The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Kevin Michael Grace Archive
Canada Fragments—Is Alberta Secession Next?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

See, earlier: Brimelow On Canada, US: “We May See Boundaries Redrawn Across North America”

“The world is moving towards more diversity, not less diversity. It’s a form of entropy,” Canada’s Liberal Party Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared last year. “The question is whether you look at that as a threat to your identity, whether it’s a national identity or a corporate identity.” Or to the very existence of Canada, as Monday’s Canadian federal election suggests.

Few believe that notorious birdbrain Trudeau has any idea what “entropy” means (Merriam Webster defines it as “the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity). But remember that this is the same man who told the New York Times in 2015 that “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”—a country which, he promised, could become “the world’s first post-national state.”

And also remember that this is a country that, within my lifetime, was convulsed by the Liberal Party’s (successful) drive to replace the Union Jack as Canada’s flag with the current Maple Leaf design because it was (rightly) seen by English-speaking Canadians as part of an institutionalized effort to appease the French-speaking province (= state) of Quebec at the expense of their own identity.

On Monday, Trudeau’s Liberal Party was reduced to a minority government. It will depend on the support of either the post-national social democratic New Democratic Party or the resurgent crypto-separatist Bloc Quebecois. Its will most probably last only a year or two.

So (as I’ve asked before) will the Canadian union survive—or will it become the first empire to collapse since the Soviet Union in 1991?

The results (note the extraordinary fragmentation of Canada’s electorate):

  • Justin Trudeau’s Liberals 157 seats (of a total of 338 in Canada’s Parliament), down 27; popular vote just 33.1%, down 6.4 percentage points. The Liberals, roughly equivalent to U.S. Democrats, are a Leftist party representing the New Class and its various client constituencies, especially recently-imported immigrants; Francophone (Canspeak for French-mother tongue) federal government dependents (often bilingual); some residual Anglophone communities in Quebec (for example in the Gatineau—where Gracefield is named after my Irish immigrant forbears).
  • Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives 121 seats, up 22; popular vote 34.4%, up 2.5 percentage points. The Conservatives, roughly equivalent to the GOP, are overwhelmingly anglophone and heavily Western Canadian; plus some socially conservative Francophone Quebecois. Significantly, Scheer is a Catholic.
  • Yves-François Blanchet’s Bloc Québécois (Quebec-based and “sovereigntist,” a.k.a. separatists): 32 seats (of 75 contested in Quebec), up 22; 7.7%, up percentage points The Bloc is a crypto-separatist party drawing on Francophone nationalists, many monolingual and non-metropolitan c.f. Trump’s rural support; plus provincial government dependents—Quebec’s provincial government bureaucracy has been in nationalist hands for many years,
  • Jagmeet Singh’s New Democratic Party (formerly labor union-based and socialist; now with increasing Social Justice Warrior/ Identity Politics overtones): 24 seats, down 20; 15.9%, down 3.8 percentage points. Heavily Anglophone, except for the freak 2011 election; New Class; immigrants; native peoples. The NDP now competes directly with the Liberals, without the Liberals’ Hillary Clinton-type corporate connections. It is a curiosity that they don’t merge.
  • Elizabeth May’s Green Party 3, up 2; 6.5%, up 3 percentage points. Appeals to Social Justice Warrior Ecotopian whites—two of its ridings (=districts) are in Whitopian Vancouver Island.
  • Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party (populist libertarian) 0 seats, down 1; 1.6% (292,703 votes). Bernier is an enterprising Francophone political entrepreneur who described himself as “the Albertan from Quebec,” and experimented with immigration patriotism. He actually got 2.2% in Alberta, but lost the Quebec seat he had held as a Conservative before leaving the party, possibly vindicating the Canadian conventional wisdom that Francophones go with winners. Bernier faced total Trump-type hysteria from Canada’s MSM. But new parties start slowly in a parliamentary system, and his party’s vote compares with 2.1% achieved with the insurrectionary Reform Party in 1988, after which it completely displaced the rival Progressive Conservatives in 1993 (alas to no lasting effect).

Justin Trudeau, a man of no known accomplishments except for being the son of Canada-wrecker Pierre Trudeau (Prime Minister from 1968 to 1984), surfed to power in 2015 on a wave on psychosexual hysteria among Canada’s elite, much as his father had done nearly fifty years earlier. Trudeau Senior was also reduced to a minority government in his first attempt at re-election in 1972, and for much the reason as his son this year: Canadians became sick of them both, their arrogance and constant preening for the cameras.

On assuming office, Justin seemed to regard his role as a brand ambassador, dressing in silly costumes, pulling up a pant leg to reveal his daring socks and proclaiming the alleged world-beating virtues of the new “sunny ways” Canada, even as he apologized for its history without end.

His administration was blighted by the SNC-Lavalin scandal, wherein his Minister of Justice was pressured not to criminally prosecute that company for bribery. Not to sound cynical, but this is business as usual in Canada, which is run for the benefit of a handful of corporate oligarchs, such as Power Corp, Bombardier and the McCain and Irving families.

Trudeau’s campaign was also blighted by the revelation that, as a younger man, he had appeared in blackface (or “brownface”) at least three times, notwithstanding his much-touted reputation as an “anti-racist.” This scandal occasioned yet another apology tour (this time it was personal). Otherwise, Trudeau declared himself second to none in his opposition to man’s eternal enemy, carbon, and his campaign resolved (with media help) to Cancel Faith Goldy, while his team worked assiduously to link Goldy, a former Rebel Media reporter who has podcasted for, to Conservative leader Andrew Scheer.

Scheer is also a man of no known accomplishments, first elected as an MP at 25, having been translated from Ottawa to Saskatchewan for that purpose. Scheer’s visage suggests the barely-suppressed glee of a boy who has managed to snatch an extra cookie without his mother noticing. In my day, a teacher would have told him, “Wipe that smirk off your face, or I’ll knock it off for you.”

Scheer’s strategy was what Phyllis Schlafly and other pre-Reagan critics of Establishment Republicanism used to call “me-tooism.” There was little difference between Scheer’s platform and Trudeau’s (with the exception of support for pipelines). [Chris Selley: It’s not Scheer’s fault the Tories lost. Blame the dreck that passed for his platform,, October 22, 2019]Scheer also supports the War on Carbon and an annual immigration rate of 350,000 (although the actual total number of annual newcomers has reached 950,000, including students and a vastly-increased number of “temporary workers”). Much like the GOPe in the U.S., Scheer has no apparent problem with the Great Replacement, so long as it is “orderly.” Under a Scheer government, Canada would have prioritized the importation of “gay refugees” and Yazidis (Stone Age devil-worshippers from the Middle East).

If nothing else, this election marked the death of this Canadian Conservatism—which is in fact cuckservatism. Scheer was bedevilled by from start to finish for his alleged failure to properly worship abortion, gay marriage and sodomy. As he revealed in his concession speech, he is so ignorant of this country he believes it enforces equality before the law, despite the “protected classes” enshrined in law, federal affirmative action and the Gladue reports that privilege aboriginal offenders. Like Mitt Romney, Scheer was reduced to paeans to the glory of Muh Free Market and Free Trade Über Alles and came to a similar end. He made no attempt to utilize the Sailer Strategy, even though in 2019, Canadian demographics were more favorable to the Conservatives than America’s were in 2016 to the Republicans.

The NDP Leader, Jagmeet (pronounced Jug-MEET) Singh was once called Jimmy Dhaliwal, but that wasn’t ethnic enough, apparently. He is essentially a Third World colonist like Ilhan Omar. A Sikh nationalist and supporter of an independent ethnic homeland in India to be called Khalistan, he rails against “genocide” in the Punjab and is banned from India as a consequence. (Sikhism evolved in the Middle Ages as a paramilitary religious cult in response to the Moghul invasion of India. Why Canada should host hundreds of thousands of such people, let along allow them to dominate our politics to the extent that Canadian politicians of all parties now routinely campaign for votes in India and Sikhs largely determine our party-leadership campaigns, is a question that is probably illegal to ask in my country.)

With his lurid turbans and ever-flashing bared teeth, Singh’s visage resembles that of a cartoon villain. Like most of the “model minority” elite in Canada, he rails against Canadian “racism” and has declared war on Canadian sovereignty (he literally believes that British Columbia is owned by its indigenous Indians). He styled himself the tribune of “reconciliation” (a.k.a. endless reparations and ongoing surrender). But his NDP Party was reduced to one seat in Quebec, down from 16 in 2015 and 59(!) in 2011. Quebec has turned its back on multiculturalism, as evidenced by the passage this year of Bill 21, which bans provincially-regulated public servants from wearing visible religious symbols—like turbans—and Singh paid the price.

