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).
This article, while very thorough, would be hardly convincing to a Western Canadian audience. There is already great incredulity towards the myth of Canada as a compact between two peoples, especially if you interpret these as anything other than two linguistic communities. Descendants of the French and British exist in the West in small numbers--the first major wave of immigration to Alberta and Saskatchewan was the 600,000 Americans who migrated there in search of the "Last Best West" around the turn of the twentieth century. The demographics of the region mostly consist of their descendants, various Eastern Europeans, and Natives, not to mention those from the recent mass migration. Canada may have been an ethnostate once, but it is not anymore. Emphasizing British and French blood would only further alienate Western Canada, which is already the region in which American annexation is the most popular. Your identitarian politics prove to be more divisive than anything. Moreover, the reason Western Canada is so diverse is the wealth of opportunities that exist there, first in agriculture and now in natural resources. The reason the Maritimes are so homogeneous is that no one wants to go there--hardly an example to emulate. While we need not worship blind progress as much as Americans do, immigration is necessary to grow our economy given current low birth rates especially among the descendants of the British and French. Doubling down on ethno-nationalism would fracture this country, not unify it, weakening its economy and alienating the West.
According to the same 2021 Census I cited in the sources of that section, at least half of Albertans who claim European heritage are ethnically Anglo-Canadian. The idea that Alberta is so substantially ethnically different from the East when its settlement was paid for by Eastern Canadians industry is silly. The majority of those Americans were from the Midwest, a predominantly Anglo-American place at the time. The Alberta Eugenics Board was sterilizing convicted Ukrainian criminals until the 1970s, and policies explicitly favoured Anglo-Canadians to the detriment of Ukrainians and Germans. Diefenbaker himself was subject to harassment for being a White ethnic in his childhood. Alberta is named after Princess Louise Caroline Alberta, a daughter of Queen Victoria. The cross of St. George, known as the flag of England, makes up Alberta's coat of arms and is centred in its flag, just like Ontario. My identitarian politics are the only way out of the nightmare created by 60 years of radical left-liberalism, deliberate obfuscation and erasure of Canadian identity, and the attempted erasure of ethnic Canadians by forming a post-national state.
Canadians are not having children for two primary reasons. The first is the cost of living proportionate to earnings. The average cost of a home is around $700,000 and increasing. Inflation has outpaced earnings dramatically. The second biggest reason is the status associated with parenthood. Women are disincentivized to have children because child-rearing and homemaking are viewed as low status in cultural spheres controlled by leftists. Young men's ability to increase their status through acquiring a job and upward social mobility has been destroyed by the economic policies of the Canadian state for generations. The former is what created the baby boom in the post-WWII era.
Immigration is not, and never has been, central to the Canadian economy. In virtually one hundred years of opinion polls conducted dating back to the Komagata Maru, Canadians did not want immigration for any reason, and simply had children. Canadians maintained a birth rate of five children per family for 230 years. If Canada is to receive any immigration whatsoever, it requires an actual assimilation policy, which it deliberately chose not to develop in 1971, with the 1971 Multiculturalism Policy enacted by Pierre Trudeau, followed up by the 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act, instituted by "conservative" prime minister Brian Mulroney. The vast majority of these changes occurred through Orders in Council; the public did not consent at any point, nor did a great number of MPs. The only province to successfully fight back was Quebec, when they forced the federal government to sign the Quebec-Canada Accord in 1992, which gave them greater control over the total number of immigrants to the province, allowed them to attempt to assimilate immigrants, and some control over where immigrants came from. If Canada is to receive any immigration at all, there are 63 whole nations in Europe that would love an opportunity to come to North America, but I don't see conservatives lining up to do that. I see conservatives and liberals doing the same thing: small business owners to federally funded universities exploiting Indian slave labour.
"Western Canadian support" for annexation peaks at 11% in Alberta. The majority of Albertans don't want it, and the only reason populists do is because they've been turned into rootless liberals from 60 years of multiculturalism. How many Albertans could tell you who Anthony Henday was, the first European to explore the Saskatchewan River for the Hudson Bay Company, founded by two French coureurs des bois with the backing of King Henry of England? Not very many. Western separatists can't decide whether they want to be an independent constitutional republic, join the States, or the first before the second. They have no identity to speak of, save for copying blue-collar American culture, and are completely ignorant of Alberta's glorious past, which they falsely associate as exclusively the domain of Eastern Canada. If the demographic data I provided to you from the U.S. Census Bureau wasn't enough to convince you that you and your children will not be better off under the Stars and Stripes—with their crime rate, most of it perpetrated by foreigners who do not respect or admire the 1st Amendment or 2nd Amendment, politically motivated by grievance politics and financially incentivized to be so—I don't know what to say.
