Canada is a failed state

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1760331964651.jpg
 
Jetpack Himmler said:
Canada sacrificed its cultural heritage to make immigration, universal healthcare, and Tim Hortons the three pillars of its post-national state. Immigration and the cultural relativism has brought infinite Jeets that eroded social cohesion to nothing in addition to exacerbating cost of living while cratering quality of living. Universal healthcare is collapsing, in part, because of that and Tim Hortons just a hollow corporate shell that sacrificed its brand identity for profit. Canada has no culture so any theoretical Alberta separation would be a clean slate.
Click to expand...
Even Albertans are as pozzed as the average dem voter in the US. Old stock rural country folk they are not.
Maker's Mark said:
Yes. The boomers fucked us again. The most selfish, entitled generation of our time, always find a way to fuck things up and never feel any consequences. I hope they start feeling it this time.
Click to expand...
The Cum Beast said:
Even the most gated communities are being infested by immigrants now, and in fact Montreal had the most immigration out of any city in 2024.
Click to expand...
Boomers will feel it. But they feel only the faintest bits. They had their golden age, what's a few shitty years in the tail end? They still have money and assets to endure the jeet horde. But for younger Canadians? We get to experience the full force of having our future stripped from bleeding hands by bobble headed cousin fuckers.
Day of the Cope said:
Made the mistake of meeting with both of my parents today. Needless to say, both of them are completely fucking delusional about how bad the state of things are in the country, specifically the rampant mass immigration, and seem to be more concerned about me rocking the boat. They that unemployment is the highest its been since 2016 (ignoring the time we shut off the economy for their asses), that over one-in-five people in Canada are a fucking immigrant, that costs are going up while quality is going down, or that pretty much all the entry jobs are being taking up by immigrants.
Click to expand...
If your parents are anything like mine they are operating solely on "FUCK TRUMP". I saw my mom's youtube feed and like 75% of it is shit like "HOW USA JUST MADE IT'S BIGGEST MISTAKE" "CARNEY HUMILIATES TRUMP" "USA CAN'T SURVIVE WITHOUT CANADIAN GOODS" "CANADIAN TOURISTS LEAVING CRASHES ECONOMY"
Outer Space Traveller said:
So they deserve to go through the difficulties they currently are going, until they learn. Bottoms up. (I know it is elbows, not bottoms).

By the way, what are you Kiwis planning for Thanksgiving? I know Canada fucking sucks, but the spirit of the country lives within you.
Click to expand...
Ribs, mashed taters, marshmallow sweet potatos and pumpkin pie.
harbringer883 said:
Oil + Jeet slave labour = mucho profit
Click to expand...
If only we learned from the arabs and treated them like slave labour instead of inviting them to be citizens. If you wanna be slaves you get fucking treated like it.

But just like northerners and the us south downstairs nobody listens to the people who actually have had to deal with the minority being discussed.
 
Last edited:
karaokeman said:
Ontario was never given the chance to develop its own independent cultural identity because the moment Canada no longer aligned with the British Empire in 1956, Canadian multiculturalism was mandated in 1971, and non-British mass immigration soon followed. Ontario basically missed out on 80 years of cultural development that it can never undo.
Click to expand...
History doesn't happen in spite of, it happens because. The reason multiculturalism was embraced was because there was no foundation for the Canadian identity. Ontario didn't "miss out" on cultural development - it never developed in and of itself. Culture can develop outside of government regulation - in fact, most cultures do. "Culture" that require constant government oversight and support to exist aren't often organic or meaningful, nor very cultural at all.

karaokeman said:
A modern example would be akin to Luxembourg, or Belgium, which has similar bicultural, or tricultural, arrangements.
Click to expand...
Both are poor examples because both countries have tenuous relationships, at best, between their respective ethnic groups. Separatist parties in Belgium, for example, constantly advocate for the secession of Flanders.

karaokeman said:
when an influx of Loyalists arrived from the USA during the American Revolutionary War
Click to expand...
The Loyalists don't get considered enough. They were people that experienced taxation without representation and loved it. They were a cowardly, unimaginative people that were incredibly averse to risk and uncertainty. These are the ancestors of those that now refuse to question government policies, defend the government from all criticism, and brand critics as traitors.

