I would agree that “for over a thousand years white people have been the upholders of the world’s most moral religion: Christianity…and the inspired architects of liberalism and democracy.”
I am glad that James Pew says this out loud.
As a teacher I made reference to western democracies. It was the woke ideologues who reduced us all to skin colour. I think the west is better, culturally and materially and morally, though not because of skin pallor but for our more rational practices.
The zeitgeist is to demean white people. To me that is tantamount to derogating rationality.
I couldn’t care less about skin colour. Like James, I care about liberalism, democracy and reason.
Do you still like liberalism and democracy when they turn out to be the great subverters of reason? Or do you interdefine these terms circularly so that they all necessarily go together and support one another? If so, go back to Pew's opening discussion above about group-identity and non-uniformity, and apply it to the case at hand ('liberalism,' 'democracy,' 'reason' -- the truth of the matter? -- no, these things don't necessarily belong/stay together)...
I am SO thrilled about this series. It is dead on and needs to be said and repeated far and wide. I will not miss any of it. I love the manner in which it is written as well. Fun to read. Thank you - another feather in the cap of Substack. Teachers had better read this too - like they have nothing else to do. (I was a teacher). Mandatory reading to help balance out the biased teachers wokeisim. Yes, deprogramming.
“capitalism”. So is racism. So is transphobia. All of their talking points. Their aim is to disrupt the system and all its parts. Learned this from Karlyn B. They pick something they want to destroy and attack it until they own it. The truth is irrelevant. I keep having to remind myself it doesn’t need to make sense to them.
For fifty years I could care less about where I came from, where my family was from, what they accomplished. Then came BLM, and the rest of the woke BS. Thanks to them, I can see clearly now. I have no patience anymore for any special interest group whatsoever and they only have themselves to blame. Straight, White and Proud.
It’s not only old white males who are on their way out, it is young white males, white females and little white kiddies too. The combination of low white birth rates, high non-white birth rates, and the inevitable high non-white immigration numbers means that Canada will be a brown country soon enough. Is this a bad thing? If the enlightenment values created out of whole cloth by the whities are accepted by the brownies it is not a bad thing at all. Let’s hope that the anti-western anti-semites rampaging on Montreal streets are not representative of the brownies. I personally don’t believe that they are. I think Canada in 50 years will still be Canada - only a browner version. That works for me
You are not wrong. But, not all white people created those ideologies, most white people hate them, or are indifferent to them. And there were others of other races who were involved in their formulation as well (especially concerning the influence of American black radicalism which began in the 1960s -- See Cedric Robinson's Black Marxism) . The question is why did so many white people take up or go along with any of the antiwhite ideology and other such illiberal social justice philosophy? I think the answer to this lies, at least in part, in the Western traditions long habit of deep self-critique (which isn't a bad thing if you don't go insane about it). No one is harder on white people than themselves -- it's like we have a common neurosis which makes far too many of us dip past self-critique into self-loathing, I'm jealous of other ethnicities that have pride. White people should too, -- considering the vast achievements of that macro people group -- just not in a Nazi type of way (which is how everyone immediately associates white pride). The one white people group that used ethnicity as a justification to genocide another group, gets forever hard associated with the white macro people group -- unfair. Screw that!
"The question is why did so many white people take up or go along with any of the antiwhite ideology and other such illiberal social justice philosophy? I think the answer to this lies, at least in part, in the Western traditions long habit of deep self-critique"
Reminds me of that meme, "wait a minute: are WE the baddies?" Good question! It's the kind of question we should be able to ask ourselves. But "wait a minute: are WHITE PEOPLE the baddies?" is not a good question. It's just stupid. It doesn't even begin to rate as serious. That people might take it seriously is not at all, I think, a function of "Western traditions long habit of deep self-critique" -- mainly b/c that's not a real thing; instead it's a tendentious caricature of a real thing, namely, the Western history of ideological contention. The self-serving master narrative of 'the Enlightenment' would have us construe this ideological contention as something fundamentally praiseworthy -- "deep self-critique" -- but that's just a propagandistic move within the field of contention, not really defensible as a description of what is happening there. So the real reason, I think, that people take the stupid, unserious question seriously, is precisely the opposite of what you suggest: the absence of any habit/capacity for deep (serious) self-critique, and instead the tendency to just follow the leader/follow the crowd/follow the new thing. And what about truth? Well, "what is truth?" as a guy named Pontius Pilate reportedly once asked.
