I have a challenge for you: instead of being all gloomy and playing war games (repeat after me: USA will not invade Canada, not this year, not next, not ever. Why? Because they don’t need to, as we are doing a pretty good job of ripping ourselves apart. All they need to do is buy a lot of popcorn, sit comfortably, and watch the show, then come over and collect the pieces), what about a positive message, addressed to a white young man who is, after all, the guy that would actually fight against a hypothetical invasion (that won't happen). This young man has a couple of questions for you: what would he be fighting for? And why should he care?
Before you dismiss him, put on his shoes. After all, he has been raised by our society to believe these premises:
* The nation he would be asked to be fighting for is not actually a nation, but a club of people with shared values (or whatever “post national” is supposed to mean).
* Even if he is somehow assured that this is indeed a nation, it is not really his because it is “built on stolen land”. This one is particularly hurtful, as it is a mantra following him everywhere: every school event, every extra academic event, every theatre play or museum he goes to, he is reminded on an almost daily basis of this major fault, and expected to feel bad about it.
* He shall be ashamed forever of being what he is, of the physical characteristics he cannot control. Not only that, but he shall also expect, and accept, being denied of every good opportunity to grow personally or professionally because literally every other group has priority over the one he belongs to. There are plenty of statistics confirming this fact.
* Even as he manages to go through all obstacles and become a productive member of the society, he has no hope of ever being able to buy a house and raise a family. At best, he will be able to rent and have a few luxuries; at worst, he will live with his parents until they (or he) die. Individual situations vary a lot and there are many workarounds if you are willing to move out of the big cities, but the fact is that a majority of people 25 and younger (I don’t remember the exact figure, but it is close to 60% per a poll published this week) feel that way, and as a society we are doing nothing to make them think otherwise. Moreover, we, the "elbows up" generation, are responsible for that, as we have spent what we inherited from our parents and what we generated (which was a lot), and on top of that, we have borrowed enough for his generation, and his children generation (if he has them) to be paying forever after.
* And if he lives in BC (coming soon to the rest of Canada, I would bet on it) and manages to buy a house, he must live with the thought that he is occupying that home only because he has the permission of whichever band that used to fish in that area hundreds of years ago, and that such permission may be revoked at any time, leaving him having no recourse about it.
And that’s all at the macro level. At the individual level, he has been raised to believe that:
* Any typical masculine behavior (which is what he will really, really need, to fight in a war) is “toxic”.
* Speech is violence. Being active and curious is a disease requiring medication. He must lower his head and be silent and obedient no matter what.
* He cannot/shall not resolve any issues on his own. He must always go to an authority (which he must blindly trust at all times) to resolve it for him.
* Effort is not rewarded, and failure doesn’t exist. All he needs to do is to show up to get a prize of no real value.
* To have struggles and obstacles requiring effort to overcome (another treat that anyone being in a war situation needs in spades) is completely unnecessary. Far easier and better to play the victim card, to declare that he is in the wrong body, or perhaps to numb himself with free drugs (that the government happily provides) until becoming a zombie, or to simply get a free injection to cut his life short and stop being a problem.
I could go on and on, but the point is that, quite understandably, this typical kid has no reason or motivation whatsoever to fight for this country. These are the real and important problems that this kid has, not the politics circus (much less a hypothetical invasion), yet the later is what guides the society actions while he keeps being left behind. The same poll I mentioned before shows a brutal difference in voting intention and priorities between the young generation and the “elbows up” generation (to which I belong), so on top of all the eternal fighting among provinces, Canada is also fractured demographically. That is really bad, extremely serious. And it is far more important to mend that fracture than preparing for the monster to come out of the closet (which it won’t). But the worst is that nothing will be done about this unless there is a real change of the people in charge. Justin Trudeau is not the problem, the system that he represents is, and that is still intact (heck, it is actually the same people except him).
What would you tell him as motivating speech to give his life for a nation that doesn’t really want him to exist? What good reason will you give him to take the biggest risk a human being can ever take for a society that cannot/will not reward him? From his point of view, what defines a Canadian: that we are not American? That we have free healthcare? That we are polite unlike the “bad” Americans? Sorry guys, but you will need to come up with something much better and powerful than that.
Here is your challenge. I hope you take it.
PS: since I am positive that you will come up with a great response that is capable of lifting the patriotism of this kid to the maximum (you have more than enough talent to achieve that, I have no doubts), the second (and really important) part of the challenge is to put together a program that teaches our kids to be proud of their country and, hopefully, corrects all the issues above mentioned, then present it to the teachers and school boards where your kids study. I would buy you drinks just to hear how such meetings go, and I would upgrade to founder for many years (say at least 10) if you were successful in having it implemented.
Thank you for writing such a substantial comment. It is worth a bottle of 22 years old Scotch. I would absolutely not fight for this diseased mangy version of Canada, and said so to someone a few years ago.
Matt and Jen are very carelessly ignoring the degree to which Canada is ........ thoroughly fucked up ........ by, among others the self-dealing "Liberal" GlobaEuro Mark Carney, who is here only to fleece to the Canadian tax base, including you and me and Matt and Jen.
Objectively, "a white young man who is, after all, the guy that would actually fight against a hypothetical invasion" would be better off opportunity-wise, economically and romantically, if he were to move to the US and join the MAGA crowd. As for those who remain, elbows will be no match for ICE agents, let alone the US Army.
There isn't a single measure to support that. Ever since the oughts, upward mobility in the US has vanished. Now, with their increasingly desperate financial situation, things will get a lot wore. Move there, and be a slave to the service industry and your health care premiums.
A young person could always join their military industrial complex (as the increasingly desperate do), travel the world, see interesting places, shoot the locals and take their stuff...
Taking private or public property is considered looting, which is a war crime.
Technically, military property may be retained with permission from your CO, but there's legal paperwork involved (in duplicate, with approvals up the chain of command) and that was completely prohibited in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I feel like this argument is being made from a position that’s too “present-coded” FWIW. The culture wars and ridiculousness that propound in the present would shift significantly in a world where what we described would occur.
For 1) Canada’s housing costs are high because so many people want to live here and invest here relative to supply and that would be degraded significantly in the event of an American invasion (why would you invest or move to a country under assault?)
2) As Matt noted, occupation is one of the worst things to manage for a nation. Even if they did the easiest thing possible of putting a puppet, everyone would know the puppet has no real legitimacy. Anything the puppet or the occupation force does wrong will be used to delegitimize them and that creates a strong incentive for any opposition to claim that they’ll restore the old order
3) The “old order” is a flexible construct, any opposition can more or less remake it as they wish. You can say all sorts of things while also saying you’re just restoring what was. So any Canada that would arise in the aftermath of this kerfuffle doesn’t have to look anything like the Canada we know.
This isn’t to say that your points aren’t valid. I’m just saying that the bar is pretty low for an opposition to develop to any occupation. Occupations of nations are inherently stupid in modernity and require careful management of the public which I don’t trust the Americans to do.
Pretty good. I just want to briefly note that this "Liberal" Mark Carney government can easily be called not legitimate. Remember how Carney was mysteriously inserted into the lineup and mysteriously "won" the "Liberal" leadership. And then the pathetic 2025 purple cloud of chicken wing bullshit election.
So we can easily say that Canada is occupied by wokey hard leftists under the "Liberal" Mark Carney government.
To those who disagree, just imagine when its your kid or neighbours kid that gets run over by a US Bradley or shot at a checkpoint for no nefarious reason. That is how the insurgency really starts. And while many dislike Carney and Ottawa, engage in 'wokeism', etc, that anger would rapidly change focus when your or your neighbours' kids, wives, parents, pets, etc start dying due to dumb ass US army or marine soldiers f$%^ing it up on the ground, which they will absolutely do.
As well, the US military is designed to operate between 40N and 40S - snow and ice is not their forte in general. Yes they have some troops in the northern states, but even their effectiveness in a Canadian winter season near the border (6 mos a yr) is much diminished, let alone where many of our resources (the real prize) are in northern stretches of the provinces.
Every war/conflict between Canada and the US in history (1770s, 1812) were 'won' by the Brits/Canadians because the Americans got beat more by the weather than the conflict. Same story today.
