Alberta Referendum: The Canadian version of Texas votes to remain in Canada but restrict immigration and non-citizens' "rights"

Dawn is breaking in Alberta and votes are still being counted in the province-wide referendum held yesterday on whether to remain in the sinking ship that is Canada, and nine other questions, five of which had to do with how much more uncontrolled immigration the province will have to put up with. The actual wording of the questions is shown in blue. Here are the results from the Elections Alberta website, as of this writing. Click on the link to get the latest numbers.

In typically Canadian fashion, the main question was Number 10. Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada? 

Option 1: Alberta should remain a province in Canada. Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada 

Results with 78% of the polls reporting showed that although Canada is a nitwit country governed by leftist wokesters, Albertans are decidedly in favour of remaining in Canuckistan, with a very clear majority opting for Option 1, with 1,368,931 choosing it over Option 2, which got 437,236 votes.

Questions 1 through 5 are the ones about immigration. This is the first chance any Canadians have been given the chance to vote directly for or against the federal Liberal government's proposals to continue to continue with the Great Replacement. Can you guess the result?

1. Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities? YES: 670,185, NO: 522,864

2. Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services? YES: 585,786, NO: 446,321

3. Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non-permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support programs? YES: 556,687, NO: 397,729

4. Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family's use of the health care and education systems? YES: 512,037, NO: 384,924

5. Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta provincial election? YES: 549,764, NO: 320,550

The Rt.Hon. Marx Carney, Prime Minister of All Canuckistan and Head Cheerleader for DEI and yet more immigration pronounced himself well pleased with the result of the vote on Question 10. As for the rest, he has so far said... nothing... absolutely nothing!

Will the referendum make any difference to anyone? Walt predicts the results, when finalized in another three days or so, will be filed in the Great Archive of Ottawa and the Lesser Archive of Edmonton, never to be referred to again. Lifetime pct. .889.

New anti-woke Parti Québécois government to curb mass immigration

Yesterday, in "It doesn't matter where you live. The threat is real", we mentioned briefly the victory of the nationalist (thus anti-immigration) Parti Québécois in Monday's election in la Bette Province. We present now an abbreviated version of the report by Tristin Hopper in Canada's National Post.

Following Monday's election results in Québec, the province may be in for one of the more "anti-woke" programmes in the country, particularly on the issue of immigration. 

The "sovereignist" (read: nationalist) Parti Québécois will form a minority government, with the revitalized Québec Conservatives holding the balance of power. 

The province’s premier designate, Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, has denounced the open borders policies of Canada's Liberal government, declared multiculturalism a failure and  even led campaigns against "wokeisme" in politics.

One of the more immediate policy implications of the new government is likely to be tighter restrictions on immigration, and an explicit push toward increasing the fertility rate as an alternative to accepting immigrants. 

Among the seven priorities which the PQ pledged to pursue were pledges to cut red tape, reduce gasoline taxes and "retake control of our immigration system." For months, M Plamondon has explicitly cited high immigration as a driver of housing unaffordability, health care backlogs and criminal behaviour among Québec youth.

Rising crime rates in Québec are "linked to demographic changes, we can’t ignore that," he told le Journal de Québec last year.

Specifically, the Parti Québécois has pledged to limit permanent immigration to 35,000 per year. For context, the last year Quebec accepted fewer than 35,000 permanent immigrants per year was in 2000, when they brought in 32,502. Last year, 60,132 permanent immigrants settled in the province, with 59,440 arriving the year before.

The party's official immigration platform calls the issue an "urgent situation" that has been imposed on Québécois "without our consent", and includes a clause about using "automation" and "robotics" to reduce dependence on foreign workers. 

When Prime Minister Mark Carney hinted in a New York Times interview last month that his government was planning a "controlled increase" to immigration, M Plamondon responded with a statement accusing Ottawa of attempting to subvert "Québec democracy." "A PQ government would oppose from day one any immigration increase imposed by the federal government," he said. 

Québec, just like the rest of Canada, was hit by an unprecedented surge in "temporary migration" approved by Justin Trudeau's Liberal government in the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. As recently as 2015, the number of non-permanent residents entering the province was about 3600 per year. In 2023, the peak of the post-COVID migration surge, that number swelled to 125,092! 

