A Fighting Chance
The Definitive Guide on Why Canada Shouldn't Join the U.S.
At the time of writing, I am scheduled to appear on a debate panel on 28 January 2025, at 9PM EST arguing against the hypothetical American annexation of Canada hosted by
, with , , and . Those familiar with me or my work know that I am strongly opposed to annexation for many reasons. However, these reasons may not be entirely clear to all subscribers of Fortissax is Typing or those beyond this platform. In this essay, I will outline the foundation of my arguments, explain how they were formed, and demonstrate why I believe it is in Canada’s objective best interest to remain a nominally sovereign nation-state. I say nominally, because, realistically, it cannot be said that any Western nation, including nuclear-armed ones, is truly independent from the American Empire.As I write this, I want to make it clear to any Americans or others reading that I do not cite these figures triumphantly, nor do I insinuate that I take any kind of sadistic pleasure in the decline of the United States. My aim is simply to address my fellow Canadians and argue that, demographically and for other reasons, it is not in Canada’s best interests to become part of the U.S.
This is the longest single article I’ve ever written to-date, so take time to sit down.
Introduction
To explore why it is not in Canada’s best interest to willingly join, be coerced into, or forcibly annexed by the U.S., we must first state our presuppositions—the foundational assumptions that underpin this argument. These presuppositions are my own, but many, if not all, are shared by a significant number of Canadians on the right. I am not arguing from a liberal perspective; I reject many of the core beliefs and principles of liberalism. Instead, my stance is roughly rooted in traditional conservatism, shaped by the customs, values, and history of the Canadian people.
I do not believe in equality and am not an egalitarian. I hold that no two individuals are born equal, that biological sex is an immutable characteristic of human physiology, and that gender is a product of sex. I believe race is real and has profound implications. Further, I assert that ethnos generates ethos—distinct ethnicities create distinct folkways, which in turn generate unique cultures, ultimately creating an environment that reinforces the genetic makeup which produced them.
I believe that some cultures are superior to others. This superiority can be quantified by examining not only what these cultures create or produce but also their success in ensuring the survival and propagation of the group to which they belong. For example, cultures can be measured by their dynamism, adaptability, and capacity for innovation. I extend my belief in inequality to groups as well, asserting that no two groups or cultures are equal.
Oxford defines nations as groups of people who share ethnic, cultural, and historical ties. This is antithetical to the jus soli legal concept of nationhood or classical liberal beliefs in “nations of ideas,” an oxymoron. Nations are not proposals or propositions; they are composed of immutable blocs of people. Nations organise organically into social hierarchies. While I am sympathetic to the idea of equality under the law in most cases, I believe considerations should be made for the aforementioned realities. You don’t choose your identity—your identity chooses you. Nationality is an exclusive club, oriented on the rock-solid reality of life, whether you like it or not. It’s in the word nation. Your “nationality” cannot be reduced to a passport. It is blood. Period.
I do not believe that every individual is an island, a free-thinking and wholly rational being. Nor am I an individualist—a fundamentally liberal idea—though I respect and value the individualistic streak in Western peoples and the civilisation we have created. Even in the most collectivistic periods of Western history, there was greater respect and reverence for the individual and his rights and freedoms than in other societies, such as the Russians or Chinese, where their collectivist culture was shaped by exogamous communitarian family structures. My position roughly aligns closely with that of a traditional conservative. For a comparison of how classical liberalism contrasts with traditional conservatism, you may consult this chart.
We will now summarize these presuppositions into first principles:
Nations are Defined by Shared Ethnicity and Heritage
A nation is not an abstract proposition but an immutable group bound by a shared ethnicity, culture, and common heritage.
Canadians are defined by Anglo-Canadian and French-Canadian ethnicities, descendants of British and French settlers who established the nation.
Canadian heritage also includes small numbers of very carefully selected, groups of culturally adjacent, compatible European settlers who were assimilated, such as Germans, Dutch, and Scandinavians without changing its British and French genetic makeup.
2. Human Inequality is Natural and InherentNo two individuals or groups are born equal in abilities, characteristics, or outcomes.
Biological sex is immutable, and gender is intrinsically tied to it.
Race is real and has significant social, cultural, and historical implications that shape nations and their cultures.
3. Ethnos Generates EthosGoing deeper than race, ethnic groups shape cultures through shared histories, values, and behaviours.
Unique cultures emerge from distinct folkways, reinforced by the environment and the genetic makeup of the groups that created them.
Cultural superiority can be measured by a group’s ability to adapt, innovate, and ensure survival and propagation.
4. Canada is Rooted in Traditional Conservatism, Not LiberalismCanada was not founded on philosophical liberalism, unlike the United States, which is grounded in ideas from Locke, Mill, and Rousseau.
Canada’s foundations lie in traditionalist conservatism, drawn from American Loyalists and the French Ancien Régime, represented by figures like Richard Hooker and Joseph de Maistre.
While Canada has adopted some liberal institutions (e.g., parliamentary democracy), its essence remains rooted in traditional, hierarchical values.
The above is evident in Canadians' inconsistent embrace of liberalism. Rather than attempting to assimilate immigrants, Canadians adopted a cultural mosaic through the 1971 Multiculturalism Policy, reaffirmed in the 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act, though this approach was strongly opposed by the 1992 Quebec-Canada Accord. This had an unintended effect of further preserving Canada’s homogeneity. Canadians have the right to own firearms, but with restrictions. They also enjoy rights to freedom of speech and self-expression, but these have been heavily limited from the outset. Property ownership is a right, yet the government retains the power to nullify these and other rights through the notwithstanding clause. Canadians are not a liberal people, and they never have been.
Canadians, as descendants of British Loyalists and French Royalists who rejected both the American and French Revolutions, underwent an epigenetic selection event in which conservative and authoritarian temperaments were favoured through sexual selection.
Canadian liberalism, defined by the left-wing liberalism of the post-WWII political order—enforced by politicians like Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Trudeau and promoted by liberal intellectuals such as J.M. Bumstead, Ninette Kelley, Michael Trebilcock, and Will Kymlicka—is a failing, dying ideology that threatens the existential survival of Canadians.
5. Order is Canada’s Core Value, Not LibertyCanada’s national identity is rooted in Order, as expressed in its national motto, Peace, Order, and Good Government, conceived by Sir John A. Macdonald. This stands in contrast to the United States, whose core value is Liberty, reflecting its liberal and individualist foundations in the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Canadians are a people, not a proposition.
They are many, not one—rooted in blood, not in passport paper. Their temperament, culture, and values stem from folkways shaped by their distinct ethnic heritage, which remains the demographic majority and an immutable group across Canada, setting them apart from other peoples. This shared heritage spans coast to coast, from Halifax to Vancouver Island, even in regions like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where significant numbers of German and Ukrainian settlers have contributed to the population but have never eclipsed the core Canadian majority.
The Absolute State of the U.S.
The United States, from the perspective of a Canadian nationalist, is an empire in decline—a “Sick Man of the Americas,” akin to the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century or the Byzantine Empire in the 13th century. It is propped up by its vast wealth, raw military force, and, for now, its lack of true contenders. European-Americans do not share an ethnic identity across regions or coast to coast. In fact, not only do European-Americans lack a unifying ethnic identity among their diasporas, but the country is also statistically only 57% European-American and dropping rapidly, with the passing of the baby boomer generation, who untill recently represent the largest age cohort. The MAGA movement has made its “civic nationalist” (an oxymoron, so we will use civic patriot henceforth) intentions abundantly clear.
It defines an American as neither being tied to colour nor creed, so long as one upholds the civic virtues and values of the American Empire. According to this view, anyone and everyone can become an American because the United States is a “melting pot,” a “land of opportunity” where “all are welcome,” as long as they accept “our values.” These sentiments are echoed by virtually every single populist party in the Western world, from the People’s Party of Canada to the French National Rally, the German Alternative für Deutschland, the British Reform Party, and the Dutch Party for Freedom. Suffice it to say, the MAGA movement—despite its nativist rhetoric—increasingly resembles another form of universalizing, homogenizing globalism, albeit a right-wing liberal version. That being said, I acknowledge that Canada currently has no alternative, or a strong, organized nationalist cohort. I have covered this topic extensively here.
The United States of America is currently being hoisted by its own petard. Its liberal foundations, inspired by the Founding Fathers, English liberal intellectuals like John Locke and John Stuart Mill, liberal economists like Adam Smith, and token French revolutionary thinkers, define its philosophical origins. Although political and cultural participation was initially limited to Anglo-Americans (European-Americans of British Isles descent), this began to change with the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed individuals from across Europe—primarily from Western and Northern Europe at the time—to emigrate and join the great experiment.
In my view, this marked the beginning of the end for a shared European-American ethnicity capable of rallying together, although the nation remained predominantly Anglo-American until the 1860s. The devastating losses of the American Civil War prompted Yankee and Dixie elites to adopt a “whites-only” borders policy. This decision to grant citizenship to “all free White men of good character” ultimately proved flawed. By 1900, these “White ethnics” had become the demographic majority, displacing and replacing the Anglo-Americans who originally founded the nation. Had the trickle been smaller, and the selection process remained as stringest as they were under Calvin Coolidge, with his strong preference for western and northern European immigrants, they could perhaps have maintained their homogeneity, such as in Canada or Australia. Today, Anglo-Americans only remain the majority in upper New England and Utah. The election of John F. Kennedy was a milestone in post-war American history, as he was the first non-WASP “White ethnic” president, foreshadowing the end of absolute political leadership by the U.S.’s founding stock.