Now 'white pride': I sort of get it as a purely reactionary thing; but beyond that it just seems silly, and even evil, or evil-adjacent, just like gay pride or black pride. Why would I want to take part in that?
(As for black Marxism, I just look at that and assume it's a variety of Marxism, and Marx was a white guy (a full-on Dead White European, moreover) in my book, even if his abysmal ideas were imported and adapted into various 'non-white' ethnic settings.)
David McPike: What do you mean Western traditions of self-critique are "not a real thing"? If they were not, we would never have evolved the wondrously sophisticated philosophical and political systems such as we have — we would also lack the shit wizardry of radical critics such as Michel Foucault, the sort of thing that has enabled amateur thinkers like yourself to utter masturbatory phases such as "the self-serving narrative of" blah blah. I bet you got a C+ in the drivel that passes for "English Studies" these days didn't you? The very fact that you have a history of radical scholars inventing entire schools and movements, perverted and unhelpful ones mind you, is itself a refutation to your position about there being no self-critique. You can trace it back in many directions, for example, back through the (myth of) the noble savage ideology all the back to the Greek cynics and stoics who maintained that civilization was a corruption and virtue was to be found in the life styles of savages. Now, these are just the ugly examples of Western self-critique, as exemplified by dissidents and perverts like Foucault. The real merit of self-critique will be found in those who build a culture up in good faith and optimism, self-critique for them being the willingness to submit western traditions to rational scrutiny. This has been a tenet of the Western public sphere since the onset of participatory politics in Greece and Rome, that being the right of portions of the citizenry to vote - the right to vote brought with it the development of rational argumentation, persuasive speech and self-critique of policy and culture because it was now necessary, unlike in non-Western nations which never went through the political advances just named, for portions of the public to assess and ratify public policy-making. Greece and Rome are the bedrock of the West, and, as Ibn Warraq has argued, self-critique has always been one of the defining values of the West. Get it right.
So to clarify, Mr. M: You say that, e.g., Foucault's work -- as exemplifying a 'long habit of the Western tradition' -- constitutes a 'deep self-critique'; I say that his work is not at all a 'deep self-critique,' but rather a critique of others, part of an ongoing history of ideological contention. Now apart from your rather wildly irrational and inaccurate leaps of logic in my personal regard, your absurdly brash straight-up rudeness, what exactly was your argument in favour of your claim/interpretation/formulation?? Did you even have one?? (To be clear: obnoxiously insisting that you're right and your interlocutor is wrong is not an argument.) I would add that you appear to be a case in point of my contention that the notion of 'deep self-critique' is a false framing; you appear to be anything but 'deeply self-critical.'
I expect 'the intelligent readers' will know that what you said was entirely performative, highly irrational, and -- the ironic bit -- not the least bit self-critical. (But why??)
I would say that the definition of Zionism is too innocent here. Whereas its context to genocide, is that there is no red line? I don't doubt that the definitions from the left are insufficient as well, amounting to identity politics, but there should be red lines in which you contradict yourself in the same essay.
I can understand being anti islam from the view of a Western logos and civilization. Not compatible with modernity.
Ultimately the equivalences of categories, race, religion, sex, and nations, is that they are not equivalents. Civilizations and logos involve all of them in different ways, but they aren't equivalent.
This was refreshing though I much prefer ' majority people group' or Anglo/European Canadian sans the colourised prefix. I have to say I find the fixation on skin colour, speaking as a beige Canadian, to be a tad counterproductive and I do believe Morgan Freeman would agree.
I get where you are coming from. Fixating on skin colour is counter-productive! The reason I comment on it so much, is precisely because identity politics (wokeism) is fixated on immutable identity characteristics like skin colour.
My position on skin colour is as follows:
Skin colour is the least interesting part of ethnicity -- I prefer the myths, symbols, stories, languages, music, etc.
However, skin colour is not irrelevant. The people I am talking about -- Anglo Canadians -- all had white skin colour at the founding of Canada. The founding is key -- that is where the historic ethnic archetype lies. This is important historical information. We want to remember all the details from history -- including what the founding Anglo-Canadians looked like.
