Canada's perilous path to serfdom

 

Why is Catholicism being promoted as the solution to social collectivist tyranny?

Here's the reason I strongly mistrust High Church mummery and its rejection of individual salvation in favour of some unbiblical form of collective salvation. My concern is that there is far too much talk of the importance of Catholic Christianity as an antidote to the WOKE Globalists agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I mean the Truth of the Scriptures. No one stands between man and God but Christ alone, certainly not a priesthood ordained by the institutions of men! So, permit me to explain how I have come to these conclusions.

How the Protestant Reformation became an agent of economic freedom and social change:

Protestant Europe’s greater economic success compared to the Mediterranean South stems from a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and institutional factors. Here are the key reasons scholars have identified:

 📚 1. Literacy and Education

- The Protestant Reformation emphasized personal Bible reading, which drove widespread literacy and education reforms.

- Protestant regions invested heavily in schooling, boosting human capital and labour productivity.

 💼 2. Work Ethic and Entrepreneurship

- Max Weber famously linked Protestantism—especially Calvinism—with a “Protestant work ethic” that valued hard work, thrift, and discipline.

- This ethic encouraged entrepreneurship, innovation, and long-term investment.

 🏛️ 3. Institutional and Legal Reforms

- Protestant areas often developed more inclusive institutions, promoting civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law.

- These institutions fostered business competition and economic dynamism.

🌍 4. Religious Freedom and Exchange of Ideas

- Protestant regions broke the Catholic Church’s monopoly, allowing for freer exchange of ideas, press, and assembly.

- This openness catalysed technological innovation and economic growth.

 🕊️ 5. Counter-Reformation Constraints

- In contrast, Catholic Mediterranean countries were shaped by the Counter-Reformation, which reinforced centralized religious authority and discouraged dissent.

- This often led to intellectual conservatism and slower adaptation to modern economic practices.

 🌐 6. Global Focus vs. Domestic Development

- Catholic powers like Spain and Portugal focused heavily on overseas empires, sometimes at the expense of domestic economic development.

- Protestant countries, lacking vast colonies early on, invested more in internal infrastructure and industry.

Roman Catholicism and the Rise of Feudalism:

The Power Vacuum of Post-Roman Europe

After the Western Roman Empire collapsed, bishops and abbots stepped into roles once held by civil governors. They managed roads, collected taxes, and maintained local order, filling the administrative void left by Rome’s fall. This set the stage for a system where landowners—secular and ecclesiastical—wielded both spiritual and temporal power.

Church Landholdings and Feudal Contracts

The Church amassed vast estates across Europe, at times controlling up to one-third of arable land. To defend and cultivate these lands, ecclesiastical lords granted parcels to knights in return for military service and loyalty. These arrangements mirrored—and reinforced—classic feudal bonds between lord and vassal.

Ecclesiastical Hierarchies as Feudal Lords

Many high-ranking clerics held dual titles: bishop-lords or abbot-landers. They levied rents, enforced local justice, and mobilized peasant labour. By adopting feudal practices themselves, church leaders embedded the system into the very fabric of medieval society.

Moral and Ideological Legitimization

Priests and monks preached that social order reflected divine will, portraying oaths of fealty as sacred pledges before God. Papal rulings and Church councils regularly upheld the rights of lords over vassals and serfs, giving spiritual cover to feudal obligations and hierarchies.

Education, Record-Keeping, and Legal Continuity

Monasteries preserved Roman law codes and administrative manuals, training clerks who later served in feudal courts. Cathedral schools maintained literacy and record-keeping, ensuring that charters, land grants, and legal disputes all followed a common framework—further cementing feudal structures.

Although Roman Catholicism did not invent feudalism, its landed wealth, bureaucratic apparatus, and moral authority were key to feudalism’s adoption and longevity across medieval Europe.

William the Conqueror’s Imposition of Tyranny and Feudalism on England:

Pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxon Freedoms

Before 1066, English society was built on customary land rights and local governance. Free peasants held land by inheritance or local agreement, and legal disputes were settled in shire and hundred courts. The king’s power was balanced by the witan—a council of nobles—and local earls who protected community liberties.

Military Conquest and Crown Monopoly of Land

After defeating King Harold at Hastings and his coronation on Christmas Day 1066, William Duke of Normandy declared that all English land belonged to the crown. He kept roughly one-fifth for himself, granted a quarter to the Church, and parcelled out the remainder to about 170 Norman tenants-in-chief in proportion to their service. This unilateral redistribution eradicated the Anglo-Saxon landowning class and solidified Norman rule.

Formalization of Feudal Bonds

William introduced a rigid hierarchy based on land-for-service:

·       King: ultimate landlord

·       Tenants-in-chief (barons and bishops): received large fiefs in exchange for providing knights

·       Knights: held manors and swore fealty to barons, then to the king

·       Villeins and serfs: bound to the manor, owing labour and dues

Each grant was sealed by a homage ceremony—kneeling bareheaded, hands clasped, and an oath sworn upon a holy relic—to ensure lifelong loyalty.

Castle-Building and Military Control

To enforce his new order, William and his barons erected motte-and-bailey castles across key locations. These fortifications served as military strongpoints, administrative centres, and psychological deterrents against rebellion. By 1087, hundreds of these castles dotted the landscape, ensuring Norman dominance even in remote regions.