Québec has also been particularly hard hit by a wave of asylum-seekers who began entering Canada at elevated rates beginning in 2017. Until it was closed in 2023, the Roxham Road illegal border crossing into southern Québec was the primary conduit for such migrants.

According to then-Premier François Legault, in 2023 alone, an estimated 60,000 asylum-seekers registered in Québec, resulting in overflowing homeless shelters. An estimated 190,000 asylum-seekers are still in Quebec, representing more than a third of the Canadian total of 500,000. Conservative Party Leader Éric Duhaime made the issue a recurring theme of his campaign, stating that at least one third of asylum seekers had come to "profit off our social benefits", which he pledged to reduce.

He also proposed sweeping incentives to drive up the Québec birthrate, which, even if it's above the Canadian average, is at a historic low of 1.36 children per woman. The Parti Quebecois similarly rolled out a campaign promise to "slow the falling birth rate." In a statement, M Plamondon said, "Every Québécer who wants children should be able to start a family."

For both the PQ and the Conservatives, the real issue isn't the raw numbers of immigration, but the risk of cultural dilution. In an April press conference, the PQ leader accused the federal government of succumbing to the Trudeau-Carney "doctrine of postnationalism" that caused it to embrace "open borders."

Last week, as the PQ cruised toward victory, the Québec conservative columnist Mathieu Bock-Côté said that it augured a Québec "really turning the page on multiculturalism and unchecked immigration." Representatives of most mainstream Québec political parties are on record as saying that multiculturalism is a failure. The province's most recent immigration minister, Jean-François Roberge said last year, "We think ghettoization does not serve social cohesion."

Québec was also largely immune to an early 2020s phenomenon of Canadian institutions issuing reports and statements declaring themselves guilty of "systemic racism", mandating land acknowledgements and implementing identity-based quotas in official hiring. In 2024, Québec's National Assembly unanimously passed a motion endorsing merit-based hiring over DEI-style hiring based on identity quotas.

Walt sez: Québécois aren't racists. They're realists! When is the rest of North America going to wake up?!

It doesn't matter where you live. The threat is real...

If you watched "Will mass migration be the death of the West?" and thought, "It's not my problem. Maybe it's too late for Britain and France, but there aren't many Islamists in my community. Why should I worry?", Walt says: Look around you! They may not be there in numbers yet, but they're coming, and almost none of our political and religious leaders is trying to stop them.

There's one way that you can do your part to stem the flood. Elections are coming soon not just in the US of A but in other countries, states and municipalities. Use the power of the ballot! Throw your support behind politicians you can trust [??? Ed.] to work for totally closed borders and the remigration of the criminals and terrorists who are already amongst us.

You think it can't be done? Just two days ago, the pure laine Canadiens of the province of Québec turfed out the centre-left CAQ, which had held power for eight years, and elected what promises to be the most anti-woke government in Canada!

Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, now the Premier designate, has denounced the open borders policies of the federal Liberals, declared multiculturalism a failure, denounced wokeism and promised Canada's strictest controls on immigration. 

See? If enough people get over their fear of being vilified as "racist", "Nazi scum" etc to vote according to what they know in their hearts is right, we can win!

Sweden's "progressives" embrace remigration, get re-elected

Earlier this month we posted the good news of the stunning victory of Alternativ für Deutschland in recent elections in the east German state of Saxony-Anhalt. We predicted a bright future for parties of the right, not just in Germany but in Europe as a hole. [Pun intended. Ed.]

We should have added... except for Sweden of course. It is well known that Swedish voters, wishing to uphold Sweden's reputation as a liberal society, regularly re-elect governments of the leftish persuasion, usually the Social Democrats. (Swedish SocDems should not be confused with the American variety, who now control the Dimocratic Party and are not just loony but completely loony.)

In the national elections just concluded, something amazing happened! Popular backlash against the crime wave and other social problems caused by the presence in Sweden of hordes of darker-skinned people (most of them followers of the Prophet) forced the Swedish left to do a 180 on immigration. And guess what? Swedish voters went for it!

To the surprise of even its own members, the "Red-Green" opposition alliance and its liberal sidekicks threw out the centre-right Moderate Party, its nationalist Sweden Democrat allies, and other partners in the "Tidö" bloc, and returned the "reformed" Social Democrats to power.

