Is 50% + 1 for Sovereignty really possible…after only getting 0.73%?

For this post, I really don’t think I need to do a whole lot of writing.

All I have to do is let Option Nationale leader Sol Zanetti throw his best punch at my head, parry and then watch Cap’n Pencil Neck tumble to the floor in broken shame.

Now we ALL know what a painful fall from grace the Parti Quebecois experienced in the last election.

However, their more hardcore compatriots over in Option Nationale suffered such a humiliating defeat, no one in either the federalist or separatist camps saw fit to discuss it.

Such a slight evidently got Monsieur Zanetti’s panties in a bunch.

“We Will Not Be Ignored!!” 

Feel a need to light a fire under the sovereignist movement?

Better Call Sol!

As you can see in the video above, Sol rattles off the same-old tripe about how the government of Canada is running Quebec finances into the ground.

With epic pomp and tact, this diatribal video was timed for release on Canada Day.

Care to guess what kind of reaction a federalist video of this sort would elicit on Saint-Saint-Saint John The Baptist Day?


I could take the time to systematically dismember each of his arguments, but he already knows where he’s wrong in  his statements. 

Contrary what you’d expect in the Youtube comments section for this kind of video-pablum, quite a few voices against the 1984esque mentality showed up for some “debate” [read: overt hatred / xenophobia].

Of course, whenever cold, hard facts were raised about the sovereignist movement’s  glaring lack of integrity or validity, the usual suspects would reply with the very zero-substance counter arguments we all love them for…

1. On the subject of the French army being just as guilty as the British of killing natives:

“Ha OUI !? Quand ça ? Où ça ?”Luc Archambault

2. One commenter stated:

“Malheureusement, le PQ a perdu toute crédibilité lors des dernières élections. Ils sont totalement incapables de faire la promotion de la souveraineté d’une manière cohérente et il y a énormément de chicane à l’intérieur même du parti. Plus jamais je ne voterai PQ. C’est un vieux parti qui a fait son temps et qui devrait se saborder.”

All the seps could muster up as a reply was:

“N’importe quoi.” Monsieur Populaire

3. When this truism was presented to the seps:

“Finalement les indépendantistes, vous êtes tous pareils. Des pleurnichards à la Bernard Drainville qui qualifie le Québec d’accueillant mais qui, tout au contraire, veut le rendre uniforme, assimilateur et xenophobe, et figer tous ces attributs dans une Charte pour tous les temps. Ad vitam aeternam. Amen. Religion, quand tu nous tiens.”

It was responded to with a picture (I guess a worded answer was simply out of reach).


The bottom line of it is, you only need a quick visit of any separatist propaganda video’s comments section will tell you all you need to know about the lunatic fringe’s sovereignist hopes.

The last poll that crossed my desk this year saw support for sovereignty back at the 28% mark – the same number it was at in 2012.

With the Lunatic fringe pulling in only 0.73% of the sovereignist quadrant in the last election, perhaps a more classy approach might win over a few converts than the childish “let’s piss on Canada Day” approach?


…only “un ostie de vendu” or an “assimile” would ever dream of such decorum.


12 thoughts on “Is 50% + 1 for Sovereignty really possible…after only getting 0.73%?

  1. Luc Archambault’s “Ha OUI !? Quand ça ? Où ça ?” reply is not as zero-substance as you suggest. (Here are the comments, for those interested in reading them :

    Someone wrote : “…quand les français ont tué des amérindiens par centaines de milliers”. (…when the french killed natives by hundreds of thousands.) And Archambault simply asked for some fact backing, knowing that the statement is false. (Hundreds of thousands? Really?…)

    Having read the No Dogs or Anglophones Allowed blog for quite a while, I find amusing that you blame the big bad separatists for their lack of decorum.

    It is nice to read you again, I hope that more former No Dogs or Anglophones commenters will join in.

    • Salut Michel,

      While hundreds of thousands of natives killed by the French army is a stretch (I don’t think the French and British combined reached anywhere close to that number), the fact remains that far too many separatists completely ignore the fact that the French DID in fact eradicate pockets of the native population.

      It never ceases to rile me when I hear the OUI camp paint a rosy picture of the French army that portrays them as loving, kind, benevolent and having nothing more than altruistic intentions. Can we get separatists to call the past for what it is; a race between the British and the French for domination of the new world.

      • “Can we get separatists to call the past for what it is; a race between the British and the French for domination of the new world?” Of course, that is what it was. But, if you think that this race was about who would eradicate first the natives to settle on their land, you misunderstood the whole thing.

        And the core of France’s strategy was its alliances with native nations. One can speculate on France’s intents, perhaps the French manipulated the natives to serve its own interests, nevertheless, to France, the natives were customers, suppliers and allies. Eradicating them would have been against the interest of France.

        Here is an interesting paper from University of Ottawa about this : It shows a different attitude toward natives between french and english.

        I am just finishing reading David Hackett Fischer’s Champlain’s Dream ( And interestingly, I have been thinking about writting a post about native french relations. It would be interesting to share our respective views, you could explain to me how the big bad white french men screwed the naive and stupid natives who lived in harmony with generous nature in a warfree world. That would be interesting. (Leaving the day after tomorrow, I will be back at mid august.)

        But I believe that we are disgressing, your point was that separatist’s Luc Archambault was zero substance. To who said that the french killed hundreds of thousands of natives, he asked to elaborate, I can see his point.

      • France’s alliances with the Natives, were strategic, nothing more.

        While it was in France’s best interests to empower the natives by including them in the trade stream, there were ulterior motives to the initiative. Let’s not forget that while France was trading with some tribes, it was constantly in conflict with the Iroquois.

        There’s no speculation to French-native relations.

        You might want to insinuate that there was a difference between the French and English perspective on the native population, but it doesn’t take much digging to pick up a few nuggets to prove otherwise.

        Case in point – les filles du roi. Seeing that the men he sent to colonize the new world were copulating with the native population, the king of France sent a boatload of prostitutes to Quebec in order to “preserve” his white, catholic bloodline and keep it nice and “pure”.

        Let’s call it Bill 60 V.1, shall we?

        For another nugget (this one actually being literal), you might want to visit Pointe-à-Callière, where you’ll discover that the French deliberately built their latrines over native burial grounds as a means of exerting domination and putting out a message to the natives.

        While the hundreds of thousands of natives murdered by the French might be an embellishment, the cruelty and debauchery of the French cannot be denied.

        I know it pains you and other separatists to have to admit that you’re no better than the English and don’t have any lessons to give in the area of peace and civility, but the truth is the truth…the French were just as vicious as the English. They only went about it differently.

  2. Before I make a fool out of myself, I’d like to ask a question about asking a question. I’m tempted to pose a question about Canadians’ attitudes towards North American football, but I don’t want to hijack this thread and board without your permission, BOSA (or “Buster”). If you want to keep this blog on-topic about Quebec separatists and their lies, I perfectly understand. Thanks!

    • I see no problem with talking about football.

      I’m not a big fan myself, but CFL teams tend to have decent followings and the NFL seems to have no trouble drawing big crowds at the bars.

      The SuperBowl is a very huge experience and a lot of Canadians look forward to that big day.

      • The reason I asked was that I read some article on CNN about international soccer leagues and they actually used the term “soccer.” Which got a number of people upset about using the term “soccer” instead of “football.” There was an interesting article about the term “soccer” in The Atlantic:

        Why Americans Call Soccer “Soccer”

        The upshot of that article was that the term “soccer” was invented by the British, and it used to be a common term to describe their sport. One of the reasons why they stopped using it seems to be resentment over American football, which made me think of Canada.

        Now Canadians love football although not nearly as much as they do ice hockey. It occured to me that one of the big reasons why you don’t see Canadians asking for the NFL to put franchises in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, or Calgary isn’t just that it wouldn’t be fair to the other Canadian cities that can’t get NFL teams, but they want to keep a cultural distance from the United States. I think that’s also a reason why the CFL has different rules from the NFL and American college football.

        It’s possible that sometime in the future an NFL team will cross the 48th parallel and play in Canada. I don’t think this will happen in Montreal though for one good reason. The NFL will never agree to francisizing its initials to LFN.

  3. Les Filles du Roy being prostitutes, I have heard this hundreds of times. Your preserving the purity of the blood argument is something totaly new, I have never heard this interesting one.

    “… the cruelty and debauchery of the French cannot be denied.”

    Perhaps you could provide some instances of such cruelty and debauchery?

    • Michel,

      It’s always clear when a blog participant requests genuine elucidation and when they’re being coy and merely looking to bait reaction.

      My reply already contains a very clear example of said cruelty.

      • My… what lovely, lovely art you’ve turned up there, Troy.

        I don’t have my spectacles on right now…would that be the depiction of a French soldier shooting a native point-blank in
        the face?

        Can’t possibly be the case.

        Everyone knows that the French army was comprised of peace-loving men who would never dream of bringing harm onto their fellow man, especially in the name of territory.

  4. How come the history of both the French and English population of this province keeps coming back over and over? For heaven’s sake, times were different, values were different, the world was a different place and times were a hell of a lot rougher then. Why is it we cannot move past these things and realize how lucky, as a country, we are with our standard of living and the fact that we can live together, if we WANT TO, and improve our way of life, not make it more difficult? If there is a world beyond this one, God I hope I do not live in one of these trouble-making areas in the next life. Maybe I will have some peace of mind by then! What the hell is the matter with people that they cannot appreciate what the hell they have?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s