After the BQ was reduced to four seats in 2011, it was eagerly written off by Canadian pundits. Its spectacular comeback proves once again, as Editor Peter Brimelow has been saying at least since the publication of his 1986 analysis of Canadian politics The Patriot Game, that Quebec separatism refuses to die. Speaking on election night, Blanchet thundered that Quebec was indeed a “nation” (it was designated officially as such by the House of Commons in 2006; we maudits Anglais don’t get to be a nation), that the only real Parliament of the Québécois is the provincial Assemblée nationale du Québec in Quebec City and that Quebec “can have all the attributes of sovereignty.” What he meant by that and how he intends to accomplish it remains to be seen.

Maxime Bernier was a francophone Quebec MP who narrowly lost the Conservative leadership to Andrew Scheer in 2017. The electronic voting system was bitterly contested (they always are) and Scheer triumphed only after a one-time ranked vote with 13 candidates. Fewer than 21% of Conservatives voters actually chose Scheer. Bernier quit in disgust and set up his own shop, which was at first hardcore libertarian but then pivoted to anti-multiculturalism. Naturally, Bernier was excoriated as a “white supremacist” or simply ignored by Canada’s Main Stream Media, which now delights in doxxing, deplatforming and condemning all non-approved opinions as “misinformation.” (Trudeau has kept the failing MSM sweet with a $595-million bribe.)

Late in the campaign it was revealed that Scheer’s Conservatives had paid Warren Kinsella, a longtime former Liberal operative (and the only man to have ever sued me, unsuccessfully I should mention) to discredit Bernier as a “Nazi” or whatever, but this was considered by the MSM only to reflect on Scheer and his “ethics” and not on how the elite had always conspired against Bernier and his message.

Justin Trudeau has hailed Canada as “the world’s first post-national state.” But it is better understood as a multinational, multiethnic and multilingual empire containing six distinct regions: the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairie Provinces, British Columbia and the Arctic.

Due to a feature (or curse) of Confederation called “equalization,” BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan pay the bills for the rest of Canada. Without equalization, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces would be reduced to penury and depopulation. BC has gas, oil and mining (gold, silver, copper, etc.), Alberta has oil and gas, and Saskatchewan has gas and a burgeoning uranium-mining industry. In other words, Canada’s economic future (indeed, its future as a polity) is dependent on the three Western-most provinces. (Canadian manufacturing survives only because our central bank has intervened to ensure that the Canadian dollar trades at a 31% discount to the U.S. dollar.)

That future is under threat for three reasons.

  • First, the elite knows little and cares less about wealth creation.
  • Second, the ongoing War on Carbon.
  • And, third, the intervention of Canada’s kritarchy, the Supreme Court.

The sovereignty of the Canada people as vested in its elected representatives was usurped by the Supreme Court after the Constitution was “repatriated” in 1982. The Court arrogated to itself the power to “read into” the Constitution and its amusingly-named Charter of Rights whatever it chose. Thus, the Supreme Court instituted abortion on demand, ruled that “hate speech” was not protected speech and legalized both prostitution and physician-assisted murder (a.k.a. euthanasia).

Tellingly, the Conservatives uttered not a squeak about the last two outrages.

Over the last three decades, the Supreme Court has been relitigating the establishment of the Dominion of Canada itself in 1867. Despite having no basis in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Court has awarded to Canada’s Indians, Inuit and Métis a vague but overarching “consultation” right over all resource development in the country.

In other words, certainly of title no longer exists in Canada. Mining licenses are now withheld routinely because of Indian claims of psychological damage and the construction of vital new pipelines has come to a standstill, even as tankers have been banned from BC’s north coast.

The oil-price collapse of 2014 was a body-blow to Canada’s resources industry, but worse was to come. Western Canadian oil trades at a crippling discount because it is landlocked. The Keystone XL (Canada to America) pipeline remains stymied, as are the Energy East (Western to Eastern Canada) and the Trans Mountain Expansion (Alberta to BC), despite the last being bought by Ottawa for $4.5 billion).

Needless to say, Western Canadians are furious, and this was reflected in Monday’s vote. Remarkably, the Conservatives actually won the national popular vote, due to supermajorities in Alberta (69.2%) and Saskatchewan (64.3%). Overall, the Conservatives took 51.4% of the Western Canada vote and the Liberals only 20.1%. If not for the immigrant vote (Vancouver, like Toronto, is already majority-minority), the Liberals would have won no more than a handful of seats in BC. (In the end, of the 104 total Western Canadian seats, the Conservatives took 71, with the Liberals and NDP taking 15 each.)

The level of hatred for Albertans entertained by Ontarians and Quebeckers is difficult to overstate. BQ leader Blanchet has made clear that the Energy East pipeline will be built over his dead body, while Singh has said similar of the Trans Mountain expansion. Westerners are considered a bunch of whiners who should count themselves grateful for whatever Ottawa lets them keep.

After Pierre Trudeau returned to power in 1980, his response to the 1979 oil shock was to hammer Alberta with his National Energy Policy, which bankrupted thousands of Alberta companies and ruined tens of thousands of lives. Given that Justin Trudeau has apparently maintained power without single seat in either Alberta or Saskatchewan, and given how much the East despises the West, the temptation for Justin to hammer Alberta again will be irresistible.

Even before this election, support for Alberta separation was at 30% or higher, and afterward the hashtag #Wexit was trending on Twitter[‘Ottawa doesn’t care’: Western separatist movement gains traction as Albertans react to Liberal victory, by Nicole Bogart,, October 22, 2019] According to legal precedent, a 50% + 1 vote on a “clear question” is enough for separation. My old friend Jason Kenney, who was elected Alberta Premier earlier this year, will fight it to his last breath, but in doing so, he will risk being swept aside. Anyway, Kenney is a rootless cosmopolite immigrant from Ontario, not an Alberta native. After his victory in May, he called Alberta an “idea.” Sound familiar?

“For a country to be loved, it must be lovable.” So said the English journalist Peregrine Worsthorne. My country was once lovable, but that country can hardly be said to still exist. Canadian identity was destroyed by the assaults of Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney. Today, Canada is a corpse savaged by neoliberals, submerged by burdensome and rebarbative foreigners and stripped by rent-seekers. It has no unifying principle save inertia or, as Justin Trudeau would have it, “entropy.”

Even though the secession of Alberta would mean the end of Canada, there is no returning to the past. Estimates put a non-white takeover of Canada happening at 2040 or even earlier. There is no guarantee that the newly-independent constituent parts of Canada would choose to reject suicide. But it would be nice for us to have that choice.

Because make no mistake, without a breakup, our destiny is sealed.

Kevin Michael Grace (Email him) lives in Victoria, BC. He is the co-host of Luke Ford Livestreams, which broadcasts Monday to Friday on YouTube and is on Twitter at @kmgvictoria .

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I looked up the phrase “Dumb Cannuck” and they had Justin’s photo. In brown face. Go figure.

  2. A few days ago UR published a very interesting article about Indonesia. I would reccomend the author of this article, K. Grace, to read it. He might learn something about Canada. At the end of his article it seems that a lot of things have to do with the “fight against carbon” as a sorce of “wealth creation”:

    That future is under threat for three reasons. First, the elite knows little and cares less about wealth creation. Second, the ongoing War on Carbon.

    Well, to know what wealth creation without consideration for anything else causes, you can read about how they have been creating wealth in Indonesia. Maybe Trudeau has his ideology above everything else. But it seems that K. Grace also has his supreme ideology, which isn’t very clever. You should forget the question of “carbon” and let other people who are well informed take care of it, like Greta. Nature is important and it depends a lot on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    • Troll: Svevlad
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  3. Attila says:

    Canada a falsity created and owned by the British Crown. An entity that entertains criminal elements that served and serves the “Crown” in its nefarious activities worldwide – hence its hosting of shock troops such as Sikhs Ukrainians and any and many other shit stirring groups. Looks great outwardly but what lurks within……

  4. Every region in the world should be attempting to seceded from its larger entity in a recursive loop. Smaller and smaller gov’ts to put things as local as possible.
    Only the large scale gov’ts can afford a standing military, useless atomic weapons, wealth redistribution schemes and support corporations that purchase legislation to their liking.
    End the monopoly of the larger gov’t for the monopoly of the smaller gov’ts for the monopoly of still smaller gov’ts till we reach the ultimate in democracy, a gov’t of 1 individual. Anarchism.