If ethnos drives ethos, then the American ethos began to fundamentally change. Certain regions of the United States are no longer distinctly American in the original sense. Many intellectuals point to figures like Tim Walz as examples of individuals who are clearly European-American but whose ethnic character strongly reflects their heritage. The upper Midwestern states, uniquely shaped by their German and Nordic heritage—where Anglo-Americans are a minority—are characteristically different in their folkways from the Yankees of New England, the Northern Irish and Highland Scots of Appalachia, or the English Cavalier descendants of the eastern Southern states. This is even observable in their voting patterns and policies in their states. The upper Midwest is markedly Democrat, and more “statist” in American terms than elsewhere.
Americans today are embroiled in a battle for the heart and soul of their nation, which could be argued is still undergoing ethnogenesis—unlike Canada, the many nations of Europe, or Australia and New Zealand. This ongoing struggle now centres on whether East Indians are entitled to the American labour market because, after all, “America is a nation of ideas.” H-1B visa holders are overwhelmingly East Indian, benefiting the East Indian diaspora and serving as a mechanism for their continued entry into and prosperity within the United States.
The controversy over Christmas 2024, when Elon Musk was repeatedly ratioed online by organically seething Heritage Americans, reflects the growing tension over resources, opportunity, and influence within the MAGA movement. This discrepancy was further inflamed when Vivek Ramaswamy, himself a nominally assimilated Indian-American born on American soil and raised in American culture, distinguished himself as different from European-Americans by criticizing their recent mediocrity and cultural failures. He added fuel to the fire by suggesting the U.S. adopt “tiger moms,” a phenomenon observed in Chinese and East Indian diaspora communities characterized by neurotic academic obsession, minimal social life, and overbearing authoritarianism over their children.
Ramaswamy’s remarks highlight his foreign origins and demonstrate that, despite nominal assimilation, he does not—and perhaps cannot—fully identify with the rich, exploratory, and playful nature of European-Americans. This cultural divide demonstrates a broader issue: for European-Americans to oppose the natural evolution of America’s founding ideals, they would need to abandon and betray their own foundational principles. This is an insurmountable challenge, one that will inevitably cause immense cognitive dissonance. The struggle goes beyond the disingenuous and ignoble policy implementations of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965—which ended preference for culturally adjacent Europeans—and the pervasive legacy of slavery, which has seemingly tied the fate of African Americans to the United States. African Americans, themselves a people born in the New World, represent a mixed and new ethnicity formed from various West African tribes.
In order for the United States to save itself, its constitution, and the historic culture it holds dear, it will have to fundamentally change in ways that violate its core tenets, which, for better or worse, snowballed into what we see today. Every other Western country does not share the same level of difficulty in reform.
MAGA is not your Saviour
The MAGA movement, as explored in my colleague and fellow Canadian
’s article, can be understood not as a counter-revolutionary or genuinely reactionary force, but as America’s Thermidorian Reaction—a movement within the post-WWII liberal order to purge its own radical excesses. Endeavour draws parallels to the French Revolution, where the Thermidorian Reaction was not a restoration of the monarchy but a moderation of the Reign of Terror’s extremism, and to the Soviet Union’s Destalinization, which sought to distance the regime from Stalin’s radical policies without abandoning communism.Similarly, MAGA does not aim to dismantle the liberal framework established during the cultural revolution of the 1960s, marked by the Civil Rights Act and Hart-Celler Act, but instead seeks to address the instability caused by the radicalization of this framework during the “Great Awokening” of the 2010s. Its faith in “colourblind meritocracy” is rock solid. Just as the Thermidorians and Khrushchev’s regime sought to preserve their respective systems by eliminating destabilizing elements, MAGA represents an attempt to recalibrate the liberal order by challenging excessive ideological commitments like open borders, identity politics, and globalist policies.
While MAGA appeals to traditionalist sentiments, it ultimately operates within the boundaries of the same liberal system it critiques, lacking the philosophical depth to present a true alternative. Trump’s 2016 campaign was fueled by widespread dissatisfaction with the establishment and a sense of cultural alienation among, working-class European-Americans. As an outsider candidate, Trump faced opposition from both political parties and the media but managed to channel populist anger into an unexpected victory. However, his presidency revealed that he posed less of a threat to the system than many anticipated. Trump’s administration implemented some reforms but fell short of disrupting the liberal order, leading many elites to reframe him as a tolerable alternative to the increasing instability caused by radical left-wing movements. The 2024 campaign differs significantly from Trump’s earlier runs because he has garnered support from influential elite factions. Figures in Big Tech, such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, and segments of the Zionist lobby, see Trump as a tool to stabilize the system without fundamentally altering it. While Trump continues to appeal to his populist base, his elite backers are likely to exert more influence over his presidency than grassroots supporters.
The Four Agendas of America’s Elite
Endeavour outlines four major agendas driving the U.S. political landscape, which often overlap but also compete for dominance:
The Anti-White Agenda (Wokeism)
This agenda promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as core principles, advocating for identity politics, demographic transformation, and the demonization of traditional Western cultural norms. Organizations like the NAACP, SPLC, and Open Society Foundations champion this cause.Managerialism
Focused on centralized control, managerialism, coined by James Burnham, expands bureaucratic oversight in both public and private sectors. The COVID-19 pandemic epitomized managerial overreach, as policies enforced compliance on an unprecedented scale. Key proponents include BlackRock, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.The Zionist Lobby
Primarily concerned with ensuring unwavering U.S. support for Israel, the Zionist agenda overlaps with wokeism in promoting leftist social causes but diverges when these causes conflict with Israeli interests. Organizations like AIPAC and the ADL straddle this divide.Big Tech
Initially aligned with wokeism, Big Tech has begun to push back against its most radical elements due to its impact on innovation and competence. Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (now X) symbolizes this shift, as does growing discontent with DEI mandates within the tech sector.
While these agendas are not inherently unified, they collectively uphold the liberal framework established in the 1960s, even as they compete for dominance within it. I’ve defined these forces in the past as left-liberalism vs right-liberalism, which I covered here:
MAGA & Wokism
Parallels to Historical Thermidorian Reactions
MAGA’s role is likened to historical Thermidorian Reactions, where moderates sought to rein in revolutionary excesses to stabilize their regimes. For example:
The Thermidorians ended Robespierre’s radical Reign of Terror, easing persecution and executions while maintaining the republic.
Khrushchev’s Destalinization moderated Stalin’s authoritarian rule but preserved the communist system.
Similarly, MAGA seeks to temper the radicalism of woke managerialism without challenging the core tenets of the liberal order. The “Great Awokening,” characterized by intensified DEI policies, identity politics, and cancel culture, parallels the Reign of Terror and Stalinist purges in its ideological zeal. Trump’s 2024 campaign represents an attempt to dial back these excesses and restore a degree of moderation.
Challenges Facing the Thermidorians
Despite its goals, MAGA faces significant hurdles in moderating the system:
Demographic Shifts: The growing influence of progressive, non-white voting blocs entrenches leftist policies.
Institutional Entrenchment: Managerial bureaucracies are staffed with ideologues deeply committed to woke principles, making reform difficult.
Superficial Reforms: Even if MAGA eases censorship and curbs DEI mandates, it is unlikely to reverse structural changes such as demographic transformation or the Civil Rights Act.
Endeavour contends that MAGA’s moderation of woke managerialism may improve short-term conditions but will not address deeper contradictions in the liberal order. For example:
The Zionist lobby’s support for both Israeli ethno-nationalism and woke policies in the U.S. creates unsustainable contradictions.
Universalist egalitarianism remains fundamentally flawed, and attempts to reform it, like Gorbachev’s Perestroika in the USSR, may inadvertently accelerate systemic collapse.
While MAGA may temporarily stabilize the United States, it will not fundamentally alter the trajectory set in motion during the cultural revolution of the 1960s. The deeper issues of demographic change, cultural alienation, and institutional decay remain unresolved. Trump’s vision—and likely that of most within the MAGA movement—is rooted in nostalgia for the 1980s and 1990s, a romanticized era cherished by many baby boomers. This idealized vision imagines a time when race was purportedly invisible, the black middle class thrived, and patriotism unified Americans across racial lines. This narrative conveniently ignores the darker realities of that period, including the L.A. race riots and the rise of militant groups like the Black Panther Party. At the same time, this Thermidorian Reaction is being leveraged to solidify control over America’s imperial vassals, with the Anglosphere serving as its primary appendages and European nation-states as key dependencies. Populist movements across Europe echo rhetoric nearly identical to that of MAGA, with many receiving direct or indirect support from individuals and entities affiliated with the movement. Figures like Elon Musk have actively amplified some of these efforts, like promoting the Alternative für Deutschland party and bolstering independent actors aligned with MAGA’s agenda, thereby expanding its influence across the Western world. Not ideal, but a means to an end for sure.