Tyrannical Reprisals and the Harrying of the North

Resistance met ruthless suppression. In late 1066 and again during uprisings of 1069–70, William’s forces burned villages, slaughtered livestock, and laid waste to farmland in Yorkshire and beyond. This “Harrying of the North” caused widespread famine and displacement, breaking the spirit of any remaining Anglo-Saxon opposition.

Domesday Survey and Administrative Overhaul

In 1086, William commissioned the Domesday Book—a comprehensive survey of landholdings, resources, and taxable value across England. This unprecedented record allowed the crown to extract taxes with precision and to revoke fiefs from disloyal lords, cementing financial control and curtailing noble autonomy.

Erosion of Local Liberties and Legal Traditions

Norman law replaced many Anglo-Saxon customs. Forest laws restricted peasant access to woodlands and game, murdrum fines penalized communities for the death of a Norman lord, and the witan was supplanted by the King’s Curia Regis. Freeholders became tenants who needed royal or baronial consent to sell or bequeath land, erasing centuries of local freedoms.

William’s reforms transformed England from a network of free communities into a tightly controlled feudal monarchy. His strategies of land confiscation, castle erection, and harsh reprisals ensured that all power flowed upward—from serf to knight, baron to king—where once it had been dispersed among many.

Feudalism in North America, the Seigneurial System of New France:

Origins and Definition

The seigneurial system was a land‐tenure framework introduced in New France in 1627 and rooted in French semi-feudal tradition.  All territorial claims nominally belonged to the French king, who granted vast manorial estates (seigneuries) to seigneurs in exchange for developing the colony.  Although inspired by European feudalism, it adapted to North American realities, emphasizing settlement over purely aristocratic privilege.

Land Distribution and Lot Layout

Seigneuries were typically about 1 × 3 leagues (5 × 15 km) and subdivided into long, narrow river lots (rangs) averaging 3 × 30 arpents.  This design maximized access to waterways—the main transportation arteries—and fostered neighbourly interaction.  The Crown or the Company of One Hundred Associates parceled fiefs along rivers, then seigneurs conceded lots to habitants who pledged to bring the land into cultivation within a set timeframe.

Seigneur’s Rights and Responsibilities

Each seigneur held both onerous and honorary rights secured by a notarized concession act.  He was obliged to build and maintain a gristmill, preside over a local court, and ensure communal infrastructure.  In return, seigneurs collected:

- Cens (symbolic feudal tithe) 

- Rente (fixed cash or in-kind rent) 

- Banalités (mill-use fees) 

- Hunting, fishing, and timber licences 

By the early 18th century, seigneurs also claimed several days of corvée labour annually.

Habitant Obligations and Status

Habitants (tenant-farmers) held freehold‐style rights within their concessions, paying fixed rents that did not adjust for inflation or time.  They were free to cultivate and profit from their plots, subject to:

- Grinding grain at the seigneur’s mill 

- Performing corvée work when required 

- Respecting restrictions on resale or sub-letting without seigneurial consent 

This blend of freedom and obligation distinguished New France’s system from full feudal serfdom.

Administration and Legal Framework

The French Crown regulated seigneurial tenures by law, stipulating that land be cleared within a given period or revert to the seigneur.  The Company of One Hundred Associates subinfeudated most of its territory, expecting it to be peopled by 4,000 settlers over 15 years.  Concession contracts detailed mutual obligations, preserving Roman-derived legal continuity and ensuring systematic colonization.

Abolition and Enduring Legacy

Under British rule, the seigneurial system persisted until the Feudal Abolition Act of 1854 converted all tenure to freehold.  Although formally ended, long-lot patterns and place names endure across Quebec’s rural landscape, and the system shaped landholding practices well into the 19th century.

Canada's return to serfdom:

Given the fact that Quebec has never known individual liberty under English Common Law why should we wonder that Canada itself should still suffer from this legacy? This is especially so given the fact that Quebec insists it should remain a separate nation within the Dominion but demands the rest of the nation fund its inherent failures to modernize. This failure is accompanied by a toxic loathing of Anglophone Canada. So, we must dare to ask where did Quebec’s tyranny originate? From France of course! To quote famed British historian Dr. David Starkey, “All The Worst Ideas Are French.”

Whether we are to talk about William the Bastard of Normandy, France who brought feudalism to England or the feudal habitants of Quebec whose adoration of the Catholic Church and slavery under Quebec’s seigneurial system, the Quebecois merely exchanged one form of tyranny for another totalizing monster, BIG GOVERNMENT. They whine about how they have been victimized by Anglo Canada, yet they have managed to do that all on their own. Despite this they persist with a grievance narrative that makes them feel justified in raping the nation to fund their giant welfare project.

It is also worth noting that the biggest centralizing, heavy handed wastrel Prime Ministers that Canada has ever seen were raised as Catholics including Pierre Trudeau, what many view as his illegitimate son, Justin Trudeau, and currently Mark Carney. Canada was historically freer and more prosperous under Protestant leadership. As a radical low church believer, yes radical since I recognize the danger of denominationalism itself as a threat to primitive Christianity, I believe church fellowships ought to be autonomous, indigenous, and self-governing bodies expressing Christ in every local where Christian believers gather. This expression of Christianity will ensure the freedom in Christ which was promised to us in the Scriptures.

So, here's an image of what Roman Catholics did to God fearing folk who believed the individual must know God for themselves. Up to 30,000 Huguenots were murdered at the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre alone. Catholicism has always associated itself with the globalist elite. By embracing it you'll only exchange one slave master for another!

Galatians 5:1 New American Standard Bible
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.