  5. Amazed that a majority of 50% +1 is enough to enact secession. If only that applied in the USA. However we can almost be assured that the SC would throw out any such manifestation of popular will through narrow definition of the ‘clear question’.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    , @RadicalCenter
  6. Svevlad says:

    A breakup of the entire New World is in order, and the Border Question shall now bite them with such ferocity, that many butts will be deleted from existence.

    You see, the straight borders are useful – when the land is flat, has no barriers, and when it’s all in one country. However, if a country breaks up, such borders start becoming impractical (look at the six tranjitrillion settlements in the US that are split by borders, state and county). And as @RoatanBill says, there’s a tendency now to go the ancient Greece route and just make everything and their dog independent, and the conflicts are going to make Yugoslavia look like a cakewalk

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  7. @Cagey Beast

    That’s supposed to be a link to a more accurate map than the one shown above.

    (I’m going to now hit the button and see if this comment instantly goes on a journey into the dark web as well).

    • Replies: @Hail
  8. I’ve never heard of Kevin Michael Grace, but like most from BC (Lalaland) the fog and rain distort his vision. Here is some context:
    1) Alberta is called the United States of Alberta, as it is the most American province. Many Americans moved to Alberta in the 40s and 50s to help develop the oil and gas industry.
    2) While there are 2 large cities, Alberta, like most of the Prairie provinces, has a large agricultural base. Farmers tend to be conservative.
    3) Since 1936, there has only been a “left” government once. It served one term. Alberta is, for all intents and purposes, a one party state.
    4) Alberta’s oil and gas industry wouldn’t be what it is today, had the 3 provinces to the East, agreed in 1958, to have a 5 cents per gallon (about 20%) tax on gasoline to fund building a pipeline to Sarnia, Ontario. I remember paying that tax. Ontario was the economic engine of Canada through its manufacturing, which was decimated through the FTA and NAFTA.
    5) Alberta was a receiver of equalization payments until its oil and gas industry, subsidized by 3 other provinces, was fully developed in the late 1970s. Ontario never complained about being the chief payer.
    6) As little use as I had for Trudeau v1.0, the National Energy Policy was an attempt to secure energy for the entire country. He wanted to expand the pipeline to the East coast, which would increase demand for Alberta oil. Alberta refused to negotiate with the Federal Government, which wanted a discount on world prices, and offered a floor price. The answer was “no” from start to finish. The “disastrous” NEP was legislated. However, oil demand was already decreasing, and so were prices. The industry was already reducing its presence when the collapse came, and the price of oil fell to half of what the proposed “floor” would have been. Somehow, that has remained Trudeau’s fault.
    6) The fact of the matter is that Alberta’s oil industry has been boom and bust before, during, and after Trudeau’s NEP. Even though the NEP was repealed 35 years ago, those busts are still Trudeau’s fault.
    7) Alberta is a province of whiners, and this author’s province (BC) is full of SJW airheads. They have always been so.
    8) The author refers to the Conservatives as “roughly Republicans”. That phenomenon started with Reagan’s best buddy, Brian Mulroney, and has gone down hill ever since. Prior to that, the party was more pragmatic, and was less ideologically driven. It’s not that the Liberals, since 1992 are so good, it’s that the Conservatives have been so bad. Canadians don’t elect governments, we turf out one set of crooks hoping the next set of crooks won’t be as bad.
    9) Had “None of the Above” appeared on our ballots, it would have been the runaway winner.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @Ilya
  9. @Irish Savant

    It’s not. Quebec has been threatening to separate for 50 years. Legislation was passed, decades ago, outlining the conditions of any vote.

    • Replies: @Gordon Pratt
  10. I would have been interested to see Grace’s comments on the Horgan government of BC.

    Horgan is NDP which at timesof ‘western alienation,’ like today, functions as surrogate for the federal Liberals.

    Horgan must go to the polls in less than two years and ‘Baby’ Trudeau undoubtedly prefers him to the BC Liberals (read Conservatives).

    But Horgan is against the transmountain pipeline and Trudeau claims to be for it. If Trudeau does what he can to help Horgan’s reelection the PM may reveal more than he would wish to about his real position on the pipeline.

  11. The level of hatred for Albertans entertained by Ontarians and Quebeckers is difficult to overstate.
    … given how much the East despises the West ….

    As someone who spent most of his life about a mile from the Quebec-Ontario border and following the media in both languages, I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Whatever hate you feel coming at conservative westerners* from the east is probably one-tenth the intensity of hatred your leftie fellow westerners seem to have for “rednecks”. Today’s social media hashtag, #Rednexit seems to be popular with that type.

    * In this drama, it’s always assumed that all westerners are hard-working conservatives and all easterners are perfumed hanky waving, bohemian spongers.

  12. we maudits Anglais don’t get to be a nation

    We aren’t a nation because we don’t think of ourselves as one. That’s true for many reasons but one that springs to mind is “Western Alienation Inc.”. By definition, westerners can’t build an identity around being irreparably alienated from us easterners and, at the same time, feel any solidarity with us.

  13. Hail says: • Website
    @Cagey Beast

    a more accurate map than the one shown above

    At a glance, the image in the article is inaccurate in that (at least) it vastly understates Bloc Quebecois support. It seems to show them winning only five seats.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  14. @Hail

    Yes and it shows my riding in the Maritimes going to the Liberals when we actually voted in a Conservative.

  15. Hail says: • Website

    Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party (populist libertarian) 0 seats […] experimented with immigration patriotism. He actually got 2.2% in Alberta, but lost the Quebec seat he had held as a Conservative

    Bernier faced total Trump-type hysteria from Canada’s MSM.

    Naturally, Bernier was excoriated as a “white supremacist” or simply ignored by Canada’s Main Stream Media, which now delights in doxxing, deplatforming and condemning all non-approved opinions

    If this People’s Party (or a direct successor) ends up staying on the scene and holding more-or-less firm to “populism,” that would be best-case scenario of the political developments of 2018-2019. I say this in the understanding that “populism” is today really a euphemism for soft ethnonationalism. That is why, I presume, those who voted for the People’s Party did so.

    There is a wide open space for such a party in Anglophone Canada.

    As for secession by some portion of Canada’s West — political detachment from the east of Canada (and from Chinese Vancouver, presumably) — might the People’s Party be the first to call for such? Or a direct successor thereof? Or some as-yet totally unorganized political party to be carved out of the hegemonic-in-the-Prairie-West Conservative Party? (Cf. the Brexit saga, in which the UK Conservative Party eventually saw its own support cave in, first ceding group to UKIP and now even moreso to the Brexit Party; the Brexit Party took 29 seats in the May 2019 EU elections, crushing the Conservatives’ 4 seats.)

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Cagey Beast
  16. @Irish Savant

    If that applied in the USA, California, Vermont, and numerous other States probably would muster a majority for secession.

    It seems that for something as drastic as secession from the country, we should require a supermajority vote (say 60%) confirmed by a second supermajority vote two years or four years later.

    As an aside, we could see States voting for secession that takes effect only if certain other States also vote to secede and form a new independent country together. For example, California and Oregon. Perhaps an interstate compact could be used to achieve this.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  17. @Svevlad

    You make an excellent and unsettling observation, Svevlad.

    I wish that we could simply move to a highly decentralized arrangement, as contemplated by the Tenth Amendment, where States decide and regulate everything and the federal government very little.

    It seems that the only realistic PEACEFUL way to avoid secessions and an unstable checkerboard of small (temporarily) independent entities, is to devolve almost everything to the States.

    Let’s all — left, right, whatever — stop trying to use the fed gov to impose economic, cultural, or social values and lifestyles on the States, whether it be federal laws regulating abortion, homosexual “marriage”, adoption, divorce, drug policy, speed limits, seat belt and helmet laws, medical insurance, education and curriculum, etc. Yeah that doesn’t seem likely. But would more people come to accept real decentralization if the alternative looked to be potentially chaotic, costly secession and eventually violence between the new countries.

  18. @Curmudgeon

    Your comment provides needed background context, thank you, and shows that Alberta has not always been a net payor to other provinces through the federal government.

    But hasn’t Alberta been a net payor to the federal government for some decades now? Is there any end in sight to that arrangement? If not, shouldn’t that and the authoritarian thought-police white-hating normalcy/heterosexual-mocking nature of the Canadian fed gov, lead them to work for secession?

    Love to see a new country made up of Alberta and perhaps a couple other neighboring Canadian provinces or US States. A country that allows personal freedom both “left” and “right” — strong self-defense and gun rights for non-felon citizens, either no income tax or no sales tax, legal marijuana for adults on private property, broad parental and homeschooling rights, etc. — and most of all, stays out of exorbitant wars/occupations and uses the money instead to provide the citizens with border security, safety and civic order, infrastructure, effective pollution control, medical insurance and actual competent timely medical and dental care, and the like.