Demographics are Destiny
Demographics are destiny. If culture is the distinct product of an ethnos, which creates its own ethos—contributing to a unique environment that reinforces its genetic makeup—and human cultures are immutable groups that scarcely change short of conquest or subjugation (and the inevitable mixing that occurs), then simply crossing a magical, arbitrary line called a border or owning a piece of paper granting permission to live in a country does not make one belong to a nation. Your culture, values, mindset, and interactions with the world around you do not fundamentally change; they are inseparable from the individuals who form the groups inhabiting a specific place. Your experiences are valuable to you as an individual, and they are shaped in part by your culture. It is impossible to share all of the cultural experiences of another culture, which is why it is unreliable to assume that someone foreign to your culture will inherently cherish your values. People bring their culture with them. American culture, as it once was, has been defined first by its overwhelmingly Anglo-American foundation and later by the massive waves of European diasporas who nominally assimilated into it. There are an estimated 30 million illegal migrants living in the United States, mostly focused close to the southern border, as the vast majority of them seen to come from central, or South America. Ronald Reagan’s amnesty granted to the millions of illegals in California permanently shifted the political power to those states to the Democrat party, as the majority of Hispanic-Americans tend to vote for. For all intents and purposes, both Canada and the U.S. are in similar demographic situations. I’m trying to highlight that the current numbers as they are, lean in favour of ethnic Canadians and their survival.
Demographics in the U.S.
As of the most recent U.S. Census data (2020), the total European-American population in the United States is as follows:
White (non-Hispanic): 191.7 million people, or approximately 57.8% of the total U.S. population.
White (including Hispanic): 235.4 million people, or approximately 71% of the total U.S. population. This is misleading, as many Hispanics who identify as white are not, and many who are, identify as indigenuous.
Here are these numbers broken down by generation:
The racial and ethnic composition of the United States has changed significantly across generations, with younger cohorts displaying much greater diversity than their predecessors. This is driven by factors such as mass migration, both legal and illegal, intermarriage, and differential birth rates. While Baby Boomers retain a clear European-American majority, younger generations like Millennials and Gen Z illustrate the emergence of multiculturalism and multiracialism. These demographic shifts hold profound implications for the country’s political landscape, economic priorities, and cultural dynamics, as each generation’s unique composition influences their worldviews and group priorities. Here are the numbers projected for 2030:
We may also check the 2023 map for where European-Americans are being born:
What’s clear with this data, is that the American Midwest, Upper Midwest, Utah, and Upper New England will be the only places remaining with a European-American majority in the very near future. This is not a good thing, as we will explore why later.
Sources:
U.S. Census Bureau (2020). 2020 Decennial Census Reports on Race and Ethnicity.
Population Breakdown by Race and Age Groups: How Has Our Nation’s Population Changed?
Racial and Ethnic Diversity by Age Group: Exploring Age Groups in the 2020 Census
U.S. Census Bureau (2023). National Race and Ethnicity Trends.
Racial Demographics of the U.S. Population: Race and Ethnicity in the United States
Hispanic Population Data: Hispanic Origin Statistics
Pew Research Center (2022). Demographic Trends in America.
Statista (2023). Race and Ethnicity by Generation in the U.S.
Edison Research/NEP via Reuters (2020). National Exit Poll Data on Voting Preferences.
Demographic Changes in Canada
As of the most recent 2021 Census data, the total population in Canada is as follows:
Total European-Canadians: 68–69% (25.15–25.4 million)
Ethnic Canadians (British and French): ~52% of total population (~19 million)
White ethnics (Other Europeans): ~17% of total population (~6.4 million)
Visible minority population: ~32% of total population (~11.8 million)
Here are these numbers broken down by generation:
We might also want to check and see where European-Canadians are being born. From my colleague and acquaintance Nicholas White:
What’s immediately clear is that while Canada has a higher proportion of Baby Boomers compared to the U.S., it also has a greater share of ethnic Canadian Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z. The mass migration waves, particularly over the last four and a half years, have not changed this reality. Canadians don’t mix with foreigners. By 2030, there will be more young, racially European people in Canada than in the United States, proportionally adjusted.
Sources:
Statistics Canada (2021). 2021 Census Reports on Population and Ethnic Composition.
Age Characteristics: Statistics Canada - Age Groups
Ethnic and Cultural Origins: Statistics Canada - Ethnic and Cultural Data
Government of Canada (2021). Immigration and Visible Minority Data.
Immigration Trends and Visible Minority Breakdown: Immigration and Visible Minorities Overview
Statista (2023). Racial and Ethnic Diversity by Generation in Canada.
Canadian Historical Immigration Data (2023). Overview of Immigration and its Impact on Generational Diversity.
Canadian Favour
Without question, Canada is undergoing the fastest demographic change of any country in the Western world. Over the past four and a half years, an estimated 6.2 million international students, temporary foreign workers, immigrants, and refugees have simply entered the country, although not all have stayed, nor are all expected to remain. The provinces most significantly affected by this demographic influx are British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, where rapid changes in population composition are evident. Ontario stands on the cusp of becoming a province with no clear racial majority, as its population is now effectively balanced between individuals of European descent and visible minorities.
In contrast, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces are projected to not only maintain their racially European majorities but also preserve a solid majority of ethnic Canadians—individuals of Anglo-Canadian and French-Canadian heritage—who continue to share a cohesive and distinct ethnic identity, rooted in their settlement history dating back to 1608 and 1758, respectively.
Atlantic Canada is not so different from Ontario in terms of its settlement history, as both regions were colonised by Loyalists at the same time and by the same groups of people in the 1780s. The 2.9 million settlers from the British Isles over the course of a century assimilated into Loyalist Anglo-Canadian culture, primarily settling in Ontario and New Brunswick, the latter having been carved out of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia itself was initially settled by pro-British Planters from New England and was historically much larger, encompassing what are now both provinces. These New England Planters were a group of settlers from the Thirteen Colonies—early Loyalists, primarily from Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island—who were invited by the British government to settle in the Maritimes following the expulsion of the Acadians, many of whom would ultimately be invited back. Their settlement played a critical role in the demographic and cultural transformation of the region. In Canadian political history, the Maritimes were the last region to consistently vote for the Progressive Conservatives, whose politics better reflected the Canadian temperament and traditional Canadian culture, even after the Reform Party became more dominant.
Quebec’s founding population, while culturally and linguistically distinct, is ethnically closer to Anglo-Canadians than many might realise, including Quebecers themselves. The majority of Quebecers are descended from settlers originating in Normandy, followed by Poitou, and then Brittany—all regions located in northwestern France and geographically close to Britain. These settlers are ethnically distinct from many other French populations in Europe. The province also received a small number of Protestant Huguenots from Upper Normandy, who were eventually absorbed into the Catholic majority, originally descended from pagan Norsemen.
The Norman Conquest of Canada
Quebec’s illiberal values have persisted throughout its history, from Champlain’s establishment of Quebec City to its modern secular, authoritarian social democracy. This is likely due to its founders, who were theocratic monarchists rejecting the French Revolution and viewing themselves as the last bastion of France’s Bourbon ancien régime. At their core, this makes Quebecers not so different from Anglo-Canadians, who descend from traditionalist conservative Loyalists.
This is important because it highlights a fundamental truth: anything and everything Canada has been, is, or will be, can be restored or created anew. You can replace a state, but you cannot replace a people. Their genetics shape their folkways, which in turn shape a culture, and that culture forms the foundation of a state.
Common Issues and Concerns
In this section, I’d like to discuss some common issues and frequently touted arguments in favour of Canadian annexation to the United States. The majority of these arguments revolve around three key points: the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the prospect of a stronger economy (which could mean better job opportunities and lower taxes, depending on where you live).
We will examine how demographic changes in the United States impact popular support for rights and freedoms that are predominantly supported by European-Americans and analyse the economic implications as well.
The First Amendment
The First Amendment, guaranteeing freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, is widely supported, with 91% of Americans nominally agreeing it is essential to democracy and 84% feeling it protects “people like them”. However, perceptions of its fairness and application reveal significant disparities.
European-Americans express the highest confidence, with over 85% feeling protected and favouring broader interpretations, such as protections for hate speech.
African-Americans, by contrast, report lower confidence, with only 61% feeling the First Amendment protects them, citing concerns about “systemic inequities”, such as “disproportionate law enforcement responses” to events like the Ferguson protests in 2014.
Hispanic Americans (24%) and Asian Americans (32%) express notable concerns about free speech insecurity, often influenced by cultural barriers and rising incidents of perceived hate speech
In other words, many Hispanics and East Asians do not feel that the First Amendment adequately protects them. These groups may fear repercussions for freely expressing themselves, despite the fact that free speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution as an inalienable right, guaranteeing nominal protection from government persecution.
Demographic Implications
This issue becomes even more significant when considering the growing size of these demographic groups.
