand the importance of maintaining the ethnic-majority: it’s demographic status, it’s culture, and it’s standard of living.

In many ways, one could actually work out an ideological position from the views of the CNP and it’s leader, something I would dub: Patronism. The first and most esoteric element of Patronism consists of a sense of mysticism and spirituality largely grounded in a kind of Pythagorean numerology. It is in this element that the importance of genes, free-markets, and cryptocurrency make their introduction, namely insofar as they are reducible to shapes, numbers, and algorithms. The second element of Patronism consists of a sense of Christianity which can be derived from this understanding of mysticism and spirituality. The third element of Patronism is based in a sense of ethnocentrism (with national conservative and paleoconservative overtones) inspired by certain elements of science and religion, which seeks to cultivate the best in the West. The real question here is that, in an age of multi-ethnic dysgenesis and the rise of secular-atheism/decline of religion, what is the best course of action for an ideology such as this? Ultimately, it becomes a question of presentability and marketability.

In the case of the NCA, this was a party that was more National-Populist than Ethnonationalist. By this, I mean they were more concerned with stopping a “global elite” than they were with “maintaining the European-descended majority”. With that being said, the NCA certainly came close holding some positions that were very implicitly ethnocentric, such as recognizing the phenomenon of demographic replacement in various municipalities and recognizing the extent to which mass-immigration is undercutting domestic employment.

While the NCA did seem to have some secondary or implicit concerns about the future of Euro-Canadians, their main goal was representing the citizens of this nation in establishing a more direct democracy (under proportional representation), combatting non-elected interests (like the Queens Privy Council), and eliminating government-driven debt caused by social and economic policies (that have been implemented by UN interests). Eventually, the NCA came to follow suit with some of the CNP’s concerns with the private sector, and as a result, they came to adopt similar policies to the CNP on trade and banking. In this respect, NCA also went on to criticize Bernier for some of his global-corporate influences and ties with globalist figures (like the Koch Brothers).

Perhaps the only issue with the NCA is that they spent so much time dividing themselves from the PPC because of Bernier’s former positions than they didn’t focus on uniting with the PPC based on common ground. Garvey himself also has a history of flipping his positions as well, which is not only shown in all the name and logo changes for his party, but it’s also shown in his now-changed views on Syrian refugees (used to be pro-refugee), protectionism (used to be anti-protectionism), and Canadian banking (Garvey used to be in favour of the BOC act of ’34 which privatizes the BOC rather than the act of ’38 which nationalized it). Furthermore, perhaps the biggest issue with the NCA is that they eventually came to refuse working with the CNP because it does not support the Zionist agenda that currently dominates Canada’s foreign policy paradigm. With that being said, just as Bernier changed, so too is Garvey capable of the same.

While Garvey’s National-Populist ideology isn’t really remarkable or consistent itself (given that it is currently being applied in Italy, Poland, and Austria), what makes it unique is that it hasn’t really been applied in a country like Canada before. The closest we’ve come to something like the National Citizens Alliance is somewhere in between Preston Manning’s Reform Party and Bible Bill’s Social Credit Party.

One of the biggest issues here is why the CNP and NCA didn’t come together only to further align with other parties like the Christian Heritage Party or the United Veterans Party. Were all 4 of these parties to align, they could’ve even formed an alliance with the PPC. Such an alliance wouldn’t even have to be an electoral alliance, whereby the parties temporarily merge for the election. Such an alliance could have even been a political alliance where the parties agree that they would cooperate in a coalition government. Now, you might be wondering what the use in such an alliance would be if the parties don’t even get elected, and the answer is that: it would increase their marketing potential. If these four parties were able to advertise themselves as an alliance, it could’ve created a much-bigger tent movement with a much broader support base. Perhaps what we need is a more broadly Euro-Christian movement centred around military-populism for Veterans.