    How wonderful to get out from the under the thumb of Ottawa and DC.

    If it ever comes to pass, any new country on this continent had better take care to build up a formidable border-security force and military. The new country will need to be very selective as to whom it admits from the rest of the current Canada and/or USA — probably wise to offer long-term residency rather than citizenship and voting rights for most incomers.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  19. Here’s the girl who won a seat for the Green Party in Fredericton, New Brunswick. During the election, the NDP were accusing their former supporters and activists in New Brunswick of peeling off to the Green Party because of racism against their Sikh leader. I guess the trend they noticed was real:

  20. This is probably where at least a quarter of all those #Rednexit tweets are coming from:

  21. Hail says: • Website

    soft ethnonationalism

    If the People’s Party is soft-ethnonationalist (which characterizes its support base more than the positions it would publicly run on, I am sure), where is the “hard-ethnonationalist” section of Canadian politics?

    Canadian laws mean such a party, a white-Christian hard-ethnonationalist party, would always have to operate on the edge of being declared illegal, I suppose.

    But I do see there was a “hard ethnonationalist” party on the scene — and one that doesn’t get mention in this very good Kevin Michael Grace overview article. The party I refer to is the brand-new Canadian Nationalist Party (approved for federal-level political activities, Sept. 2019). It took in 0.2% in the three ridings it contested in the Oct. 2019 election.

    While such a party will not be winning any elections anytime soon, even getting 0.2% in first-past-the-post Canada is something, I dare say, significant. Their voter base may also represent the kind of energy of the men who create political revolutions, who are always drawn from a small minority.

    The leader is Travis Patron [Pah-TRON] (b.1991), a small business owner.

    From the group’s platform:

    We must maintain the demographic status of the current European-descended majority

    Here he is speaking at a candidates’ forum in Saskatchewan, Oct. 2019:

    [Travis Patron:] We…believe that [nationalism] is the only true path politically that will save our country from some of the globalist type of influences that we are seeing in our government today.

    We want to represent the people who were born here, the people who grew up here, the people that have been paying taxes for multiple generations. The people that know our anathem and sing it loudly and proudly. This is Canadian nationalism to us. …

    Other parties tend to put the interests of ethnic minorities first, whereas the Nationalist Party puts the demographic majority first.

    He goes on, at the candidates’ forum, to call for immigration restriction.

    Well done, Mr. Patron.


    Here is a CBC TV news report on the Canadian Nationalist Party, which it says is “under investigation for RCMP for potential hate speech”:


    [Hijab woman:] “We feel that people shouldn’t be able to hide in the shadows.”

    [Reporter:] The Canadian Anti-Hate Network wants as many people as possible to know who is supporting a far-right group, one that is under investigation for RCMP for potential hate speech.

    [Hijab woman:] “We should know who, in our neighborhoods, are supporting this. Really in a bid to shame them. Hate has no place in…our society, and we need to call it out wherever it is.”

    [Reporter:] The group plans to post online the identities of more than 250 members of the Canadian Nationalist Party. The goal, it says, is a peaceful conversation.

    The party’s website is

  22. Hail says: • Website

    For reference — the Steve Sailer commentariat on the Canada election (via off-topic comments on another thread; he didn’t make a Canada election thread):

    See comment-25 and replies.

  23. @Curmudgeon

    The law you link to is the Clarity Act 1995, a federal law indicating under what condition the feds would give consent to a province leaving.

    The federal law does not affect the rights of provinces. However the provinces have almost no rights in the matter.

    The provinces have almost no rights because before passing the Constitution Act of 1982 then PM Pierre Trudeau asked the Supreme Court whether he could change the Constitution without the consent of the Provinces.

    The SCC said yes. The feds had to consult the Provinces but having consulted all the feds needed was a law passed in Parliament.

    Some people make a big deal about the fact the law as it was finally passed includes an amending formula which is far more stringent than what the SCC said was required.

    The amending formula is plainly unconstitutional because by requiring a much higher standard to amend the law than was originally required to enact it Parliament in a certain sense abolished democracy.

    A democracy may not abolish itself. That is the upshot of Nuremberg where Germans were punished for following the laws of the otherwise legally established authority.

    The principle that democracy may not abolish itself is contained in the ancient Roman maxim that the health of the Republic is the highest law.

    Therefore the ruling obtained in 1982 to the effect the government must consult the Provinces and then may legislate constitutional change is still the law in Canada.
    Nothing Trudeau did in the Constitution Act did or could change the Supreme Court ruling.

    Quebec or Alberta can leave anytime they get 50% plus one on a clear question, as required by the Clarity Act. However any federal government can amend the Clarity Act at will.

  24. So why aren’t the Democrats demanding that Trudeau turn over power to the winner of the popular vote? Has anyone asked Hillary to step in?

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  25. @Hail

    A new party could succeed if it represents rural, suburban and blue collar Canadians outside Quebec. It could be the Bloc Quebecois or Parti Quebecois for the rest of us by taking votes from the other three parties outside Quebec.

  26. Hail says: • Website

    Even before this election, support for Alberta separation was at 30% or higher, and afterward the hashtag #Wexit was trending on Twitter

    Twitter thinks this is the top tweet of the day for hastag #Wexit:

    From a tweeter N*****e Von Lanthen, of Toronto (that acc. to her profile).

    In case it goes down, the tweet is simple a cartoon in three parts : [1] a hooded figure labeled ‘Western Separatism,’ [2] “Let’s see who this really is,” [3] the hood removed, the figure is now labeled ‘Oil company propaganda.’

    This same person has a recent tweet saying:

    DNA Results from Ancestry changed again. Yay, I’m back to having more Irish in my past. #bringonStPattysDay

    France 41%
    Ireland & Scotland 39%
    England, Wales, NW Europe 17%
    Germanic Europe 3%

    Not sure how to interpret that. I wonder if she would agree that Irish separatism of eras past was also [Insert Industry] Propaganda? “Oh, that‘s different.” It is?

  27. @RadicalCenter

    Perhaps an interstate compact could be used to achieve this.

    My sense is that the Deep State has gotten to the point that they would not accept secession, even if a state like Vermont or California or a province like Quebec or Alberta tried to do it.

    They would sense (correctly) that any permitted secession would be contagious in North America.

    Their true loyalty lies not with woke ideology but rather with raw power and the related skim/scam, and they want as many victims as possible.

    There are no adults on their side of the room–so there could not be a reasonable negotiation with a win/win outcome.

    I would love to be proven wrong, whether in Canada or the US, but I think the formula will be secession = war, regardless of whatever laws or other considerations are in play.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  28. Hail says: • Website

    Kevin Michael Grace on the Luke Ford Show, Oct. 23, 2019, speaking about this essay:

    Luke Ford: Kevin, you published a long essay in VDare about Canada’s elections —

    Kevin Michael Grace: Yeah. It was originally going to be called, “Will the Canadian Union Survive until 2024?” which is a reference to the famous book by Andrei Amalrik, called “Will the Soviet Union survive until 1984?” …

    Amalrik was being deliberately provocative, because all the great and the good argued, “The Soviet Union has no serious problems; the Soviet Union is going to be around forever! The Soviet Union is going to surpass America!” No, it fell apart. And one of the reasons it fell apart is that it was an empire.

    Canada is not a nation and barely an country. It is, in fact, an empire — a multi-national, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual empire. And thus it is insecure, as is demonstrated by the election results.


    Kevin Michael Grace: What was most fascinating to me about the election was what happened in Western Canada. …Immediately after the election, this hashtag, “#Wexit,” began trending on Twitter, referring to a Western Exit.

    It’s BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan that pay for the rest of Canada…It’s a permanent welfare system in Canada, and it is the three western-most provinces that essentially supply the money for Canada to exist.

    How does the central government respond to this? By punishing the western provinces, particularly Alberta.

    Kevin Michael Grace: If Alberta were to leave confederation, then that would be the end of Canada. I argue in my piece that for a country to be loved, it must be lovable. Canada hasn’t been a lovable country for a long time, because our leaders hate us.

    They want us replaced with foreigners. They want to take away all of our civil liberties. They want the country to be governed by globalist neoliberals and picked over by rent-seekers.

    Kevin Michael Grace: Patriotism in [Canada] has collapsed. …

    If a crisis ever hit Canada, and the government asked for sacrifices from the people, they simply wouldn’t get it. And so I think the likelihood is very high that Canada is going to break up within the next decade, or perhaps within the next five years.