I must say first that I entirely agree with you that Canadians are entirely better off remaining independent and that for immigration to work, we must pursue a policy of assimilation. Certain groups cannot be assimilated, and they must be excluded. My contention is that this policy of assimilation can and does work if we reverse course and reject the Multicultural policies of Trudeau and Mulroney which you noted.
The majority of Westerners who are Anglo Canadian are descendants of the early batch of 600,000 American settlers, not descendants of British loyalists. While Alberta is a particularly American province today, it was not always, as before the oil boom of the 1950s, Alberta was a hotbed of collectivism, statism, and social democracy, which we also saw in Saskatchewan until they had a miniature oil boom and developed their potash industry more recently. You touched on this with your examples of the prairie provinces having eugenics programs and immigration restrictions. However, if "ethnos determines ethos," as you say, then why did these naturalized Anglo Americans conform to a more authentic British Conservatism when coming to Canada? And why were non-Anglo whites also able to conform so well, with them now being indistinguishable from Anglo and French whites in the prairies? It seems that you take "ethnos determines ethos" as absolutely given but then make exceptions when it comes to the French and British Canadians, who, through epigenetics and social selection, preserved their traditional Conservative values, whereas the French in France and Anglo Americans did not. I'm struggling to understand why such stark and fast cultural changes are possible sometimes but not all the time.
On the topic of fertility rates, given that India right now has a fertility rate at replacement, I doubt very much that home prices and feminism are the cause of low fertility rates in Canada. It's a very complex issue and it's difficult to locate one cause, but it seems like low fertility is simply endemic to countries that are not poor.
My point is not that your understanding of Canada is entirely wrong, at least not for Ontario, Québec, and the Maritimes--It's that this will fall on deaf ears in Western Canada, which as you yourself note, has little historical self-understanding.
Agreed. The term “ethnic Canadians” is unheard of and today with 4 million south Asians having migrated here since 2021 the ties to whatever could have been called a Canadian cultural identity or heritage are effectively gone. Last October I drive 3700 kms from Alberta to SW Ontario, stopping 4 nights on the road. Every single hotel I stayed at, Regina, Kenora, Marathon Ont and Parry Sound Ont was either owned or operated by South Asians or East Africans. Every fast food restaurant, Tim’s MacDonalds Wendy’s was staffed by Asians. In the decision to be annexed or have closer economic and social structures with the USA what is the case to be made to these new migrants to maintain an artificial boundary between Canada and the US? Many are here simply bc it is close to the US and have utterly no clue as to any such thing a Canadian heritage.
Canada was a mid 19th C creation of the depraved crumbling British Empire, the head of state is still the British monarch. The collapse of the British phase of the Anglo empire pushed Canada into the American Imperial orbit and we have done well under the US umbrella as an economic colony. Any notion that Canada is “free” to negotiate unilaterally outside the American Empire is fantasy. We have effectively disbanded our military capabilities, meaning that the enormous land mass nominally assigned to “Canada” is in fact defended by the Pentagon. Who pays for that? The US buys 50% of our national production, their share in reverse is minuscule. When buffoons like Doug Ford say things like Ontario is removing all US wines from the state liquor monopoly it’s hard to stop laughing at how inept and naive he is.
We have decimated our world class energy industry, cancelled critical industrial infrastructure that would have enabled decades of profitable revenue streams, turned our universities into immigration visa mills, and created a health care monopoly with waiting lists up to 3 years for necessary medical treatment. Canada’s continued existence may not be a simple matter of “choice”. Regional animosities have always existed esp bet eastern and western power structures. Those differences have surfaced again esp in the light of threats to cut off or tax Alberta energy exports to US markets. After 10 years of Trudeau the country is very weak and the US administration is prepared to leverage its power to consolidate its control over the western hemisphere.
Any person who is against globalism weather on the "left" or "right" should oppose Canada being absorbed into the USA.