So ultimately, there are 3 things to be concluded from last night’s election:

1) The first thing is that despite all the scandals and controversy within the Liberal Party, Trudeau was re-elected. People like to talk about how bad Doug Ford’s budget cuts were in Ontario while failing to realize just how bad Wynne’s government was. This party was faced with failure after failure, from having Benjamin Levin, a convicted child-pornographer, writing Ontario’s sex ed-curriculum to Wynne privatizing Hydro One only for outage time and prices to increase. Even on a federal level, we see scandals like Trudeau using taxpayer money for personal expenses, Ahmed Hussein’s leaked statement on the untenability of the backlog of illegals, Morneau’s countless conflicts of interest, and all the Liberal cabinet members involved in the SNC-Lavalin Affair.

2) The second thing is that the PPC wasn’t even able to maintain their seat let alone “split the vote” as so many conservatives alleged. Where some people thought that the Conservatives were going to win a majority, they weren’t even able to gain a minority. If anything, this should attest to the incompetence and impotence of modern Conservatism.

3) The third thing is that, despite all the scandals within the Liberal Party, the NDP did worse this election than they did in the last. For a party that could’ve been the runner up as Canada’s newest left-wing party, Sing couldn’t even do better than the Bloc Quebecois!

What can be concluded from all of this is that Canada is very complicit with the corrupt nature of things as they currently stand. In this respect, things are clearly going to have to get a lot worse and better options are going to have to start to come to the forefront of Canadian society, otherwise this decline that we are on will only continue. A growing sense of discontentment is revealing itself with the rise of Quebecois Nationalism and the possibility of a Western Canada Exit or “Wexit” from the Confederation.

For Nationalist and National-Populist parties in Canada like the CNP, NCA, and PPC (and those on the Nationalist-Right in general), there are 3 that should be learned:

1) Duration of existence and number of candidates are a huge factor when it comes to winning votes.

2) There is a huge vacuum on both the Popular-Left and the Popular-Right (i.e. Canada has no Sanders or Trump), and a fusion of both would maximize market appeal.

3) Put your differences aside and work together. For the 5/10 policies you disagree on, there are 5/10 you’ll agree on. If enough essential common ground is shared, then mutual growth should take place.

Given the current rate of economic liberalism and social progressivism, the 2020s are looking to shape up like the 1920s. Where the 20th Century came out of a period of finance and industrialization, the 21st Century has come out of a period of digitization and automation.  Neoliberalism has become the new laissez-faire Capitalism and Progressivism is used to excuse the decadence.  It is conceivable that if alternative parties continue to maintain a presence and field candidates, then they may continue to grow throughout the oncoming poverty and depravity of 2020s. If this is the case, this could mean that Canada in the 2030s could look a lot like Canada in the 1930s, where we had tons of alternative and successful parties like the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the Social Credit Party, National Union, etc…

It is always easy to look at things through a critical lens and it would be just as easy to throw down the towel because the going got too tough and the kitchen got too hot. It is much harder to look at things from a constructive lens only to get the touch going and sweat it out. I believe that, in the end, the latter will be most rewarding precisely because that is how greatness is built.

* If you would like to access premium content and videos here at The Red Ensign, consider becoming a subscriber: Only monthly subscribers get media access to interviews and behind-the-scenes engagements of the Canadian Nationalist Party.

Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are those of the author exclusively. They do not represent the positions of the Canadian Nationalist Party, their employees or of other organizations with which they are or have been affiliated. This site is provided for informational purposes only. Links to third party websites are provided for the convenience of users, and do not constitute an endorsement of their contents or a representation as to their accuracy.


Maurice Porter

Located in Ontario, Canada, Maurice Porter is a journalist who focuses on history and current through a Nationalist lens. Having attended university in Waterloo, Porter studied history, politics, and philosophy from a Occidentalist approach. Maurice manages the MacDonald Institute and wrote the MacDonald Mandate, which is currently being used by the Canadian Nationalist Party.