Dispatches From The Amethyst Trail Issue 5
The Silent Majority
Introduction
In every democratic society, the most powerful political force is not the party in office or the loudest activist group. It is the silent majority—the millions who choose not to vote, not out of apathy, but out of disillusionment. They do not see themselves reflected in the hollow rhetoric of professional politicians or the tribal posturing of ideological elites. Instead, they quietly endure, uphold their responsibilities, and carry the weight of a nation that no longer seems to speak for them.
These are the farmers, tradespeople, and small business owners who keep the country functioning, yet whose voices have been drowned out by the noise of media spectacles and partisan agendas. They are the ones for whom government has become something imposed rather than something representative. Reaching them requires more than empty slogans or policy gimmicks—it demands honesty, consistency, and a genuine commitment to individual liberty and fairness.
The future of Canada does not lie in pandering to the predictable few who toggle between parties. It lies in re-engaging those who have walked away, not from democracy itself, but from a political class that has betrayed it. The silent majority is not lost—they are waiting to be heard.
Feature Article
Go Where the Ducks Are
I recently once again came across an interesting statistic: approximately 25% of the Canadian workforce is employed by government. This reminded me of a previous article I had written, in which I investigated the impact of that statistic by examining various sample locations to determine if it had an influence on election outcomes. That article, The Rise of Leviathan, led me farther down a rabbit hole I had dabbled in several times over the years: the contrasting philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. While Locke was an influential figure during the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, Hobbes, though a precursor, also proposed a form of the “Social Contract.”
I first explored this rabbit hole around two years ago with an article on Liberalism. In recent months, I have revisited that theme, particularly the differences between Locke and Hobbes, to the point that I now frame any political analysis through their contrasting views. Hobbes argued that in a state of nature, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and that only a powerful sovereign could prevent anarchy. His solution was big government, Leviathan, ruling over the masses. In other words, Collectivism. Members of the Peoples Party of Canada (PPC) value freedom, fairness, and personal responsibility—not top-down control. Collectivism denies these by making the state the arbiter of worth, need, and justice.
Locke, on the other hand, argued that all people are born with inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, and that the government’s sole purpose is to protect those rights. In a single word, Individualism. Briefly, Individualism is a core principle that PPC members should respect because it affirms that rights and responsibilities reside with the individual—not the group or the state. It is the foundation of true freedom, where each person is free to think, speak, work, and live according to their own conscience, so long as they do not harm others.
To illustrate the difference between these two perspectives, ask yourself what you would say if someone did or said something you disagreed with. If your automatic response is, “There ought to be a law,” you are showing collectivist tendencies. If, on the other hand, you would say, “I don’t want anything to do with that,” you are displaying individualist tendencies. Many people shift between these positions depending on the circumstances. This pattern resembles a normal distribution, the classic bell curve, where the peak represents the average person taking either position roughly 50% of the time.
If you often lean toward what I term the Hobbesian view, you exhibit collectivist tendencies. If the Lockean view prevails, you are more likely to be an individualist.
Let us return to the 25% statistic. Those who work for government predominantly exhibit Hobbesian tendencies. This is a natural selection process: once a collectivist becomes part of Leviathan, they tend to hire others who share their views. Over time, this self-selection leads to an entrenched bias. In The Rise of Leviathan, I tested this hypothesis and concluded:
“An arm’s-length relationship is a cornerstone of ethics, and it is about time we clamped down on corrupt activity with serious consequences for those who are found guilty, rather than merely giving them a slap on the wrist. We need to bring Leviathan under control before it consumes us and destroys everything we hold dear.”
It may already be too late. A severe complication has emerged, which I wish to explore further.
To illustrate this problem, I created a simple graphic of a normal distribution. I highlighted the lower and upper 25% areas. The lower tail represents the 25% of the population employed by government—those whose livelihoods depend on supporting Leviathan. They are ideologues: individuals who place doctrinal purity above flexibility, pragmatism, or openness to dissenting opinions.
Like the yin and yang of Eastern philosophy, there are ideologues at the other end of the spectrum. These are the so-called "conservatives" who think of themselves as individualists but often act irrationally. Take, for example, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. They were re-elected to a majority government earlier this year, but their policies and promises are indistinguishable from those of the Liberals, the openly Leviathan-supporting party. Hypocrites who say one thing and do the opposite. That is why I assign the upper tail of the distribution to these people: they are ideologues who believe they are individualists, yet they act as closet collectivists. There is a type of evil with these people for they often cloak their collectivism in the language of compassion, fairness, or “common good,” while subtly advancing ideas that prioritize group identity, social engineering, or government intervention over individual liberty. Recast in this light, the Conservatives are very much different than the members of the PPC. We don’t do any cloak-and-dagger politics.
