Fortissax is Typing II
Kanalga Telegram’da o‘tish
NEW channel of the reply guy originally from the Blood $atellite community.
Ko'proq ko'rsatishMamlakat belgilanmaganToif belgilanmagan
258
Obunachilar
Ma'lumot yo'q24 soatlar
Ma'lumot yo'q7 kun
Ma'lumot yo'q30 kun
Postlar arxiv
Loyalists lived amid revolutionary upheaval and social unrest, seeing the traditional order besieged by French revolutionary anarchy, American liberal democratic republicanism, and U.S. expansionism, all of which they viewed as threats to Ontario’s character.
Changes were to be made to the laws governing the naturalization of foreigners to ensure that all public positions, whether filled by election or appointment, would remain in the hands of “the loyal” for the immediate future. For the Tories, “the loyal” referred to bona fide Loyalist settlers, British immigrant settlers, and men who had fought in the defence of Upper Canada during the recently concluded War of 1812, or who had otherwise distinguished themselves in opposing the American invaders.
"For their part, the Tory elite of Ontario were aware that they were living in a revolutionary age in which two different political systems were in conflict, the traditional and the revolutionary"
In defending the traditional order, Ontarian elites invoked loyalty, subordination, deference, order, providence, true religion, a national church, framing them as part of a coherent religious and moral philosophy of man and community, contrast to the U.S.
Your Loyalist ancestors and the Family Compact were trying to build Warhammer in Ontario. A militarized theocratic monarchy with a state church and emperor and you don’t think that’s cool? Are you retarded?
Reverend Alexander Bethune’s conservative Anglican newspaper, defended monarchy and aristocracy during the Upper Canada Rebellion. In its 6 January 1838 issue, it declared: “we prefer the monarchy under which for centuries our fatherland has flourished, and grown into invincible greatness.” It also defended the aristocratic branch of the British constitution, calling belief in it “an unchangeable conviction. Without aristocracy, the elements of permanence and stability are, in any government, wanting.” Loyalists avoided revolutionary collapse because its enlightened nobility could restrain the madness of the people and prevent society from falling “into the degenerate anarchy of a mob.”— The Church, 6 January 1838, pp. 118 to 119, quoted in Denis McKim, “Upper Canadian Thermidor: The Family Compact & the Counter-revolutionary Atlantic,” Ontario History 106, no. 2
+1
The rage for equality which the American and French revolutions have introduced, has given currency to many notions false and mischievous. Persons of high rank have not only been refused the respect and deference to which they were entitled, but republican ferocity has delighted to deprive them of reputation and talents. Amidst their invectives against rank and dignity, these anarchists have bestowed upon themselves the most disgusting praise as exclusively possessing all sense, humanity, taste and genius. Indeed the legislature of the United States seriously deliberated whether they should not declare themselves the most enlightened nation in the world.— Bishop John Strachan of Toronto, A Discourse on the Character of King George the Third, Note II, p. 10., 1810.
One of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard against the Red Ensign is that it makes us “look like a colony.” Not only is that stupid, it’s liberal. Only liberals see signalling ethnic kinship as a form of subordination, or think revolutionary separation from continuity is a good thing. Canada may be its own thing, but you cannot sever it from its past. There is no Year Zero.
Dominion Day, July 1st, 2026.
Dominion Society of Canada reaches 3035 members.
https://x.com/dominionsoc/status/2072339239820214542
They wouldn’t be pushing mandatory ID verification at the device level in Britain, with Australia set to follow and Canada potentially next, if they didn’t believe social media was a powerful force multiplier.
This technology allows people to reach audiences on a scale that was unimaginable 40 years ago, and still largely impossible even 20 years ago.
As Martín Gurri argues in The Revolt of the Public, there is no longer a single public but many competing publics. Consensus has fractured, and legacy media no longer has the ability to control narratives as it once did.
Without social media, would you ever have heard about Henry Nowak or the Rape Gang Inquiry?
“What have you done for the movement” old heads btfo.
https://x.com/millennialwoes/status/2071512109347938540
If Britain would not be the sword against the scourge of god, the revolutionary liberal madness plaguing the world, then the Loyalists would.
https://x.com/martianwyrdlord/status/2071408288885805195
+1
Aiden misunderstands the Loyalist position of our ancestors.
Loyalism was not unconditional obedience to London, the British government, or any one dynasty. The Windsor family did not even exist as such in the Loyalist period. This is where the cartoon version of Loyalism collapses.
In The Upper Canadian Anglican Tory Mind: A Cultural Fragment, Robert W. Passfield shows that the Loyalists believed British policy had failed them badly. They thought Britain mishandled the American Revolution, offered concessions after rebellion had already begun, failed to send enough troops, and allowed commanders hostile to the war to lead the army.
Most damningly, Passfield writes that the Loyalists “received neither protection, leadership, nor encouragement” from the British Army, and were even “scorned for their loyalty, insulted and laughed at.”
In The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784 to 1850, David Mills gives the deeper political meaning. Loyalty did not simply mean obedience to Crown and Empire. Citing S. F. Wise, Mills explains that loyalty also meant adherence to the beliefs and institutions necessary for preserving “a form of life different from, and superior to,” the manners, politics, and social arrangements of the United States.
Mills also records that Bishop John Strachan of Toronto criticized the mother country itself. In 1828, Strachan accused Britain of “false liberality” and warned that liberal colonial policy would “prostrate everything British,” nourish discontent, depress the Friends of Good Government, and strengthen “levellers and Democrats.”
That is the point. Loyalism was loyalty to Crown, law, order, hierarchy, Church, Empire, and a Canadian form of life. It was not passive submission to British ministers, the Colonial Office, or whatever family happened to occupy the throne.
A distinct Canadian Crown is therefore perfectly coherent. If the Windsor monarchy no longer embodies Canadian sovereignty, continuity, and independence from American republicanism, then it has to be rooted here.
Was Loyalism actually blind loyalty to the monarchy?
https://x.com/aidenwpkenny/status/2071340976753266960
A great opportunity was lost in 1867, when the Dominion was formed out of the several provinces... had United Canada been declared to be an auxiliary kingdom, as it was in the Canadian draft of the bill, I feel sure (almost) that the Australian colonies would, ere this, have been applying to be placed in the same rank as "The Kingdom of Canada".— Sir John A. Macdonald