  29. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    Traditionally the only thing that set Anglo-Canada apart from the US is loyalism and a greater sense of “Anglo” identity, but these days those things seem to be as unfashionable in Canada as they are in the US.

    As loyalist sentiment has faded, Anglo-Canada has lost a lot of its reason for even existing, so I’ve noticed that to try to claim some sort of vague identity a lot of Anglo-Canadians try to claim Quebec culture as their own in an attempt to differentiate themselves from Americans.

    It seems to me that Canada as a whole is now almost completely defined by Quebec and I think much of the reason Anglo-Canadians fear Quebec independence is because they know that Anglo-Canada alone wouldn’t survive as a separate entity and would end up a part of the US, and probably sooner rather than later.

    In addition to this there doesn’t seem to be much unity amongst Anglo-Canadians in different parts of the country, Anglo-Canadians generally seem to have more in common with Americans in the adjacent US states than they do with Canadians in other parts of the country. That isn’t a good basis for Anglo-Canada being a separate entity in my opinion.

    Another point I would make is that Canada is also full of immigrants, particularly Chinese, who obviously would have no loyalist sentiment what so ever and in the long term would probably want to see the country unified with the bulk of their ethnic kin over the border in the US.

    • Agree: Hail
  30. Here’s a useful map:

    2019 Canadian Federal Election Results*
    Cartogram of equal-area ridings
    Hover over riding for riding name

  31. APilgrim says:

    The USA does NOT particularly NEED a 51st State of Alberta.

    However, IF Alberta became a State, US Senator (R,TX) Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz would instantly become Article-II-Eligible to serve as President of the USA.

    I have voted for, and contributed to Ted’s Senatorial Campaigns, but voted FOR Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential campaign, based on this consideration.

  32. Jews and the Laurentian Elite should all be burned to death in Hell for eternity for what they have done and continue to do to Canada.
    The level of Betrayal is immense.
    They will not stop until Canadians are serfs. Then they will eat their children and murder their livestock.
    We are dealing with a pathologically insane and evil group that offers the Canadian people only one solution: burn the Chateau to the ground with the doors barred shut.

  33. @Anonymous

    Good insight.
    The Feral Government in Canada, along with the provinces and cities, are rackets. As are many Canadian institutions (large corporations, Supreme Court, RCMP, OPP, etc.). They destroyed the national identity of the country through Multi-Culturalism (a Jew scheme to replace European whites) and rapacious taxation, rent-seeking and abuse of power.
    I’ve lived in 3 Provinces in my life: B.C, Quebec and Ontario. I have relatives in several provinces and the States.
    If I could leave I would.
    This is one of the richest resource countries on the planet: 300 year supply of Iron Ore, wheat basket, lumber, minerals, oil and natural gas, etc. You would never know it by living here. We are taxed at a combined rate of 48%. Our unemployment rates are still paying at 1980’s levels. Basically, the politicians are hired help for the rent-seekers who own things and don’t want competition. Try coming into Canada as a business. Good luck. It’s a closed shop.
    How do they do it? A combination of coercion and misdirection. Only a moron would believe this country is ‘good’ to live in. However, with a massive, colluding Jew-media spouting cultural marxist nonsense and outright lies, most Canadians in cities (80% of the population) are commuting 3 hours a day and working 45-50 hours to struggle to pay mortgage/rent, etc. Many are too tired to get on the Intenet, share info and see how badly they are getting screwed. A lot are simply complacent and many are downright stupid.
    Believe me, it is a sad site. The inevitable conclusion is that Canadians (I don’t include the interlopers) are a conquered people ruled by a hostile, evil elite.
    Unfortunately, it has been this way since 1763.

  34. If an Alberta separatist movement really got going, the national security bureaucrats in Washington and Ottawa would conclude it was backed by Russia and/or China and crack down on it hard.

    • Replies: @Ilya
    , @Hail
  35. Ilya says:

    Remember when Trudeau pere rolled through Alberta on a train and gave everyone the finger, literally?

    That Canada is a fake and gay country — and the locus of its faggotry is to be found in Ontario — is immediately obvious when you realize that Ontario was populated chiefly by royalist refugees from the US — America’s losers, in other words.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  36. Ilya says:
    @Cagey Beast

    No it wouldn’t. It would receive tacit — if not outright — support from the US, as Alberta’s two trillion barrels of oil would be too much to resist.

  37. jeppo says:

    The Conservatives went from 12 seats in Quebec in 2015 to 10 this election, the only province where they lost seats. And yet this was their only real victory of the night.

    Consider the CPC’s position in Quebec: Their leader was a little-known doofus with only rudimentary French skillz, generally disliked and mistrusted with good reason, and going up against a sitting PM from Quebec, last name Trudeau.

    The Bloc Quebecois was surging in a manner similar to the Orange Wave of 2011, when the NDP won 59 seats. They were smartly running on Francois Legault’s conservative nationalist coattails, and it almost worked.

    And Mad Max was attacking the Tories in the very heartland of Quebec conservatism, the Beauce. The PPC was at one time polling close to 10% in a bunch of other Quebec City-area ridings as well, the highest in the country by far.

    In what should have been a complete wipeout, the Conservatives held on to most of their Quebec City-area fortress, winning most of their seats by wide margins. And so the « mystère Québec » continues. Why is Quebec City so much more conservative than the rest of the province?

    I would argue that Quebec City is now the most ‘conservative’ city in North America, in the nationalist and identitarian sense of the word rather than it’s typical Anglo-American social and economic definition.

    If the CPC had any brains (j/k) they would recruit their next leader from Quebec City, and capture some of the Legault electoral magic floating in the air there. Though in truth ‘Legault-ism’ is merely watered-down Trumpism, scaled down to size and Frenchified. It needs to spread Canada-wide ASAP.

    The man to watch is Gerard Deltell, never mind this claptrap about Peter Mackay and similar cucks. Once the national unity crisis and made-in-Canada recession force the Justin-Jagmeet government to topple, Trumpism will finally come to Canada, via Legault-ism, in the form of Deltell-ism.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  38. Hail says: • Website
    @Cagey Beast

    It seems to me the US would unlikely directly intervene, it being foreign soil.

    This leaves the Canadian military.

    Would Justin Trudeau send in the tanks to crush Edmonton Spring? Would he personally dress up as a soldier and ride around in an open-top tank like US presidential candidate Dukakis famously did in 1988 (to much mockery)?

    • Replies: @Brobert
  39. Hank Yobo says:

    The battle cry of separation within British North America was heard for decades prior to Confederation. This is nothing new and remains the lifeblood of Canadian politics. It began in the late 1780s when the Loyalists settled west of Montreal demanded the division of Quebec into two separate political entities: Upper and Lower Canada. The current sentiment about Western alienation is simply the latest expression of a long-standing tradition within a vibrant democracy; contemporary rumors and prognostications about the Dominion’s imminent demise are greatly exaggerated.

    • Agree: Hail
  40. There’s no reason for Western Canada to stay in the union. They stay because most who live there, are conservative, (and like American Conservative) aren’t very bright and dislike change.

    There would be no reason for “Western Canada” to join the USA, they could easily exist as a separate country with their own Government, army, and flag. If Jamaica and Belize can be Countries there’s no reason Western Canada couldn’t. Sometimes Nationalism makes sense, and sometimes it doesn’t. Certainly, the USA would be better off is California was on its own, and New England was kicked out. With global free trade and nuclear weapons having bundles of various ethnics groups forced into a straight-jacket and ruled by some indifferent elite in some far off “Capitol City” makes little sense in 2019.

    • Replies: @Hail
  41. The conservatives are worthless cucks – it’d be better if Quebec was independent. They can save themselves, while Anglo canada turns chinese and Muslim.

  42. Hail says: • Website

    There would be no reason for “Western Canada” to join the USA, they could easily exist as a separate country with their own Government, army, and flag. If Jamaica and Belize can be Countries there’s no reason Western Canada couldn’t.

    The obvious difference, at a glance, is Belize and Jamaica have access to the sea.

    No fun being landlocked by a larger, hostile state. If Ottawa squeezes Alberta today, what would it do in the event of a successful independence movement?

    Alternatively, “Alberta+Saskatchewan+BC minus Greater Chinese-Vancouver.” If so, Greater Vancouver would be an Ottawa-regime exclave.

    • Replies: @jeppo
  43. Hank Yobo says:

    Yup, “America’s losers” created one of the best nations to live in. Rhodes might well have said, “To be born Canadian is to win the lottery of life.”