Glen, just why the hell do all of these folks - including G & G - seem to think that the US will invade us? Quite frankly, they just don't need to; they can simply crash the Canadian economy by stopping trade with us and getting what they need elsewhere. A massive pain in the ass for them but quite doable. We, on the other hand, will accept pretty much any conditions to start trading again.
As for the War of 1812, etc., okay, that was then and that is all I have to say on that.
Just to be clear: every country should be always prepared for the possibility of an invasion, whether by Americans, Russians, Chinese, aliens from another galaxy or whatnot. On that particular, I agree 100% with Matt, who to his credit has been hammering that point since I started reading him in print, probably a decade ago.
The other aspect of it (which is what I wanted to focus on) is that you fight to defend your property, sure, but you also fight to defend your political and economic systems, as well as your culture and, in that regard, there is not much to offer to the young generation as a whole (the hostility to young white men in particular is the cherry on the top).
When I say that there won't be an invasion, the point I am trying to make is that we are taking what is political posturing in both sides (Carney to excite his voters for a spring election where he will try one more time to finally get a majority; Trump because he is a troll and his base likes it) and make a catastrophic scenario out of it, and even worse, presenting it like it is something imminent, which is definitively not. As I tried to say in my long and hypothetical post, there are far more important things to address and that, I am afraid, will be thrown under the bus (they already are) because it is politically convenient to the liberals.
I judge politicians for what they do, not for what they say. What I see is a government that it is acting without any sense of urgency, that is trying to take total control over the economy, and that is placing its priorities in a package of laws that are more about killing free speech than about reactivating the economy. After all, the situation is not really different today than what it was last April to believe that now is that they are discovering the warm water. We'll see if that changes now, but I doubt it.
Don’t think I’d call this a victory lap, preaching to the choir while achieving nothing of substance is a very small win for his ego, but could prove to be disasterous to our export based economy.
He promised a deal with Trump by July
He promised to remove interprovincial trade barriers
He promised to build fast than ever before (but that infront of a Potemkin village)
He he DID NOT promise to cozy up to China
He’s been an epic fail at home, no wonder he needed this ego boost.
Carney is the avatar of the domestic and international elites, connected personally to many people with vast power and money, and boosted by every mainstream newsroom that isn't explicitly right of centre. He doesn't have to actually accomplish anything. Of course he gets hyperbolic accolades for a reasonably well-delivered speech that said almost nothing and contained a lot of nonsense.
I tend to agree. And while not wanting to be churlish, him seemingly positioning Canada as some sort of world leader is kinda’ cringeworthy. The Davos speech was an adult’s version of Junior’s hilarious proclamation that Canada is back. It came across to me like a Philosophy Professor pontificating about the world’s problems while doing nothing about the fact his own family is living in a house as unfit for human habitat as 24 Sussex Drive.
Yes, the content of his speech, stripped of any of that context was largely fine, even good in places (particularly when he was stating things Matt first said a long time ago). And with respect to delivery/style, the gravitas was there and the contrast to his predecessor could not be greater which is terrific. But I’d be much more impressed by him actually doing something to fix Canada than by him making speeches that draw the adulation of people around the world. It is nine months since he was elected, nothing tangible has happened under his watch and there is no indication that anything tangible is about to happen.
I could hear almost the exact same speech being given by Justin Trudeau, and indeed the same people likely would have written it. The delivery would have been much more cringey of course, with his breathy lispy smug affect.
As you suggested, it was only a great speech if the listener knows nothing about Canada or the background context of any of the things he said. So perfect for an international audience I guess!
Nothing like having a voting base consisting of the most easily manipulated, low-information voters in the country, many with literal senile dementia. Just flip a switch and you can control their exact emotions.
Look forward to a few weeks of frothing anti-Americanism and screaming about how terrible Conservatives and Poilievre are but throwing non-sequitur error messages if you ask them specifically why regarding the latter.
That’s our sad reality … nothing has been accomplished, dispite grandiose statements.
All the flowery talk in the world doesn’t change that simple fact. We are heading into a recession, which has the potential to become a deep depression, and still the world and Liberal voters will cheer this fraud.
To me the speech was a rallying cry for Liberal voters. And it worked. So whenever that election is called, we'll be heading for a few more years of disaster.
The fact that he listed off all the things Canada is "doing", 95% of which consisted in reality of announcements and stretch goals, confirmed that this was an election speech. 'Double our military spending in 10 years'??? 10 years is a long time and besides this government could double the spending without increasing capacity by one rifle.
Carney was all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or worse, bear baiting in the most irresponsible and globalist way possible. Where will all those other middle power countries be, (none of whom have the same relationship and geography with America) when we take the brunt of tariffs and exposing ourselves to China’s power? Carney’s glorified gravitas will lead us to the graveyard of recession.
I was actually thinking of Matt’s columns as I read Carneys speech. Only thing missing was “your expecrafions are a problem” and a Star Trek reference.
I appreciate your gaming out the unlikely scenario that the US will invade Canada. I subscribed because you two looked at things differently when Freeland blew up the Trudeau liberals a lifetime ago.
In the similar vein - What about gaming a different scenario - The one in which the Canadian government has been infiltrated by a foreign entity that is hostile to the US and they know it? Given the news in the past 10 years could support the plausibility of that scenario. (Foreign police stations, foreign interference, allies not inviting Canada to alliances).
I would suggest to you that looking at foreign events and saying ‘what the US is doing doesn’t make sense’ may mean that you just haven’t figured out what they’re doing yet.
I think Jen is right about Europe finally getting it. In Kananaskis Keir Starmer bent the knee in front of Trump (another GOT reference) to pick up fallen documents.
Contrast to today when Keir was finally pushed to call Trump's comments about Allied Nations contributions in Afghanistan "insulting and frankly, appalling".
Naturally Prince Harry, never one to miss an opportunity to pontificate to the masses, chimes in to perform his disgust. Its currently trending at the top of BBC.
The Polish aren't taking Trump's comments well either, and the Polish Nation would give Albertans a run for their money on orneriness.
Enjoyed the first segment thought experiment on a Canadian insurgency to US invasion/takeover.
One thing not discussed: intermarriage (plus expats) and loyalty to country.
There are thousands and thousands of Americans living in Canada as permanent residents, and there are thousands of Canadians living and working in the US. Many many many married to one another with thousands of subsequent children. Many associated with both Canadian and US military branches plus joint enterprises like NORAD and NATO.
I have numerous American family members and friends both close and extended, plus several dual citizen family members and friends who carry both passports and live in both Canada and the US.
If there’s any lesson I learned most clearly during the pandemic, it’s that the government (especially our Liberal government whether old or ”new”) doesn’t care about me or my family on any individual level. There’s zero chance I’d put patriotism and country before my family. I would choose my family first 100% of the time over any “insurgency”. Ask not what your country can do for you, OR what you can do for your country but rather how to ensure your family’s success and survival when great powers, even your country(s), fight amongst themselves.
Agree this whole thing is unbecoming.
Glad you’re back Matt and thinking positive thoughts for your family.
Excellent comment Bree. My brother has lived in the United States for near 20 years. My nieces are American. I work with Americans every day. We have friends that are Americans. The idea that my two sons (M18 &22) would go kill Americans or be killed by Americans is the most absurd thought I’ve ever contemplated.
Exactly. In that respect, it would be akin to the American Civil War - with brother against brother, cousin against cousin. No chance I’d encourage my kids in that endeavour. Not happening, it’s just not an option. Especially since the only demographic here willing to pick up the metaphorical insurgent pitchforks are 60+. No one I know under 60 is even bothering with the “buy Canadian” propaganda program. We’re all too busy and exhausted providing shelter and food for our families in a declining economy with an eroding dollar. Plus I suspect that if the US offered quick citizenship and enfranchisement, more than half of young Canadians would take it in an instant and move to California.
The Angus-Reid poll from 2025 supports your perspective. Only 45% of youngsters would be willing to fight, and that number will drop precipitously once it moves from the abstract.
The idea isn't even an intellectual exercise, but a fantasy for those who cannot accept the sad reality of the post-nation state. But if hissing implied threats floats your boat...