But, you are spot on when it comes to the crime and gun ownership aspect. I think many Canadians who support joining the US would quickly realize that what they will gain by joining doesn't add up to what they will loose. The differences between the two countries aren't as subtle as some assume. Just anecdotally though, having lived and worked in the US and Canada, there are more opportunities and better wages in the American job market by far.
Otherwise, thanks for the great article. I think it would be very interesting to explore this idea further but at the provincial level. Alberta and the Prairies seem the most likely to join the US, if that happens is there a domino effect that forces the rest of Canada to join? How would Quebec react to this, and could it hold out as a sovereign state, perhaps with Ontario? What would the Maritimes do? What about BC? So many possible scenarios. Thanks again!
Thank you for writing this. One criticism -- I had to interrupt reading so I could look up what your graphic meant and what was a 'stem family' and an 'incomplete stem' and an 'egalitarian nuclear'. And I am still not 100% I have got it correct -- sources seem to disagree. I suggest you define these things in your talk tonight because I think others would be as puzzled as I was.
If we don't want our country to be subsumed into the U.S.A., we should stop imitating them; and the Canadian Left is more guilty of that than the Canadian Right.
While it’s true that Canadian leftists have now aligned with wokism, this arose out of a distinctly Canadian left-liberalism of the intellectuals and politicians I named. The Canadian conservatives are completely rootless, ignorant people towards their own culture and political traditions. They and the PPC were polled at having the highest levels in favour of annexation.
The replies to my comment show that none of you understand my essential point. If we become culturally a duplicate of the USA, which the left has striven for over the past two centuries, what's the point in being a separate country at all? Our own traditions and history are being trashed by the left, not the right. It's the left which has hollowed out and removed, often physically, all Canadian history. When I hear any of you defend our history, I will take you more seriously; lets start with restoring all the statures of our first Prime Minister. We can't even have any conversation about internal issues in this country without it becoming an argument about American domestic politics. Try talking about immigration or healthcare as if the USA never existed. I tried suggesting to people that our healthcare system needs to be seriously changed, and instead of the conversation being about the pros and cons of healthcare systems in western Europe or eastern Asia; it becomes a rant about American healthcare. Last year our own TV networks devoted many hours of coverage to the DNC & RNC conventions and almost none to coverage of Canadian party conventions. If we're forced to be America's mini-me, at least we shouldn't accept a lower standard of living as well. I looked at the Leger poll by the way, I thing it needs a much larger sample to be accurate to 95%. It's also a strangely worded question, why would we accept being one state instead of ten states? That seems very unfair.
You could argue that the “Left” aka the Canadian oligarchy has profited enormously by trading continuously on the myth of Canada as a “sovereign” entity. Waving red and white maple leaf flags, romanticizing obscure events of the “War of 1812”, massive support for a state controlled media empire, constant comparisons of our state controlled healthcare monopoly. The reality is Canada is a political creation of the British Empire to act as a blockade against US republican ideology and territorial expansion. Aside from that there’s very little in the way of an identifiable “Canadian” history that isn’t just a subset of British and American history. Canadian “history” has been written for the Canadian oligarchy. This is why the Canadian ruling elite are so strongly married to the ideology of a “Canadian identity” and history—- their power largely depends on it. As far as accepting a lower standard of living, that sadly is the fate of a colonial jurisdiction, which in the case of Canada has been made far worse by the systematic destruction of our resources industries, excessive regulation, state intervention and inter regional barriers.
This is nonsense. Read my stuff. Canada is the equivalent of a North American Plantagenet Empire, not solely a British dominion to counterbalance American power in the lost colony. Canada’s Anglo population was founded by Loyalist Americans, not colonial British. All British settlers to Canada were Canadianized, not Britishized. Both Anglo-Canadians and French Canadians underwent an ethnogenesis and are ethnic groups born and distinct in the new world. Every single thing you named from the maple leaf to leftist patriotism is the sole domain of Canadian left-liberalism of the post-WWII liberal order. It is only a fraction of our history, not the sum total of it.