The top issue in the election was immigration was a top issue, with both the SocDems and the Tido bloc united (to hear them tell it) in opposition to mass immigration and ethnic minority enclaves, aka "no-go zones". Voters of immigrant background overwhelmingly rejected the right, but if "old stock" Swedes had suported the Tido parties it wouldn't have matter. But -- let us be honest -- the white people leaned the wrong way and took another stab at committing cultural suicide.

Of course it's just possible that the Red-Green coalition may keep its promises. [Wut? Ed.] And it's noteworthy that the Social Democrats, Moderates, and Sweden Democrats have reached a consensus, particularly on returning unsuccessful asylum claimants to their countries of origin and deporting foreign criminals more effectively.

If the government and opposition really do co-operate to do clamp down on further nass immigration of unassimilable minorities, Sweden may yet remain alongside Denmark (see "Featured Post", at right) among the countries with the toughest policies on migration, asylum and integration. Mind you, it's rather like locking the doors to the coop after the chickens have come home to roost, but Swedes can still hope.

VIDEO (BANNED in Ireland) exposé of Ireland's immigrant invasion

Folks who knew me in the daze of my youth might have described me as "Black Irish". That's an informal term used mainly outside of Eire to describe people of Irish descent who have dark hair, dark eyes, and complexions that tan easily, differing from the stereotypical image of red hair and pale skin. It is not a recognized genetic or official ethnic category.

Today, in the auld sod, liberal politicians are trying to create a different kind of "Black Irish", as they welcome dusky-hued "refugees" and asylum-seekers, who are taking advantage of Ireland's lax EU-dictated immigration laws. Suddenly the streets of Dublin are full of immigrant invaders, mostly from Africa, enjoying all the benefits (many of them unavailable to native Irish) conferred by a woke socialist government. 

In this video,Tyler Oliveira, an American journalist who specializes in man-on-the-street interviews, visits Ireland to talk with these "refugees" and asylum-seekers, and with the real Irish people who think they should go back to whence they came. 

VIDEO: Amelia is back with "Remigration Airways"

VIDEO: One word you MUST add to your vocabulary NOW

Waifu Amelia speaks for all of us here at WWW!

VIDEO: The AI heroine that England's loony lefties don't want you to see

Notice I said "England", not "Britain" [and certainly not "Great Britain"! Ed.]? That's because the AI heroine is Waifu Amelia, an independent, subversive, England-loving, purple-haired Goth girl taking online, disgruntled Brits by storm.

Amelia's fictional backstory is that she's a schoolgirl who deeply loves British flags and culture. Wild child that she looks, Amelia is immensely proud of her country and has a real problem with the state of the so-called United Kingdom today. 

She sees the hordes of immigrants being allowed to pour into the Septic Isle not as an asset but as an invasion. And she's pissed that any public manifestation of British pride is immediately quashed by a nascent, tyrannical government now preying on its citizens, while indulging and encouraging the worst in the newcomers flooding into the tiny island. 

The problem with Amelia, according to British authorities, is that her outspoken and unfiltered views are all wrong... politically incorrect in the extreme! The discomfiture of the ruling Labour (read: leftist) party is exemplified by the booby bobby wearing a rainbow vest, arresting the old man who is stuttering, "What did I do?", to which the answer is "You tweeted rudely, and you're under arrest!"

The cheeky, freedom- and England-loving Amelia has become an icon, and that's hilarious considering where she originated. Waifu Amelia is the British government's own creation and has been around for a couple of years.

She was a bit player in Pathways, a nanny-state online game created by the government for yoofs in an effort to warn them off "right-wing extremism". She was meant to be "the far-right, anti-immigration bad girl" who tries to sway a tender and impressionable kid to join her on the wrong (read: right) side of the tracks.

The campaign turned out to be a spectacular own goal. Here's what Waifu Amelia stands for now!

Thanks to BCF for pointing us in the right direction! Ed.

VIDEO: Voice of the people: "Get the f*ck out of my country!"

The Arab community in Dearborn MI has grown since the early 20th century, with waves of immigration from countries like Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq, initially driven by jobs at Ford Motor Company. Now Dearborn has the largest Muslim population per capita in the United States.

In 2023, Dearborn became the first American city with a majority-Arab population, with about 55% of residents claiming Middle Eastern or North African ancestry. This once-white community features the largest mosque in North America and numerous Arab and Muslim organizations. 

Here's what Jake Lang, one of the few remaining white American residents, told the Dearborn Council on November 18th.