  44. Brobert says:

    Canada is going through the Trudeau experience all over again so declaring martial law in a province and sending the tanks would be in character.

  45. Hail says: • Website

    Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe in implied ultimatum to Ottawa:

    First step towards separation?


    Scott Moe
    – born July 1973 to a family of several generations’ nativity in Saskatchewan (grandmother born in the province in 1923; surnames of grandparents are: Moe, ___, Sterling, Goudal); at least some Lutheran church affiliation in family (judging by the fact that his grandmother’s funeral was held at one), and Moe is a Norwegian surname;
    1970s and 1980s: raised in rural Saskatchewan; father a farmer and a longtime member of the Shellbrook, Saskatchewan, Town Council (until 2012);
    – marr. in the mid 1990s to Krista Thiel of Saskatchewan (his wife’s maternal grandparents reportedly from the UK [surname: Martin]), two children;
    – from Nov. 2011: Member of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly;
    – from Feb. 2018: Saskatchewan Premier, after election to head the Saskatchewan Party.

    This “Saskatchewan Party” looks something like the Parti Quebecois — Hegemonic in provincial politics as of the 2010s. Its hegemony dates to the mid 2000s, when it won nearly two-thirds of the provincial legislature’s seats in 2007, and has been even more dominant ever since: It controls 85% of the seats from 2011 to present.

    Scott Moe and family:

  46. jeppo says:

    >> Alternatively, “Alberta+Saskatchewan+BC minus Greater Chinese-Vancouver.” If so, Greater Vancouver would be an Ottawa-regime exclave. <<

    Alberta could go it alone if they could get a fair deal on exporting energy from a (presumably) friendly US administration, i.e. if Trump is reelected. Quebec, in its own interests, would ensure that Alberta got a fair deal negotiating independence with Ottawa.

    Alberta would have to go it alone at first, there's no other realistic way forward. Western Canada as a whole is far too politically divided to organize itself into a single, independent nation.

    But if Alberta leaves Canada, Sasakatchewan will quickly follow, probably joining Alberta as a single country rather than declaring independence on its own. And if Ssakatchewan goes Manitoba will surely follow, as by then there will be no effective "Canada" left to belong to.

    Under this scenario, British Columbia would be forced into independence even against its will. The question there would be partition, with the thinly-populated and conservative Interior wanting to join "Greater Alberta" rather than be dominated by the populous and far-left Coast. It would be in the interests of the Yukon and NWT to join Greater Alberta as well.

    Just the serious threat of Alberta separation will relaunch the Quebec sovereigntist movement like never before. Even federalist Quebecers will have no choice but to make plans for a post-Canada future, and the momentum from this realization might lead to a third, this time successful referendum on independence.

    The specter of #Albexit is more likely to lead to #Quebexit than #Wexit. And if Quebec leaves first, that changes the equation entirely. Newfoundland, a formerly independent country, would leave soon after, and geographically isolated NS, NB, and PEI would likely federate and declare independence as The Maritimes.

    With no Canadian Atlantic presence left, the Inuit ethnostate of Nunavut would be forced into independence as well, almost certainly as a heavily subsidized quasi-protectorate of the US. Trump couldn't buy Greenland, but he or one of his successors will probably "buy" Nunavut.

    The rest of the country, from Ontario to BC and including Yukon and NWT, might just hang together if Ontario makes the necessary concessions to the West to remain united. Thus a diminished "Canada" will survive, smaller and less populous but richer and more united, with the same flag, national anthem, capital city and so forth.

    tl;dr – If Alberta leaves first Canada will probably split up into 7 independent nations:

    1. Coastal BC
    2. Greater Alberta/Western Canada (with Alta, Sask, Man, Yukon, NWT and Interior BC)
    3. Nunavut
    4. Ontario
    5. Quebec
    6. The Maritimes
    7. Newfoundland

    If Quebec leaves first a truncated Canada will probably survive and 4 new nations will emerge:

    1. Nunavut
    2. Quebec
    3. The Maritimes
    4. Newfoundland

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Hail
  47. @jeppo

    I would argue that Quebec City is now the most ‘conservative’ city in North America, in the nationalist and identitarian sense of the word rather than it’s typical Anglo-American social and economic definition.


  48. Hail says: • Website

    Thank you, Jeppo, for this thoughtful comment.

    I’d add another possible chain reaction to any kind of major political rearrangement of Canada, and which is the reason I have special interest in this question (as I am not Canadian and have spent little time there — nought but brief visits):

    Any successful independence movement in Canada would also turbocharge similar movements in the USA. Or so it seems to me.

    • Replies: @jeppo
  49. Hail says: • Website

    With no Canadian Atlantic presence left, the Inuit ethnostate of Nunavut would be forced into independence as well, almost certainly as a heavily subsidized quasi-protectorate of the US. Trump couldn’t buy Greenland, but he or one of his successors will probably “buy” Nunavut.

    This seems a reasonable scenario.

    About the mid-2000s, there was a flareup of a territorial dispute in the northern fringe of Nunavut between Canada and Denmark (via Greenland). So there are scenarios whereby the EU also ends up staking a claim. Depending entirely on the status at the time of the EU project whenever this Canadian Dissolution happens. (Kevin Michael Grace says is sure it will occur in the 2020s.)

    Russia is another obvious contender to stake a claim.

    These are both lower probability scenarios than the “US protectorate,” but that assumes the US is willing and able to do so.


    Wiki has Nunavut with a land area of 1,877,787 sq. km. (approximately as large as California, Oregon, Washington state, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Idaho all combined) (granted, most land unusable, I presume, but going to slowly get more usable this century with global warming).

    In that vast expanse, 30,000 or just above Inuits and 6,000 others; of the Inuit, 22,000 [70%+] are Inuit native speaker, 5,000 [<20%] are English-first and capable Inuit-second speakers, and as many as 3,000 [<10%] are English-only, not functional in any Inuit language.

    Census Canada has Inuits as up to 4-to-1 Protestant:Catholic, FWIW.

    Human capital may not be great, as some wiki editor (troll?) includes the following tidbit: "[T]he overwhelming majority (90%) of pregnant women [in Nunavut] are smokers."

    In the Oct. 2019 election, Nunavut split its vote 41-31-26 NDP-Liberal-Conservative, and elected Mumilaaq Qaqqaq (female, born 1994) of the New Democratic Party.

    Photos of Nunavut’s new representative in the Canadian Parliament:

    (At 25, she appears to have on a wedding ring, at which age a similar, upwardly-aspirant White Westerner today never would.)

    • Replies: @Gabru_Ak47
  50. @Hail

    Sad that most Inuit are christcucks they will invite Africans soon enough.
    Africans are the most fashionable item in the christian world.

    • Disagree: Hail
  51. jeppo says:

    Thanks Hail. I agree that ‘independence fever’ will spread from Canada to the US, especially to Hawaii and Alaska, the geographic anomalies (freak states). Last in, first out. The Lower 48 will be a tougher nut to crack though.

    The Canadian government enshrines the holy doctrine of Multiculturalism in its constitution, yet divided the NWT along strict ethnic lines to create the Nunavut ethnostate. The age-old Indian-Eskimo divide roughly follows the treeline from Hudson Bay northwest to the Arctic Ocean, so that’s where the border was drawn. It was like a crime against diversity, which everywhere else is apparently a strength.

    The big winner in the dissolution of Canada, at least initially, will of course be the US. Any province or group of provinces that secede will find themselves increasingly under an American regulatory framework, with the rules made in DC and imposed on these new economic satrapies. It will be like exchanging direct, representative rule by Ottawa for indirect, unrepresentative rule by Washington.

    As bad as that sounds it’s actually an improvement compared to the current situation, at least for Alberta and Saskatchewan. A lot, maybe everything rides on Trump’s reelection. Any other president would strongly dissuade any neighboring secession movement and come out for a united Canada, but Trump would rightly see big advantages for the US in an independent Alberta totally reliant on the US market to export its oil.

    Alberta has the world’s third largest oil reserves, after Venezuela and Saudi, so gaining indirect control of these reserves would allow the US to dominate world energy markets the way Saudi Arabia did 30-40 years ago. I don’t know if Trump has ever heard of Alberta separatism, but if he ever sent a supportive tweet out it might just put the movement over the top in any coming independence referendum.

    • Replies: @Hail
  52. Pericles says:

    … allow them to dominate our politics to the extent that Canadian politicians of all parties now routinely campaign for votes in India and Sikhs largely determine our party-leadership campaigns

    That’s one hell of a statement. We’re not that far gone in Sweden yet. Not even Sweden, lads. Think about that for a second. You better hurry up and sort this one out. Best of luck.