How does Canada’s North American Plantagenet Empire fit into the Anglo American Empire? Is it allied to the American Empire or is it a hostile force on the boundaries of the US Empire? What are the hallmarks of this empire? As far as the evolution of the “ethnic” Canadian and the “Canadianization” of the British Empire loyalists what is the link between this ethnogenesis and the compliant effeminate people who populate this Plantagenet Empire today?…a population that willingly accepts draconian neo Malthusian policies and aggressive state suppression of any overt dissent against the ruling oligarchy. If there ever was such a thing as an ethnic Canadian identity with unique resilient recognizable “values” the road back to it has been washed away.
The Canadian left didn't originally romanticize the War of 1812, Anglo-Canadian conservatives did. The left romanticized the rebels of 1837 who wanted a republic that duplicated the culture and political institutions of the U.S.A. Probably any "Republic of Upper Canada" would have been admitted as a state within a few decades. Canadian nationalism on the left started in the late nineteenth century, but has always been compromised by loyalty to the American left, whether it was the woke Democrats of the present or the Jacksonian Democrats of two centuries ago. Anglo-Canadian conservatives since then have wavered between Canadian nationalism and "Greater Britain", the latter being revived with the CANZUK proposal. So-called "conservatives" desiring annexation by the U.S.A. are actually classic liberals ousted from the Liberal party by the technocrats and progressives.
Considering the Monroe-heavy hemispheric turn of the US security state, wherein the globalised network is reshored and reinforced as a fortress continent, you might not have a choice. Accepting then carefully negotiating Canada's future position as a tribute nation/imperial vassal could be more prudent than an explicit rejection of the United States. An ambiguous status would allow you to retain what you have while giving the Americans what they want.
what are your thoughts that canada never got beyond a colony and since 1931 every province were sovereign but haven't proclaimed the fact by creating a constitution? and have been fooled by the overlords since 1867 with a non ratified act and was betrayed by John a Macdonald. this is coming from Ho Canada by Russell Roger's Smith.
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).
This article, while very thorough, would be hardly convincing to a Western Canadian audience. There is already great incredulity towards the myth of Canada as a compact between two peoples, especially if you interpret these as anything other than two linguistic communities. Descendants of the French and British exist in the West in small numbers--the first major wave of immigration to Alberta and Saskatchewan was the 600,000 Americans who migrated there in search of the "Last Best West" around the turn of the twentieth century. The demographics of the region mostly consist of their descendants, various Eastern Europeans, and Natives, not to mention those from the recent mass migration. Canada may have been an ethnostate once, but it is not anymore. Emphasizing British and French blood would only further alienate Western Canada, which is already the region in which American annexation is the most popular. Your identitarian politics prove to be more divisive than anything. Moreover, the reason Western Canada is so diverse is the wealth of opportunities that exist there, first in agriculture and now in natural resources. The reason the Maritimes are so homogeneous is that no one wants to go there--hardly an example to emulate. While we need not worship blind progress as much as Americans do, immigration is necessary to grow our economy given current low birth rates especially among the descendants of the British and French. Doubling down on ethno-nationalism would fracture this country, not unify it, weakening its economy and alienating the West.
According to the same 2021 Census I cited in the sources of that section, at least half of Albertans who claim European heritage are ethnically Anglo-Canadian. The idea that Alberta is so substantially ethnically different from the East when its settlement was paid for by Eastern Canadians industry is silly. The majority of those Americans were from the Midwest, a predominantly Anglo-American place at the time. The Alberta Eugenics Board was sterilizing convicted Ukrainian criminals until the 1970s, and policies explicitly favoured Anglo-Canadians to the detriment of Ukrainians and Germans. Diefenbaker himself was subject to harassment for being a White ethnic in his childhood. Alberta is named after Princess Louise Caroline Alberta, a daughter of Queen Victoria. The cross of St. George, known as the flag of England, makes up Alberta's coat of arms and is centred in its flag, just like Ontario. My identitarian politics are the only way out of the nightmare created by 60 years of radical left-liberalism, deliberate obfuscation and erasure of Canadian identity, and the attempted erasure of ethnic Canadians by forming a post-national state.
Canadians are not having children for two primary reasons. The first is the cost of living proportionate to earnings. The average cost of a home is around $700,000 and increasing. Inflation has outpaced earnings dramatically. The second biggest reason is the status associated with parenthood. Women are disincentivized to have children because child-rearing and homemaking are viewed as low status in cultural spheres controlled by leftists. Young men's ability to increase their status through acquiring a job and upward social mobility has been destroyed by the economic policies of the Canadian state for generations. The former is what created the baby boom in the post-WWII era.