"You make all of our country look like the places that you fled from. We don’t want you here. Respectfully, get the fuck out of my country!" Well said, that man!

Video source: Freedomnews.tv "stands for press freedom - Independent Journalists reporting on stories that matter and without compromise."

Charlie Kirk on immigration

The failure of multiculturalism: the British and Irish examples

For decades now the liberal democratic governments of the AABC countries (America, Australia, Britain, and Canada) as well as western Europe, notably France and (above all) Germany, have forced on their people the premise of the Great Replacement, i.e. that multiculturalism is a Good Thing.

It is not. Enter "multiculturalism" in the search window above and you will find numerous articles on the subject proving that the premise is wrong and reporting the results of the disastrous experiment in One-Worldism and the attempt to force human persons to love one another. You'll also find links to a number of videos which have been scrubbed from YouTube by the wokesters who refuse, like the Three Wise Monkeys, to see the truth which is there to be seen.

Today we present yet another article on the failure of multiculturalism, this one by London-based journalist Michael Murphy. Mr Murphy created a fine documentary entitled "Ireland is full! Anti-immigration backlash in Ireland", which we suggest you watch ASAP, before it too disappears. Mr Murphy writes:

Now we know what globalizing the intifada looks like. In Manchester last week, a rabbi addressed his congregation in a robe stained with blood. Hours earlier, on Yom Kippur, Judaism’s holiest day, a jihadi terrorist rammed a car into worshippers at the gates of a synagogue before going on a stabbing spree. By the time officers shot the attacker, two were dead and four more injured, some from accidental police fire.

To show they would not be cowed by violence, the congregation resumed their prayers as Britain’s Special Air Service (SAS) forces patrolled outside. Underneath the defiant posture, though, many of them will likely have wondered whether Britain remains a safe home for Jews. For the first time in centuries, the answer is not straightforward. Neither are the solutions to this predicament. 

Britain’s multicultural project rested on assumptions that have not survived contact with reality. We told ourselves immigrants would assimilate, or at least bring only harmless aspects of their cultures with them. Diversity was held up as our greatest strength. It has been apparent for some time that this was a monumental act of self-delusion. While many immigrants do share our values and become productive members of society, the people who don’t are more numerous than we have long cared to admit, and are wreaking havoc.

Consider the Manchester killer. Jihad al-Shamie was born in Syria and brought to the United Kindgom as a child, attaining citizenship in the mid-2000s. With that passport he was thenceforth regarded by our institutions as British. The problem is that when a bearded man in a suicide vest begins murdering Jews “in the name of the Islamic State,” as he put it, what once seemed like a harmless accommodation becomes an affront to the British people themselves. 

Al-Shamie was less an example of diversity being our strength than a life-long liability. He dropped out of university, spent his life unemployed and housed at public expense, and was earlier this year arrested for rape. His online footprint is limited to a 2012 death threat against a parliamentarian who had defended Israel.

What kind of society not only tolerates but subsidizes such a man? The same country that, when the Islamist refugee Salman Abedi murdered 22 people at a Manchester concert in 2017, consoled itself with the pop lyric “don’t look back in anger.” The same country that for decades ignored the rape of thousands of white girls by mostly Pakistani grooming gangs to avoid accusations of racism. A country that insisted Islam is simply a “religion of peace,” even as Islamism continued to inspire atrocities on its soil.

This posture is clearly self-destructive. It breeds resentment among the native population, and cynicism among immigrants, including those who have fully embraced British society, culture and norms, and who now see Britain as unwilling to defend itself. It has now also made life unsafe for other minorities. 

Britain spent centuries dissolving its own tribal rivalries to unite under the banner of one nation. But it has since managed within two generations to begin to re-tribalize. Its melting pot has proved too lukewarm. Take al-Shamie’s father, Faraj, a trauma surgeon who publicly denounced his son’s killings. He seemed at first to be the model immigrant, until his own views were unearthed: he had called on social media for Israel’s destruction, also praising Hamas and even Hitler. The rot in this case, as with many others, was inter-generational. 

The authorities may have missed a window in 2012 to flag al-Shamie. But they arguably missed a greater opportunity to prevent his family coming to the U.K. in the first place. It has long been a matter of liberal etiquette to pretend that all immigrants arrive with only superficial differences and are, in the round, a net bonus to Britain. 