My fav brother and sister in-laws are currently based in Colorado Springs, looks like a nice place for an extended visit (I grew up in the Canadian Rockies).😊
Our eldest teen is currently a Royal Canadian Air Cadet - they’ve been so badly defunded under the Liberals that she couldn’t even get a basic uniform until 4 months in this year (past Remembrance Day), and it’s pretty old (boots falling apart, seams needing repair, etc). She says no one in her troupe likely to join the Canadian military after high school grad. Unfortunate reality.
I know 2 former amerikkans, one from conservative inland CA who moved here because her water was disappearing, who said they'd shoot invaders. Interesting...
From an article by Ian Bradbury published today in Sam Cooper's The Bureau:
"The emergence of a new round of 'elbows up' rhetoric, complete with caricatures of armed seniors from the local curling club ready to head to borders or Greenland in defiance of Trump, illustrates how quickly symbolism can be mistaken for preparedness. What presents as resistance and resolve critically risks becoming a substitute for capability and seriousness."
We need to get serious about defence and sovereignty for many reasons that predate Trump and will persist long after he is gone. Any discussion of Canadian armed insurgency is, I'm sorry, so fanciful that it detracts from that seriousness.
I'd be cool with Alberta separatism if BC, SK, MB, and all of Ontario other than Ottawa (Quebec's problem) and Toronto south of Bloor Street (the People's Republic of Bikelanedia) got to come along.
That is a hard no for much of the territory you mention. Why do you think we want to leave? Parts of BC are very similar to us, but the Lower Mainland and the island? Not a chance. Saskatchewan is very similar to us. Manitoba just isn't a whole lot like us. As for Ontario, there are pockets that are somewhat like us but too much is too damned similar to the GTA; very much including how they vote but, still, they are in pretty much all respect dissimilar to us. Quebec? Surely you joke. And Atlantic Canada - Newfie has some similarities to us but is pretty different as well and then the maritime provinces, again, no.
So, even if you could convince me that actually all were similar and we eliminated the ones you identify that still leave the issue that you would have a larger population and would want to have a dominating position in government so we would end up taken advantage of just one more time.
So, Alberta on it's own; Saskatchewan has it's own separatist movement and I cheer them on. As for the rest of the country? Not my problem; let them speak up for themselves.
Honestly a lot of problems could be solved by just ditching Quebec and Atlantic. The last three elections would be Conservative governments under that calculation, even keeping all of Toronto for its finance sector. No more national bilingualism would open so many more capable people being able to enter the public service and politics.
You just don't get it! I will ignore Lower Canada. If Lower Canada left and all else remained constant you would still have all provinces very much over represented over the Prairies. Further, you would still have MPs paying so damned much attention to the needs and wants of Ontario that they don't adequately pay attention to the real needs here.
If you think back to the Harper years he still had to pay over much attention to Ontario and the Maritimes simply because that is where the seats are.
No, we might share the same language, sans Quebec, but we don't share the same culture or way of living as you folks.
So, it's Alberta and possibly Saskatchewan (depending on what they want) but no one else.
Damn, that's cold. I guess I don't blame you. I'd be furious if I lived in Alberta and seen what happened over the last 10 years. I live in urban Ontario and I'm already furious about it all. The last election here was a sea of red signs in front of $2.5 million houses, put there by scared lobotomites who love seeing their tax money set on fire. It feels hopeless.
Without the West to balance things politically I think there would be a lot of unrest in parts of what remain in Canada should prairie separation become a reality. That's going to be bad.
1) regarding fighting the Americans - you are talking about a population who could not muster the wherewithal nor balls to drag The Idiot King Trudeau out of the office by the scruff of his neck. Not only did he stay and abused the citizenry and the state they pay for as long as he wanted, but on his way out he out of pure malice set Canada's course onto even more serious destruction. You entertain the idea that this type of population will actually fight any kind of real fight with dead and wounded and blood flowing years on end ?????
2) regarding Carney's WEF speech. That was a speech given by a self-dealing snooty arrogant hypocrite filthy rich carpetbagger, supporter of tyrants and terrorists, who is on record lying daily. To him, we ordinary people are nothing but a herd of cattle and sheep to be fleeced and milked for his personal profit and casually lied to.
I threw his WEF speech on the ground and pissed on it. Everything this shyster says and once in a blue moon does brings Canada closer to breakup.
3) regarding Alberta, it is a good thing that almost nobody pays attention to the many long lineups for signing the separation referendum petition. I do not have a periscope into the future, so we will see the result in the fall.
Certainly the Canadian armed forces (and the whole national security ecosystem) should be planning for contingencies, including some involving the U.S., even if we don't know yet exactly how the contingencies might arise politically.
Still, if those of us not focused on purely military matters are thinking about scenarios culturally and politically, full-on sustained U.S. occupation doesn't seem like the most productive place to put our intellectual energy. It would require so much to change in order to happen (especially within U.S. politics and opinion) that you'd almost need to know that wildly different context to have a useful view.
Much, much, MUCH more plausible would be incremental violations of sovereignty like a military incursion into Canada to arrest somebody, U.S. attempts to control shipping in Canadian waters, or that kind of thing. Not that even those are likely, but if we're going to hypothesize, let's put due attention on less flashy but more conceivable situations.
They’re going to come for Alberta. I think we’ll see that rhetoric, already displayed by Bessent, ratcheted up considerably. My pattern recognition aka hunch aka Spidey sense is going off. I hope I’m wrong, because I think we’re in danger of misreading the sentiment in Alberta in the same the majority of MSM and democrats misread the election of Trump 1.0.
I believe Matt and Jenn talked about this several months ago. There is a formula to rip Canada apart and it goes through Alberta. Make us an offer we cannot refuse. Win the propaganda war. This is the Brexit formula it works. It’s happened. Dangerous times.
Actually, Gaz, I think Doomberg is correct in that.
I am an Alberta separatist but it is my understanding of matters that such sentiment in Saskatchewan is at least as prevalent as in Alberta - if not more so.
Rich, I am an Alberta separatist; I am not terribly interested in becoming American.
Now, having said all of that, my suggestion to DJT et al is that once we have the vote and demonstrate that we want out, make us an offer - a damned good offer. It just may be that I will change my mind on American citizenship.
Well, Rich, I suppose that there are many things that, in our current system, are oriented to favoring the center at the expense of the regions, both east and west. In fact, if you look at Confederation it is pretty clear that the original intent was just that, favoring Upper and Lower Canada at the expense (in those days) of the regions to the east. The additions of the western provinces simply meant that east and west are disadvantaged. The difference is that a certain ruling party depends, in part, on seats in the east so that our concerns in the west are largely ignored. That applies to the House but also very much to the Senate. Quite simply, we in Alberta do not have representation in either the House or the Senate appropriate to our proportion of population.
There are many laws and regulations that have been passed, promulgated, etc., etc. that are quite explicitly or are applied in ways to absolutely prevent development of our resources. The current PM has chosen to NOT eliminate, revamp or otherwise ameliorate those things but has left them fully in place. What he has done is to say, "Well, if you kiss my ring and come up with a project that I might like - that also meets my enviro, blah, blah, blah - I MIGHT propose it to be a National Interest Project that MIGHT go forward. All other things must go through the otherwise normal process. Oh, and no guarantees on those things referred as National Interest Projects." The only projects that have been identified as National Interest Projects so far are projects that actually were previously approved so nothing to see here!
Oh, and equalization. We pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 Billion a year MORE than we receive in goods and services from the feds. As a matter of actual fact, no province has really moved the needle on weaning itself off that welfare of our equalization money. Instead, it has become a "right" and any suggestion that something change is viewed with absolute disdain. Just as one f'r instance, Quebec has significant natural gas reserves on Anticosti Island but the government has said clearly and definitively that they will not exploit those reserves. Of course, such exploitation would generate wealth and might make Quebec much less dependent on equalization monies. Instead, Quebec wants our money and calls our oil (the source of that money) "dirty."
There is absolutely no ability to change the Constitution to eliminate inequities. Oh there is a formula but that formula is so difficult that no one seriously considers the possibility.