Immigration is not, and never has been, central to the Canadian economy. In virtually one hundred years of opinion polls conducted dating back to the Komagata Maru, Canadians did not want immigration for any reason, and simply had children. Canadians maintained a birth rate of five children per family for 230 years. If Canada is to receive any immigration whatsoever, it requires an actual assimilation policy, which it deliberately chose not to develop in 1971, with the 1971 Multiculturalism Policy enacted by Pierre Trudeau, followed up by the 1988 Canadian Multiculturalism Act, instituted by "conservative" prime minister Brian Mulroney. The vast majority of these changes occurred through Orders in Council; the public did not consent at any point, nor did a great number of MPs. The only province to successfully fight back was Quebec, when they forced the federal government to sign the Quebec-Canada Accord in 1992, which gave them greater control over the total number of immigrants to the province, allowed them to attempt to assimilate immigrants, and some control over where immigrants came from. If Canada is to receive any immigration at all, there are 63 whole nations in Europe that would love an opportunity to come to North America, but I don't see conservatives lining up to do that. I see conservatives and liberals doing the same thing: small business owners to federally funded universities exploiting Indian slave labour.
"Western Canadian support" for annexation peaks at 11% in Alberta. The majority of Albertans don't want it, and the only reason populists do is because they've been turned into rootless liberals from 60 years of multiculturalism. How many Albertans could tell you who Anthony Henday was, the first European to explore the Saskatchewan River for the Hudson Bay Company, founded by two French coureurs des bois with the backing of King Henry of England? Not very many. Western separatists can't decide whether they want to be an independent constitutional republic, join the States, or the first before the second. They have no identity to speak of, save for copying blue-collar American culture, and are completely ignorant of Alberta's glorious past, which they falsely associate as exclusively the domain of Eastern Canada. If the demographic data I provided to you from the U.S. Census Bureau wasn't enough to convince you that you and your children will not be better off under the Stars and Stripes—with their crime rate, most of it perpetrated by foreigners who do not respect or admire the 1st Amendment or 2nd Amendment, politically motivated by grievance politics and financially incentivized to be so—I don't know what to say.
I must say first that I entirely agree with you that Canadians are entirely better off remaining independent and that for immigration to work, we must pursue a policy of assimilation. Certain groups cannot be assimilated, and they must be excluded. My contention is that this policy of assimilation can and does work if we reverse course and reject the Multicultural policies of Trudeau and Mulroney which you noted.
The majority of Westerners who are Anglo Canadian are descendants of the early batch of 600,000 American settlers, not descendants of British loyalists. While Alberta is a particularly American province today, it was not always, as before the oil boom of the 1950s, Alberta was a hotbed of collectivism, statism, and social democracy, which we also saw in Saskatchewan until they had a miniature oil boom and developed their potash industry more recently. You touched on this with your examples of the prairie provinces having eugenics programs and immigration restrictions. However, if "ethnos determines ethos," as you say, then why did these naturalized Anglo Americans conform to a more authentic British Conservatism when coming to Canada? And why were non-Anglo whites also able to conform so well, with them now being indistinguishable from Anglo and French whites in the prairies? It seems that you take "ethnos determines ethos" as absolutely given but then make exceptions when it comes to the French and British Canadians, who, through epigenetics and social selection, preserved their traditional Conservative values, whereas the French in France and Anglo Americans did not. I'm struggling to understand why such stark and fast cultural changes are possible sometimes but not all the time.
On the topic of fertility rates, given that India right now has a fertility rate at replacement, I doubt very much that home prices and feminism are the cause of low fertility rates in Canada. It's a very complex issue and it's difficult to locate one cause, but it seems like low fertility is simply endemic to countries that are not poor.
Also, data from Leger puts Albertan support for annexation at 19%. https://dailyhive.com/edmonton/alberta-poll-canada-should-become-the-51st-state
My point is not that your understanding of Canada is entirely wrong, at least not for Ontario, Québec, and the Maritimes--It's that this will fall on deaf ears in Western Canada, which as you yourself note, has little historical self-understanding.