This mantra has helped the establishment dismiss calls for a more selective admissions system. Yet, too many migrants arrive with the prejudices and ideological baggage one might expect. Polling by the Henry Jackson Society, for instance, found that 53% of British Muslim men believe Jews have too much power, while fewer than a quarter think enforcing Sharia law would be undesirable. 

Al-Shamie senior’s admiration for Hamas is also far from unusual. While most British Muslims would no doubt abhor the murder of Jews, there is a dissonance in the fact that many of them are supportive of Hamas, which is dedicated to killing Jews. Clearly, immigrants need to be more thoroughly screened before they are admitted. 

This reality undermines a central pillar of Britain’s immigration mythology. We convinced ourselves that the great danger was native prejudice against newcomers, despite the country’s exemplary tolerance. The far greater threat has been importing hatreds we had long tamed within our own society. 

At core, Britain’s multicultural experiment is failing because we insisted on seeing the world in our own image. Rather than admit it, our leaders have constructed an alternative reality in which failures are repackaged as opportunities for cohesion, with the leaders of otherwise siloed communities uniting briefly to denounce extremists. But the problem is far more daunting, and possibly intractable, than our politicians are willing to admit.

This post is a shortened version of "British multiculturalism has failed", which appeared in Canada's National Post, 11/10/25.

Further reading: "'Allahu akbar!' in Texas - Hostage-taker was British Muslim" WWW 16/1/22.

Worth watching: "Douglas Murray discusses 'The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam' with Mark Steyn", WWW 31/10/17.

Meanwhile, a conservative woman becomes Prime Minister of Japan

We were so preoccupied with predicting the rise to power of the hard right in Europe that we nearly missed the game-changing election in Japan, where Sanae Takaichi, a hard right conservative, defeated four other colleagues to become leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Thus she is set to become Japan's first female prime minister when the Diet meets to elect a new one.

Ms Takaichi's vision of a staunchly conservative party prevailed over the calls of outgoing PM Shinjiro Koizumi for an inclusive approach. Her election as leader marks a triumph for the LDP's conservative wing. Her liberal critics are wringing their hands about the party's abrupt turn to the right, putting it down to "the Trump effect".

Viewed from our corner of the global forest, it's yet another sign of the trend in Western countries -- that includes Japan -- towards nationalistic, culture-warrior politics.

Ms Takaichi entered  the Japanese parliament in 1993, eventually serving atop the communications ministry and, most recently, as minister for economic security. Her election, however, is hardly a triumph for feminism or the idea of "gender equity".

A staunch social conservative, she opposes giving married couples the legal right to keep separate surnames or allowing female succession in the imperial line. Her political role model is Britain's "Iron Lady", Margaret Thatcher.

But her true mentor was the late prime minister Shinzo Abe, to whose policy agenda Ms Takaichi's bears strong similarities. She declares that "Japan is back!", favours stronger Japanese armed forces, and wants to complete Mr Abe's mission to revise the constitution imposed on Japan by America at the end of WWII.

Ms Takaichi also shares her mentor's revisionist views on Japan’s wartime history. She wants to make the LDP a party "that promotes pride in [Japan’s] traditions and history." She has been a regular visitor to the Yasukuni Shrine, which houses the spirits of Japan’s war dead, including war criminals. If she goes as prime minister, during the shrine's fall festival which begins on October 17th, she will be the first Japanese leader to do so in more than a decade.

President Trump is expected to visit Tokyo on October 27th. Ms Takaishi, considers the alliance with the US of A the cornerstone of Japan's security. She will probably try to strengthen ties with Mr Trump through their shared friendship with Mr Abe. Whether she will attempt to modify the latest trade agreement between the two countries is an open question, given that Ms Takaishi, has an expansionist economic agenda.

The selection of Ms Takaishi comes amidst growing populist sentiment in Japan, a country in which (unlike many Western countries) tradition is still respected and valued. Some upstart populist parties that have made inroads in recent elections. By choosing Ms Takaichi, the LDP is signalling an intention to win back right-wing voters who abandoned in favour of some who have played to increasing resentment over a growing number of foreign workers and tourists. 

Ms Takaichi clearly understands popular sentiment. In her victory speech she vowed to "work, work, work" to rebuild the country and revive her country. She didn't say "Make Japan great again"... but she didn't need to.

"Hard right" close to taking power in Netherlands (and Europe)

After a decade of swelling anger over mass immigration, housing, and the brutal cost of living, nationalist parties are poised to take power across Europe.