Hispanics: As of July 1, 2022, the Hispanic population in the United States was estimated at 63.7 million, making up 19.1% of the total U.S. population. This figure includes:
20.3 million “White” Hispanics
43.4 million who identify as multiracial, Black, Indigenous, or "Some Other Race"
East Indians: Another rapidly growing immigrant population, particularly prominent through the H1-B visa system, merits examination.
India’s Constitution, under Article 19, guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is subject to restrictions aimed at maintaining public order, decency, and the sovereignty of the nation. These restrictions underscore the stark differences between Indian and American free speech protections.
A 2019 Pew Research survey revealed that 58% of Indians felt their right to express views was protected, while 26% disagreed. Interestingly, individuals with higher education levels were more likely to feel that freedom of speech was secure, suggesting Indian elites are generally satisfied with the state of free speech in their country, even amidst notable restrictions.
Studies consistently show that minority groups, including Black and other communities, are more likely to oppose protections for hate speech, associating such protections with harm to “marginalised groups”. European-Americans generally support free speech absolutism, believing it to be a safeguard against government overreach. Hispanics and East-Asians demonstrate cultural blocks that significantly reduce their likelihood of utilizing their First Amendment rights, and consequently may not value them to such the degree of European-Americans, or at all. Contrast this to Canada, where we have clear limitations on hate speech, that rarely go enforced, primarily due to the state’s lack of manpower and resources to investigate and prosecute every reported instance of hate speech. Put simply, the cops have more important things to do than hunt down meanie racists on the internet, unlike the United Kingdom.
Sources:
Knight Foundation (2022). Free Speech and Democracy Report.
FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 2024). First Amendment Security Survey.
Yale Law Journal (2020). Freedom of Assembly and Racial Justice.
Knight Foundation (2017). College Students and Hate Speech.
Pew Research Center (2019). Indian Views on Freedom of Speech and Expression.
U.S. Census Bureau (2022). Hispanic Population Estimates for July 1, 2022.
Statista (2023). Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the United States.
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1791, states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Support for the Second Amendment and gun ownership in the United States varies across different racial and ethnic groups. According to a 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center, 38% of White Americans report owning a gun, compared to 24% of Black Americans, 20% of Hispanic Americans, and 10% of Asian Americans.
Gun Ownership Statistics by Race
European-Americans: 38% report owning a gun.
African-Americans: 24% report owning a gun.
Hispanic Americans: 20% report owning a gun.
Asian Americans: 10% report owning a gun.
Factors Influencing Views on Gun Ownership
European-Americans:
Have the highest gun ownership rates.
Strong support for the Second Amendment often tied to cultural and historical associations with individual rights and self-reliance.
Some studies suggest a link between anti-Black attitudes and opposition to gun control measures in certain segments of the population.
African-Americans:
Lower gun ownership rates but increasing interest in firearm ownership, particularly for self-defense.
Support for the Second Amendment is tempered by concerns about systemic racism and unequal enforcement of gun laws.
Hispanic Americans:
Mixed views on the Second Amendment and gun ownership, reflecting diverse cultural backgrounds and priorities.
Many support gun control measures to reduce violence, but there is a growing minority advocating for self-defense rights.
Asian Americans:
Lowest gun ownership rates among major racial groups.
Cultural influences and lower violent crime rates in communities may contribute to reduced interest in firearms.
European-Americans tend to show the strongest support for the Second Amendment and gun ownership. Minority groups, while often supportive of self-defense rights, are more likely to advocate for stricter gun control measures due to concerns about community safety and gun violence. Many minority communities have historically prioritized collective safety over individual firearm ownership. This is because they are not liberal peoples, like European-Americans, whose entire national existence is predicated on liberal ideology. Individualist streaks are also the consequence of the two types of nuclear family structures, laid out by Emmanuel Todd in The Explanation of Ideology, unique to Northwestern European peoples, like the Dutch, English, and Northern French.
The Second Amendment is not just something American citizens use as a shield for the uncomfortable and ghoulish hypothetical prospect of engaging in direct action against their government (and if you point this out, they’ll accuse you of 'fedposting'). Many Canadian conservatives and populists similarly view it as a magical safeguard against government overreach. In fact, populist Canadians often appear more preoccupied with this scenario than Americans themselves, believing that a greater legal right to firearm ownership could slow or stop potential government overreach. But there’s a critical error in conflating the right to own firearms with the reality of actually owning them.
Canadians maintain the seventh-highest rate of gun ownership in the world, proportional to their population, regardless of how the Canadian government feels about it. Among the firearms commonly owned, the modernized SKS—a combat rifle chambered in 7.62—is particularly popular due to its affordability, reliability, and availability. It is also worth pointing out that potentially millions of prohibited firearms, dating back decades, remain unregistered and have been conveniently "lost" in "boating accidents." Claims that Canadians are only permitted to own firearms chambered in .22 or 9mm are false. Similarly, arguments suggesting that legal magazine capacity acts as a significant limitation for citizens hypothetically confronting the government are nonsense. Criminals implicated in firearm-related crimes in Canada do not abide by magazine capacity restrictions. Why would citizens hypothetically engaged in direct conflict with the government do the same?
As of 2020, five years ago, with the introduction of further firearm restrictions—such as the infamous handgun ban and the reclassification of various models as prohibited—approximately only 20 firearms have reportedly been handed in to the government. Meanwhile, federal authorities have reportedly lost hundreds of guns, yes, lost guns, two of which are machine guns. The deadline for handing in prohibited firearms has been extended multiple times, because Canadians are simply not complying. Police leaders have repeatedly informed the government that they lack the manpower and resources to conduct door-to-door searches for prohibited firearms that citizens refuse to hand over. For obvious reasons, such actions would be extremely dangerous for both law enforcement and citizens. Furthermore, if even a single smartphone recording were uploaded to social media showing armed law enforcement attempting a siege of a household with the intent to confiscate recently prohibited firearms, it would deal a catastrophic blow to the state’s legitimacy.
Such an event would likely surpass the backlash seen during the government’s actions against the Freedom Convoy. Police deaths in Canada average only four constables per year, with the exception of recent years where it jumped up to eight. Canadian police, with their high salaries, higher educational requirements for hiring, and higher training thresholds are a huge investment, and could not realistically recouperate losses. Not only would Canadians become unfathomably galvanized against the government, but support from—and potentially interference by—private citizens or covertly sympathetic politicians in the United States could escalate the situation. Notably, an estimated one-third of donations to the Freedom Convoy were provided by American citizens. Under a Trump, or beyond him, Republican administration, such a scenario could provided the causus beli to invade Canada under the pretext of “restoring order”, and then simply deciding not to leave.
This is an unthinkable scenario, and while there is arguably a higher chance of such an event occurring in Canada than in the United States, it remains highly unlikely. Would having the Second Amendment in Canada, alongside the Castle Doctrine, be nice? Sure. It would allow police to worry less and spend fewer resources investigating and prosecuting law-abiding citizens engaged in self-defence. Would it be great to own a wider selection of firearms, including cool collector's items like antiques, or even melee weapons like maces and morning stars? Absolutely. But is forfeiting nominal Canadian sovereignty for these ‘nice-to-haves’ worth it? Absolutely not. Especially not with how low crime is in Canada by comparison. We’ll get to that.
Sources:
PBS (Public Broadcasting Service). Freedom Convoy Donations.
The Week. Freedom Convoy and American Contributions.
CP24. RCMP Reports on Stolen Firearms.
Blueline.ca. Lost and Stolen RCMP Firearms Over the Years.
World Population Review. Global Civilian Firearm Ownership Rankings.
Northeast Now. Police Challenges in Administering Buyback Programs.
CityNews Toronto. Police Forces Too Thinly Stretched to Administer Firearm Buyback Program, Chiefs Say.
Pew Research Center (2023). Gun Ownership and Attitudes on Gun Control in the United States.
APA (American Psychological Association). Pew Research Center (2023). Key facts about Americans and guns.
American Psychological Association (APA). Guns and racism: Who do White Americans really perceive gun control as disarming?
Pew Research Center (2023). Views of U.S. gun laws, impact of gun ownership on safety.
American Psychological Association (APA). Anti-Black racism linked to lower support for some gun rights.
Pew Research Center (2023). For Most U.S. Gun Owners, Protection Is the Main Reason They Own a Gun.
Pew Research Center (2017). America's Complex Relationship With Guns.
Recent Voting Trends
Let’s examine some additional data that consistently shows the majority of voting European-Americans support the GOP, regardless of whether they are college-educated, while the majority of visible minorities vote for the Democrats. The Democratic Party has overwhelmingly voted in favour of increased immigration and has openly supported policies that contribute to the reduction of European-Americans as a demographic majority. Here are some charts from 2020 and 2024:
Alright, you’re probably thinking, “What about all the Latinos and Black voters who supported Donald Trump in 2024?” Didn’t he make an unprecedented effort to reach out to these groups, hosting a grand GOP gala featuring LGHDTV+, Black, Hispanic, and East Indian attendees to showcase how diverse and inclusive the Republican Party had become? Weren’t all the rappers supposed to make the GOP appeal to African-Americans? Let’s tally up all the available data we have.