Agreed. The term “ethnic Canadians” is unheard of and today with 4 million south Asians having migrated here since 2021 the ties to whatever could have been called a Canadian cultural identity or heritage are effectively gone. Last October I drive 3700 kms from Alberta to SW Ontario, stopping 4 nights on the road. Every single hotel I stayed at, Regina, Kenora, Marathon Ont and Parry Sound Ont was either owned or operated by South Asians or East Africans. Every fast food restaurant, Tim’s MacDonalds Wendy’s was staffed by Asians. In the decision to be annexed or have closer economic and social structures with the USA what is the case to be made to these new migrants to maintain an artificial boundary between Canada and the US? Many are here simply bc it is close to the US and have utterly no clue as to any such thing a Canadian heritage.
Canada was a mid 19th C creation of the depraved crumbling British Empire, the head of state is still the British monarch. The collapse of the British phase of the Anglo empire pushed Canada into the American Imperial orbit and we have done well under the US umbrella as an economic colony. Any notion that Canada is “free” to negotiate unilaterally outside the American Empire is fantasy. We have effectively disbanded our military capabilities, meaning that the enormous land mass nominally assigned to “Canada” is in fact defended by the Pentagon. Who pays for that? The US buys 50% of our national production, their share in reverse is minuscule. When buffoons like Doug Ford say things like Ontario is removing all US wines from the state liquor monopoly it’s hard to stop laughing at how inept and naive he is.
We have decimated our world class energy industry, cancelled critical industrial infrastructure that would have enabled decades of profitable revenue streams, turned our universities into immigration visa mills, and created a health care monopoly with waiting lists up to 3 years for necessary medical treatment. Canada’s continued existence may not be a simple matter of “choice”. Regional animosities have always existed esp bet eastern and western power structures. Those differences have surfaced again esp in the light of threats to cut off or tax Alberta energy exports to US markets. After 10 years of Trudeau the country is very weak and the US administration is prepared to leverage its power to consolidate its control over the western hemisphere.
Any person who is against globalism weather on the "left" or "right" should oppose Canada being absorbed into the USA.
But, you are spot on when it comes to the crime and gun ownership aspect. I think many Canadians who support joining the US would quickly realize that what they will gain by joining doesn't add up to what they will loose. The differences between the two countries aren't as subtle as some assume. Just anecdotally though, having lived and worked in the US and Canada, there are more opportunities and better wages in the American job market by far.
Otherwise, thanks for the great article. I think it would be very interesting to explore this idea further but at the provincial level. Alberta and the Prairies seem the most likely to join the US, if that happens is there a domino effect that forces the rest of Canada to join? How would Quebec react to this, and could it hold out as a sovereign state, perhaps with Ontario? What would the Maritimes do? What about BC? So many possible scenarios. Thanks again!
Thank you for writing this. One criticism -- I had to interrupt reading so I could look up what your graphic meant and what was a 'stem family' and an 'incomplete stem' and an 'egalitarian nuclear'. And I am still not 100% I have got it correct -- sources seem to disagree. I suggest you define these things in your talk tonight because I think others would be as puzzled as I was.
Thank you for the interest. I’ll make the correction!
If we don't want our country to be subsumed into the U.S.A., we should stop imitating them; and the Canadian Left is more guilty of that than the Canadian Right.
While it’s true that Canadian leftists have now aligned with wokism, this arose out of a distinctly Canadian left-liberalism of the intellectuals and politicians I named. The Canadian conservatives are completely rootless, ignorant people towards their own culture and political traditions. They and the PPC were polled at having the highest levels in favour of annexation.
The exact opposite is true. This is a Leger report showing that Conservatives are far more likely to support annexation. https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Report-OMNI-CAN-16811-123-51st-state.pdf
The replies to my comment show that none of you understand my essential point. If we become culturally a duplicate of the USA, which the left has striven for over the past two centuries, what's the point in being a separate country at all? Our own traditions and history are being trashed by the left, not the right. It's the left which has hollowed out and removed, often physically, all Canadian history. When I hear any of you defend our history, I will take you more seriously; lets start with restoring all the statures of our first Prime Minister. We can't even have any conversation about internal issues in this country without it becoming an argument about American domestic politics. Try talking about immigration or healthcare as if the USA never existed. I tried suggesting to people that our healthcare system needs to be seriously changed, and instead of the conversation being about the pros and cons of healthcare systems in western Europe or eastern Asia; it becomes a rant about American healthcare. Last year our own TV networks devoted many hours of coverage to the DNC & RNC conventions and almost none to coverage of Canadian party conventions. If we're forced to be America's mini-me, at least we shouldn't accept a lower standard of living as well. I looked at the Leger poll by the way, I thing it needs a much larger sample to be accurate to 95%. It's also a strangely worded question, why would we accept being one state instead of ten states? That seems very unfair.
You could argue that the “Left” aka the Canadian oligarchy has profited enormously by trading continuously on the myth of Canada as a “sovereign” entity. Waving red and white maple leaf flags, romanticizing obscure events of the “War of 1812”, massive support for a state controlled media empire, constant comparisons of our state controlled healthcare monopoly. The reality is Canada is a political creation of the British Empire to act as a blockade against US republican ideology and territorial expansion. Aside from that there’s very little in the way of an identifiable “Canadian” history that isn’t just a subset of British and American history. Canadian “history” has been written for the Canadian oligarchy. This is why the Canadian ruling elite are so strongly married to the ideology of a “Canadian identity” and history—- their power largely depends on it. As far as accepting a lower standard of living, that sadly is the fate of a colonial jurisdiction, which in the case of Canada has been made far worse by the systematic destruction of our resources industries, excessive regulation, state intervention and inter regional barriers.
This is nonsense. Read my stuff. Canada is the equivalent of a North American Plantagenet Empire, not solely a British dominion to counterbalance American power in the lost colony. Canada’s Anglo population was founded by Loyalist Americans, not colonial British. All British settlers to Canada were Canadianized, not Britishized. Both Anglo-Canadians and French Canadians underwent an ethnogenesis and are ethnic groups born and distinct in the new world. Every single thing you named from the maple leaf to leftist patriotism is the sole domain of Canadian left-liberalism of the post-WWII liberal order. It is only a fraction of our history, not the sum total of it.
How does Canada’s North American Plantagenet Empire fit into the Anglo American Empire? Is it allied to the American Empire or is it a hostile force on the boundaries of the US Empire? What are the hallmarks of this empire? As far as the evolution of the “ethnic” Canadian and the “Canadianization” of the British Empire loyalists what is the link between this ethnogenesis and the compliant effeminate people who populate this Plantagenet Empire today?…a population that willingly accepts draconian neo Malthusian policies and aggressive state suppression of any overt dissent against the ruling oligarchy. If there ever was such a thing as an ethnic Canadian identity with unique resilient recognizable “values” the road back to it has been washed away.
The Canadian left didn't originally romanticize the War of 1812, Anglo-Canadian conservatives did. The left romanticized the rebels of 1837 who wanted a republic that duplicated the culture and political institutions of the U.S.A. Probably any "Republic of Upper Canada" would have been admitted as a state within a few decades. Canadian nationalism on the left started in the late nineteenth century, but has always been compromised by loyalty to the American left, whether it was the woke Democrats of the present or the Jacksonian Democrats of two centuries ago. Anglo-Canadian conservatives since then have wavered between Canadian nationalism and "Greater Britain", the latter being revived with the CANZUK proposal. So-called "conservatives" desiring annexation by the U.S.A. are actually classic liberals ousted from the Liberal party by the technocrats and progressives.
Canada is rightful American Clay... and it is the holy duty of the American Empire to civilize those filthy barbarians to the north.
He's morally pretentious but sucks at economics.
Very typically 🍁 lol
Considering the Monroe-heavy hemispheric turn of the US security state, wherein the globalised network is reshored and reinforced as a fortress continent, you might not have a choice. Accepting then carefully negotiating Canada's future position as a tribute nation/imperial vassal could be more prudent than an explicit rejection of the United States. An ambiguous status would allow you to retain what you have while giving the Americans what they want.
This is the best essay / presentation on this, or any closely related subject i have ever read.
This is almost exactly what i would have said, and these facts are irrefutable.
Well done Blood. Well done here indeed.
Praise YAHWEH ( a.k.a. THE TRUTH )! Hail Victory!
what are your thoughts that canada never got beyond a colony and since 1931 every province were sovereign but haven't proclaimed the fact by creating a constitution? and have been fooled by the overlords since 1867 with a non ratified act and was betrayed by John a Macdonald. this is coming from Ho Canada by Russell Roger's Smith.