There are many other things but, really, what is the realistic possibility that anything will change? I am not aware of your age, Rich, but in the 1990s, the Reform Party swept the West and after the 1997 federal election was the Official Opposition. The slogan of the Party was, "The West Wants In" indicating that we wanted changes so that our concerns might, just might, just possibly would be addressed. Of course, the center sneered at Reform as rubes and unsophisticated and was totally unwilling to discuss the issues Reform tried to raise. My point is that we talked and talked and ran for Parliament but we were met with absolute disdain simply because the center "knew better" and they continued to rape and pillage our industries and our economy.
So, I have answered you with just a few thoughts; I ask that you provide your comments about what the center might concretely - note that I said, "concretely" - offer that might cause us to stay. And, please note further that words from the center are not enough simply because we have heard your lies, obfuscations and mis-directions too many times previously to be taken in now.
If we are going with Game of Thrones references to explain the world (I am here for it) then Donald Trump is obviously Tywin Lannister, to wit: "The Lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of a sheep".
Canadians are much too polite and conflict adverse to support any insurgency. Especially after a few saboteurs end up in prison for life. This is a country that doesn't even trust working people with most firearms. To think Canadians would fight back long term is to laugh. Maybe boomers will, but they will be dead soon anyways.
Canadians, and I include Albertans, just don't have the gumption to fight against the Americans. Give those under 40 better work opportunities and cheaper housing and they will become Americans with pride.
The thing is, Canada has to be worth it. It has to be better than living in the US for everyone. Not just boomers and kids. National pride doesn't mean much in a multicultural post national state. Especially one that doesn't even trust people to own guns in the first place.
As for Alberta, there is no independence, mostly because it doesn't know how to play the US and Canada against each other. Plus lack of gumption. It will be either under the thumb of the US or Canada. I really doubt the oil industry of Alberta would support an insurgency against the Americans either.
Man you are working very hard for the amerikkans, lol.
You've ignored... ALL of history?
As for your pro-amerikka propaganda, the non-existent upward mobility, the cost of health care eclipsing any rent concerns in Canada, the higher taxes in so many jurisdictions, cities look like bombed out craters, water issues everywhere because they wasted it, shot all their animals.
America is a hell-hole for young people unless they're already rich. They end up indentured servants stuck in a shirt service job they can't leave because it has health care benefits, or forced into their military.
There's no upward mobility in the US, and young people can't afford to live except in towns like Eastasskick Indiana (pop 20,000).
Pro-amerikkan marketing is obviously no match for the news, lol, that people of all ages from everywhere can see: the place is a dumpster-fire meltdown with a shit-show on the side.
No upward mobility? Are you serious? Immigrants and the children of immigrants are a healthy chunk of the founders of the Fortune 500 corporations.
It's a country where you can reach your full potential and where you can fall hard. The floor is low and the ceiling is high. I know that doesn't appeal to many if not most Canadians, we have a well earned reputation for being risk adverse, but if you have ambition there is no other place like it. The only province that even is in the same universe from a business perspective is Alberta.
But boomers got their bit in Canada, so who cares about the next generation, amiright?
Yes, in fact it's important to note they're immigrants. (for more than one ironic reason, lol.)
(Note: 2/3 of sad baby's wives are immigrants proving, once again, amerikka needs them to do what amerikkans won't do.)
An understanding of how precious and few university entrance spaces are made available in countries like India will help. Only the cream of the cream get to go so large internationals, (including the one where I worked) keep a presence to watch for talent. The argument you present is actually evidence of the failure of the American dream. Elite, already rich, privileged immigrants who got rare university educations are chosen over amerikkans.
Canadians are actually not risk averse... we are quite entrepreneurial. Where we often fail, maybe because of temptation, is in the later stages of growth. Canadian success stories tend to sell to amerikkan or intl entities rather than building the phases from international to global. Everywhere you look in ON there are examples of innovation in diverse industries... more than just a more efficient way to drill a hole.
The "next generation" (whatever the random fuck that means lol) in Canada has a different set of challenges because, after the war started by a bunch of racist, right wing nut jobs in Germany, millions came home to make babies, in a bulge. Because that bulge is retiring there's structural change that needs better managing.
That better managing sure as shit ain't happening in the US... as anyone who's lived there knows, and now the news is sharing with he world. The very saddest thing I hear time and again is someone stuck in a shitty situation they can't leave because they need the health care benefits. In one way of looking amerikka replaced black slaves with health care slaves.
You make it sound like the elite and privileged investing their time, work and effort creating new ventures, hiring people and creating wealth, is a bad thing.
The people with choice choosing the US is a vote of confidence if nothing else. A dollar invested, an immigrant who arrives to create something is a win, no matter their social class. Laundering ill gotten gains from the 3rd world via real estate isn't a foundation of the economy in the US yet.
As for Canadian businesses selling at later stages of growth to Americans or others, as a business owner raising growth capital there is a very good reason for this. They are willing to invest in growth businesses. If Canadians had the risk appetite that those outside Canada do for investment in Canadian business, they would be at the table. Instead Bay Street won't even consider providing these businesses with capital unless they have land or some sort of rent-seeking license to offer as collateral. Businesses need capital, the vacuum gets filled by Americans. Blame Canada's finance scene for being too slow and cheap.
On health care, Canada has absolutely zero to brag about, unless free is more important than quality or speed. I'd rather be broke than dead but we both know most Canadians wouldn't. It's about what is important to the individual, no matter what a Canadian collectivist says. Personally, the Continental European systems, and Australia, are superior to both Canada and the US.
The next generation meaning not boomers, but you knew that with your boomer counterculture "Amerikka" spelling. Both boomers in the US and Canada are raiding government budgets now for their grandkids to pay the bill. It's gross and an abrogation of their duty to leave the world better for their kids than they entered it.
There will be no invasion by the Americans and they will have their midterms. Whether the Demos can avoid self-destruction it is another question.
The insurgency in Afghanistan cannot be used as a model. There was no cultural, linguistic or historical context for the allies to have expected support. 90% of the population here live within 200 miles of the border, so think instead of Northern Ireland. Look the same, same language and religions, and a willingness to do abominable things to one another.
Wishing Mrs. Gurney a speedy and complete recovery.
US intelligence is accurately aware of a lot of what goes on in the world. If our government wanted to know about major crime in Canada, they would have to go to the US.
War depends on espionage and the US knows more about what is going on in Canada than our government does. They also have tremendous counter-espionage capabilities and we have none.
Our infrastructure and weapons manufacturing would be gone in a day.
We are also relatively easy to blockade. Vancouver, Prince Rupert and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Some in the U.S. may 'know' what's going on in Canada, but it's always filtered thru their incredible level of self-focus & their assumption that the U.S. is & always has been the greatest country on earth.
IMO the knowledge most Americans have of Canada & Canadians is at best a mile wide and an inch deep. :-)
Jerry is talking about the government, not the population. The FBI does know about the infiltration of China into our institutions. Check our Sam Cooper at the Bureau
I have a challenge for you: instead of being all gloomy and playing war games (repeat after me: USA will not invade Canada, not this year, not next, not ever. Why? Because they don’t need to, as we are doing a pretty good job of ripping ourselves apart. All they need to do is buy a lot of popcorn, sit comfortably, and watch the show, then come over and collect the pieces), what about a positive message, addressed to a white young man who is, after all, the guy that would actually fight against a hypothetical invasion (that won't happen). This young man has a couple of questions for you: what would he be fighting for? And why should he care?
Before you dismiss him, put on his shoes. After all, he has been raised by our society to believe these premises:
* The nation he would be asked to be fighting for is not actually a nation, but a club of people with shared values (or whatever “post national” is supposed to mean).
* Even if he is somehow assured that this is indeed a nation, it is not really his because it is “built on stolen land”. This one is particularly hurtful, as it is a mantra following him everywhere: every school event, every extra academic event, every theatre play or museum he goes to, he is reminded on an almost daily basis of this major fault, and expected to feel bad about it.
* He shall be ashamed forever of being what he is, of the physical characteristics he cannot control. Not only that, but he shall also expect, and accept, being denied of every good opportunity to grow personally or professionally because literally every other group has priority over the one he belongs to. There are plenty of statistics confirming this fact.
* Even as he manages to go through all obstacles and become a productive member of the society, he has no hope of ever being able to buy a house and raise a family. At best, he will be able to rent and have a few luxuries; at worst, he will live with his parents until they (or he) die. Individual situations vary a lot and there are many workarounds if you are willing to move out of the big cities, but the fact is that a majority of people 25 and younger (I don’t remember the exact figure, but it is close to 60% per a poll published this week) feel that way, and as a society we are doing nothing to make them think otherwise. Moreover, we, the "elbows up" generation, are responsible for that, as we have spent what we inherited from our parents and what we generated (which was a lot), and on top of that, we have borrowed enough for his generation, and his children generation (if he has them) to be paying forever after.
* And if he lives in BC (coming soon to the rest of Canada, I would bet on it) and manages to buy a house, he must live with the thought that he is occupying that home only because he has the permission of whichever band that used to fish in that area hundreds of years ago, and that such permission may be revoked at any time, leaving him having no recourse about it.
And that’s all at the macro level. At the individual level, he has been raised to believe that:
* Any typical masculine behavior (which is what he will really, really need, to fight in a war) is “toxic”.
* Speech is violence. Being active and curious is a disease requiring medication. He must lower his head and be silent and obedient no matter what.
* He cannot/shall not resolve any issues on his own. He must always go to an authority (which he must blindly trust at all times) to resolve it for him.
* Effort is not rewarded, and failure doesn’t exist. All he needs to do is to show up to get a prize of no real value.
* To have struggles and obstacles requiring effort to overcome (another treat that anyone being in a war situation needs in spades) is completely unnecessary. Far easier and better to play the victim card, to declare that he is in the wrong body, or perhaps to numb himself with free drugs (that the government happily provides) until becoming a zombie, or to simply get a free injection to cut his life short and stop being a problem.
I could go on and on, but the point is that, quite understandably, this typical kid has no reason or motivation whatsoever to fight for this country. These are the real and important problems that this kid has, not the politics circus (much less a hypothetical invasion), yet the later is what guides the society actions while he keeps being left behind. The same poll I mentioned before shows a brutal difference in voting intention and priorities between the young generation and the “elbows up” generation (to which I belong), so on top of all the eternal fighting among provinces, Canada is also fractured demographically. That is really bad, extremely serious. And it is far more important to mend that fracture than preparing for the monster to come out of the closet (which it won’t). But the worst is that nothing will be done about this unless there is a real change of the people in charge. Justin Trudeau is not the problem, the system that he represents is, and that is still intact (heck, it is actually the same people except him).
What would you tell him as motivating speech to give his life for a nation that doesn’t really want him to exist? What good reason will you give him to take the biggest risk a human being can ever take for a society that cannot/will not reward him? From his point of view, what defines a Canadian: that we are not American? That we have free healthcare? That we are polite unlike the “bad” Americans? Sorry guys, but you will need to come up with something much better and powerful than that.
Here is your challenge. I hope you take it.
PS: since I am positive that you will come up with a great response that is capable of lifting the patriotism of this kid to the maximum (you have more than enough talent to achieve that, I have no doubts), the second (and really important) part of the challenge is to put together a program that teaches our kids to be proud of their country and, hopefully, corrects all the issues above mentioned, then present it to the teachers and school boards where your kids study. I would buy you drinks just to hear how such meetings go, and I would upgrade to founder for many years (say at least 10) if you were successful in having it implemented.
Thank you for writing such a substantial comment. It is worth a bottle of 22 years old Scotch. I would absolutely not fight for this diseased mangy version of Canada, and said so to someone a few years ago.
Matt and Jen are very carelessly ignoring the degree to which Canada is ........ thoroughly fucked up ........ by, among others the self-dealing "Liberal" GlobaEuro Mark Carney, who is here only to fleece to the Canadian tax base, including you and me and Matt and Jen.
Thank you😊
Objectively, "a white young man who is, after all, the guy that would actually fight against a hypothetical invasion" would be better off opportunity-wise, economically and romantically, if he were to move to the US and join the MAGA crowd. As for those who remain, elbows will be no match for ICE agents, let alone the US Army.
There isn't a single measure to support that. Ever since the oughts, upward mobility in the US has vanished. Now, with their increasingly desperate financial situation, things will get a lot wore. Move there, and be a slave to the service industry and your health care premiums.
A young person could always join their military industrial complex (as the increasingly desperate do), travel the world, see interesting places, shoot the locals and take their stuff...
They're not allowed to take their stuff.
Taking private or public property is considered looting, which is a war crime.
Technically, military property may be retained with permission from your CO, but there's legal paperwork involved (in duplicate, with approvals up the chain of command) and that was completely prohibited in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Great summary. Saves me trying to do same before my subscription ends, and you are far more pleasant.
Only thing to add, not fighting for the nation is the best case scenario.
unless you're a patriot, lol
I feel like this argument is being made from a position that’s too “present-coded” FWIW. The culture wars and ridiculousness that propound in the present would shift significantly in a world where what we described would occur.
For 1) Canada’s housing costs are high because so many people want to live here and invest here relative to supply and that would be degraded significantly in the event of an American invasion (why would you invest or move to a country under assault?)
2) As Matt noted, occupation is one of the worst things to manage for a nation. Even if they did the easiest thing possible of putting a puppet, everyone would know the puppet has no real legitimacy. Anything the puppet or the occupation force does wrong will be used to delegitimize them and that creates a strong incentive for any opposition to claim that they’ll restore the old order
3) The “old order” is a flexible construct, any opposition can more or less remake it as they wish. You can say all sorts of things while also saying you’re just restoring what was. So any Canada that would arise in the aftermath of this kerfuffle doesn’t have to look anything like the Canada we know.
This isn’t to say that your points aren’t valid. I’m just saying that the bar is pretty low for an opposition to develop to any occupation. Occupations of nations are inherently stupid in modernity and require careful management of the public which I don’t trust the Americans to do.
Pretty good. I just want to briefly note that this "Liberal" Mark Carney government can easily be called not legitimate. Remember how Carney was mysteriously inserted into the lineup and mysteriously "won" the "Liberal" leadership. And then the pathetic 2025 purple cloud of chicken wing bullshit election.
So we can easily say that Canada is occupied by wokey hard leftists under the "Liberal" Mark Carney government.
All relevant comments.
To those who disagree, just imagine when its your kid or neighbours kid that gets run over by a US Bradley or shot at a checkpoint for no nefarious reason. That is how the insurgency really starts. And while many dislike Carney and Ottawa, engage in 'wokeism', etc, that anger would rapidly change focus when your or your neighbours' kids, wives, parents, pets, etc start dying due to dumb ass US army or marine soldiers f$%^ing it up on the ground, which they will absolutely do.
As well, the US military is designed to operate between 40N and 40S - snow and ice is not their forte in general. Yes they have some troops in the northern states, but even their effectiveness in a Canadian winter season near the border (6 mos a yr) is much diminished, let alone where many of our resources (the real prize) are in northern stretches of the provinces.
Every war/conflict between Canada and the US in history (1770s, 1812) were 'won' by the Brits/Canadians because the Americans got beat more by the weather than the conflict. Same story today.
Glen, just why the hell do all of these folks - including G & G - seem to think that the US will invade us? Quite frankly, they just don't need to; they can simply crash the Canadian economy by stopping trade with us and getting what they need elsewhere. A massive pain in the ass for them but quite doable. We, on the other hand, will accept pretty much any conditions to start trading again.
As for the War of 1812, etc., okay, that was then and that is all I have to say on that.
in Afghanistan they got beat by morale.
"the lady doth protest too much, methinks"
(Hamlet)
What if you're wrong.
Just to be clear: every country should be always prepared for the possibility of an invasion, whether by Americans, Russians, Chinese, aliens from another galaxy or whatnot. On that particular, I agree 100% with Matt, who to his credit has been hammering that point since I started reading him in print, probably a decade ago.
The other aspect of it (which is what I wanted to focus on) is that you fight to defend your property, sure, but you also fight to defend your political and economic systems, as well as your culture and, in that regard, there is not much to offer to the young generation as a whole (the hostility to young white men in particular is the cherry on the top).