This is the core of our modern political dysfunction. Far too many people let irrational thought cloud their judgement, falling victim to confirmation bias (believing only what they want to believe) and cognitive dissonance (ignoring or rationalising conflicting information to protect their beliefs). Our “conservatives” think of themselves as individualists but support policies that strengthen Leviathan. This pattern holds not only in Ontario but also at the national level.
With 50% of the electorate accounted for by these two groups—the true collectivists and the closet collectivists—we are left with a remaining 10% of the voting population who swing based on a narrow set of issues. These are the so-called centrists, who determine election outcomes. The voter turnout hovers around 60%, so I round this to 10% for clarity. According to Elections Canada, the national voter turnout for the 2021 federal election was 62.2%, meaning 37.8% of eligible Canadians did not vote. For the 2025 election, preliminary estimates suggest a similar pattern, with turnout hovering around 61.5%, leaving nearly 38.5% of eligible voters unrepresented. For simplicity, I have rounded this off to 40% in this analysis. These figures underscore the urgent need for political outreach, as over a third of Canadians have not been voting, reflecting a disengaged and disillusioned segment of the population. (Source: Elections Canada)
Yet the key point remains: the most significant single block is the 40% who do not vote—the silent majority. These are not outspoken activists or ideologues. They are the people who quietly support traditional systems and policies. They value things like secure jobs, stable communities, respect for the environment tempered by common sense, and the opportunity to own a home. These are the farmers who manage the land sustainably, the tradespeople who build our infrastructure, and the small business owners who keep our communities alive.
These people have been abandoned. For them, voting seems futile, as it feels nothing will change. What was once attainable, such as owning a home, raising a family, and building a stable life, now feels out of reach for all but a privileged few.
This brings me to a point made at a conference I attended last year for the New Blue Party of Ontario, led by Jim Karahalios. He used an analogy that stuck with me. He likened finding voters to duck hunting. How do you find the ducks (the voters) you need to succeed? His answer was simple: “You go where the ducks are.”
For anyone who wants to make a difference in Canada’s biased political landscape, the strategy is clear: you must target the silent majority.
But how?
First, speak directly to their concerns in plain language. They are tired of slogans and political theatre. Offer real, practical solutions to their problems—solutions that respect their desire for self-reliance and fairness.
Second, make it clear that their vote matters. Many have disengaged because they see no difference between the parties. Show them that there is a genuine alternative—one that not only promises change but is also willing to stand apart from the establishment.
Third, connect at the community level. The silent majority will not be reached through flashy ads or virtue-signalling social media campaigns. They will respond to honest conversations in their communities: at the coffee shop, at the farmers’ market, or after a local hockey game. Grassroots outreach, with real people talking to real people, is the only way to break the cycle of apathy. In order to connect meaningfully with the silent majority, it is essential to engage in what can be termed 'crucial conversations', those open, honest, and often challenging discussions where differing perspectives are respectfully shared and mutual understanding is pursued. These conversations create space for genuine dialogue, not just debate. They allow people to express frustrations, concerns, and hopes without fear of judgment, fostering a climate where deeper relationships and shared values can emerge. By listening with intent and responding with facts, empathy, and a clear vision, advocates for freedom can shift the dialogue from slogans to solutions. The silent majority must be welcomed into these conversations, not dismissed or ignored, as they hold the key to revitalizing democratic engagement.
Finally, be consistent. Too many political movements preach individualism yet act as collectivists once in power. The silent majority is wary because they have seen this bait-and-switch too many times. To regain their trust, you must live the values you claim to stand for. That means standing for freedom even when it is inconvenient, defending property rights when it is unpopular, and pushing back against Leviathan at every turn.
It is a long road ahead, but the map is clear. If we want to change the political landscape, we must stop chasing after the 10% of swing voters and instead focus on the 40% who have been left behind.
Only by awakening the silent majority can we hope to rein in Leviathan before it consumes everything we hold dear. You need to identify what can be done, and then of course, do it. Time is ticking, and there may not be that much time left.
By: Alan Aubut