karaokeman said:
The original plan for Canada was English-French biculturalism, with Ontario being the heartland of English culture, and Quebec the centre of French culture, and this included an eventual plan for mainstream bilingualism by prioritizing the two cultures, and the two languages.
Click to expand...
I think that this is a very Canadian thought, in that it ignores every other province that isn't Ontario or Quebec.

karaokeman said:
ierre Trudeau partly did this to soften the tensions between the English and the French, but all it did was destroy the cultural consensus of the previous 400 years.
Click to expand...
If one act was enough to destroy 4 centuries of cultural consensus, then it was not a very strong consensus.
 
kawaiikat420 said:
History doesn't happen in spite of, it happens because. The reason multiculturalism was embraced was because there was no foundation for the Canadian identity. Ontario didn't "miss out" on cultural development - it never developed in and of itself. Culture can develop outside of government regulation - in fact, most cultures do. "Culture" that require constant government oversight and support to exist aren't often organic or meaningful, nor very cultural at all.
Click to expand...

Canada was New France for 229 years, and effectively a British dominion until 1982. Historical relevancy dictates that Canada's historic identity is an English-French nation. The state plays a crucial and constant role in cultivating culture, in Europe this manifested in the royal courts (London, Versailles, Vienna, Madrid, or papal court in the case of Rome) which shaped much of European culture as we know it today. It is ultimately the state which dictates culture, whether its tribal chieftains, or imperial monarchs.

Japan's culture was dictated by the imperial court in Kyoto for over a thousand years, you simply cannot make such a claim that culture does not require constant government maintenance when you have a username like "kawaii," like do you even know where that originates? It's an off-shoot of miyabi, the aesthetic of the Japanese imperial court, the court ladies were writing in their diaries about cuteness. Sorry I had to go there but a lot of people here seem to be weebs.

kawaiikat420 said:
Both are poor examples because both countries have tenuous relationships, at best, between their respective ethnic groups. Separatist parties in Belgium, for example, constantly advocate for the secession of Flanders.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have English-French tensions than becoming an extension of India, Pakistan, and Africa. Literally please bring back good old fashioned English-French rivalry, I am begging, its much more preferrable than having Indians blasting loud Bollywood music, shooting fireworks, looking ugly, with their literal pyjama clothes, Third World slop, and the stench of acidic poop.

kawaiikat420 said:
I think that this is a very Canadian thought, in that it ignores every other province that isn't Ontario or Quebec.
Click to expand...

As much as I like Manitoba's verdant plains and métis origins, in 1867 they were not even a province, they began as a thinly populated métis region cropped out of Britain's territory, Rupert's Land, and its final borders were redrawn in 1907. A similar story for the rest of the Prairies, and even the Maritimes, Newfoundland itself was a British territory until 1949. Ontario and Quebec dictates and shapes our national identity because it is the historic core of Canada, where Canada itself began as a French and later British province, where the term Canada originates, and where most of the population resides.

kawaiikat420 said:
If one act was enough to destroy 4 centuries of cultural consensus, then it was not a very strong consensus.
Click to expand...

The Great Leap Forward was one act and it destroyed much of China's ancient culture, and they're still recovering from it.

The potency of the muliticultural policy in destroying Canada's English-French consensus cannot be understated, especially for a country that is very young compared to China.

All proponents of Canada not having a core culture can go fuck themselves, Pierre Trudeau simps.

All laws derive from normative standards, and normative standards are dictated by culture. Canada's core culture is English-French as evident by the Quebec Act and British North America Act.

Any and all arguments against this fail because laws wouldn't fucking exist with a core culture, ya dimwits.

Like what do you fucking think happens, you just take a dump and use your shit to make laws? Laws are literally the fucking prime evidence of a core culture, laws cannot exist without a core culture.

When someone says Canada has no core culture, they're retarded fuckwits, laws are literally derived from a core culture.