The numbers reflect something like this:
Case in point: the clear majority of European-Americans supported Donald Trump, which can be interpreted as a proxy for supporting traditional American culture and values. A browner America means a country that is gradually less culturally aligned with its historical identity, including foundational Anglo-American values such as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. This is not only demographic but cultural, as the values and priorities brought by different groups reflect their unique histories and traditions. While immigration and diversity can enrich a society, this is dependent on cultural compatibility, adjacency, and degrees of preexisting similarity. The data suggests have that newer immigrant groups tend to support more progressive policies and favour greater government intervention, aligning with the Democratic Party in the United States. As these groups grow in size and political influence, there is an increasing push towards policies that may conflict with traditional American values, such as individual liberties and limited government. If Canada were to join the United States, the appreciation and enjoyment of these rights and freedoms would most likely be shorter lived than you’d think.
The Economy
Let’s talk about the economy. Job prospects are among the most touted reasons many pro-annexation Canadians cite when considering this issue. They look south of the border and hear nothing but “line is going up and to the right.” But it’s generally true that the Canadian economy is struggling. The federal government is masking the impacts of a recession through unprecedented levels of immigration—the highest per capita in modern history—artificially boosting total GDP while GDP per capita stagnates or declines. According to a 2023 study, Canada ranks last in upward mobility among 20 developed countries.
13% of Canada’s GDP is tied to real estate, rentals, and leasing, making the economy overly reliant on housing markets rather than productive industries. Meanwhile, household debt in Canada remains among the highest globally, exceeding 180% of disposable income in 2023, further highlighting the precarious financial situation facing Canadian households. Given that the vast majority of jobs in Canada are low-skilled service sector jobs, combined with the looming threat of automation, the mass migration in Canada is not economically justified. They’re lying to you, and psychopath neoliberals from the Century Initiative have a huge role to play. As of January 2025, the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) forecasts that the national average home price will increase by 4.7% over the year, reaching approximately $722,221 by December 2025.
Government spending has also exacerbated the problem. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bank of Canada engaged in significant quantitative easing, printing over $17 billion to support the economy and deliver relief payments. While these measures prevented a complete economic collapse, (which was completely unecesarry), they tanked the economy and spiked inflation, skyrocketing housing prices, and consistent inaffordability for basic goods and services. The pandemic practically wiped out small businesses, with nearly 20% closing permanently, further weakening the economic base. Those that survived willingly chose to exploit the LMIA scam to employ cheap foreign slave labour, whose wages were subsidized by up to 70% from both provincial and federal aid programs. While COVID-19 primarily affected the elderly and immunocompromised populations, the policies enacted to mitigate its spread—such as like draconian lockdowns—disrupted labour markets and contributed to widespread financial hardship for the majority of Canadians.
Now, I don’t expect anybody who reads this next section to forgive or forget what I just mentioned. There is no magic bullet, and abstract figures don’t put food on the table. The government of Canada is most likely cooking the books with a lot of this, so you need to take the data with a grain of salt. I personally believe the economy is even worse than is reported. Regardless, let’s look at it.
Sectors of Employment
Both Canada and the United States are advanced economies dominated by the service sector, with minimal portions of their workforce employed in agriculture and similar proportions in industry.
Canada (2022)
Agriculture: 1.29%
Industry: 19.16%
Services: 79.55%
United States (2021)
Agriculture: 1.7%
Industry: 19.8%
Services: 78.5%
These figures reveal that both nations share similar economic structures, with agriculture employing the smallest share of the workforce, industry taking a modest portion, and the vast majority employed in the service sector.
Public Sector Employment
In both countries, government employment forms a significant portion of the workforce, but Canada’s public sector is notably larger proportionally.
Canada
Public Sector Employment: As of July 2024, approximately 4.45 million Canadians were employed in the public sector, representing 25% of the workforce.
Federal Public Service: Comprised 0.86% of the total Canadian population in 2022.
United States
Total Government Employment: State and local governments employed approximately 19.6 million people in 2023.
Federal Employment: The federal government employed around 2.3 million civilian workers as of March 2024, accounting for less than 2% of the U.S. workforce.
These statistics highlight a big difference: a much larger proportion of Canada’s workforce is employed in the public sector compared to the U.S.
Unemployment Rates
Both Canada and the United States ended 2024 with declining unemployment rates, though the U.S. labour market appears stronger overall.
Canada (December 2024)
Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (down from 6.8% in November 2024).
Job Growth: Approximately 91,000 jobs were added in December, primarily full-time positions.
Trend: Despite this improvement, the unemployment rate remains higher than the previous year, reflecting ongoing labour market challenges.
(Statistics Canada)
United States (December 2024)
Unemployment Rate: 4.1% (down from 4.2% in November 2024).
Job Growth: The U.S. added approximately 256,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in December, surpassing market expectations.
Labour Participation: The participation rate held steady at 62.5%, and the employment-population ratio increased to 60%.
(Trading Economics)
The data shows us the stronger performance of the U.S. labour market, with a significantly lower unemployment rate compared to Canada. Interesting. Were you expecting to leverage your résumé or skill set and hurl it into the United States’ job market post-annexation? Guess what; you’d find yourself in a more saturated and competitive job market. Canadians looking for a job in the United States would face multiple problems. The U.S. isn’t exactly known for its colourblind meritocratic economy.
First, the U.S. labour market boasts a higher labour force participation rate (62.5%) compared to Canada, signalling a larger pool of actively engaged workers. The U.S. unemployment rate, at 4.1%, is also notably lower than Canada’s 6.7%, indicating fewer available positions relative to the number of jobseekers. With a population exceeding 330 million, the U.S. workforce is significantly larger than Canada’s, creating a naturally more competitive environment. Immigration policies, such as the H1-B visa system, further prioritise “high-skilled” workers in specialised fields like technology or healthcare, placing Canadians without advanced credentials or the right skin colour at a disadvantage. Speaking of, after the 2024 Christmas Drama with Elon Musk defending his Indian slave labour, Trump doubled down in support of the program, even if he fired Vivek Scamamamy from DOGE.
Adding to these issues is the U.S.’s leaner public sector; only a fraction of Americans work in government jobs compared to Canada, where a fat 25% of the workforce is tied to the public sector. For Canadians used to this public-sector-heavy economy, adapting to the U.S.’s cutthroat, private-sector-dominated job market would be an uphill battle, especially for those who don’t have the highly sought-after skills or, DEI social credit score to compete. We haven’t even begun to factor in the looming shadow of AI, robotics, and automation. This is already dismantling roles and tightening the competition for jobs that still rely on people.
Sources
Canadian Employment by Sector (2022)
Employment Breakdown in the United States (2021)
Public Sector Employment in Canada
Government Employment in the United States
Canada Unemployment Rate (December 2024)
US Unemployment Rate (December 2024)
AI, Robotics, and Automation
The impact of AI, robotics, and automation on the workforce is obvious, with several industries already undergoing significant transformations. Manufacturing and production have seen the biggest changes, where robots now handle assembly line tasks, quality control, and precision machining. This has replaced many repetitive and labour-intensive roles traditionally performed by human workers. Robots have become staples in factories worldwide, especially in automotive production.
Retail and customer service sectors have also been significantly affected. Self-checkout systems are now commonplace in grocery stores, reducing the need for cashiers, while AI chatbots increasingly handle customer service queries online, replacing call centres and live support staff. These changes, designed to increase efficiency and lower costs, have led to a reduction in entry-level retail and customer-facing positions.
Transportation and logistics industries are also undergoing rapid automation. Amazon and other major companies have adopted warehouse robots to pick, sort, and pack goods, while self-driving trucks and delivery drones are being tested and deployed, threatening the job security of warehouse workers and drivers.
Food and hospitality industries have seen similar trends. Fast-food chains now utilise kiosks for ordering, and some establishments have deployed robots for cooking and food delivery. Hotels have also introduced robotic concierges and room service delivery systems, reducing the reliance on human staff in hospitality roles.
Office and administrative jobs have been affected by automation tools like AI-driven data entry, automated email sorting, and legal technology that handles research and document drafting. Accounting software has made many traditional bookkeeping roles obsolete, as it streamlines tasks like expense tracking and tax preparation.
In healthcare, radiologists are seeing their roles supplemented—or even replaced—by AI capable of reading medical images with high accuracy. Automated pharmacy systems are also taking over tasks like medication dispensing and inventory management, reducing the need for pharmacy technicians.
Finance has similarly experienced automation's transformative effects. ATMs have reduced the need for bank tellers, while online banking and algorithmic trading platforms are automating financial transactions and investment strategies, resulting in fewer positions in traditional banking roles.
Agriculture cannot escape automation. Robots and drones are increasingly used for tasks like planting, harvesting, and monitoring crops. Automated systems for milking and feeding livestock have replaced many farm labourers, particularly in large-scale operations. Idyllic visions of family farmers personally hand picking crops with their workers hasn’t been reality for a long time. Sorry ruralchuds!
Media and content creation have also been touched by AI, with platforms now capable of generating articles, editing videos, and composing music. I literally use AI, services like Canva, and Capcut to make audiovisual content for work.