And further, I think it's cool that not only am I in the same ethnic people group as the founders of the nation, but I also look like them. It is not the most important detail, I'm not fixated on it. But we are talking about my history and my people. And it is only white people who have to justify their interactions with their own people groups -- both to other white people and to brown people -- and I think everyone needs to chill out and let all people be who they are.
What I mean by this is simply, there is no shame in being white. Do you think a white person who thinks the whiteness of his people group is not insignificant should feel shame about that?
Don't all people from non-white people groups consider their physical attributes (including skin tone) as not insignificant? Why should only the skin tone of white people be considered of zero significance? On a scale of 100, I give my skin tone a significance level of 5. I promise I'm not a Nazi. I mean brown people no harm.
The 51st State? Trump’s Bold Proposal to Annex Canada Raises Eyebrows
By News Blog
In a startling and characteristically provocative statement during a meeting with Justin Trudeau in Florida last week, former U.S. President Donald Trump floated the idea of Canada becoming the 51st state of the United States. The comment, initially dismissed by the Canadian Prime Minister with a nervous laugh, has since ignited intense debates on both sides of the border.
While many dismissed the suggestion as another one of Trump’s attention-grabbing remarks, analysts are warning that it may be more serious than it appears. With a well-documented history of unconventional diplomacy and a strong populist following, Trump’s rhetoric often reflects strategies that challenge traditional political norms.
The Seriousness of Trump’s Statement
Despite its implausibility on the surface, Trump’s comments about annexing Canada align with his broader nationalist rhetoric. During his presidency, he often criticized the United States’ reliance on foreign nations for trade and resources, suggesting that North America should be more unified in its approach to global competition.
“Canada has resources, land, and wealth. It’s a neighbor that we already share so much with. Why shouldn’t it be part of the United States?” Trump reportedly said during the meeting , drawing attention from some in his proposed cabinet who were in attendance.
Trump’s remarks also come amid renewed U.S.-Canada tensions over trade disputes, disagreements over defense spending within NATO, and divergent environmental policies. Some have speculated that his statement could be a tactic to pressure Canada into deeper economic and defense integration with the U.S., while others fear it reflects a genuine ambition.
How Could the U.S. Annex Canada?
Though the idea of the United States absorbing Canada seems far-fetched, political theorists suggest two potential pathways for such an event: diplomacy or force.
Diplomatic Integration
A peaceful integration of Canada into the United States would require an unprecedented series of political and legal maneuvers. The Canadian government would need to hold a referendum, securing the support of a majority of its citizens to join the U.S. as a state. However, such a move would face massive opposition from Canadians who value their independent identity and parliamentary system of governance.
In the unlikely event of a successful referendum, the U.S. Congress would need to approve the annexation, requiring significant political will and constitutional amendments.
Military Action
A far more controversial and catastrophic route would involve the use of force. While unthinkable for most modern democracies, Trump’s history of militaristic language raises concerns among critics. Some have pointed out that a hypothetical U.S. military operation could capitalize on the asymmetry between the two nations’ defense capacities.
“Canada’s military is comparatively small, and its geography is its main defense,” said a retired Canadian military analyst. “But even in this outlandish scenario, the global backlash against the U.S. would be insurmountable.”
Canadian Reaction
Prime Minister Trudeau, when asked about Trump’s statement, responded with a measured tone, calling it “an amusing but implausible remark.” However, opposition leaders and many Canadians expressed outrage. Social media exploded with hashtags like #CanadaIsNotForSale and #TrumpHandsOffCanada.
“The idea that Canada would ever become part of the United States is absurd,” said NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. “Our sovereignty is not negotiable.”
Meanwhile, experts warn that the statement reflects broader concerns about Canada’s relationship with its powerful southern neighbor.
What’s Next?
While the annexation of Canada may never materialize, Trump’s remarks could serve as a reminder of the ongoing need to strengthen Canada’s defenses—both militarily and diplomatically. The episode also underscores the unpredictability of U.S.-Canada relations, particularly in an era of populist politics.
For now, Canada’s status as an independent nation remains secure, but the incident has left Canadians reflecting on their national identity and t
I would agree that “for over a thousand years white people have been the upholders of the world’s most moral religion: Christianity…and the inspired architects of liberalism and democracy.”
I am glad that James Pew says this out loud.
As a teacher I made reference to western democracies. It was the woke ideologues who reduced us all to skin colour. I think the west is better, culturally and materially and morally, though not because of skin pallor but for our more rational practices.
The zeitgeist is to demean white people. To me that is tantamount to derogating rationality.
I couldn’t care less about skin colour. Like James, I care about liberalism, democracy and reason.
My skin tone is a 5 to me on a significance scale that goes up to 100. So, not insignificant, but also not very significant.
Do you still like liberalism and democracy when they turn out to be the great subverters of reason? Or do you interdefine these terms circularly so that they all necessarily go together and support one another? If so, go back to Pew's opening discussion above about group-identity and non-uniformity, and apply it to the case at hand ('liberalism,' 'democracy,' 'reason' -- the truth of the matter? -- no, these things don't necessarily belong/stay together)...
I am SO thrilled about this series. It is dead on and needs to be said and repeated far and wide. I will not miss any of it. I love the manner in which it is written as well. Fun to read. Thank you - another feather in the cap of Substack. Teachers had better read this too - like they have nothing else to do. (I was a teacher). Mandatory reading to help balance out the biased teachers wokeisim. Yes, deprogramming.
“White people” is a conflation with
“capitalism”. So is racism. So is transphobia. All of their talking points. Their aim is to disrupt the system and all its parts. Learned this from Karlyn B. They pick something they want to destroy and attack it until they own it. The truth is irrelevant. I keep having to remind myself it doesn’t need to make sense to them.
I think i just paraphrased James Lindsay there also
For fifty years I could care less about where I came from, where my family was from, what they accomplished. Then came BLM, and the rest of the woke BS. Thanks to them, I can see clearly now. I have no patience anymore for any special interest group whatsoever and they only have themselves to blame. Straight, White and Proud.
Anglo-Canadian. Beautiful.
Thank you. You speak for me as a British/Canadian, if not exactly an Anglo.
GREAT article!
It’s not only old white males who are on their way out, it is young white males, white females and little white kiddies too. The combination of low white birth rates, high non-white birth rates, and the inevitable high non-white immigration numbers means that Canada will be a brown country soon enough. Is this a bad thing? If the enlightenment values created out of whole cloth by the whities are accepted by the brownies it is not a bad thing at all. Let’s hope that the anti-western anti-semites rampaging on Montreal streets are not representative of the brownies. I personally don’t believe that they are. I think Canada in 50 years will still be Canada - only a browner version. That works for me
Well James, I hope you aren't an OLD white male! Three strikes and you're out.
why are so many white and non-white people down on whiteness?
Because of white people and their crazy-ass white-people ideologies. Who you think invent 'wokeness'? White people, bro.
You are not wrong. But, not all white people created those ideologies, most white people hate them, or are indifferent to them. And there were others of other races who were involved in their formulation as well (especially concerning the influence of American black radicalism which began in the 1960s -- See Cedric Robinson's Black Marxism) . The question is why did so many white people take up or go along with any of the antiwhite ideology and other such illiberal social justice philosophy? I think the answer to this lies, at least in part, in the Western traditions long habit of deep self-critique (which isn't a bad thing if you don't go insane about it). No one is harder on white people than themselves -- it's like we have a common neurosis which makes far too many of us dip past self-critique into self-loathing, I'm jealous of other ethnicities that have pride. White people should too, -- considering the vast achievements of that macro people group -- just not in a Nazi type of way (which is how everyone immediately associates white pride). The one white people group that used ethnicity as a justification to genocide another group, gets forever hard associated with the white macro people group -- unfair. Screw that!
"The question is why did so many white people take up or go along with any of the antiwhite ideology and other such illiberal social justice philosophy? I think the answer to this lies, at least in part, in the Western traditions long habit of deep self-critique"
Reminds me of that meme, "wait a minute: are WE the baddies?" Good question! It's the kind of question we should be able to ask ourselves. But "wait a minute: are WHITE PEOPLE the baddies?" is not a good question. It's just stupid. It doesn't even begin to rate as serious. That people might take it seriously is not at all, I think, a function of "Western traditions long habit of deep self-critique" -- mainly b/c that's not a real thing; instead it's a tendentious caricature of a real thing, namely, the Western history of ideological contention. The self-serving master narrative of 'the Enlightenment' would have us construe this ideological contention as something fundamentally praiseworthy -- "deep self-critique" -- but that's just a propagandistic move within the field of contention, not really defensible as a description of what is happening there. So the real reason, I think, that people take the stupid, unserious question seriously, is precisely the opposite of what you suggest: the absence of any habit/capacity for deep (serious) self-critique, and instead the tendency to just follow the leader/follow the crowd/follow the new thing. And what about truth? Well, "what is truth?" as a guy named Pontius Pilate reportedly once asked.
Now 'white pride': I sort of get it as a purely reactionary thing; but beyond that it just seems silly, and even evil, or evil-adjacent, just like gay pride or black pride. Why would I want to take part in that?
(As for black Marxism, I just look at that and assume it's a variety of Marxism, and Marx was a white guy (a full-on Dead White European, moreover) in my book, even if his abysmal ideas were imported and adapted into various 'non-white' ethnic settings.)
David McPike: What do you mean Western traditions of self-critique are "not a real thing"? If they were not, we would never have evolved the wondrously sophisticated philosophical and political systems such as we have — we would also lack the shit wizardry of radical critics such as Michel Foucault, the sort of thing that has enabled amateur thinkers like yourself to utter masturbatory phases such as "the self-serving narrative of" blah blah. I bet you got a C+ in the drivel that passes for "English Studies" these days didn't you? The very fact that you have a history of radical scholars inventing entire schools and movements, perverted and unhelpful ones mind you, is itself a refutation to your position about there being no self-critique. You can trace it back in many directions, for example, back through the (myth of) the noble savage ideology all the back to the Greek cynics and stoics who maintained that civilization was a corruption and virtue was to be found in the life styles of savages. Now, these are just the ugly examples of Western self-critique, as exemplified by dissidents and perverts like Foucault. The real merit of self-critique will be found in those who build a culture up in good faith and optimism, self-critique for them being the willingness to submit western traditions to rational scrutiny. This has been a tenet of the Western public sphere since the onset of participatory politics in Greece and Rome, that being the right of portions of the citizenry to vote - the right to vote brought with it the development of rational argumentation, persuasive speech and self-critique of policy and culture because it was now necessary, unlike in non-Western nations which never went through the political advances just named, for portions of the public to assess and ratify public policy-making. Greece and Rome are the bedrock of the West, and, as Ibn Warraq has argued, self-critique has always been one of the defining values of the West. Get it right.
So to clarify, Mr. M: You say that, e.g., Foucault's work -- as exemplifying a 'long habit of the Western tradition' -- constitutes a 'deep self-critique'; I say that his work is not at all a 'deep self-critique,' but rather a critique of others, part of an ongoing history of ideological contention. Now apart from your rather wildly irrational and inaccurate leaps of logic in my personal regard, your absurdly brash straight-up rudeness, what exactly was your argument in favour of your claim/interpretation/formulation?? Did you even have one?? (To be clear: obnoxiously insisting that you're right and your interlocutor is wrong is not an argument.) I would add that you appear to be a case in point of my contention that the notion of 'deep self-critique' is a false framing; you appear to be anything but 'deeply self-critical.'
The intelligent readers will know what I said and what I meant McPike. I'm not concerned whether you catch on or not.
I expect 'the intelligent readers' will know that what you said was entirely performative, highly irrational, and -- the ironic bit -- not the least bit self-critical. (But why??)
I would say that the definition of Zionism is too innocent here. Whereas its context to genocide, is that there is no red line? I don't doubt that the definitions from the left are insufficient as well, amounting to identity politics, but there should be red lines in which you contradict yourself in the same essay.
I can understand being anti islam from the view of a Western logos and civilization. Not compatible with modernity.
Ultimately the equivalences of categories, race, religion, sex, and nations, is that they are not equivalents. Civilizations and logos involve all of them in different ways, but they aren't equivalent.
This was refreshing though I much prefer ' majority people group' or Anglo/European Canadian sans the colourised prefix. I have to say I find the fixation on skin colour, speaking as a beige Canadian, to be a tad counterproductive and I do believe Morgan Freeman would agree.
I get where you are coming from. Fixating on skin colour is counter-productive! The reason I comment on it so much, is precisely because identity politics (wokeism) is fixated on immutable identity characteristics like skin colour.
My position on skin colour is as follows:
Skin colour is the least interesting part of ethnicity -- I prefer the myths, symbols, stories, languages, music, etc.