It's like saying the HUMANS DON'T HAVE WATER even though were 75% water, that's how retarded it sounds.

WE HAVE LAWS THEREFORE WE HAVE A CORE CULTURE.

Here's an equation because de-programming 80 years of "Canada has no core culture" is exhausting:

CORE CULTURE = NORMATIVE STANDARDS = LAWS
 
Last edited:
karaokeman said:
Sorry I had to go there but a lot of people here seem to be weebs.
Click to expand...
No offense- but you bring up Japan so often ITT that I consider you one of the chief weebs.

karaokeman said:
The Great Leap Forward was one act and it destroyed much of China's ancient culture
Click to expand...
Culture is more than trinkets or buildings. Culture is imbued in the minds and the hearts of the people. Canadian culture, if you'd like to believe that there is one, is soulless, derivative, neurotic, delusional, self-aggrandizing, defensive, impotent, self-serving, and defeatist. That's the culture that I saw shared between so many different provinces anyway.

Canada isn't a French state nor is it a British state. It's Canada. Your model is incorrect because it forgoes historical realism in favour of historical fantasy. The reason the bi-cultural model doesn't work is because the bi-cultural model is what got us to where we are today. Things happen for a reason. Canada failed because of the sum of all things that have happened since its founding.
 
kawaiikat420 said:
The Loyalists don't get considered enough. They were people that experienced taxation without representation and loved it. They were a cowardly, unimaginative people that were incredibly averse to risk and uncertainty. These are the ancestors of those that now refuse to question government policies, defend the government from all criticism, and brand critics as traitors.
Click to expand...
Nah the colonies had representation, and the British motherland just spent a ton of money paying to defend the colonies during the French-India War, having to raise taxes to pay back said loans.

They also felt it was important to maintain strong ties with the European mother continent.

One of the biggest reasons for the rebellion/revolution was the fact that British authorities labelled all that new land along the Ohio river valley to be Injun land and forbade people from heading West.
 
kawaiikat420 said:
Culture is more than trinkets or buildings.
Click to expand...
It is important to note that there is a difference between high and "low" culture, or what we would today call popular culture. Artists, poets/playwrights, and composers historically needed patronage from royal houses and the nobility to keep practicing their craft which is why Paris, London, and Vienna became important cultural centers for their time. Meanwhile, the common people had their own customs that operated independently from the concert halls and theaters. Just call it a theory, but the rise of free markets that came with the industrial revolution, an emerging middle class, and increasing literacy rates expanded the market for popular culture (i.e. Victorian literature) that was more egalitarian in nature. America's own melting pot allowed for a new cultural consciousness to emerge by incorporating parts of the old world into its own from immigrant groups (like pasta and pizza from Southern Italians.)

Canada never experienced a proper ethnogenesis compared to our American brethren. We has bits of one, but the problem was that the narrow window @karaokeman mentions came at a time when academics and elites influenced by postmodernism came to prominence. Thus policy wonks replaced kings and aristocrats as patrons of the arts and thus it was them that astroturfed a(n non-)identity out of shapeless abstracts like diversity and tolerance while being conformists and intolerant themselves. No one notices the paradox because they're too glued to their phones and consooming slop to care about the spiritual degradation of the nation.
 
kawaiikat420 said:
No offense- but you bring up Japan so often ITT that I consider you one of the chief weebs.


Culture is more than trinkets or buildings. Culture is imbued in the minds and the hearts of the people. Canadian culture, if you'd like to believe that there is one, is soulless, derivative, neurotic, delusional, self-aggrandizing, defensive, impotent, self-serving, and defeatist. That's the culture that I saw shared between so many different provinces anyway.

Canada isn't a French state nor is it a British state. It's Canada. Your model is incorrect because it forgoes historical realism in favour of historical fantasy. The reason the bi-cultural model doesn't work is because the bi-cultural model is what got us to where we are today. Things happen for a reason. Canada failed because of the sum of all things that have happened since its founding.
Click to expand...

I admire Japan's nationalistic traits, and so does literally every person on the political right.

