Things have not gone according to plan. However, I'm not here to make excuses, so let's just continue onward from here.

George Grant's
Lament For a Nation
Chapter Two https://twitter.com/TAJackson20/status/1275768788378480641

If one wants to know why I consider journalism a mortal sin it's because, contrary the journos themselves, "this IS normal." CNN and verified twitter is not a new development. They've always and everywhere been like this.

Rather, what has degenerated is the TALENT of the propagandist. Journos in the 20th century were experts at sounding reasonable despite their stupidity. There were many plausible-but-semantically-null responses to claims like this one. Today they just call you a Russian communazi

THIS is why nothing ever gets done by the "right." Any time the s lose elections, they retreat to their home bases in the corporate and intelligence agency world. Conservatives? Imagine hearing "right-wing CEO" in a headline without "resigned" immediately following.

For those of you who didn't read the first thread, the purpose of posting these excerpts is to anwer the question "How did Canada become so gαγ and what can we learn from it?" The first thing to note is that took over from as our new boss and was MUCH gαγer. (somehow)

This is something that gets overlooked by the more revolutionary of the dissidents. It's much easier to co-opt an absolutely defeated party like the mid-century Canadian Conservatives (or 2010s Republicans...) than to build from scratch, if only because there's less feds this way

There's four crucial points to take away from this I've highlighted.
1. Conservative dissent is NOT ILLIBERAL. It cannot justify any real method of crippling the machine.
2. Any political insurgency will attract LOSERS who couldn't cut it in the hegemony. Purge these grifters!

3. The only way you can actually "win" democratically is by installing establishment snakes into your party as a killswitch so the corporate world isn't too nervous.
4. Populism doesn't get you ANYWHERE. Normies' dislike of new fαggοτriεs (they're fine with the old) is shallow.

Again, we see the same tricks pulled by journos decades ago, but with considerably more erudition. Today, when they do the same things to Trump, their degenerated argument goes something like "You're an evil Nazi who's swindling your Nazi followers by pretending to to a Nazi!"

(Now, what was the 1963 Crisis, you ask? Tl;dr: Diefenbaker didn't want Americans installing nuclear missile bases in our country and Kennedy, still mad we wanted independent evidence of Yank claims during the Cuban Missile Crisis, did... Kennedy family things, let's call them.)

This is THE flaw with "Make X Great Again" strategies. Diefenbaker had no answer to the nascent order because he was a conservative and conservatives are nostalgic. They can't react to changing circumstances. The right-wing people who actually CAN are called "reactionaries"

Some of the "mutually conflicting conceptions" grant talked about are things like 'being a populist and basing your strategy around America's most notorious tehcnocrat.'

(In fairness, though, the cult of personality around FDR couldn't really get punctured until the American libertarians, in their one good action, started publishing houses and debunked it to the point where even his hagiographers have to address their claims.)

If anyone is still wondered why I'm so convinced that Biden will win the American election this year, here's why: You can't win the loyalties of structurally trans-nationalist organizations by bribing them. This is the ultimate failure of North American right-wing populism

If there's one thing I'd want ever one of you to take away, it's this paragraph. I can't even highlight anything, it's all crucial. Small business and entrepreneur worship is just venerating in embryo. There can be no "free-market solutions" in a genuine nationalism.

So, what does all this confusion of capitalism and populism get you, in practical terms? Well, as @realDonaldTrump is finding out, people are remarkably unified in disliking political rεταrds.

So, how did Diefenbaker lose support of BOTH the high and the low? The low is easy to get: he fucked them over by leaving them to the mercy of capital. The real thing you need to understand is the high: he wasn't as "smooth." What does that mean? That he wasn't a liberal, lol.

And here it is, this is what the whole right-wing critique of populist conservatism builds to. Note that Grant is UNDERSTATING how doomed this was, since "anti-capitalist nationalism in service of resisting Anglo-American plutocratic hegemony" is the legit definition of Fascism.

So yes, for all the idiotic s out there, THIS is what right-wing socialist analysis looks like, not @whatisleftpod.

See this, Americans? This is you right now. You are the Canada to globalism's America, and you are fatally DOOMED if you suffer from "confusion of populism, free enterprise, and nationalism."

So, mid chapter recap: The fundamental problem with Diefenbaker and other populist conservatives is a defective friend-enemy distinction. We laugh at conservatives attempting to bribe ethnic minorities ("LOWEST BLACK UNEMPLOYMENT!") but even MORE foolish is their capitalism!

But wait, conservatism in Canada CREATED state-broadcasting, railroad, etc. corporations. They weren't fucked from the start like American cons, so how did they get pozzed into becoming free market? Grant explains:

We see, in fact, the same error in contemporary conservatives. "Defund CBC/NPR/BBC!" they screech, as if private enterprises are only contingently liberal and public ones essentially liberal instead of the opposite! V4 has exposed that as the nonsense it is and we don't listen!

This, by contrast, has less universal applicability. Quebec had spent its entire existence trying to resist becoming anglicized, so they were a natural ally against Americanization, but the conservatives did not make allies of them. (Harper later tried, but it was far too late)

Now, as to this Duplessis guy? He was the greatest leader in the history of Quebec. He owned the libs so hard that they renamed the fucking dark ages after his premiership.

So, if this guy and his party were that great, why didn't an ostensible anti-American nationalist embrace them? Because he'd been unconsciously seduced by American civil rights bullshit and forgotten that "the rights of the individual do not encompass the rights of nations"

A lot of people are probably going to be confused by the above. "Isn't that how rights work everywhere?" Yes, NOW, but that didn't used to be a universal constant. Grant elaborates:

But we've saved the biggest failure of Diefenbaker's nationalism for last. You see, as hard as may be to believe, there used to be genuine illiberals in our universities. But no one on the right ever incorporated them, so now there aren't.

Next time: we explain how, despite the aforementioned limitations of conservatism, Diefenbaker became a genuine threat to the establishment and what they did about it.