When I say that there won't be an invasion, the point I am trying to make is that we are taking what is political posturing in both sides (Carney to excite his voters for a spring election where he will try one more time to finally get a majority; Trump because he is a troll and his base likes it) and make a catastrophic scenario out of it, and even worse, presenting it like it is something imminent, which is definitively not. As I tried to say in my long and hypothetical post, there are far more important things to address and that, I am afraid, will be thrown under the bus (they already are) because it is politically convenient to the liberals.
I judge politicians for what they do, not for what they say. What I see is a government that it is acting without any sense of urgency, that is trying to take total control over the economy, and that is placing its priorities in a package of laws that are more about killing free speech than about reactivating the economy. After all, the situation is not really different today than what it was last April to believe that now is that they are discovering the warm water. We'll see if that changes now, but I doubt it.
To which I must ask, "What if he's right?"
Personally, I think he is far more likely to be correct than otherwise.
If he is right then we've nothing to worry about.
Don’t think I’d call this a victory lap, preaching to the choir while achieving nothing of substance is a very small win for his ego, but could prove to be disasterous to our export based economy.
He promised a deal with Trump by July
He promised to remove interprovincial trade barriers
He promised to build fast than ever before (but that infront of a Potemkin village)
He he DID NOT promise to cozy up to China
He’s been an epic fail at home, no wonder he needed this ego boost.
Carney is the avatar of the domestic and international elites, connected personally to many people with vast power and money, and boosted by every mainstream newsroom that isn't explicitly right of centre. He doesn't have to actually accomplish anything. Of course he gets hyperbolic accolades for a reasonably well-delivered speech that said almost nothing and contained a lot of nonsense.
I tend to agree. And while not wanting to be churlish, him seemingly positioning Canada as some sort of world leader is kinda’ cringeworthy. The Davos speech was an adult’s version of Junior’s hilarious proclamation that Canada is back. It came across to me like a Philosophy Professor pontificating about the world’s problems while doing nothing about the fact his own family is living in a house as unfit for human habitat as 24 Sussex Drive.
Yes, the content of his speech, stripped of any of that context was largely fine, even good in places (particularly when he was stating things Matt first said a long time ago). And with respect to delivery/style, the gravitas was there and the contrast to his predecessor could not be greater which is terrific. But I’d be much more impressed by him actually doing something to fix Canada than by him making speeches that draw the adulation of people around the world. It is nine months since he was elected, nothing tangible has happened under his watch and there is no indication that anything tangible is about to happen.
I could hear almost the exact same speech being given by Justin Trudeau, and indeed the same people likely would have written it. The delivery would have been much more cringey of course, with his breathy lispy smug affect.
As you suggested, it was only a great speech if the listener knows nothing about Canada or the background context of any of the things he said. So perfect for an international audience I guess!
And perfect for a Liberal audience 🤣
Nothing like having a voting base consisting of the most easily manipulated, low-information voters in the country, many with literal senile dementia. Just flip a switch and you can control their exact emotions.
Look forward to a few weeks of frothing anti-Americanism and screaming about how terrible Conservatives and Poilievre are but throwing non-sequitur error messages if you ask them specifically why regarding the latter.
That’s our sad reality … nothing has been accomplished, dispite grandiose statements.
All the flowery talk in the world doesn’t change that simple fact. We are heading into a recession, which has the potential to become a deep depression, and still the world and Liberal voters will cheer this fraud.
To me the speech was a rallying cry for Liberal voters. And it worked. So whenever that election is called, we'll be heading for a few more years of disaster.
Sadly true … I wish Canadians were not such lazy dupes, or so easily gaslit.
Came across this post on Facebook. Some of the commentary out there is batshit crazy, I tell you! https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14VWc1fwmcA/?mibextid=wwXIfr
The fact that he listed off all the things Canada is "doing", 95% of which consisted in reality of announcements and stretch goals, confirmed that this was an election speech. 'Double our military spending in 10 years'??? 10 years is a long time and besides this government could double the spending without increasing capacity by one rifle.
Carney was all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or worse, bear baiting in the most irresponsible and globalist way possible. Where will all those other middle power countries be, (none of whom have the same relationship and geography with America) when we take the brunt of tariffs and exposing ourselves to China’s power? Carney’s glorified gravitas will lead us to the graveyard of recession.
I don’t think this is the real you, Matt. I reported this as an imposter.
I was actually thinking of Matt’s columns as I read Carneys speech. Only thing missing was “your expecrafions are a problem” and a Star Trek reference.
Here is a link to an erudite ( well written) article undressing ( exposing) the flaws in Carney' WEF speech and in his new world order.
https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/the-flaws-in-mark-carneys-new-world-order/
I appreciate your gaming out the unlikely scenario that the US will invade Canada. I subscribed because you two looked at things differently when Freeland blew up the Trudeau liberals a lifetime ago.
In the similar vein - What about gaming a different scenario - The one in which the Canadian government has been infiltrated by a foreign entity that is hostile to the US and they know it? Given the news in the past 10 years could support the plausibility of that scenario. (Foreign police stations, foreign interference, allies not inviting Canada to alliances).
I would suggest to you that looking at foreign events and saying ‘what the US is doing doesn’t make sense’ may mean that you just haven’t figured out what they’re doing yet.
💯
I think Jen is right about Europe finally getting it. In Kananaskis Keir Starmer bent the knee in front of Trump (another GOT reference) to pick up fallen documents.
Contrast to today when Keir was finally pushed to call Trump's comments about Allied Nations contributions in Afghanistan "insulting and frankly, appalling".
Naturally Prince Harry, never one to miss an opportunity to pontificate to the masses, chimes in to perform his disgust. Its currently trending at the top of BBC.
The Polish aren't taking Trump's comments well either, and the Polish Nation would give Albertans a run for their money on orneriness.
So yeah, I think Europe finally noodled this out.
A 'like' for the reference about the Polish Nations. Entirely true.
It is meant with affection
Enjoyed the first segment thought experiment on a Canadian insurgency to US invasion/takeover.
One thing not discussed: intermarriage (plus expats) and loyalty to country.
There are thousands and thousands of Americans living in Canada as permanent residents, and there are thousands of Canadians living and working in the US. Many many many married to one another with thousands of subsequent children. Many associated with both Canadian and US military branches plus joint enterprises like NORAD and NATO.
I have numerous American family members and friends both close and extended, plus several dual citizen family members and friends who carry both passports and live in both Canada and the US.
If there’s any lesson I learned most clearly during the pandemic, it’s that the government (especially our Liberal government whether old or ”new”) doesn’t care about me or my family on any individual level. There’s zero chance I’d put patriotism and country before my family. I would choose my family first 100% of the time over any “insurgency”. Ask not what your country can do for you, OR what you can do for your country but rather how to ensure your family’s success and survival when great powers, even your country(s), fight amongst themselves.
Agree this whole thing is unbecoming.
Glad you’re back Matt and thinking positive thoughts for your family.
Excellent comment Bree. My brother has lived in the United States for near 20 years. My nieces are American. I work with Americans every day. We have friends that are Americans. The idea that my two sons (M18 &22) would go kill Americans or be killed by Americans is the most absurd thought I’ve ever contemplated.
Exactly. In that respect, it would be akin to the American Civil War - with brother against brother, cousin against cousin. No chance I’d encourage my kids in that endeavour. Not happening, it’s just not an option. Especially since the only demographic here willing to pick up the metaphorical insurgent pitchforks are 60+. No one I know under 60 is even bothering with the “buy Canadian” propaganda program. We’re all too busy and exhausted providing shelter and food for our families in a declining economy with an eroding dollar. Plus I suspect that if the US offered quick citizenship and enfranchisement, more than half of young Canadians would take it in an instant and move to California.
The Angus-Reid poll from 2025 supports your perspective. Only 45% of youngsters would be willing to fight, and that number will drop precipitously once it moves from the abstract.
The idea isn't even an intellectual exercise, but a fantasy for those who cannot accept the sad reality of the post-nation state. But if hissing implied threats floats your boat...
South Carolina is my preferred state.
wow 45% is huge, even assuming the attrition.