The bi-cultural model was never given a chance. If Great Britain can unite the separate kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Wales and conquer the entire world, there's no reason why Canada couldn't unite the English and French cultural identities.

English-French bi-culturalism would have drastically reduced the competing cultural groups into two, at the exclusion of every other culture, while the Indigenous were always included within the state of Canada but separate in terms of governance. The reduction of the competing cultural groups into two would have significantly made it a lot easier to define a distinct Canadian identity and it would've made a stronger case for a much more limited form of immigration.

What multicultural policy did was spread Canada's legs wide open and announced to the world that every cultural group from the Congo to Punjab can compete in the power structure of Canada, and they'd be protected while doing so.

That's ultimately why I am so against the multicultural experiment because it jeopardizes this country into a future where Punjabs and Pakistanis are holding the power in Ottawa through immigration policy. In a multicultural system, every cultural group is protected and self-interested in pursuing power.

The English-French bicultural system would've been a lot more preferrable. Two cultures, and two languages, that's it. This was workable, and it was never given the chance, because at the crucial moment Canada severed most of its ties to England, it was replaced with multiculturalism.

In many ways, remaining a British dominion with clear privileges for the English and concessions to the French would have been preferrable to being a multicultural cesspit, at the very least Canada would've retained its European identity, and Christianity would've remained politically and socially important rather than just a footnote.
 
Last edited:
Jetpack Himmler said:
It is important to note that there is a difference between high and "low" culture, or what we would today call popular culture. Artists, poets/playwrights, and composers historically needed patronage from royal houses and the nobility to keep practicing their craft which is why Paris, London, and Vienna became important cultural centers for their time. Meanwhile, the common people had their own customs that operated independently from the concert halls and theaters. Just call it a theory, but the rise of free markets that came with the industrial revolution, an emerging middle class, and increasing literacy rates expanded the market for popular culture (i.e. Victorian literature) that was more egalitarian in nature. America's own melting pot allowed for a new cultural consciousness to emerge by incorporating parts of the old world into its own from immigrant groups (like pasta and pizza from Southern Italians.)
Click to expand...
Canada has always been hostile to "low" culture. Part of it is the need of Canadian literati to prove they are just as cultured as their American counterparts. Of course the most famous Canadian novel is the Handmaid's Tale, which is just what Margaret Atwood masturbates to.

Canadian pop culture is more rural in nature like Letterkenny and Red Green or the novels of Farley Mowat. Something that Canadian high society has been outright hostile to. Preferring you to watch things like Little Mosque on the Prairie or Schitt's Creek. Shows people like the idea of, but never watched or enjoyed.
 
OutInTheRain said:
Canada has always been hostile to "low" culture. Part of it is the need of Canadian literati to prove they are just as cultured as their American counterparts.
Click to expand...
I would argue the 'need' is to prove their intellectual superiority much like the British aristos they used to aspire to once upon a time. Habits die hard.
 
OutInTheRain said:
Canadian pop culture is more rural in nature like Letterkenny and Red Green or the novels of Farley Mowat. Something that Canadian high society has been outright hostile to. Preferring you to watch things like Little Mosque on the Prairie or Schitt's Creek. Shows people like the idea of, but never watched or enjoyed.
Click to expand...
Heartland is a great show that's on it's 19th season right now. They keep trying to shoe horn in Niggers, Chinks and Jeets but they never last more than a season before the next diversity hire is introduced.

Corner Gas was hilarious and vastly superior to both Letterkenny and Schitt's Creek.

Mr. D (Jerry Dee) is also hilarious.
 
Campbell_Trio said:
i dont know what made it harder to watch, the stuff he talked about or his loud autistic cartoon reviewer voice.
Click to expand...
Even as a long time Deadwingdork fan I'll admit his voice is definitely an acquired taste. He's gotten really based over the years though so it's enough to look past it.
OutInTheRain said:
Little Mosque on the Prairie
Click to expand...
I never heard of this show until now and it feels eerily foreboding that the Canadian answer to Little House on the Prairie all the back in 2007 would be to make the main cast Muslim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom