Speaker 1: This podcast is supported by the Real Reel. Meet Christine.
Speaker 1: She loves shopping and this, this is the sound of
Speaker 1: fashion overload, too many fabulous things, not enough space. So
Speaker 1: Christine started selling with the Real Reel.
Speaker 2: I've always loved collecting designer pieces, Gucci bags, prod of heels,
Speaker 2: but my style keeps evolving. Selling with the Real Reel
Speaker 2: game changer.
Speaker 1: I earn more and they do everything seriously. Just drop
Speaker 1: off your items, our schedule a pickup. We handle the photos, descriptions, pricing,
Speaker 1: even shipping. You just sit back and watch your items
Speaker 1: sell fast to our forty million members.
Speaker 2: And I get peace of mind knowing I earn more
Speaker 2: selling with the Real Reel than anywhere else.
Speaker 1: Exactly this, that's the sound of your closet working for you.
Speaker 1: The Real Reel earn more, save time, sell fast, and
Speaker 1: right now you can get an extra one hundred dollars
Speaker 1: to shop when you sell for the first time. Go
Speaker 1: to the Realreel dot com to get your extra hundred dollars.
Speaker 1: The Realreal dot Com. That's the realreal dot com.
Speaker 2: Mana a live man like this man letting butterfly, flapping
Speaker 2: his wing, dig down in a forest. Man. It gonna
Speaker 2: cause a tree fall.
Speaker 1: Letting five thousand miles away. Man, nobody seen, nobody.
Speaker 3: See you don't even know, man, you don't they like
Speaker 3: you followed at a little story and you got directed
Speaker 3: like that.
Speaker 1: That's man, Man, don't like a dang on the panel,
Speaker 1: man matter?
Speaker 2: Man? All right, Daniel, welcome to Jay Burdens Show.
Speaker 3: How you doing, Man, I'm doing great things for inviting me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, man, I'm really excited to have you on. I
Speaker 2: was sort of vaguely aware of your product or of
Speaker 2: your project rather, but it wasn't until I think someone
Speaker 2: tagged us both on Twitter that you know, we got connected.
Speaker 2: So if you could for my audience, could you describe, well,
Speaker 2: who are you, who you are and what do you do?
Speaker 4: Yeah, my name is Daniel Tiree. I'm the founder and
Speaker 4: chairman of the Dominion Society. We're a new kind of
Speaker 4: not for profit organization. We call ourselves a vanguard political movement.
Speaker 4: So we're a kind of third party organization that advocates
Speaker 4: for what we call on behalf of what we call
Speaker 4: heritage Canadians and specifically for a concept called remigration. So
Speaker 4: this would be the reversal of kind of policies that
Speaker 4: have created this mass immigration crisis that's hurting the Canadian
Speaker 4: people and undermining our identity. So we look to reverse
Speaker 4: the kind of trends of those immigration policies in order
Speaker 4: to preserve those things.
Speaker 2: So two things, I'm pretty sure my audience will be
Speaker 2: familiar with the concept of heritage Americans. But first, well, one,
Speaker 2: what is a heritage Canadian? And two, can you, I
Speaker 2: guess contextualize what does mass migration in Canada look like?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so, I mean the concept would be very similar.
Speaker 4: A heritage Canadian or is a descendant of the original
Speaker 4: kind of settlers of Canada. We draw the distinction between
Speaker 4: kind of modern economic immigrants and the previous generations of settlers.
Speaker 4: I think there's something fundamentally different than some between someone
Speaker 4: who comes to a hostile wilderness who risks life and
Speaker 4: limb across open oceans in order to carve civilization from nothing,
Speaker 4: versus modern economic economic immigrants who come here to take
Speaker 4: advantage of our wealth and opportunity, to leach off of
Speaker 4: our social assistance and so on. So we draw that distinction.
Speaker 4: So a heritage Canadian is exactly that descendant of the
Speaker 4: original settlers, and mass immigration has become a crazy issue
Speaker 4: across the Western world, but Canada is definitely one of
Speaker 4: the top, one of the most radical examples of it.
Speaker 4: Kind of white Canadians are becoming a minority in our
Speaker 4: in our own homelands, probably as soon as twenty thirty
Speaker 4: twenty thirty five as a result of these radical policies.
Speaker 4: So we've seen kind of increasing in immigration trends since
Speaker 4: about the late nineteen eighties, started under under Prime Minister
Speaker 4: Brian mulrooney, and really kind of reached an unprecedented scale
Speaker 4: under our previous Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, where immigration figures
Speaker 4: got up too close to above a million people per
Speaker 4: year when you factor in temporary residence like foreign workers
Speaker 4: and foreign students in these classes who who will often
Speaker 4: kind of find reason to stay or get on permanent
Speaker 4: tracks for residency as well. So this was you know,
Speaker 4: a huge fraction of our population, and almost in our
Speaker 4: entire population growth was through immigration. About ninety eight percent
Speaker 4: of all population growth in Canada has been through immigration.
Speaker 4: In much of the population growth, the domestic kind of
Speaker 4: birth rate has been to you know, second third generation immigrants.
Speaker 4: So we're seeing our are kind of founding stock get
Speaker 4: pushed to the fringes and all the while we see
Speaker 4: our politicians kind of continue to advocate for immigration and
Speaker 4: to start playing dress up and pander to foreign ethnic blocks,
Speaker 4: which has been kind of corrosive to our politics writ large.
Speaker 4: So there's been a huge backlash against this. A majority
Speaker 4: of Canadians to the tune of over sixty percent, even
Speaker 4: a majority of immigrants are turning against kind of mass
Speaker 4: immigration policies in Canada. But it's kind of the zeitgeist
Speaker 4: to be like, so, how do we kind of deal
Speaker 4: with the consequences instead of actually solving the problem. And
Speaker 4: really what we put forward is what we think is
Speaker 4: the true solution, which is reversing the flow and sending
Speaker 4: a lot of people back instead of just kind of
Speaker 4: trying to figure out how to live together.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to ask what's called a leading question. Surely, right,
Speaker 2: the center right, you know, the people interested in conserving
Speaker 2: your nation are on side. Right, Surely the kind of
Speaker 2: good you know, center right figures are are an alliance
Speaker 2: with you? Is that the case?
Speaker 3: Daniel, No, No, no, unfortunately not.
Speaker 4: In fact, our main center right party, the Conservative Party,
Speaker 4: is is very much like just as much to blame
Speaker 4: as the center left Party the Liberals, like if you
Speaker 4: look back at our history, like these kind of policies
Speaker 4: were started by the Liberals who brought in kind of
Speaker 4: multiculturalism and liberalized our immigration system, took a lot of
Speaker 4: the kind of ethnic and country based policies out of
Speaker 4: our official immigration policies. But the kind of conservatives jumped
Speaker 4: on the same boat.
Speaker 3: Like it.
Speaker 4: It was a conservative prime minister Brian mulroney in the
Speaker 4: in the eighties that took us off of our kind
Speaker 4: of economic based immigration system where we'd turn on the
Speaker 4: taps when the economy was bad, or when the economy
Speaker 4: was bad, we turned off the taps, and when the
Speaker 4: economy was hot, we turned on the taps. He changed
Speaker 4: it to a flat figure, which has just increased and
Speaker 4: increased and increase since then. And then Stephen Harper, our
Speaker 4: most recent conservative prime minister, similarly, he continued to increase immigration.
Speaker 4: He massively increased temporary residents as well, and most troubling,
Speaker 4: he kind of shifted our main sources of immigration of
Speaker 4: immigration in terms of countries from the United States and
Speaker 4: the British Isles and so on, countries that are more ethnically, linguistically,
Speaker 4: culturally similar to Canada to countries that are much more
Speaker 4: distant from US. Now under Stephen Harper and continues to
Speaker 4: this day, the main source of immigration between became the Philippines, China,
Speaker 4: and India, countries that are very very different from Canada.
Speaker 4: So the Conservatives have played a very big role in immigration,
Speaker 4: in the changes to our immigration system, and then even
Speaker 4: to this day they prefer to kind of go with
Speaker 4: the flow instead of pushing back. They similar to the Liberals.
Speaker 4: They're playing dress up, they're pandering to ethnic bloating blocks,
Speaker 4: they're promising to increase the numbers. Until very recently, in
Speaker 4: the last year, we've seen a shift in tune for
Speaker 4: both parties to in line with kind of public opinion.
Speaker 4: But up until now they've all been kind of singing
Speaker 4: from the same song sheet, and we just don't think
Speaker 4: this is acceptable. Like, the Conservatives are very much conservative
Speaker 4: in name only. They stand for you know, free markets,
Speaker 4: free free trade, smaller government. None of these things are
Speaker 4: really ostensibly conservative. They're this kind of Reaganite tradition where
Speaker 4: this the right kind of where liberalism kind of won
Speaker 4: the day and both parties started representing this kind of
Speaker 4: same neoliberal kind of ideology just like you see in
Speaker 4: the States. What we're calling for is a more true
Speaker 4: sense of conservatism. I don't think you can really honestly
Speaker 4: call yourself conservative if you don't stand against this radical
Speaker 4: social change that's happening in our society. So actually last
Speaker 4: week it was our Conservative Parties convention here in Canada
Speaker 4: and out in Calgary, and myself and my organization where
Speaker 4: it went there to kind of host a demonstration and
Speaker 4: kind of put this into the central spotlight. We had
Speaker 4: a demonstation right outside their convention where we ask the
Speaker 4: question conserve what to kind of point out that really
Speaker 4: what they stand for is not conservative in any way.
Speaker 4: In this and demographic change, mass immigration needs to be
Speaker 4: the central focus really for all parties, but especially for
Speaker 4: an a sensibly conservative one.
Speaker 2: So oftentimes when discussing immigration, when discussing remigration, you get
Speaker 2: this sort of canard, right, it's only these kind of old,
Speaker 2: bitter racist hangars on who are concerned about immigration. I
Speaker 2: think that is changing across the anglosphere, certainly in America.
Speaker 2: So I'm curious, like if you could one what is
Speaker 2: the youth sentiment around this issue? And two what are
Speaker 2: the demographics of your organization, Like you know who is
Speaker 2: the average supporter.
Speaker 4: Yeah, No, I think that's a false narrative. I think
Speaker 4: the remigration around the world has been a very youthful movement.
Speaker 4: Our generation has really kind of grown up completely within
Speaker 4: this multicultural kind of liberal society, and it's it's very
Speaker 4: obvious to us how dysfunctional it has been from a
Speaker 4: cultural standpoint, from an economic standpoint, and younger people just
Speaker 4: don't have these same kind of allegiances to old party brands.
Speaker 3: They don't they they they don't, they're not.
Speaker 4: They don't feel kind of saddled with the same baggage
Speaker 4: that older generations do when it comes to maybe more
Speaker 4: a liberal or maybe a statist kind of solutions to
Speaker 4: these problems. So I do think it's a very youthful movement.
Speaker 4: People are really looking for an alternative and something to
Speaker 4: give them hope because really, like people like myself, people
Speaker 4: of my generation have kind of given up hope on
Speaker 4: even the simple standards of yesterday, like being able to
Speaker 4: start a family young and own a house and all
Speaker 4: these things, and everything gets tied back to mass immigration.
Speaker 4: So I do think it's a very youthful movement. That
Speaker 4: being said, like there is definitely in our organization. We
Speaker 4: have actually a pretty even kind of demographic pyramid across
Speaker 4: the age kind of spectrum. It is a bit skewed younger,
Speaker 4: but like the majority of our support is kind of
Speaker 4: between twenty five and forty five. I would say I
Speaker 4: haven't crunched the numbers super recent.
Speaker 3: Not at all.
Speaker 2: I was looking for a specific answer. So building on
Speaker 2: that point, I did something really stupid. I got into
Speaker 2: a debate with a Canadian socialist. Sorry it was inadvisable, right,
Speaker 2: but you know, relatively cordial. And one of the areas
Speaker 2: that we disagreed on was the fact that, you know,
Speaker 2: multiculturalism isn't working. And it's funny because I actually mentioned
Speaker 2: I cited a source from your nation.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: A friend of mine, I won't say which one, has
Speaker 2: been on my show before, and he was talking about
Speaker 2: how his daughter was unable to get a sort of
Speaker 2: normal teenager job, right, the sort of job you do
Speaker 2: before you move out, just to get some work experience,
Speaker 2: to get some pocket money, a couple hours a week.
Speaker 2: And she was describing, or through her dat I guess,
Speaker 2: describing how things like you know, fast food restaurants and
Speaker 2: gas stations that traditionally employed teenagers have basically been turned
Speaker 2: into ethnic rackets where if you're not a member of
Speaker 2: XYZ group you need not apply. And he was describing
Speaker 2: how his daughter had sort of gone through that process,
Speaker 2: that she started working at this service station with other
Speaker 2: local teenagers and then over the course of several months,
Speaker 2: was effectively replaced in real time. So one, again maybe
Speaker 2: this is another softball question, but is multiculturalism working in Canada?
Speaker 2: And two, if it isn't, how is it affecting normal
Speaker 2: people's lives.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean that's a very pertinent example. I don't
Speaker 4: even know if that's a direct criticism of multiculturalism. It's
Speaker 4: really just the standards for economic migration in Canada. And
Speaker 4: this is something that started under a conservative Prime minister
Speaker 4: by Stephen Harper, this massive expansion of the temporary foreign
Speaker 4: worker program which was which was again increased under the
Speaker 4: subsequent Liberal governments. They started bringing in more and more
Speaker 4: temporary foreign workers, but also pivoting the kind of jobs
Speaker 4: that they were worked for. So originally, when the temporary
Speaker 4: foreign worker program was brought in, it was it was
Speaker 4: for agricultural agricultural work. It was for seasonal, very seasonal
Speaker 4: employment like at harvest season, we get some more laborers
Speaker 4: to come over to pick strawberries or whatever. But this
Speaker 4: morphed under Stephen Harper into a completely different style of
Speaker 4: program where it was diversified for not only like very
Speaker 4: niche labor, but also for things like working at gas
Speaker 4: stations and fast food restaurants and so on. So, as
Speaker 4: you pointed out, like these typically these types of simple
Speaker 4: low skilled jobs do have an important part in the
Speaker 4: kind of broader labor market because they provide opportunity for
Speaker 4: seniors and younger people to get that kind of job experience,
Speaker 4: which can then lead to further opportunities down the line. Instead,
Speaker 4: now these are being shipped off to temporary foreign workers
Speaker 4: from India and other countries, which has these knock on
Speaker 4: effects down the line because you kind of stunt the
Speaker 4: kind of growth for the younger generation. But it's also
Speaker 4: has been turned into a sort of racket. These kind
Speaker 4: of immigrants are kind of clearly using specifically chain restaurants,
Speaker 4: chain restaurants and gas stations stuff like this. They get
Speaker 4: one franchise and they get more multiple franchise and then
Speaker 4: they use them to hire their their family members and
Speaker 4: friends from foreign countries to get them on that kind
Speaker 4: of pathway from temporary residency to permanent residency because it
Speaker 4: is streamlined, because a st simply those people should be
Speaker 4: able to to get they get priority because they we
Speaker 4: believe that they can assimilate better that way, which is
Speaker 4: which is obviously false. So literally you can go anywhere
Speaker 4: and Canada. You can go to the whitest town in
Speaker 4: the middle of nowhere, and the subway or the gas
Speaker 4: station or or whatnot is still going to be run
Speaker 4: by the one kind of Indian family in that entire city.
Speaker 4: I worked on an election campaign in twenty twenty three
Speaker 4: and I was in a small city in Manitoba, literally Altona,
Speaker 4: a town of a few thousand people, and it was
Speaker 4: like one of the most red pilling moments to go
Speaker 4: into the subway and it's like still there, it's run
Speaker 4: by Indians. It's unbelievable. It's one thing when you're in
Speaker 4: a big city, but like literally anywhere in this country,
Speaker 4: that's just the reality of the situation. The broader problems
Speaker 4: with multiculturalism is since since the seventies the eighties, very
Speaker 4: much we we as a country, we kind of rejected
Speaker 4: the idea of assimilation. There's often drawn the comparison between
Speaker 4: Canada and the US, where the US is described as
Speaker 4: a melting pot, in Canada's described as as a cultural mosaic.
Speaker 4: This is one of those things that Canadians are often
Speaker 4: like pompous about how we're so much superior to the
Speaker 4: US because we don't force people to merge into society.
Speaker 4: But obviously this ends up being dysfunctional. You need to
Speaker 4: have a sort of cohesive identity and culture in order
Speaker 4: to have a functional society, and we kind of stuck
Speaker 4: our nose up at that, and they're like, no, you
Speaker 4: can maintain your foreign languages, your foreign cultures and so on.
Speaker 4: And when you pair this with mass immigration, especially with
Speaker 4: huge numbers from just a few countries, what results is
Speaker 4: ethnic ghettos. Now you have cities like Brampton and Surrey
Speaker 4: in northern Calgary where the population is seventy eighty percent Indian.
Speaker 4: You'll have children that are born in Canada to like
Speaker 4: two Indian parents. They'll go to school in an eighty
Speaker 4: percent Indian school, They'll be able to speak foreign languages.
Speaker 4: They're they're putting up giant statues of foreign gods and
Speaker 4: so on. Like this, there's small pockets of India existing
Speaker 4: in Canada, and I think that's fundamentally wrong. I think
Speaker 4: Canada should be Canada and India should be India. I
Speaker 4: don't think that's a that's really a hot take at
Speaker 4: the end of the day.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean well, and I think that I'm glad
Speaker 2: you brought up the sort of relationship between America and
Speaker 2: Canada because one of the things that sort of struck
Speaker 2: me is that for a certain faction of the Canadian population,
Speaker 2: in the Canadian ruling elite, they don't exist as an
Speaker 2: actual country. They exist in relation to America. So it's
Speaker 2: sort of this this relationship where well, Canada needs to
Speaker 2: be almost more American than America, right, like, oh, you
Speaker 2: know the evil you know, red state chuts. They're not
Speaker 2: living up to these great values, so we'll do it better.
Speaker 2: And so you get this sort of backwards relationship. And
Speaker 2: Justo was probably the worst about this, where you'd almost
Speaker 2: spend more time talking about my politics than yours, and
Speaker 2: you're like, wait, aren't you that ostensibly the head of
Speaker 2: an actual country? And I'm not making that criticism of you.
Speaker 2: I'm making that criticism of your politicians, of course, but
Speaker 2: it is that it's sort of bizarre relationship right where
Speaker 2: it's sort of like, this is a nation with issues.
Speaker 2: One of the things that I know your country has
Speaker 2: been hit by mine as well as you know, an
Speaker 2: explosion of you know, cost of living and housing prices.
Speaker 2: The fact that there are one million new Canadians every
Speaker 2: year I assume has nothing to do with that. But
Speaker 2: could you speak to that sort of misplaced focus, right
Speaker 2: if you could just explain what problems are facing Canada
Speaker 2: and does anyone seem to be interested in actually addressing.
Speaker 4: Well, well, just to talk about our political identity, I
Speaker 4: do think it has been kind of become very superficial,
Speaker 4: especially in the kind of post war period. But ultimately
Speaker 4: Canadian identity is relational to the United States, like our
Speaker 4: founding mythology is very much a rejection of Americanism, in liberalism.
Speaker 4: That's why we decided to be a country, and we're
Speaker 4: not all one kind of union like the Revolutionary War.
Speaker 4: While it is kind of America's founding mytho, it also
Speaker 4: is tied up in Canada's identity because especially the Anglo
Speaker 4: Canadian population is very much like this. The American Revolutionary
Speaker 4: War was sort of a selection event for Canada, where
Speaker 4: the kind of liberal folks decided to form America, and
Speaker 4: the people who literally fought against that right on the
Speaker 4: side of the British. They were then ostracized and moved
Speaker 4: up to Canada to what was would become Upper Canada
Speaker 4: and subsequently Ontario. So a significantly part part of our
Speaker 4: kind of Anglo founding stock were loyalists to the crown,
Speaker 4: people who rejected the American experiment of radical liberalism in
Speaker 4: favor of a more traditional, orderly society. So the American
Speaker 4: kind of mythos is captured by that, you know, the
Speaker 4: phrase from the Constitution. Their life, liberty, and the pursuit
Speaker 4: of happiness are kind of equivalent to that is, peace,
Speaker 4: order and good governance. So Canada is actually like a
Speaker 4: reactionary conservative state in rejection of American ideas. Now, in
Speaker 4: the post war period, American liberalism kind of won the
Speaker 4: day as America ascended to the global hedgemon right through
Speaker 4: soft power through hard power, they dominated the world. But
Speaker 4: this kind of affected Canada doubly like we had a
Speaker 4: kind of multiplier effect due to our close geographic relationship.
Speaker 4: So in the pre war period we were very much
Speaker 4: a vassal state of the British, like you were saying,
Speaker 4: how we're kind of more American than the Americans. Before
Speaker 4: the World War, Kenda was widely seen as more British
Speaker 4: than the British. So as the British kind of waned
Speaker 4: as the global superpower and were replaced by the Americans,
Speaker 4: that hit us doubly because we have such a close
Speaker 4: economic tie, so we kind of replaced Britain with America,
Speaker 4: which was very much against our founding ethos. Nationalists like
Speaker 4: myself up north of the border often say that we're
Speaker 4: kind of illiberal hardware running liberal software now, so you
Speaker 4: end up with this weird kind of contradiction where Canadians
Speaker 4: are very anti American kind of reflexively. We saw this
Speaker 4: very much over the last year during our election campaign,
Speaker 4: where our entire federal election just became about this like
Speaker 4: super official rejection of Americanism. Well, we've completely kind of
Speaker 4: adopted American ideas, So like Canadian identity is often reduced
Speaker 4: to like we're Americans but with free healthcare, We're Americans
Speaker 4: but more polite, when like really it's like, no, we
Speaker 4: are a complete rejection of what America is. We are
Speaker 4: people that prioritize order over liberty. We have these very
Speaker 4: different founding ideals, but that's been kind of lost away,
Speaker 4: and we're left with this kind of surface level nonsense
Speaker 4: where it's very confusing.
Speaker 3: People don't know why we're not American anymore.
Speaker 2: Well, and I think that that's sort of an interesting
Speaker 2: relationship because it's kind of funny that that anti Americanism
Speaker 2: is ultimately an extension of the kind of true like
Speaker 2: civic religion of America. Because of course, right, you've mentioned
Speaker 2: the initial founding myth, right, the you know, the kind
Speaker 2: of American founding fathers, the Revolutionary War, and that was
Speaker 2: the founding myth for a certain version of the American republic. Right,
Speaker 2: like we we basically have the same thing the French
Speaker 2: do with like the numbered republics. We don't do it officially,
Speaker 2: but like, let's be honest, Thomas Jefferson would be absolutely
Speaker 2: horrified at what Lincoln did, let alone what FDR did. Right,
Speaker 2: They're they're completely different nations. And so, you know, the
Speaker 2: post war era, the narrative of you know, the American
Speaker 2: Empire has been this sort of like liberationist guilt, this
Speaker 2: idea that you know, we simultaneously must hate and despise
Speaker 2: ourselves for what we were. And also this sort of
Speaker 2: you know, not to use that a weighted term, but
Speaker 2: this sort of like you know, liberationist idea about you know,
Speaker 2: the point of your life is to have the maximal
Speaker 2: number of people experiencing the maximal freedom for self expression,
Speaker 2: which is basically defined as like, you know, a certain
Speaker 2: number of like firing of your serotonin, uh, you know,
Speaker 2: receptors in your brain or whatever. And so it's funny
Speaker 2: to me that either the anti americanism is actually effectively
Speaker 2: the ideology of the US State Department, if you really
Speaker 2: drill down to it, like it's the same thing that,
Speaker 2: let's be honest, the majority of our politicians, right that
Speaker 2: the kind of left which is, you know, the hegemonic
Speaker 2: force in American politics. It's what they say. And again
Speaker 2: when I say this, like, don't take this as a
Speaker 2: criticism of Canada, I think you were much better off,
Speaker 2: you know, pre war for any number of reasons. But
Speaker 2: I do see that and kind of chuckle at it.
Speaker 2: You see the same thing with like certain you know,
Speaker 2: progressive globalist types out of Europe as well, where it's
Speaker 2: like you, in a weird way, you're almost more captured
Speaker 2: than anything else, right, because you still exist in relation
Speaker 2: to this nation you proclaim to hate, and weirdly enough,
Speaker 2: you have the same opinion as every major institution in
Speaker 2: that country, right, you have the same opinions as Harvard,
Speaker 2: as the Washington Post is whatever. So in a weird way,
Speaker 2: it's like you kind of you personally. Of course, that
Speaker 2: person is sort of the perfect imperial citizen, which I
Speaker 2: find to be a certain bit of irony there, but
Speaker 2: I'll kick it back to you, Daniel.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, no, I definitely see that hypocrisy everywhere that
Speaker 4: people like. It's it's quite ironic that the kind of
Speaker 4: right leaning, kind of hierarchical traditionalist types have really become
Speaker 4: the counterculture in the modern zeitgeist, whereas you see these
Speaker 4: like blue haired punks or whatever, and they they've become
Speaker 4: the kind of real, the real foot soldiers of the elite.
Speaker 4: It's it does seem very backwards, but we live in
Speaker 4: very strange times. So we often say like that Canadians
Speaker 4: are not a revolutionary people. We were not formed in revolution.
Speaker 4: We were actually formed as a sort of counter revolution
Speaker 4: to what was going south of the border. So as
Speaker 4: nationalists in Canada, we don't really preach revolution as as
Speaker 4: many kind of dissident types are inclined to. What we
Speaker 4: really preach is as a counter revolution. We we point
Speaker 4: to what happened under specifically Pierre Trudeau, to transform our society,
Speaker 4: to replace our constitution, to impose multiculturalism. We see this
Speaker 4: as the real revolution in Canada. And what we're standing
Speaker 4: is for a counter revolution and a reversal of a
Speaker 4: lot of these policies. That's why people like myself we
Speaker 4: we fly, we fly the old flag, we we we
Speaker 4: use our old symbols. What we're not what we're preaching,
Speaker 4: while it is a transformation of our society it is,
Speaker 4: it is really not something new. It's it's really a
Speaker 4: return to tradition, which I think is much more consistent
Speaker 4: with Canada's kind of founding ethos, rather than than preaching
Speaker 4: American style revolution, which is a lot of what you
Speaker 4: see from the more like slopulist types in Canada who
Speaker 4: very much are captured by the kind of American media
Speaker 4: ecosystem online and stuff, and don't really think for themselves
Speaker 4: or don't really understand our unique history. They just kind
Speaker 4: of latch onto what's popular.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I'm glad, I'm glad you brought that up,
Speaker 2: because I see that sort of across the world, and
Speaker 2: some of it's branding right where it's like, oh, you know,
Speaker 2: Bolscenaro is Brazil's Trump, or you know, Victor Orbon is
Speaker 2: Hungary's Trump, and it's sort of like that framing is
Speaker 2: imposed on every nation across the world, and viewers of
Speaker 2: my show, well, no, I have certain criticisms of the
Speaker 2: current administration. We don't need to get into those, but
Speaker 2: I do think that's sort of an interesting thing as well, right,
Speaker 2: that there's sort of a diversion valve.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's deliberately constructed or not, but
Speaker 2: this sort of rebellion which in a weird way ends
Speaker 2: up reinforce the central premits right, reinforcing that everything must
Speaker 2: be done in relation to this other nation's capital. And look,
Speaker 2: I say that as you know an American nationalists, which
Speaker 2: I realize is a bizarre position to be in for
Speaker 2: any number of reasons. But you know, when I look
Speaker 2: to Canada and I see that sort of sloppulist, right,
Speaker 2: I see that desire to sort of create your own Trump,
Speaker 2: I'm like, no, no, no, no, this is not that's
Speaker 2: not what you are. That would setting aside the question
Speaker 2: of how efficacious or possible that would be doing. You know,
Speaker 2: the Maga movement in Canada is ultimately accomplishing the same end,
Speaker 2: which is, well, then it's not Canada anymore. And look like,
Speaker 2: I don't pretend to, you know, deeply understand your culture.
Speaker 2: I find it to be honest, slightly confusing, but nonetheless right.
Speaker 2: It ought to exist, you know, none aside from anything else.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, And I that's kind of why the kind
Speaker 4: of a fundamental problem that the right has been having
Speaker 4: in Canada for a long time. They've been too aligned
Speaker 4: with the Americans, which is kind of very counter to
Speaker 4: what Canada is. And while we have become very Americanized,
Speaker 4: very liberalized, there is still that kind of anti American
Speaker 4: instinct and that really is what's sunk the Conservative Party
Speaker 4: in the last election. They were seen as too soft
Speaker 4: on America. Pierre pauliev Or, the leader of the Conservative Party,
Speaker 4: was seen as kind of Canadace Trump. A lot of
Speaker 4: the slopulists want to kind of steer into that swerve,
Speaker 4: but the reality is that's really not popular in the
Speaker 4: general Canadian public. There's that reflex of anti Americanism that
Speaker 4: really swung the election for the for the Liberal Party.
Speaker 4: So while there is that kind of inkling for a
Speaker 4: lot of people who are completely captured by America, like
Speaker 4: a lot of these swapulists, they love Trump, they love
Speaker 4: they want Canadace Trump that many of them are like
Speaker 4: fifty first staters and so on. But that's just not
Speaker 4: that's like, it's not a viable path to victory in
Speaker 4: Canadian politics. Really, what we need is an authentically Canadian movement,
Speaker 4: and a lot of what that would be has been
Speaker 4: so lost because we've been so captured by the American
Speaker 4: kind of ecosystem in a lot of different ways, directly
Speaker 4: and indirectly through hard power through soft power over the
Speaker 4: last you know, a sixty eighty years, like really since
Speaker 4: the late sixties. So people like me, we've completely lived
Speaker 4: our entire lives within this kind of political capture. But
Speaker 4: it's up to people like myself and many other dissidents
Speaker 4: and nationalists to kind of promote what really makes us
Speaker 4: Canadian and to provide that authentic path. And we hope
Speaker 4: that through our aim is through that through this kind
Speaker 4: of meta political pressure, through changing the mainstream ideas, through
Speaker 4: shifting the conversationation that we'll see that change reflected in
Speaker 4: public opinion and some subsequently through the through our existing
Speaker 4: political parties, and we we do find that it's catching
Speaker 4: on really fast, even though we we have limited kind
Speaker 4: of institutional power, even though we have like where we're
Speaker 4: not covered by the mainstream media, even though we're starting
Speaker 4: very organically and small on social media. Ultimately, the what
Speaker 4: the message we preach is is consistent with Canadian's identity.
Speaker 4: It's constant, consistent with that sort of instinctual blood memory
Speaker 4: that exists within the prototypical Canadian. So we've been really
Speaker 4: exploding really fast as a result of that, because we
Speaker 4: understand what can is more than mainstream institutions, more than
Speaker 4: these kind of slopulists. So people want to shut us down,
Speaker 4: people don't want to give us that that uh, that
Speaker 4: that coverage, but ultimately will continue to grow because we're
Speaker 4: we're on the right track.
Speaker 2: This is it's always interesting to me because there's this
Speaker 2: kind and I don't know if anyone ever expresses it
Speaker 2: like this, but there's this sort of view of nationalism
Speaker 2: that I think is ultimately very I don't want to
Speaker 2: say dishonest, but I think it's very naive, which is
Speaker 2: the idea that you know, like nationalism is like a
Speaker 2: block in the same way that globalism is. And you
Speaker 2: can be, you know, a nationalist of your country and
Speaker 2: you know, perfectly in line with you know, every other
Speaker 2: nationalist across the world. And obviously, look like you and
Speaker 2: I and you know, our friends in England or South
Speaker 2: Africa or Australia are co belligerents, right, we're pulling the
Speaker 2: same direction. But ultimately, like and you know, I'm never
Speaker 2: going to be in a position to make this decision,
Speaker 2: But if there were that hypothetical decision, right, which would
Speaker 2: you know, advance America at the cost of Canada. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: that's what it is, right to be a nationalist, to
Speaker 2: choose your people above others. And so you know, when
Speaker 2: I hear you you're talking about, you know, the need
Speaker 2: to kind of decouple your country from America. To me,
Speaker 2: that's entirely rational, right, it's for your people, right abo
Speaker 2: above others. And look like, let's be honest, it's very
Speaker 2: unlikely that that will be some kind of like hot
Speaker 2: war between the new nations. It's the most ridiculous to say,
Speaker 2: but there is something to be said for the fact that,
Speaker 2: like there are difficult decisions and there are zero some
Speaker 2: games individually, and I think it's very easy, as you know,
Speaker 2: a nationalist of your nation to immediately recoil and say like,
Speaker 2: oh no, like why would you do that? You must
Speaker 2: be this horrible person. It's like, well, no, he is
Speaker 2: just an advocate for his people above all others, which
Speaker 2: you know is really what we would hope and expect
Speaker 2: from you know, other nations, other cultures. Just a brief aside,
Speaker 2: there is something I get, I guess a little frustrated about,
Speaker 2: but I.
Speaker 4: Think it's much more honest interpretation of how power should function. Though,
Speaker 4: Like we've been living in this kind of subversive kind
Speaker 4: of rules based international order in the post war period
Speaker 4: where people kind of subvert their national interest as especially
Speaker 4: the dominant powers, as some sort of fair liberal attitude,
Speaker 4: where in the reality it's really just been an extension
Speaker 4: of the power for the United States, less so China
Speaker 4: and Russia, who maintained disproportionate power either through kind of
Speaker 4: the UN Security Council or whatnot. Really it's just the
Speaker 4: US bullying people around, not some kind of liberal, fair
Speaker 4: egalitarian system. So it's been this really dishonest thing, and
Speaker 4: I think we're seeing a kind of crumbling of that.
Speaker 4: Trump is representative of that. And we even had our
Speaker 4: Prime minister at Davos the other week, you know, proclaim
Speaker 4: and end to the or to declare a new world order.
Speaker 4: Last night we had our former prime minister, or two
Speaker 4: nights ago we had our former Prime minister Stephen Harper
Speaker 4: declared that we're in an age of nationalism, and I
Speaker 4: do think they're both correct. I do think we're in
Speaker 4: this transition period, specifically moving away from the age of
Speaker 4: complete American dominance, transitioning from this kind of unipolar power
Speaker 4: dynamic and geopolitics towards a more multipolar, bipolar system. And
Speaker 4: I think it's natural for a shift to nationalism for
Speaker 4: all the middle powers to occur as a response to that.
Speaker 4: In this more kind of chaotic system, everyone has to
Speaker 4: be a bit more self interested. So we're seeing that
Speaker 4: collapse of the lie that was liberalism in real time.
Speaker 4: And I think this shift towards back towards nationalism is
Speaker 4: both inevitable and for the interest of everyone. And yes,
Speaker 4: sometimes we'll run counter to things, but I do think
Speaker 4: there is still a there is still space for you know,
Speaker 4: global alignment within a more nationalist system. There are countries,
Speaker 4: like you just pointed out, that we share a lot,
Speaker 4: We share history, we share culture and ethnicity, especially within
Speaker 4: the anglosphere Canada, United States, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand,
Speaker 4: so on. And I can see these countries working together
Speaker 4: for similar goals, Like I have some proposals on things
Speaker 4: like reforming the asylum system, and really all these countries
Speaker 4: are going through very similar problems, and I think we
Speaker 4: could work together to find solutions that help all of
Speaker 4: us while being consistent with.
Speaker 3: All of our our national interests.
Speaker 4: Even if you know, some things like trade and military
Speaker 4: arrangements and stuff like this we might have to butt heads.
Speaker 4: I think there is still space for kind of global
Speaker 4: alignment on certain things.
Speaker 2: No, certainly, and I really said that to sort of address,
Speaker 2: let's be honest, just a straw man of an idea.
Speaker 2: You see from time to time. One of the things
Speaker 2: that I have heard from my Canadian friends, and this
Speaker 2: is the definition of anecdotal Some guy told me once,
Speaker 2: so you know, take that for what it's worth. But
Speaker 2: he was talking about the issue us with kind of
Speaker 2: like resource extraction and how that is sort of a
Speaker 2: dividing line in Canadian politics, and so I'm curious right
Speaker 2: on that issue, assuming we are pivoting back towards this
Speaker 2: kind of era of nationalism, like what becomes of the
Speaker 2: kind of like beating heart of Canada, whether that's industry
Speaker 2: or you know, resource extraction, because seemingly from the outside
Speaker 2: looking in, the Liberal government doesn't seem to like that, right,
Speaker 2: They don't seem to like to be blunt about it
Speaker 2: things being made and actually done in Canada, And so
Speaker 2: I realized it's a slight departure, but I'm curious to
Speaker 2: get your your thought on that, because again, there is
Speaker 2: also the kind of specter of China in this, right,
Speaker 2: They're a major resource producer, they, as you've said, sent
Speaker 2: quite a lot of immigrants there. So that's a very
Speaker 2: vague collection of ideas with a question kind of depended
Speaker 2: on to the end. But I'm curious to get your
Speaker 2: thoughts there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, so far this kind of shift towards
Speaker 4: a more nationalist perspective has been a lot of talk
Speaker 4: and not a lot of action. So particularly Mark Karney,
Speaker 4: since he took over as the leader of the Liberal
Speaker 4: Party last.
Speaker 3: Year, he has been.
Speaker 4: Much more traditionalist in his messaging, like he has been
Speaker 4: talking about how we are a union of the three
Speaker 4: founding people's British, French and First nations. He's been a
Speaker 4: lot more eager to talk about our history. The first
Speaker 4: thing he did once he took over as leader was
Speaker 4: visit the king in our king in the United Kingdom
Speaker 4: to visit France instead of going to visit the United States.
Speaker 4: Like there was a very clear pivot back towards a
Speaker 4: more historical ethos. Not to mention his speechs at Davos
Speaker 4: and such, but right after Davos, he came back to
Speaker 4: Quebec City, the oldest part of our country, and he
Speaker 4: did his speech where the first ten minutes was all
Speaker 4: about our roots and our history in this and then
Speaker 4: he kind of pitches the same kind of post national
Speaker 4: Lester Pearson era multiculturalist kind of messaging. It's a very
Speaker 4: you know, post nationalist, civic nationalist message dressed up in nationalism.