My fav brother and sister in-laws are currently based in Colorado Springs, looks like a nice place for an extended visit (I grew up in the Canadian Rockies).😊
Our eldest teen is currently a Royal Canadian Air Cadet - they’ve been so badly defunded under the Liberals that she couldn’t even get a basic uniform until 4 months in this year (past Remembrance Day), and it’s pretty old (boots falling apart, seams needing repair, etc). She says no one in her troupe likely to join the Canadian military after high school grad. Unfortunate reality.
I know 2 former amerikkans, one from conservative inland CA who moved here because her water was disappearing, who said they'd shoot invaders. Interesting...
From an article by Ian Bradbury published today in Sam Cooper's The Bureau:
"The emergence of a new round of 'elbows up' rhetoric, complete with caricatures of armed seniors from the local curling club ready to head to borders or Greenland in defiance of Trump, illustrates how quickly symbolism can be mistaken for preparedness. What presents as resistance and resolve critically risks becoming a substitute for capability and seriousness."
We need to get serious about defence and sovereignty for many reasons that predate Trump and will persist long after he is gone. Any discussion of Canadian armed insurgency is, I'm sorry, so fanciful that it detracts from that seriousness.
"We need to get serious ..."
Or not. I just don't give a damn about Canada anymore. Let is sink beneath the waves.
I'd be cool with Alberta separatism if BC, SK, MB, and all of Ontario other than Ottawa (Quebec's problem) and Toronto south of Bloor Street (the People's Republic of Bikelanedia) got to come along.
That is a hard no for much of the territory you mention. Why do you think we want to leave? Parts of BC are very similar to us, but the Lower Mainland and the island? Not a chance. Saskatchewan is very similar to us. Manitoba just isn't a whole lot like us. As for Ontario, there are pockets that are somewhat like us but too much is too damned similar to the GTA; very much including how they vote but, still, they are in pretty much all respect dissimilar to us. Quebec? Surely you joke. And Atlantic Canada - Newfie has some similarities to us but is pretty different as well and then the maritime provinces, again, no.
So, even if you could convince me that actually all were similar and we eliminated the ones you identify that still leave the issue that you would have a larger population and would want to have a dominating position in government so we would end up taken advantage of just one more time.
So, Alberta on it's own; Saskatchewan has it's own separatist movement and I cheer them on. As for the rest of the country? Not my problem; let them speak up for themselves.
Honestly a lot of problems could be solved by just ditching Quebec and Atlantic. The last three elections would be Conservative governments under that calculation, even keeping all of Toronto for its finance sector. No more national bilingualism would open so many more capable people being able to enter the public service and politics.
You just don't get it! I will ignore Lower Canada. If Lower Canada left and all else remained constant you would still have all provinces very much over represented over the Prairies. Further, you would still have MPs paying so damned much attention to the needs and wants of Ontario that they don't adequately pay attention to the real needs here.
If you think back to the Harper years he still had to pay over much attention to Ontario and the Maritimes simply because that is where the seats are.
No, we might share the same language, sans Quebec, but we don't share the same culture or way of living as you folks.
So, it's Alberta and possibly Saskatchewan (depending on what they want) but no one else.
Damn, that's cold. I guess I don't blame you. I'd be furious if I lived in Alberta and seen what happened over the last 10 years. I live in urban Ontario and I'm already furious about it all. The last election here was a sea of red signs in front of $2.5 million houses, put there by scared lobotomites who love seeing their tax money set on fire. It feels hopeless.
Without the West to balance things politically I think there would be a lot of unrest in parts of what remain in Canada should prairie separation become a reality. That's going to be bad.
Elbows are no match against ICE agents, let alone the US Army.
1) regarding fighting the Americans - you are talking about a population who could not muster the wherewithal nor balls to drag The Idiot King Trudeau out of the office by the scruff of his neck. Not only did he stay and abused the citizenry and the state they pay for as long as he wanted, but on his way out he out of pure malice set Canada's course onto even more serious destruction. You entertain the idea that this type of population will actually fight any kind of real fight with dead and wounded and blood flowing years on end ?????
2) regarding Carney's WEF speech. That was a speech given by a self-dealing snooty arrogant hypocrite filthy rich carpetbagger, supporter of tyrants and terrorists, who is on record lying daily. To him, we ordinary people are nothing but a herd of cattle and sheep to be fleeced and milked for his personal profit and casually lied to.
I threw his WEF speech on the ground and pissed on it. Everything this shyster says and once in a blue moon does brings Canada closer to breakup.
3) regarding Alberta, it is a good thing that almost nobody pays attention to the many long lineups for signing the separation referendum petition. I do not have a periscope into the future, so we will see the result in the fall.
NS, as an Albertan who will vote for separatism, I agree with your third point: the myopia of the Upper/Lower Canadian shills is good for our cause.
Oh, and I agree with all else as well.
Certainly the Canadian armed forces (and the whole national security ecosystem) should be planning for contingencies, including some involving the U.S., even if we don't know yet exactly how the contingencies might arise politically.
Still, if those of us not focused on purely military matters are thinking about scenarios culturally and politically, full-on sustained U.S. occupation doesn't seem like the most productive place to put our intellectual energy. It would require so much to change in order to happen (especially within U.S. politics and opinion) that you'd almost need to know that wildly different context to have a useful view.
Much, much, MUCH more plausible would be incremental violations of sovereignty like a military incursion into Canada to arrest somebody, U.S. attempts to control shipping in Canadian waters, or that kind of thing. Not that even those are likely, but if we're going to hypothesize, let's put due attention on less flashy but more conceivable situations.
They’re going to come for Alberta. I think we’ll see that rhetoric, already displayed by Bessent, ratcheted up considerably. My pattern recognition aka hunch aka Spidey sense is going off. I hope I’m wrong, because I think we’re in danger of misreading the sentiment in Alberta in the same the majority of MSM and democrats misread the election of Trump 1.0.
And welcome back, Matt. ❤️
I believe Matt and Jenn talked about this several months ago. There is a formula to rip Canada apart and it goes through Alberta. Make us an offer we cannot refuse. Win the propaganda war. This is the Brexit formula it works. It’s happened. Dangerous times.
It’s completely possible that half of the hot takes I think I’ve just come up with are actually something Matt and/or Jen said months ago.
Doomberg thought Saskatchewan is on the list.
Actually, Gaz, I think Doomberg is correct in that.
I am an Alberta separatist but it is my understanding of matters that such sentiment in Saskatchewan is at least as prevalent as in Alberta - if not more so.
Rich, I am an Alberta separatist; I am not terribly interested in becoming American.
Now, having said all of that, my suggestion to DJT et al is that once we have the vote and demonstrate that we want out, make us an offer - a damned good offer. It just may be that I will change my mind on American citizenship.
Your position is similar to a position that was confided to me by two quite different, yet prominent Albertans.
Ken, if you'll indulge me, what would, if anything, sway you back to become a 'stayist' (my own word - you heard it here first)?
Hmmmm ....
What would sway me? ....
Well, Rich, I suppose that there are many things that, in our current system, are oriented to favoring the center at the expense of the regions, both east and west. In fact, if you look at Confederation it is pretty clear that the original intent was just that, favoring Upper and Lower Canada at the expense (in those days) of the regions to the east. The additions of the western provinces simply meant that east and west are disadvantaged. The difference is that a certain ruling party depends, in part, on seats in the east so that our concerns in the west are largely ignored. That applies to the House but also very much to the Senate. Quite simply, we in Alberta do not have representation in either the House or the Senate appropriate to our proportion of population.
There are many laws and regulations that have been passed, promulgated, etc., etc. that are quite explicitly or are applied in ways to absolutely prevent development of our resources. The current PM has chosen to NOT eliminate, revamp or otherwise ameliorate those things but has left them fully in place. What he has done is to say, "Well, if you kiss my ring and come up with a project that I might like - that also meets my enviro, blah, blah, blah - I MIGHT propose it to be a National Interest Project that MIGHT go forward. All other things must go through the otherwise normal process. Oh, and no guarantees on those things referred as National Interest Projects." The only projects that have been identified as National Interest Projects so far are projects that actually were previously approved so nothing to see here!