In education, AI-driven learning platforms are providing personalised tutoring experiences, potentially reducing the demand for entry-level teaching assistants and support staff. I use AI to help me practice my French, which can now imitate spoken Quebecois French.
Public services such as traffic management have begun leveraging AI and automated systems for monitoring and control, further reducing the need for traditional roles in urban planning and infrastructure oversight. Speaking of which, the engineers undoubtedly use AI tailored for their industries.
Put this into perspective
If the numbers are to be believe or even slightly accurate, then it is objectively easier to secure and retain employment in Canada, with far less competition in the job market and a bit more time to adapt to the impacts of AI, robotics, and automation. If Canada could get its shit together, it would still offer a higher quality of life than the United States. Despite Canada’s slightly higher unemployment rate, several key factors make its job market more accessible and less cutthroat compared to the leviathan to the south for the following reasons:
One of the biggest differences lies in the size of Canada’s public sector. Around 25% of the Canadian workforce is employed in government-funded roles, offering stability and opportunities in fields like healthcare, education, and public administration. While an obscene amount of this needs to be destroyed in holy fire, and Canada needs to start generating some actual wealth, it will probably remain a large sector. In contrast, the United States operates with a much leaner public sector, resulting in fewer government jobs. For Canadians, this public-sector-heavy economy means less competition for stable employment and more pathways to secure work if you’ve been working for the government or its contractors and that’s all you know.
Canada’s smaller population is another major advantage, because it creates a less saturated job market. With a population of just under 43 million, possibly less soon if international students and temporary foreign workers leave in droves and there’s some evidence to suggest at least some of them will. Canada’s workforce has far fewer people vying for job openings compared to the U.S., which has a population of over 330 million. While the U.S. boasts a lower unemployment rate of 4.1% compared to Canada’s 6.7%, this lower rate hides intense competition in a much larger labour market, where job seekers face greater challenges securing positions.
The slower adoption of automation and AI in Canada further benefits workers. For once, our lower tech mediocrity is a plus. Globally, automation is disrupting industries like retail, manufacturing, and transportation, but its effects have been somewhat delayed in Canada compared to the U.S. This slower pace provides Canadian workers with more time to adapt, reskill, or transition into new roles, offering a buffer against the disruptions caused by technological advancements.
Canada’s higher minimum wages and stronger labour protections normally ensure that workers enjoy better pay and more secure jobs. Many Canadian provinces have minimum wages that outpace the federal minimum wage in the U.S., and Canadian laws around workplace safety, parental leave, and employee benefits are generally more robust than those in most American states. If the cost of living can be stopped from rising further, and large tax cuts granted to struggling Canadians, this would benefit everybody. These measures normally provide a crucial safety net.
The U.S. economy might appear stronger on paper, with its lower unemployment rate and higher GDP, but the reality is the combination of fierce competition, fewer public-sector opportunities, and the rapid pace of automation makes finding and keeping a job more difficult for many Americans. Canadians may also not possess the qualifications they think they have, and foreign slave labour is equally prioritized if not more in the U.S.. In a twisted way, Canada’s smaller population, framework, and slower technological disruption create a more stable environment where employment is often easier to attain.
Crime
The U.S. is notoriously a crime-ridden hellhole, while Canada has the false reputation of being crime-free. The U.S. experiences levels of crime that are virtually unheard of even in the largest Canadian metropolises. This disparity is a frequent point of contention between Black communities in Canada and the U.S. In Canada, the Black population is primarily of Caribbean descent rather than African-American, and while some may have grown up in rough Canadian neighbourhoods, their environments bear no resemblance to the sheer violence and criminality found in the worst American cities. Neighbourhoods like Scarborough or Jane and Finch in Toronto, Ontario, pale in comparison to the extreme levels of crime seen in cities like Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or New York City.
Additionally, slavery was abolished long before Canada became a state, and prior to Confederation, Black slaves were deemed unsuitable for northern climates. This reality extended to New England in the U.S., whose colonies were famously populated by socioeconomically middle-class settlers at the time. These settlers opposed slavery not only for moral and religious reasons but also because enslaved Africans faced three times the mortality rate of White settlers due to the harsh northern climate. By contrast, in the Southern U.S., Whites experienced three times the mortality rate of enslaved Africans due to the hot, disease-prone climate, as documented by David Hackett Fischer in his book Albion's Seed. The Southern colonies, primarily settled by English noblemen and the poorest of the poor, developed a societal structure vastly different from that of Canada or New England.
As a result, while racial grievance politics have been somewhat adopted in Canada due to cultural exports from the U.S., Black Canadians do not share the same historical or cultural relationship with ethnic Canadians that African-Americans have with European-Americans. Furthermore, Caribbean Canadians, who form the majority of Black Canadians, for better or worse, are part of the Commonwealth, maintaining cultural and historical ties distinct from African-Americans. According to the 2021 Census from Statistics Canada, Black Canadians of Caribbean descent comprise just 4% of the Canadian population, compared to African-Americans, who make up 13% of the U.S. population.
Toronto rapper Drake, for instance, has long been mocked by American rappers, not only for being “light-skinned” (a term often associated with perceived feminine behaviour or greater emotionality) but also for coming from what Americans consider to be the contextual equivalent of a relatively crime-free suburb.
Why the focus on Black People
Surely not all crime is perpetrated by Black people, and you’d be correct. This is true for both Canada and the U.S., but in the U.S., African Americans are disproportionately responsible for crimes involving life and limb. The reasons are debated endlessly, ranging from socioeconomics to genetics, or some other explanation—it’s been a meme on the internet for over 15 years.
Despite making up only 13% of the U.S. population, African Americans are responsible for approximately 55% of all violent crimes, according to FBI crime data. Additionally, a February 2023 Rasmussen poll revealed that 26% of African Americans explicitly disagreed with the statement “It’s okay to be white,” while 21% responded as “unsure,” leaving only 53% in agreement. This indicates that nearly half of Black respondents were either opposed to or uncertain about the acceptability of whether its ok to be White or not.
Given that there are approximately 41.6 million African Americans in the United States, a number that jumps to 47 million when including those of mixed ancestry, and close to half of whom are either opposed to or unsure if it’s okay for you to simply exist, and considering the actual population of European-Canadians is around 25 million, I’d argue it’s probably not the best idea to give them free rein to travel across Canada. Let us compare crime in both countries:
United States
In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) compiles and publishes crime statistics through its Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. These statistics provide data on arrests by offense and race. It's important to interpret this data with caution, considering various factors such as socioeconomic conditions, systemic inequalities, and reporting practices that can influence crime statistics.
Crime Rates by Race/Ethnicity
Homicide (2020):
Black Americans: Responsible for 55.9% of all homicide arrests while making up 13.6% of the population (~41.6 million people).
White Americans (Non-Hispanic): Accounted for 41.1% of homicide arrests while making up 59.3% of the population (~197 million people).
Hispanic Americans: Represented approximately 17.2% of homicide arrests, which is slightly below their share of the population (18.9%, ~63.7 million people).
Violent Crime (2020):
Black Americans: Represented 37% of violent crime arrests.
White Americans (Non-Hispanic): Made up 58% of violent crime arrests.
Hispanic Americans: Estimated at 16.7% of violent crime arrests.
Property Crime (2020):
Black Americans: Involved in 30% of property crime arrests.
White Americans (Non-Hispanic): Accounted for 65% of property crime arrests.
Hispanic Americans: Represented about 15% of property crime arrests.
Imprisonment Rates (2022):
Black Americans: 38% of the prison population (disproportionate to their population share).
White Americans (Non-Hispanic): 29% of the prison population.
Hispanic Americans: 23% of the federal prison population, influenced significantly by immigration-related offences.
Drug-Related Arrests (2020):
Black Americans: 26% of drug arrests.
White Americans (Non-Hispanic): 67% of drug arrests.
Hispanic Americans: Approximately 20% of drug arrests.
Analysis of American Crime and Representation
Black Americans: Disproportionately represented in violent crimes (e.g., homicides and assaults). Socioeconomic factors, systemic inequalities, and community conditions often cited as contributors.
White Americans (Non-Hispanic): Tend to be overrepresented in property and drug-related crimes compared to violent crimes.
Hispanic Americans: Represented proportionally or slightly below their population share in most crime categories, but overrepresented in federal prison due to immigration violations.
Canada
Canada does not comprehensively report crime statistics broken down by race for most categories, but specific studies, incarceration rates, and available data provide insights into crime rates by racial and ethnic groups. Here's an overview of total crimes, along with estimates for racial involvement based on current data.
Total Crimes in Canada (2021)
Total Reported Crimes: 2,300,000
Violent Crimes: 470,000
Homicides: 788
Crime Severity Index (CSI): 73.7 (a measure of the severity of crimes reported to police, with higher numbers indicating more severe crimes).
Racial and Ethnic Contributions to Crime
Indigenous
Population Representation:
Indigenous peoples make up 4.9% of the Canadian population (2021 Census).
Homicide Involvement:
Indigenous individuals are 11 times more likely to be accused of homicide compared to White Canadians (Statistics Canada, 2016).
In 2021, Indigenous peoples accounted for 36% of all homicide victims and 32% of those accused of homicide.