    • Replies: @Gabru_Ak47
  53. @Pericles

    You have brutal muslim gang rapes while muslim areas in the GTA have enough Sikh patrolling them to keep the muslims at bay.

    What’s even the point of white leadership if it leads to transgender sharia law??

    You need to wake up.

  54. Your own fucking parents & grandparents voted for mass immigration, and now you’re complaining that ethnic minorities actually take advantage of the opportunities afforded.

    They’re not illegally colonizing and enslaving others like you lot did, you’re just angry at someone else’s success. :shrug:

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  55. @UncommonGround

    You should forget the question of “carbon” and let other people who are well informed take care of it, like Greta.

    Troll is far too kind a term for an ignorant moron like you. The idea that a half-educated Swedish schoolgirl has any real understanding about the science involved is ridiculous in the extreme.


    Kind of fucked,

    Speaks to conservacucks everywhere really, christcucks also.

    A religious change is needed, but is unlikely.

    Sad that a diet of soy and banning of guns is inevitable.

    TLDR Loyal base but everyone else is strictly against them. Meaning, they can’t ever win.

    The old Progressive Conservative is dead I guess, died in 2011. No Centre Left/Right 2 party Swing.


    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  57. Hail says: • Website

    What do you see as some trigger scenarios in Alberta?

    You mention a Trump tweet, for example, which IMO could be really playing with fire if not done right.

    • Replies: @jeppo
  58. …to replace the Union Jack as Canada’s flag with the current Maple Leaf design…

    Technically, the traditional banner of Canadian nationhood is the Canadian Red Ensign (rather than the Union Jack…although the latter does appear within the former).

  59. Hail says: • Website

    Any polling on western Canada separatism since the election?

    I find a poll conducted Oct. 4 to 7, 2019, of 1,236 Albertans, as follows —
    (as published in the Calgary Herald, Oct. 18, just ahead of the federal election)


    Pro-Separatists: 23%
    – 23% say they would vote YES on secession today;

    On the fence, leaning towards pro-separatism: 52%
    – 47% say they DO “empathize with separatist sentiment” but would either vote NO on secession or are Undecided;
    – Around 5% don’t necessarily sympathize with separatism but are Undecided on how they would vote on secession

    Anti-Separatists: 25%
    – Around 25% do NOT empathize with separatism and would vote NO on secession


    So if looked at in this way (and the above is presented somewhat differently than the Calgary Herald writer presents it), this is a classic 25-50-25 split that could go either way in the 2020s or 2030s, depending on political conditions, external conditions, luck, and/or leadership (depending on your view of history). The separatist 25% core has the advantage of the middle being favorably inclined to it; the anti-separatist 25% core has the advantage of representing the status quo.

    Also interesting to know would be who constitutes the separatist 25%, what sort of person, and who the anti-separatist 25% — because it’s going to be the activist wings thereof that will compete to draw in the middle 50%, when the time comes.

    Specifically, what % of the committed anti-separatists have no roots in western Canada?

    who constitutes the separatist 25% and who the anti-separatist 25%

    I presume this is a poll of all adults in Alberta. If excluding recent immigrants from the poll (30% of Alberta resident population per wiki, but nearly all of whom I presume are either in greater Edmonton or greater Calgary), how much would the 25-50-25 balance change?

    And what of the 6.5% with (at least some significant degree of) Amerind ancestry/self-identification (First Nations+Metis)?

  60. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    North America will be massively realigned in the next 30 to 60 years. The present Continental US will be broken in at least four pieces, with some likely incorporating parts of present day Mexico and Canada and maybe even some border areas adjoining eastern Canada becoming part of that nominal nation.

    The United States is utterly bankrupt and relies on its ten nuclear carriers and huge nuclear arsenal and its special warfare components to keep the world in a state of fiat economic acceptance. It won’t hold once diversity and decay have destabilized its ability to credibly project national will.

    Harold Covington got some things right. Where he went wrong is that he thought a small elite revolutionary force would be the cause of a piece of it breaking ff, when in reality it’s only going to be its own internal decay that can break it up. However, a well prepared group can get it to break the way they want it and achieve certain goals needed for nationbuilding.

  61. @RadicalCenter

    Yes, it has paid out more in equalization for many years. That is what equalization is all about. Those above the average pay to support national programmes.
    However, Alberta is virtually the only province that has benefited from the FTA and NAFTA. There were more than 100k jobs lost in Ontario and Quebec manufacturing, plus the spin-off jobs. Alberta was more than happy to send oil and gas south, thumbing the collective noses at the rest of the country.
    At one time, there were politicians in Alberta that saw the big picture. The successors have squandered the province’s wealth through collecting ridiculously low royalties, and through their pricing, are in effect, subsidizing the oil exported to the US.
    Ottawa itself isn’t the problem. The problem is, those who own the political parties. It’s no different than the US or UK, elections are held to make you think you have a choice.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  62. @Gabru_Ak47

    The old Progressive Conservative is dead I guess, died in 2011. No Centre Left/Right 2 party Swing.

    The federal PC’s officially died in 2003. Provincially, in many provinces it became occupied by extremists starting in the mid 80s. My late uncle, who was involved in the party for many, many years, told me in the mid 80s that the Premier or his province, where they had governed for 40 years at the time, was the most hated man in the party among the “young” PCs.
    As I have posted before, the party had a history of understanding good public p0licy and was pragmatic. It very much followed the “peace, order, and good government” mandated by our original constitution, and for that matter, so did the Liberals to a great extent.
    That seemed to change when Trudeau v1.0 “gifted” (a much a gift as a dose of clap) us our Charter of Rights in 1981. As bad as Trudeau v1.0 was, he is considered a “good” Prime Minister. That is only because the ones who have followed have been so much worse.

  63. @Gabru_Ak74

    Your own fucking parents & grandparents voted for mass immigration,

    Prior to 1989, no one ever voted for mass immigration. It was the PC government, under Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall, and supported by Prime Minister “Lyin” Brian Mulroney, who dreamed up targeted immigration numbers from the 3rd world. Since 1989, the only people voting for mass immigration are the “new” Canadians who were the mass immigrants. Poll after poll for at least the last 50 years has shown that the majority of Canadians are opposed to high levels of immigration, irrespective of its source.
    This is the first election that new political party(s) made an issue of it. They stood no chance, the media has never allowed a debate on the matter, and demonizes anyone who speaks out.

    Like the tribe, the “new” hyphenized Canadians have infiltrated all of the political parties to push their agenda.

    • Replies: @Brown Boiii
  64. jeppo says:

    Alberta separatism, more than anything, needs a leader. I think former Quebec separatist leader Rene Levesque is a role model for the type of leader that has to emerge if the movement is to get serious. He was originally a television presenter and then leading Liberal politician who gradually became a separatist and founded the Parti Quebecois in 1968.

    Before then the Quebec separatist movement was a mess. There were 2 competing separatist parties, one of them hardline communists, with little support and no seats in the legislature. The terrorist FLQ was planting hundreds of bombs in Montreal and elsewhere and the body count was rising, disgracing the separatist movement as a whole.

    “Intellectuals” of all stripes were promoting vastly different visions of an independent Quebec, sometimes including French-speaking parts of New Brunswick and Ontario. Even though separatism had become generally popular in Quebec the movement was so hopelessly divided and riven by infighting that is was going nowhere fast.

    Levesque was by this time a well-known and well respected public figure. When he founded the PQ he absorbed the more moderate separatist party and kicked out the communists and terrorists and their sympathizers. He declared that it would be a social democratic party, because he, Levesque, was a social democrat. And he disavowed any claims on French-speaking territory outside of Quebec.

    He said he would win a provincial election first and hold an independence referendum second, which was actually a novel idea at the time. He said he wanted “sovereignty-association” with Canada, another novel concept, rather than a total break. And the entire movement miraculously fell into line behind him. He won a majority government only 8 years after founding the PQ, and held — and lost — a referendum 4 years after that.

    If a charismatic leader with the intellectual and moral heft of Levesque emerges in Alberta, then it’s all over for Canada. Levesque lost in the end but he was playing with a weak hand. Quebec was and is heavily dependent on massive subsidies from the rest of Canada. Alberta is the exact opposite case: they pay through the nose for the “privilege” of remaining Canadian.

    If such a leader emerges and unites the very divided Alberta separatist movement, and if fair access to US oil markets can be guaranteed (2 very big ifs), then the financial incentives for Alberta separation (as opposed to remaining in Canada) will become so great that even some pro-Canadians will reluctantly vote ‘Yes’ in an independence referendum.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @RadicalCenter
  65. Hail says: • Website

    Good commentary again, which led me to look into the current Premier of Alberta, in search of any signs he could do what you describe. The ‘Too Long, Won’t Read’ version here is: Probably Not.

    The current Alberta Premier is Jason Kenney, who has in fact done one of the things you describe (found a new politicla party under his leadership). Following a profile on Kenney are some thoughts political party he leads, the United Conservative Party.


    Jason Kenney
    – never married;
    – career political activist, elected MP in the Canadian Parliament, 1997-2016
    – Premier of Alberta, 2019-

    Life Timeline for Jason Kenney

    1970s and 1980s: Attends Catholic schools in Saskatchewan (grad. 1986);
    1986 to 1988: Attends the University of San Francisco [California], majoring in Philiosophy, where he emerges as right-wing, anti-abortion activist; his activism leads to a falling out with college administration, and Kenney leaves the college after several academic semesters and never graduates (no degree);
    – Back in western Canada by late 1988 and 1989 and involved in local politics;
    1990: Appointed head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a private advocacy group that pushes lower taxes, balanced budgets, etc.; apparently holds this position to 1997, when he was elected to the Canadian Parliament from a district in Calgary, Alberta;
    June 1997 to Sept. 2016: Member of the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa;
    2008 to 2015: Serves in several federal-level ministerial roles during Prime Minister Steven Harper’s 2006-to-2015 tenure;
    July 2016: Despite being reelected to Ottawa in the Oct. 2015 federal elections (but now in opposition with the rise of the Justin Trudeau government), Kenney announces his resignation from his parliament seat, to focus on Alberta politics and reorganizing the center-right in Alberta; Alberta’s right-wing majority had split its vote in the 2015 Alberta election and the New Democratic Party took the majority of seats;
    mid 2016 to mid late 2017: Instrumental in organizing a new, province-wide right-wing umbrella party in Alberta, the United Conservative Party; Kenney is elected to head this party in Oct. 2017;
    April 2019: Alberta provincial election; Kenney’s United Conservative Party takes nearly three-quarters of the seats and Kenney is in as Premier (term lasts through spring 2023, or earlier if government breaks apart).


    I see a few things in Kenney’s background that suggest he could be sympathetic to Alberta separatism, likely moreso in his younger years; as of today, he would likely be in the middle 50% in the 25-50-25 split in Alberta (pro-independence; sympathetic to separatism but not necessarily willing to pull trigger on independence; anti-independence).

    On the other hand, Kenney is also a career politician, and a successful one, and owes what he has to the system as it is.


    Q. Could Alberta’s United Conservative Party, as it currently exists, be the agent that sets off the independence movement?

    I don’t know, and would defer to those who know more about this than I do to make comment. I would suggest clues might be found on the margins, here, and perhaps something can be gained from looking into who the other leaders of the party are, all of whom whom Kenney will have had either direct or strong indirect influence in getting appointed/elected… (see following comment)…

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @jeppo
  66. Hail says: • Website

    perhaps something can be gained from looking into who the other leaders of the party are, all of whom Kenney will have had either direct or strong indirect influence in getting appointed/elected

    Here is who Premier Kenney chose to be number-two in Alberta’s new United Conservative party:


    Leela Aheer
    b.1970; born in Edmonton to (presumably-then-recently-arrived) parents from India;
    – Is a Hindu (per wiki); husband is possibly a Sikh if going by his name (Malkeet);
    – Resident of Greater Calgary, ca.1978 to present;
    Mid 1990s: Two sons born (Akesh and Sehran)
    Late 1990s to 2010s: Owned and/or managed a series of businesses in Calgary area, including a real estate agency (as CEO), a carwash (as joint owner), a convenience store (as Vice President), and a music studio (as Owner/Operator);
    May 2015: First elected to the Alberta Parliament, from a district on the margins of the Calgary metro area; elected as a member of the Wildrose Party, a predecessor of the United Conservative Party;
    Oct. 2017: Appointed Deputy Leader of the new United Conservative Party by party leader Jason Kenney;
    April 2019: United Conservative Party wins the Alberta election; Leela Aheer is appointed Alberta Minister of Culture, Multiculturalism & Status of Women, by then-newly-elected premier Jason Kenney.


    Q. Why did Jason Kenney appoint Leela Aheer to be Deputy Leader of his party that is so hegemonic in Alberta (in the near term; took 63 of 87 seats in April 2019).

    Q. Why is there a cabinet position called the “Minister of Culture, Multiculturalism & Status of Women”?


    Another high-ranking figure in the United Conservative Party is Erika Barootes, President and Party Spokesperson.

    Erika Barootes (Twitter)
    – born ca. 1986 to family with roots in western Canada since at least the 1950s (when her grandfather, a doctor, relocated to Regina to practice medicine);
    Late 2000s: active in the Conservative Club at the University of Calgary;
    2009: Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Political Science, University of Calgary;
    2010 to 2014: minor positions in the Government of Alberta, rising, by 2014, to a managerial position in the Office of the Premier’s Communications department;
    Mid 2014 to 2018: Career in business;
    May 2018: Elected President of the still-new United Conservative Party
    July 2019: Co-founds (?) a public relations firm called “Western Canada;” is listed as this PR firm’s Vice President as of this writing.

    Erika Barootes’ Twitter timeline is mainly full of her day-to-day political activities and occasionally typical social-media fare. No mention or indication she is married or otherwise in a long-term relationship, no indication of children.

  67. jeppo says:

    That’s an excellent analysis of Kenney. He’s recently made it clear that he never has been or will be an Alberta separatist, which is too bad because he’s exactly the unifying, Levesque-like leader the movement needs.

    I can only add a couple asides: Kenney is a devoted Catholic, which might be the most salient point about him. Not only is he never married, as you pointed out, but he’s plausibly rumored to be a virgin. Pre-marital sex is still a no-no for serious Catholics. He’s also fully bilingual, which puts him on the short list for possible Anglo prime ministers.

    I would estimate that 85% of Catholics and 95% of bilingual people in the country live in Eastern Canada. Kenney’s profile is more typically Eastern than Western, which makes sense since he’s originally from Oakville, a suburb of Toronto. At heart he’s more of a pan-Canadian than he is an Albertan.

    One possible scenario is Kenney taking over the leadership of the federal Conservatives, say 5 years from now, and running in the following election on a platform of equalization reform, no carbon tax, and pipelines pipelines pipelines. He goes all in and if he fails the country falls apart, but don’t bet on him failing.

  68. @Curmudgeon

    Well yeah, I have to admit, Canadians would be within their rights to give Canadian businesses first dibs on oil, gas, and minerals that are extracted / drilled in Canada, and it seems prudent as a matter of both broader prosperity and resource security.

    The parties can’t agree to build whatever pipelines the Albertans want, in return for a much higher federal extraction tax or something? Yeah, this sounds like our parties.

    Canada is a wonderful place. I was on the verge of applying for permanent residency there to be with my crazy ex 😉 and got to know the place and people better during those years. Good luck —

  69. @jeppo

    As you know, several million bilingual people live in BC and Alberta, some even in Manitoba now.

    They are most often CHINESE (English/Mandarin or Cantonese), FILIPINO (English/Tagalog and sometimes also Visayan), and INDIAN (English/Hindi plus a regional language such as Punjabi or Tamil or Telegu), probably in that order. Some number of Ukrainian and Russian speakers in Saskatchewan especially, as well, I believe.

    Of Canadians who are fluent in English and French only, the great majority live in Quebec or Ottawa / eastern Ontario.

  70. @jeppo

    A fifty-year—old virgin with no wife and no children who follows a church heavily dominated by active homosexual “clergy.” Yeah that’s someone who can cut a manly and inspiring leadership figure.

  71. @jeppo

    Appreciate your analysis and that of the other canucks here. Come on Alberta separatists, DROP THE PUCK ALREADY.

  72. @Curmudgeon

    In the early 1990s, Stephen Harper and the Reform Party were leading the charge in a campaign against a young RCMP officer who wanted to wear his turban while in uniform. Mr. Harper used inflamed rhetoric and encouraged the impression that part of Canada was being lost by changing a national symbol. At the time the Reform Party called it a “needless concession to a Canadian minority.” In my view, they seemed intent to sow an “us” versus “them” mentality.

    I didn’t know this, so w/e full steam ahead on Liberal train..

    Idc if white racist oppose us there are solutions for that. 🙂

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Michael Grace Comments via RSS
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings