The recent footage of an incomprehensibly accented Brampton MP in the Canadian Parliament did the usual rounds on X. In the now all too familiar shrill, grating tones of the Subcontinent, he complained about widespread fentanyl abuse, homelessness and gang violence in his adopted town. The Indian born and indeterminately aged (there’s no early life bio on his wiki page) Amarjeet Gill was elected in 2025 and has been in the country only since 1998.
Indeed, if one looks at the MPs for Brampton Centre, South, North and East they and all of predecessors since the early 2000s have South Asian names and ambiguous origins (Shafqat Ali, a Pakistani former MP, also has no given birth year). Most of them are first generation immigrants. The clip remains shocking because it shows the degree of raw cultural alienness an immigrant could exhibit whilst simultaneously being an elected politician in a Western country. While Britain has its David Lammies, Dianne Abbots and Sadiq Khans, all of these figures are the product of multigenerational diasporic communities. And while they proudly maintain hostile ethnic and religious loyalties, they are superficially acculturated. ‘Freshies’, politically marginal and often sources of embarrassment for their co-ethnics in the UK, have successfully colonised entire electoral districts in Canada. There is no equivalent occurrence of political substitution happening at such brazen pace in any other Western nation.
Brampton has assumed a degree of international infamy, perhaps a Canadian analogue to Saint Denis, Molenbeek or Tower Hamlets. A majority South Asian city (accounting for 52.4% of the city’s population) with a a black minority (13.2%) which nearly parallels the residual White population (18.9%), it represents the most dramatic type of ethnic replacement. While there are many urban areas which have been turned ‘majority-minority’ within the course of a decade, Brampton’s migratory transformation has been all the more conspicuous because of the largely monocultural origin of its immigrants. The South Asian population is principally Indian and in turn this diaspora is principally Panjabi (Brampton is host to half of Canada’s Sikh population and is a site of Khalistani militancy). There is no ambiguity about this form of replacement migration, no appeal to the process of “diversification”, because of course Brampton is not becoming more diverse, but now functions as a demographic colony. To read r/Brampton threads is to be inundated with complaints from Euro-Canadians about noise pollution, nearly and frequently fatal traffic accidents due to reckless driving (from 2017-21 it was site of 51% of driving incidents in the Peel region) and skyrocketing rental prices. But most noticeable is the recognition from even liberal posters of a pervasive cultural alienness; a city of 300,000 Indians has been clumsily transplanted onto what had been formerly a city of 300,000 Whites, and the results are apparent for all to see.
Brampton is the most radical manifestation of the transformation of Canada into the world’s first ‘post-national state’. While until recently a largely racially homogenous country, in the 1970s Pierre Trudeau initiated a formal policy of multiculturalism and multilingualism, seeking to accommodate as many national cultures as possible within the framework of the state. While sometimes presented historiographically as a program of sublated Francophone chauvinism, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism sought to promote the cultural preservation of non-British, non-French and non-indigenous ethnic groups. Indeed, much early multicultural rhetoric was directed at and stemmed from ‘White ethnics’, with Trudeau proclaiming at the 10th Congress of the Ukrainian-Canadian Committee ‘that a society which emphasises uniformity is one which promotes hatred and intolerance’. Indeed, it was Paul Yuzyk, an ethnic Ukrainian Progressive Conservative politician, who first declared in 1964 that Canada was a ‘’multicultural’‘ nation, which has resulted in him being dubbed the ‘father of Canadian multiculturalism’‘ and after whom the Paul Yuzyk Award for Multiculturalism is named.
Canadian multiculturalism would undergo a process of institutionalisation during the 1980s, the patriation of the constitution providing an opportunity to legally frame the state as actively supportive of minoritarian cultural self-preservation. Article 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that all of the other freedoms iterated in the charter must be interpreted in a way which is consistent with multiculturalism. The Multiculturalism Act of 1988 asserts that ‘importance’ of preserving the multicultural heritage of Canada. The Broadcasting Act of 1992 tasked the CRTC with awarding ‘ethnic licenses’ to broadcasters and papers with the aim of encouraging a multilingual media environment. Comparable legislation has been passed by provincial legislatures, with every level of Canadian government seeking to promote the demographic balkanisation of the nation. The exception to this is Quebec, which instead promotes ‘interculturalism’ as a policy, affirming a dominant Francophone culture, with separatists traditionally seeing immigration as a plot to tie the region permanently into the federation.
The totemic remodelling of the British Canadian state was accompanied by real changes in the country’s immigration system, which largely parallel those undergone by the United States. Canada’s immigration history is broadly divided into five stages, the first two principally British and French, with the third and fourth having a more broadly European character. It was the fifth wave which saw a policy of liberalisation implemented, with East and South Asia providing the main sources of origin for Canada’s new immigrants. The Immigration Act of 1976 introduced a ‘points based’ system. Comparable to our own recent experiences, whilst superficially restrictive in language, it provided a mass conduit for ethnically non-preferential migration. The Mulroney administration, a centre-right one, increased net migration to around a 1/4 of a million a year, which has remained the baseline figure since the 1980s. The late 2010s however saw a massively accelerated program of liberalisation, with the immigration minister Admed Hussen announcing the country would accept 1 million immigrants a year (in gross figures) (rising from 0.7% to 1% of the population). Net migration into Canada since then has hovered between 300,000 and 400,000, with the former administration in 2022 seeking to increase this to 500,000 until 2025, although it failed in this regard. Net migration, once again comparable to our own state of affairs, accounted for 80% of Canada’s recent population increase.
Canada’s has shifted from a predominantly White British country to one in which its major cities are majority-minority. Canada was 96% European in 1971, while as of the 2021 census it was under 70%. South Asians constitute 7.1% of the country’s population while blacks and Chinese constitute around 5% respectively. More curiously 2.6% of the country are Filipino, while Sikhs, a globally insignificant religion, are 2%.
India, as all online rightists will know, has been a primary driver of this transformation, to the point that they are increasingly a source of grievance for Canada’s other ‘visible minority’ populations. But Canada has its share of black people, who have introduced an MLE twang into the country, while higher birth rates amongst the indigenous population have also seen this cohort’s rapid growth (particularly affecting formerly homogenous parts of the country in the north-west). 23% of Canada’s total population are first generation immigrants, and when factoring second generation, this rises to 42%. No country has seen as monumental a shift in its demographics so effusively and maliciously celebrated. Even America’s own racial change was framed at least initially as an affirmation of an exceptionalist civic identity. Canada’s own has always been acknowledged as the displacement of a purportedly deficient host culture from the outset.
And yet, none of this is remarkably exceptional. It is worse in degree, but not absolutely different from what has occurred in other historically White, anglophone countries. Where Canada faces its dilemma is in the apparent lack of opposition to this displacement. While Britain is on course for a right-wing populist supermajority, Australia has a buoyant nationalist scene, and the US has Trump, Canada elected the Woke globalist Mark Carney to power only a year ago. Indeed, to turn back to that election, the Cameronite Poilievre, who had attended Indian student visa demonstrations and had called for direct flights to be established to Amritsar, was presented as the country’s ‘’populist’‘ candidate. And he of course lost in a landslide, in part due to his tangential association with Trump, who had repeatedly called for Canada’s incorporation into the US. Carney maintains a basic commitment to replacement migration, with some tokenistic policies to curb illegal migration and irregular asylum claims, to allay the public’s concerns.
Many argue that Canada is congenitally cucked and doomed to dissolution. I am of course not of this persuasion, and would note that this has been said of most White countries at some point, until they dramatically cease to be ‘’cucked’‘ (NB that Britain, which has been the site of repeated riots and political agitation, was pilloried for many years as ‘cuck island’). The reasons why episodes of mass civil disobedience and insurrection, electoral or otherwise, occur, are complicated, and do not always directly correspond to atrocities or increases in migration. Often anger is diffused and simmers, erupting years later. But I would concede that there are unique political circumstances which make Canada vulnerable to minoritarian political capture, in a way which is not true of the home country. Canada has the same spatial scale as America, which has hitherto allowed it to absorb, like its southern neighbour, the demographic impact of migration, without the same cultural displacement which Western Europe experiences. But Canada, unlike the United States, has a population of 41 million (37 million in 2017, before the Trudeau wave) and there is no large native population to provide a protective demographic buffer to waves of foreign migration. In effect Canada has been occupied by stealth and migrants have made themselves electorally critical to all major parties. It is, and will be increasingly difficult, for White Canadians to mount electoral resistance to demographic change.