Incarceration Rates:
Indigenous individuals represent 30% of the federal prison population, despite being less than 5% of the total population.
Estimated Contribution to Violent Crimes:
Indigenous Canadians are likely overrepresented in violent crime categories like assault and robbery at rates 10–11 times higher than White Canadians.
Black
Population Representation:
Black Canadians account for 4% of the population (2021 Census).
Homicide Involvement:
In 2021, 49% of racialized homicide victims were Black.
Black Canadians were also overrepresented as perpetrators in homicide cases.
Incarceration Rates:
Black Canadians make up 9% of the federal prison population, more than double their share of the general population.
Estimated Contribution to Violent Crimes:
Black Canadians are likely 2–3 times more likely to be involved in violent crimes compared to their population size.
White Canadians
Population Representation:
White Canadians make up 69% of the total population.
Homicide Involvement:
White Canadians account for the majority of non-Indigenous and non-Black homicide cases but are underrepresented compared to their population share.
Estimated Contribution to Violent Crimes:
White Canadians are less likely to be involved in violent crimes proportionally, given their significant underrepresentation in federal incarceration rates and serious crime categories.
Canada’s crime landscape, while significantly safer than that of the United States, is not without its challenges. Violent crimes such as homicides, though far less frequent, still highlight stark disparities in demographic representation. Indigenous peoples, who make up less than 5% of the population, account for a disproportionate share of both victims and accused offenders in violent crimes. Similarly, blacks, who comprise about 4% of the population, are also overrepresented among homicide victims. Property crimes, including theft and fraud, dominate Canada’s overall crime statistics, although these offences are often less severe compared to similar crimes in the U.S. The use of firearms in crime is markedly lower in Canada, with stricter gun control measures helping to limit the prevalence of gun-related violence. Concerns around gang activity, particularly in urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver, contribute to a growing sense of insecurity in certain regions.
Comparison to the United States
When comparing crime between Canada and the United States, the stark contrast is immediately evident. The U.S. has a much higher overall crime rate, particularly in violent offences such as homicide, aggravated assault, and gun-related crimes. While Canada’s homicide rate stands at 2.1 per 100,000 people, the U.S. rate is nearly four times higher at 6.9 per 100,000. Firearm-related homicides in Canada are rarer (though increasing), due to a history of stricter gun control laws, whereas firearms are involved in the majority of homicides in the U.S. Additionally, Canada’s urban centres, like Toronto and Vancouver, experience gang-related activity, but these issues pale in comparison to the gang violence seen in major U.S. cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles. Indigenous and Black Canadians disproportionately represented in certain crime statistics, while African Americans and Hispanic Americans are similarly overrepresented in U.S. crime data. Despite all the above, Canada’s overall crime rates remain lower than many of its Western counterparts, and is significantly much safer than across the border.
Sources:
FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) – Crime Data Explorer
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – Prisoners in 2022
U.S. Census Bureau – Population Demographics
Pew Research Center – Race and Crime Statistics
Statistics Canada: Police-Reported Crime Statistics in Canada, 2023
Justice Canada: Overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous People in the Criminal Justice System
Justice Canada: Key Facts and Statistics about the Overrepresentation of Black Canadians in the Criminal Justice System
Statistics Canada: Crime Severity Index and Weighted Clearance Rates, Canada, Provinces, Territories, and Census Metropolitan Areas
ResearchGate: Race, Crime, and Criminal Justice in Canada
The Sick Man of the Americas
This has been a lot of information to take in, and now we’re going to estimate the trajectory of the United States. Multiple theories have emerged from intellectuals on the right over the years, going all the way back to figures like H.P. Lovecraft, Pat Buchanan, and Tucker Carlson, all of whom have commented on the fundamental reality that demographics are destiny. You cannot build a civilization with somebody else’s babies. People are not fungible economic individual units like parts in a machine, nor are they simply numbers to be crunched on an Excel spreadsheet—this kind of thinking strips the fundamental humanity of the human species. It dehumanises them. It is no different from communism.
This is a flaw inherent to classical liberal ideology, which began as “all White men of good character” but inevitably expanded to include the entire world. People form immutable blocs or organisms defined by key distinctions like genetics, folkways, and ethnicity, which, in turn, form their culture. That culture subsequently shapes their environments, which tend to reinforce these intrinsic attributes.
, in the past, has provided some valuable insights on this topic in his article Is Castizo Futurism Compatible with White Tribalism? You may read it here:“Castizo Futurism” is a term that represents the blending of Whites and Hispanics, especially White-identifying or “White-passing” Hispanics, to create a new ethnogenesis and encourage a rightward political shift among them, which is observable in recent voting patterns. While some on the Right embrace this concept, seeing it as a way to integrate Latinos into a broader, more traditional American identity, others use it derisively, viewing it as a sign of demoralisation. Stark notes that this cultural blending has historical precedence, referencing Eric Kaufman’s Whiteshift, which predicts that minorities, especially Latinos, could be absorbed into the European-American majority “much like the Irish, Jews, and Italians were in the past.” Though, it is certainly questionable to me if those latter two ever did. Italian-Americans, while almost unanimously recognised as European-American, have a distinct culture and ethnos unique to them in the Tri-State Area and did not assimilate into the broader Anglo-Germanic mass. For what it’s worth, neither did the Ashkenazi really. African Americans are seen as an exception to this process due to phenotypical and cultural differences.
In contrast to Kaufman’s civic patriotism, Stark highlights Michael Lind’s vision of a blended American race and culture to stave off balkanisation. Personally, I don’t think this is going to happen because all dating statistics from across dating app services indicate that the overwhelming majority of all people stick to their own. It’s neither probable nor desirable.
Robert Stark rejects both the melting pot and the idea of complete assimilation, favouring instead ethnopluralism or “right-wing multiculturalism,” where European-Americans maintain a distinct identity within a multicultural framework. He acknowledges, however, that mixed-race individuals and interracial couples will inevitably form their own identities, complicating the preservation of traditional "Whiteness." This is especially true in the United States, where, according to the 2020 Census, 10% of Americans claim to be mixed race, even if intermixing is rare among all categories. Stark then goes on to suggest that this will simultaneously create a selection pressure for the pureblooded European-Americans to stick within their own and form enclaves, especially among elites, while the middle class converges with Hispanics into a new Castizo ethnicity (averaging 75–90% European given the average Hispanic is half European and half Indigenous). I believe this is probable, given that Latin America, for all its alien attributes, is half Western not just culturally, but religiously—being Catholic—and racially and ethnically, being the descendants of Spanish, Portuguese, and, in the case of Argentina, primarily Italian diasporas. Their family structures, owing to their culture, are the egalitarian substrate of the nuclear family. This means there are significantly greater similarities between European-Americans and Hispanics than with other groups like East Asians or East Indians.
He also comments that racial hostility among many Hispanics has lessened as the population of European-Americans in the Southwestern United States has been reduced to clear minority status, while in Texas and Florida, non-insignificant intermarriage is occurring between European-Americans and Hispanics. Stark also predicts mixed-race elites might use emerging technologies like CRISPR to select for fairer physical features, further complicating the dynamics of race and identity in America. I see this as probable.
The Problem with Anglo-Brazil
While the future that Robert Stark envisions is probable and possibly inevitable, it is objectively not a good thing. We can see the fruit of the Iberians' labour in the South American continent. While generally more egalitarian in individual family units, the Iberians established a racial hierarchy, or caste system, and engaged in historically unprecedented levels of mass mixing. This has profound consequences, as we can observe from history and racial dynamics in multi-ethnic societies.
The article by publication
that you may find here argues that racial dynamics in multi-ethnic societies inevitably create zero-sum relationships where the interests of certain groups are inherently opposed to others. The author focuses on how differences in IQ, sexual attractiveness, and historical grievances contribute to perpetual hostility between Whites and minorities, particularly among the elite. The core argument is that even in a theoretical “colour-blind meritocracy,” the optimal strategy for minority elites is to exploit racial tensions for personal gain, fostering resentment and perpetuating inequality.The author introduces hypothetical scenarios to highlight the issue: Would you hire someone whose incentives are diametrically opposed to your own, regardless of their qualifications? Applied to societal structures, this analogy suggests that elite minorities—such as high-IQ African American or Latino individuals—might choose to leverage their community’s grievances for power rather than competing fairly in a meritocracy. This, the author argues, leads to a recurring cycle of redistribution and racial resentment.
In a "legally race-blind society," the author claims racial disparities in representation would still emerge, particularly in high-status positions, due to innate differences. This would fuel perceptions of systemic discrimination, reigniting racial grievances. For example, the author suggests that African Americans, who comprise 13% of the U.S. population but are responsible for 55% of violent crime, would continue to struggle with representation and societal outcomes. This would be compounded by factors such as sexual resentment, with Black elites feeling marginalized in dating and social hierarchies, further fuelling racial hostility.
The author then examines Latinos and East Asians. While Latinos are described as less prone to violence or dysfunction, their increasing assimilation into American culture could lead to heightened competition and eventual demands for redistribution. Asians, despite their disproportionate success in financial and academic hierarchies, are argued to face sexual and social resentment, particularly among men, due to racial preferences in dating. The author suggests this could drive Asian elites to align with anti-White rhetoric for personal and political gain.
The piece concludes that these dynamics are not limited to specific groups but are universal in diverse societies. Even in hypothetical scenarios of meritocracy, racial hierarchies and grievances would re-emerge, creating a cycle of resentment, redistribution, and zero-sum conflict. The author warns that these patterns are unavoidable and argues that policies promoting diversity only exacerbate the problem by undermining merit-based systems and fostering hostility.
The optimal strategy for minority elites is to exploit racial tensions for personal gain.
Even in a “colour-blind meritocracy,” racial disparities would lead to perceptions of systemic discrimination.
Racial and sexual resentment further intensify conflict, particularly among elites.
Latinos and Asians, despite different socio-economic dynamics, would face similar pressures to align with anti-White rhetoric.
The cycle of racial grievances and redistribution is inherent in diverse societies and unlikely to be resolved under current frameworks.
The proof is in the pudding. Numerous racial nationalist groups and networks operate along the U.S. southern border. La Raza is a famous Hispanic nationalist organisation that believes in the racial superiority of the mixed Latin American race with an Indigenous bent, not to mention the cartel organizations which operate as these by proxy. Furthermore, there are far more Mestizo-identifying Hispanic Americans than European-American-identifying ones. Two-thirds of Hispanic Americans are mixed-race, as a matter of fact. This dynamic demonstrates that the merging of populations creates lasting ethnic and racial divides that remain difficult to reconcile, as if this weren’t obvious already. Look at Yugoslavia. Look at the dissolution of the USSR, where, when given the opportunity to leave, virtually all member states voted to exit. Look at the Roman Empire. Christ, look at Canada today. Anglo-Canadians and French Canadians barely managed, by the skin of their teeth, to build a relatively stable coexistence that only began to crumble with the communist subversion and infiltration of Québécois nationalist movements.
Let’s dig even deeper on the consequences
The Futurist Right says:
The maintenance of stability in the United States, and the integration of White-passing Latinos may indeed come at a not insignificant cost — as reports suggest, demographic change is a significant threat to scientific innovation. Some degree of intermixing is tolerable, but once a certain threshold has passed where a chunk of the population shifts to an off-white majority, innovation slows and stops. There are 190 Million Whites in Latin America, but most of these Whites are now 20 - 30% non-White and so whatever potential these bloodlines may have had for the scientific achievement Whites show nearly everywhere else is basically dead. The continent, as a source of scientific innovation is dead. Ok, no that’s not true, there are cool natural resources to be studied there. Anglo-Whites all over the world who almost never reproduced with Natives, thrive at levels comparable to or exceeding home. But White Latin America is a museum piece.
In the case of a convergence of Latin America with the historic population of the United States, this is a civilization destroying issue. If you don’t believe the correlation between Western civilization and overall innovation, we can consult Charles Murray, and his book Human Accomplishment.
In Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950, Charles Murray presents a quantitative analysis of significant contributions across various fields over a span of 2,750 years. By examining leading encyclopedias, histories, and surveys, he identifies approximately 4,000 individuals who have made notable impacts in areas such as art, literature, music, philosophy, and the sciences. Murray assigns "Index Scores" to these figures, ranging from 1 to 100, based on the frequency and extent of their mention in these sources.
Key findings from Murray's analysis include:
Geographical Concentration: Significant accomplishments are often clustered in specific regions. For instance, during the Italian Renaissance, notable achievements were concentrated in Florence and Venice. In the British Isles, areas around London, the industrial north, and lowland Scotland were prominent centers of innovation.
Demographic Distribution: A substantial majority of recognized accomplishments have been attributed to men of European descent. Murray notes that more than 80% of significant figures are "dead white males." He explores various factors contributing to this distribution, including cultural values and historical contexts.
Influence of Proximity to Elite Institutions: There is a notable relationship between closeness to elite universities and human accomplishment. Murray observes that regions near prestigious academic institutions tend to produce more significant figures, suggesting that access to intellectual hubs fosters innovation.
Impact of Political and Religious Freedom: The book argues that environments with de facto freedom of action for artists and scholars—allowing freedom of expression and innovation—are conducive to streams of accomplishment. Additionally, religious liberty has been linked to increased innovation. For example, following the emancipation of Jews in the 19th century, there was a notable rise in their representation in European arts and sciences.
Murray also discusses the concept of diminishing returns in human accomplishment, suggesting that per capita progress in the sciences and arts has declined since the 19th century. He attributes this trend to factors such as diminishing returns and a cultural shift away from beliefs in transcendental goods like truth, beauty, and goodness. Most importantly, Murray has demonstrated that 97% of all human accomplishment from 1400 to 1950 AD has been an exclusively Western phenomenon. Excuses such as colonialism and the subsequent access to resources it enabled do not explain the disparity, given that no European colonial empires existed until a century later. These two images, taken from Human Accomplishment, are widely distributed across the internet without context, but they provide valuable insights.
Shaping a diamond across the European continent, we see that Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, in that order, are, bar none, the heaviest contributors to the overall advancement and innovation of the entire human species, followed by Austria-Hungary (led by Germans), Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland. Italy, in particular, is remarkable because it debunks any insinuation that their genius from the times of the Roman Empire has dissipated in any way. The Renaissance began in Tuscany, after all, and the city of Rome was largely depopulated following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, only to be repopulated by ethnic Romans from the countryside, as anthropologist Thomas Rowsell has extensively covered.
Final Remarks
Nations are defined by shared ethnicity and heritage. A nation is not an abstract proposition but an immutable group bound by a shared ethnicity, culture, and common heritage. Canadians are defined by Anglo-Canadian and French-Canadian ethnicities, almost exclusively of descendants of British and French settlers who established the nation. Human inequality is natural and inherent, as no individuals or groups are born equal in abilities, characteristics, or outcomes. Ethnic groups, beyond race, shape cultures through shared histories, values, and behaviours, as unique cultures emerge from distinct folkways reinforced by both the environment and the genetic composition of the groups that created them. Canada’s foundation lies in traditional conservatism, not liberalism, rooted in the values of Loyalists and the French Ancien Régime, rather than the liberal philosophies of Locke, Mill, Rousseau, and the Founding Fathers of the United States.
Canadians, as descendants of British Loyalists and French Royalists, underwent an epigenetic selection favouring conservative and authoritarian temperaments, further reinforcing their identity. Canada’s core value is Order, expressed in its national motto, Peace, Order, and Good Government.
The United States of America is the Sick Man of the Americas. The trajectory of the United States across all categories—whether demographic, cultural, or economic—demonstrates a permanent and irreversible transformation into an Anglo-Brazil, potentially South Africa, or, though unlikely, even balkanisation. The economy is unfavourable to ethnic Canadians. Crime is rampant and poses greater danger to Canadians. Alleged protections under the 1st and 2nd Amendments offer very little when the Canadian state is incapable of enforcing hate speech laws or adequately restricting personal firearm ownership. The culture of the United States, has perhaps inevitably exposed itself to confusion, deracination, and dissolution. The United States of America, as it currently stands, is not only an existential threat to its own people but the greatest existential threat to my people—the Canadian people.
The end of Canadian sovereignty is not simply the end of the state—it is the end of the Canadian people themselves. In the totality of the circumstances, it is my opinion that Canada would be objectively worse off joining willingly, being coerced, or forcibly annexed by the United States of America.
I speak for most in Canada’s Dissident Right when I say my answer is, “No.”
Canada now, Canada forever.
Thank you all for taking the time to read this essay. It required significant effort, particularly in conducting research and gathering the sources to support my claims. If you enjoyed this content, please consider subscribing and supporting my work. Your financial support allows me to dedicate more time to creating the content you wish to see.
Thanks for including the fact that Canada already has high firearms ownership rates without a second amendment. It goes to further another point I'm glad you brought up; Canada was formed through reaction. Canada is an inherently traditionalist, conservative nation.
"Were you expecting to leverage your résumé or skill set and hurl it into the United States’ job market post-annexation? Guess what; you’d find yourself in a more saturated and competitive job market... The U.S. unemployment rate, at 4.1%, is also notably lower than Canada’s 6.7%, indicating fewer available positions relative to the number of jobseekers."
This is just wrong, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of unemployment.
More unemployed workers relative to the number of positions means a more competitive job market, not a less competitive one. The higher Canadian unemployment rate means there are more unemployed Canadians chasing fewer jobs. If it was otherwise, people in Canada would be employed and the unemployment rate would be lower. The lower US unemployment rate means there are less unemployed people seeking employment, making the market for labor more competitive for the employers, and less competitive for the employed.
You seem to have a simplistic understanding as if there are a fixed number of jobs in the economy, and fewer unemployed people means there are fewer empty jobs, when that's not at all how unemployment works. Think of it like this, if Canada went through a major recession, and the US didn't, with Canada's unemployment at 25%, and the US's at 4%, in what market do you think it will be easier to find a job?
And that's not even considering the higher wages in the US vs. Canada. Lower wages, means labor is more competitive (all else being equal).