Speaker 4: The Trudeau administration before him was very anti resource and
Speaker 4: you would expect Mark Carney to be pushing much faster
Speaker 4: on that in the on the development of those resources. Specifically,
Speaker 4: we need pipelines going from Alberta, where most of our
Speaker 4: oil and natural gases out to both coasts of the
Speaker 4: country in order to facilitate international trade. Right now, we
Speaker 4: just have pipelines down to the United States, so we
Speaker 4: can't even refine our own products. We we set it
Speaker 4: sell it out of a massive discount to you guys. Uh,
Speaker 4: But there's been no significant push for this. There's still
Speaker 4: this kind of ideological opposition to fossil fuels, you know,
Speaker 4: the whole climate change narrative and so on. So a
Speaker 4: real national as government would do what's in the best
Speaker 4: interests of Canadians and develop our ret natural resources to
Speaker 4: bring wealth to our people. So we have seen this
Speaker 4: kind of surface level adjustment, but there's a long way
Speaker 4: to go in order to actually do what's in the
Speaker 4: best interests of our people.
Speaker 2: Well, fair enough, man, I'm curious, like you said, your
Speaker 2: organization is growing very quickly. What are your goals, what
Speaker 2: do you what are you aiming towards, what are you
Speaker 2: guys doing And you know, if people are interested, where
Speaker 2: can they join?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, we have been going very fast. We were
Speaker 4: just launched in July of last year. We've had we've
Speaker 4: had liver coverage. We started growing from Stratch and we
Speaker 4: already have almost twenty five hundred members across the country.
Speaker 3: Those are paying members.
Speaker 4: Our social medias have blown up where we have you know,
Speaker 4: over thirty thousand followers on Facebook or almost thirty thousand
Speaker 4: on Twitter and Instagram. We're getting millions of kind of
Speaker 4: impressions on a monthly basis across our social media channels. Really,
Speaker 4: our approach to things is metapolitical. We see that politics
Speaker 4: is downstream from culture, and as such we aim to
Speaker 4: influence Canada's political culture in order to shift the direction
Speaker 4: of all major political parties and institutions. So we do
Speaker 4: this through kind of four main pathways. We do it
Speaker 4: through our kind of media content online. We do it
Speaker 4: through grassroots activism. We're building a network of kind local
Speaker 4: chapters across the country to engage in classical grassroots politics,
Speaker 4: putting up posters, distributing flyers, hosting local gatherings and demonstrations.
Speaker 4: We also take a more kind of think tank approach,
Speaker 4: what we call intellectual development. We're putting out a series
Speaker 4: of kind of white papers throughout this year to expand
Speaker 4: on our ideas in a way in a kind of
Speaker 4: language that speaks towards these traditional institutions, governments and political
Speaker 4: parties and so on, so they can start to adapt
Speaker 4: our ideas as we popularize them more efficiently. And then
Speaker 4: the last year is what we call institutional infiltration. We're
Speaker 4: looking to get our guys involved in political parties, in
Speaker 4: existing institutions and government jobs and so on in order
Speaker 4: to create this network of kind of institutional nationalists at
Speaker 4: all levels, so that as the power balance shifts back
Speaker 4: towards nationalists, will have people well positioned across the country
Speaker 4: in order to completely exert our kind of power and
Speaker 4: influence on society. So those are kind of four main pathways.
Speaker 4: If people are interested in getting more involved, they can
Speaker 4: check out our website, Dominion Society dot ca. You can
Speaker 4: find out more about our ideas there and you can
Speaker 4: even sign up as a member or make a small
Speaker 4: donation in order to help us continue to grow and
Speaker 4: influence the kind of political scene here in Canada.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thanks man, this has been a really interesting conversation.
Speaker 3: I am.
Speaker 2: I'm very glad that your organization exists, because, like I said,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on
Speaker 2: Canadian culture. I've been there a number of times, but
Speaker 2: you know when I saw the exit of your government
Speaker 2: during the past five years. I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 2: Not to say words I can't on social media, but
Speaker 2: it was incredibly upsetting right that you know a people
Speaker 2: who is you're not the same but sort of cousins right, geographically, culturally,
Speaker 2: very much genetically from the same people, under this kind
Speaker 2: of petty tyranny. It genuinely morally offended me. Right, it
Speaker 2: didn't seem right. And so you know, godspeed on your project.
Speaker 2: I think you guys are doing very good work and
Speaker 2: I'm excited to see you guys grow. But yeah, Daddiel,
Speaker 2: this has been a ton of fun. Man, Thank you
Speaker 2: so much for coming on.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, thanks for having me on. It was a
Speaker 3: really fun conversation.
Speaker 2: Likewise, as far as my stuff, the Jay Burton Show, Apple, Spotify, YouTube,
Speaker 2: anywhere you listen to podcasts. Now, this is what I do.
Speaker 2: If you want to support me, you can throw me
Speaker 2: a few bucks a month on Patreon, Substack or gum Road.
Speaker 2: You get the episodes early in ad free. You guys
Speaker 2: may know I'm sponsored by Axios Remote Fitness Coaching. And finally,
Speaker 2: the snow is melted. I live in the South. We're
Speaker 2: not used to snow. It was a whole disaster. But
Speaker 2: I'm back in the gym. JD. You guys would work.
Speaker 2: Check him out, a small businessman, one of our guys.
Speaker 2: He deserves your support, so check that out. And again, Daniel,
Speaker 2: this was a ton of fun. Man.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, thanks for having me on and long live Canada.
Speaker 2: Everyone home, keep your head up, good night. Marketing is hard,
Speaker 2: but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have
Speaker 2: to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to
Speaker 2: a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host,
Speaker 2: you seek it out and download. You listen to it
Speaker 2: while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom.
Speaker 2: Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a
Speaker 2: podcast ad? Did I get your attention? You can reach
Speaker 2: great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from libsynads. Choose
Speaker 2: from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run
Speaker 2: a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows.
Speaker 2: To reach your target audience and their favorite podcasts with libsynads,
Speaker 2: go to libsynads dot com. That's l I B s
Speaker 2: y n ads dot com Today