However, skin colour is not irrelevant. The people I am talking about -- Anglo Canadians -- all had white skin colour at the founding of Canada. The founding is key -- that is where the historic ethnic archetype lies. This is important historical information. We want to remember all the details from history -- including what the founding Anglo-Canadians looked like.
And further, I think it's cool that not only am I in the same ethnic people group as the founders of the nation, but I also look like them. It is not the most important detail, I'm not fixated on it. But we are talking about my history and my people. And it is only white people who have to justify their interactions with their own people groups -- both to other white people and to brown people -- and I think everyone needs to chill out and let all people be who they are.
What I mean by this is simply, there is no shame in being white. Do you think a white person who thinks the whiteness of his people group is not insignificant should feel shame about that?
Don't all people from non-white people groups consider their physical attributes (including skin tone) as not insignificant? Why should only the skin tone of white people be considered of zero significance? On a scale of 100, I give my skin tone a significance level of 5. I promise I'm not a Nazi. I mean brown people no harm.
The 51st State? Trump’s Bold Proposal to Annex Canada Raises Eyebrows
By News Blog
In a startling and characteristically provocative statement during a meeting with Justin Trudeau in Florida last week, former U.S. President Donald Trump floated the idea of Canada becoming the 51st state of the United States. The comment, initially dismissed by the Canadian Prime Minister with a nervous laugh, has since ignited intense debates on both sides of the border.
While many dismissed the suggestion as another one of Trump’s attention-grabbing remarks, analysts are warning that it may be more serious than it appears. With a well-documented history of unconventional diplomacy and a strong populist following, Trump’s rhetoric often reflects strategies that challenge traditional political norms.
The Seriousness of Trump’s Statement
Despite its implausibility on the surface, Trump’s comments about annexing Canada align with his broader nationalist rhetoric. During his presidency, he often criticized the United States’ reliance on foreign nations for trade and resources, suggesting that North America should be more unified in its approach to global competition.
“Canada has resources, land, and wealth. It’s a neighbor that we already share so much with. Why shouldn’t it be part of the United States?” Trump reportedly said during the meeting , drawing attention from some in his proposed cabinet who were in attendance.
Trump’s remarks also come amid renewed U.S.-Canada tensions over trade disputes, disagreements over defense spending within NATO, and divergent environmental policies. Some have speculated that his statement could be a tactic to pressure Canada into deeper economic and defense integration with the U.S., while others fear it reflects a genuine ambition.
How Could the U.S. Annex Canada?
Though the idea of the United States absorbing Canada seems far-fetched, political theorists suggest two potential pathways for such an event: diplomacy or force.
Diplomatic Integration
A peaceful integration of Canada into the United States would require an unprecedented series of political and legal maneuvers. The Canadian government would need to hold a referendum, securing the support of a majority of its citizens to join the U.S. as a state. However, such a move would face massive opposition from Canadians who value their independent identity and parliamentary system of governance.
In the unlikely event of a successful referendum, the U.S. Congress would need to approve the annexation, requiring significant political will and constitutional amendments.
Military Action
A far more controversial and catastrophic route would involve the use of force. While unthinkable for most modern democracies, Trump’s history of militaristic language raises concerns among critics. Some have pointed out that a hypothetical U.S. military operation could capitalize on the asymmetry between the two nations’ defense capacities.
“Canada’s military is comparatively small, and its geography is its main defense,” said a retired Canadian military analyst. “But even in this outlandish scenario, the global backlash against the U.S. would be insurmountable.”
Canadian Reaction
Prime Minister Trudeau, when asked about Trump’s statement, responded with a measured tone, calling it “an amusing but implausible remark.” However, opposition leaders and many Canadians expressed outrage. Social media exploded with hashtags like #CanadaIsNotForSale and #TrumpHandsOffCanada.
“The idea that Canada would ever become part of the United States is absurd,” said NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. “Our sovereignty is not negotiable.”
Meanwhile, experts warn that the statement reflects broader concerns about Canada’s relationship with its powerful southern neighbor.
What’s Next?
While the annexation of Canada may never materialize, Trump’s remarks could serve as a reminder of the ongoing need to strengthen Canada’s defenses—both militarily and diplomatically. The episode also underscores the unpredictability of U.S.-Canada relations, particularly in an era of populist politics.
For now, Canada’s status as an independent nation remains secure, but the incident has left Canadians reflecting on their national identity and t
Watch the video Canada the Illusion, only God knows what will happen to Canada.