Oh, and equalization. We pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 Billion a year MORE than we receive in goods and services from the feds. As a matter of actual fact, no province has really moved the needle on weaning itself off that welfare of our equalization money. Instead, it has become a "right" and any suggestion that something change is viewed with absolute disdain. Just as one f'r instance, Quebec has significant natural gas reserves on Anticosti Island but the government has said clearly and definitively that they will not exploit those reserves. Of course, such exploitation would generate wealth and might make Quebec much less dependent on equalization monies. Instead, Quebec wants our money and calls our oil (the source of that money) "dirty."
There is absolutely no ability to change the Constitution to eliminate inequities. Oh there is a formula but that formula is so difficult that no one seriously considers the possibility.
There are many other things but, really, what is the realistic possibility that anything will change? I am not aware of your age, Rich, but in the 1990s, the Reform Party swept the West and after the 1997 federal election was the Official Opposition. The slogan of the Party was, "The West Wants In" indicating that we wanted changes so that our concerns might, just might, just possibly would be addressed. Of course, the center sneered at Reform as rubes and unsophisticated and was totally unwilling to discuss the issues Reform tried to raise. My point is that we talked and talked and ran for Parliament but we were met with absolute disdain simply because the center "knew better" and they continued to rape and pillage our industries and our economy.
So, I have answered you with just a few thoughts; I ask that you provide your comments about what the center might concretely - note that I said, "concretely" - offer that might cause us to stay. And, please note further that words from the center are not enough simply because we have heard your lies, obfuscations and mis-directions too many times previously to be taken in now.
Nice to see you back, Matt.
If we are going with Game of Thrones references to explain the world (I am here for it) then Donald Trump is obviously Tywin Lannister, to wit: "The Lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of a sheep".
wait, Trump is the lion in this example?
I'm choking, lol.
Dude's got nano-ball courage.
Waiting for the “Fuck Trump” flags to show up on pick-up trucks. All the best to Mrs. Guerney ❤️
Canadians are much too polite and conflict adverse to support any insurgency. Especially after a few saboteurs end up in prison for life. This is a country that doesn't even trust working people with most firearms. To think Canadians would fight back long term is to laugh. Maybe boomers will, but they will be dead soon anyways.
Canadians, and I include Albertans, just don't have the gumption to fight against the Americans. Give those under 40 better work opportunities and cheaper housing and they will become Americans with pride.
The thing is, Canada has to be worth it. It has to be better than living in the US for everyone. Not just boomers and kids. National pride doesn't mean much in a multicultural post national state. Especially one that doesn't even trust people to own guns in the first place.
As for Alberta, there is no independence, mostly because it doesn't know how to play the US and Canada against each other. Plus lack of gumption. It will be either under the thumb of the US or Canada. I really doubt the oil industry of Alberta would support an insurgency against the Americans either.
Man you are working very hard for the amerikkans, lol.
You've ignored... ALL of history?
As for your pro-amerikka propaganda, the non-existent upward mobility, the cost of health care eclipsing any rent concerns in Canada, the higher taxes in so many jurisdictions, cities look like bombed out craters, water issues everywhere because they wasted it, shot all their animals.
America is a hell-hole for young people unless they're already rich. They end up indentured servants stuck in a shirt service job they can't leave because it has health care benefits, or forced into their military.
Why are the median wages better in the US then?
But go ahead, prove me wrong. An insurgency by a disarmed Canada is to laugh. Meanwhile young people are leaving Canada.
Keep telling yourself that lol.
There's no upward mobility in the US, and young people can't afford to live except in towns like Eastasskick Indiana (pop 20,000).
Pro-amerikkan marketing is obviously no match for the news, lol, that people of all ages from everywhere can see: the place is a dumpster-fire meltdown with a shit-show on the side.
MB just signed on how many doctors?
No upward mobility? Are you serious? Immigrants and the children of immigrants are a healthy chunk of the founders of the Fortune 500 corporations.
It's a country where you can reach your full potential and where you can fall hard. The floor is low and the ceiling is high. I know that doesn't appeal to many if not most Canadians, we have a well earned reputation for being risk adverse, but if you have ambition there is no other place like it. The only province that even is in the same universe from a business perspective is Alberta.
But boomers got their bit in Canada, so who cares about the next generation, amiright?
Yes, in fact it's important to note they're immigrants. (for more than one ironic reason, lol.)
(Note: 2/3 of sad baby's wives are immigrants proving, once again, amerikka needs them to do what amerikkans won't do.)
An understanding of how precious and few university entrance spaces are made available in countries like India will help. Only the cream of the cream get to go so large internationals, (including the one where I worked) keep a presence to watch for talent. The argument you present is actually evidence of the failure of the American dream. Elite, already rich, privileged immigrants who got rare university educations are chosen over amerikkans.
Canadians are actually not risk averse... we are quite entrepreneurial. Where we often fail, maybe because of temptation, is in the later stages of growth. Canadian success stories tend to sell to amerikkan or intl entities rather than building the phases from international to global. Everywhere you look in ON there are examples of innovation in diverse industries... more than just a more efficient way to drill a hole.
The "next generation" (whatever the random fuck that means lol) in Canada has a different set of challenges because, after the war started by a bunch of racist, right wing nut jobs in Germany, millions came home to make babies, in a bulge. Because that bulge is retiring there's structural change that needs better managing.
That better managing sure as shit ain't happening in the US... as anyone who's lived there knows, and now the news is sharing with he world. The very saddest thing I hear time and again is someone stuck in a shitty situation they can't leave because they need the health care benefits. In one way of looking amerikka replaced black slaves with health care slaves.
You make it sound like the elite and privileged investing their time, work and effort creating new ventures, hiring people and creating wealth, is a bad thing.
The people with choice choosing the US is a vote of confidence if nothing else. A dollar invested, an immigrant who arrives to create something is a win, no matter their social class. Laundering ill gotten gains from the 3rd world via real estate isn't a foundation of the economy in the US yet.
As for Canadian businesses selling at later stages of growth to Americans or others, as a business owner raising growth capital there is a very good reason for this. They are willing to invest in growth businesses. If Canadians had the risk appetite that those outside Canada do for investment in Canadian business, they would be at the table. Instead Bay Street won't even consider providing these businesses with capital unless they have land or some sort of rent-seeking license to offer as collateral. Businesses need capital, the vacuum gets filled by Americans. Blame Canada's finance scene for being too slow and cheap.
On health care, Canada has absolutely zero to brag about, unless free is more important than quality or speed. I'd rather be broke than dead but we both know most Canadians wouldn't. It's about what is important to the individual, no matter what a Canadian collectivist says. Personally, the Continental European systems, and Australia, are superior to both Canada and the US.
The next generation meaning not boomers, but you knew that with your boomer counterculture "Amerikka" spelling. Both boomers in the US and Canada are raiding government budgets now for their grandkids to pay the bill. It's gross and an abrogation of their duty to leave the world better for their kids than they entered it.
There will be no invasion by the Americans and they will have their midterms. Whether the Demos can avoid self-destruction it is another question.
The insurgency in Afghanistan cannot be used as a model. There was no cultural, linguistic or historical context for the allies to have expected support. 90% of the population here live within 200 miles of the border, so think instead of Northern Ireland. Look the same, same language and religions, and a willingness to do abominable things to one another.
Wishing Mrs. Gurney a speedy and complete recovery.
US intelligence is accurately aware of a lot of what goes on in the world. If our government wanted to know about major crime in Canada, they would have to go to the US.
War depends on espionage and the US knows more about what is going on in Canada than our government does. They also have tremendous counter-espionage capabilities and we have none.
Our infrastructure and weapons manufacturing would be gone in a day.
We are also relatively easy to blockade. Vancouver, Prince Rupert and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Some in the U.S. may 'know' what's going on in Canada, but it's always filtered thru their incredible level of self-focus & their assumption that the U.S. is & always has been the greatest country on earth.
IMO the knowledge most Americans have of Canada & Canadians is at best a mile wide and an inch deep. :-)
Jerry is talking about the government, not the population. The FBI does know about the infiltration of China into our institutions. Check our Sam Cooper at the Bureau
Great to have you back Matt. Your commentary is greatly appreciated. Jenn and Rob were also solid in your absence.