This is the compounded by the unhelpful dynamic of having a right wing populist movement to the south, which draws its base of support from a core population very closely related to Canada’s founding stock. Even in the absence of Trump’s comments about annexation, it would conjure up images in the minds of many of territorial absorption. Canadians will construct a ‘’progressive nationalist’‘ identity in response to these semi-serious threats. Whereas in the United Kingdom ‘liberals playing patriots’ always comes off as contrived and insincere, in Canada it appears as having some validity. Of course if Trump were serious about annexing his country’s northern neighbour, this would provide an opportunity for salvation, but as it stands he simply intends to bait Canada without offering material assistance to its political right.
So, it is unlikely that Canadians will be able to solely resolve their problems on their own terms, and nor will they be ‘liberated’ by the United States. Where could a third party solution come from? It must necessarily be Britain and more broadly Europe which prevents Canadians from being imprisoned in an Artic-Atlantic Guyana. While many will dismiss this as a neo-imperial fantasy, it must occur if Canada is to be saved. The country as it stands is stuck in a dialectic of American irredentist chest thumping and Canadian faux-patriotism. Europe and Britain though are seen still positively as a source of protection, an alternative cultural axiom which Canadians can centre themselves around. We saw this most manifestly during the opening salvo of Trump’s threats to reduce Canada to American statehood, when the leader of the Canadian Greens called for the country to be placed under the protection of Trident (the party’s policies include increased strategic integration with Britain, Australia and the EU). Similarly, a poll conducted by Abbacus data found that in March of this year 44% of Canadians would want to join the EU. Carney has attempted to bring back oaths of loyalty to Charles.
My point here is not to defend Trident (an American sponsored gimmick), the EU (a Woke project to prevent substantive European unification) or the Windsors (who have done nothing for the British people). Rather it is to note that there is natural geopolitical configuration which Canada could be absorbed into. Canada, stuck between a forever Trump administration and a nationalist European bloc, would naturally drift towards the latter, even out of pure aesthetic snobbery. This would be a natural strategic and cultural alignment:
1) Europe maintains a ‘territorial’ corridor to Canada through the Faroe islands, Iceland and Greenland (all of which must remain European). Canada represents the northern Boreal axis of a free Europe. Canada is geographically parallel to Britain and could happily be sustained in such a framework. Canada would be protected from American predations under a joint European nuclear commission, while Canada would provide protection for Nordic possessions in the North Atlantic. Ottawa, even under a liberal administration, could be coaxed into a multilateral framework in which it is forced to accept new demographic policies.
2) Canada isn’t really American. Even the the spread of ‘’Canadian MLE’‘ is a product of the fact that Canada remains within the British cultural orbit. Even in its demographic change it reflects its natural orientation. Canada should be drawn back into Britain’s orbit, and even the Quebecois will accept this if it is done in the context of Franco-British unity. The red ensign, essentially a Union Jack on a red square, is of course the flag of nativist dissidence in Canada, and is listed as a hate symbol by many left wing organisations.
Britain, as a country with a potential future as a nationalist state, can leverage the real soft power which would stem from this status to curry favour within its diaspora countries. Indeed, the first White state which defects from the global order, irrespective of its raw material strength, will command some kind of loyalty from other countries which later follow suit. We are particularly well suited because there countries without a political outlet for rising anti-immigration sentiment, who are waiting to be brought into fraternal union with the home country. This, rather than supporting the financial colonisation of our country, should be the geopolitical priority of any future progressive government. The intermediate future of the Occidental world must be a union of the continent with the former White dominions, with Britain acting as the strategic linchpin and centre. This great empire, will eventually, on its own terms, pursue mutual integration with a progressive order in the United States. The freedom of Canada is the first step in this great endeavour.