In 2021, countries like Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium were governed by politicians who had led western Europe in the familiar, moderate style that had predominated there since the end of WWII. Upstart nationalists were gaining ground, but were largely excluded from governing coalitions, and seen as troublemakers rather than serious players. It has taken them just four years to go from the margins to the cusp of leading the continent's largest economies. 

Now it is the establishment that is floundering on the brink of irrelevance as populists and nationalists evolve into the first choice for conservatives, angry youth, and those who feel like the traditional parties do not work for them. What started as protest votes have evolved into a permanent political force.

The Dutch will vote this month in a snap election, and the nationalist right will likely once again emerge as the largest force in the country's politics. It has been just two years since the last election in the Netherlands, in which the Party for Freedom (PVV) led by Geert Wilders won the most seats in the Dutch parliament.

The PVV is staunchly nationalist, and defined by opposition to mass immigration and multiculturalism. Following the 2023 election, the PVV formed a rickety government with the other parties on the condition that Mr Wilders would not become prime minister, only for the agreement to collapse earlier this year. 

According to current polls, the once-dominant People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), a moderate centre-right party, is poised for its weakest showing since the 1970s. Electorally, it is hardly a threat to the PVV anymore, whose greatest competition on the right is coming from JA21, another right-wing nationalist party. 

Combined, the PVV and JA21 are projected to win nearly half the seats in the Dutch parliament. In Europe’s proportional electoral systems, where parties must negotiate alliances to have a working majority, attempting to keep those parties out of power in 2025 is a stalling tactic that is delaying the inevitable.

The top issues for voters in the Netherlands are housing, immigration, and health care, with climate change plummeting as a top priority from around 30 per cent of the electorate in 2023, to just about 19 per cent today. Frustrations over migration have burst out of the realm of regular politics, with anti-immigration riots breaking out in The Hague, causing tens of thousands of euros worth of damage to the parliamentary complex there.

In February, Mr Wilders wrote on social media, "The biggest threat is that for decades we have welcomed people from other parts of the world where violence, inequality and lack of freedom dominate, with open borders and mass immigration in Europe, that we have accepted, facilitated and praised the refusal to integrate and adapt to the rules of our own society."

The inability or unwillingness of the EU’s political establishment to meaningfully tackle mass immigration or the cost of living has cost them their legitimacy, as well as the trust of ordinary citizens. Furthermore, the sheer influx of new people via immigration has strained the housing supply of most Dutch cities. Rent hikes and shrinking disposable incomes have been the result, making the Netherlands into one of the most unaffordable countries in Europe. 

A similar set of issues in France has resulted in the mass rejection of the established parties of the left and right. The traditional Gaullist conservatives are edging towards irrelevance, after dominating French politics for much of the 20th century. Disaffected blue-collar workers, young people, and frustrated conservatives have shifted en masse to the National Rally (RN), a right wing nationalist party that has gained in every election since 2007. 

European economies are largely stagnant or declining. A shrinking share of the shrinking pie is being eaten up by more and more people from outside the EU, and voters who feel crowded out on housing, wages, and basic services want politicians who prioritize their interests. 

In Germany, the populist Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) became the second largest party in elections earlier this year, and is now polling first in political surveys. In Britain, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is on-track to sweep aside both the Labour and Conservative parties, with his party winning city by-elections in previous Labour strongholds like Cardiff.

Wherever populist nationalism rises in Europe, the story is the same. Parties that voters could once trust to manage their economies and societies have not satisfied concerns over immigration and rising expenses of merely living in Europe, and they are paying the price. These are not the gentle, consensus-based politics that defined Europe for so long, but the results of people feeling unheard and neglected. More “consensus” is simply a shield for further decline, and millions of Europeans are not going to reward failure any longer.

This article has been adapted from "Geert Wilders' coming triumph and the end of Europe's mushy centrists", by Geoff Russ, in the National Post (Canada), 2/10/25.

Footnote: "Grenzen dicht!" means "Borders closed!"

"Thank you for that question..."

Answers on the back of a postage stamp please to Walt Whiteman, c/o Poste Restante, French Lick IN. Or you can send it to any Dimocratic Senator or Congressthingy.

Just released! Updated map of Canuckistan

Thanks and a tip o' the toque to Agent 3, who once lived in New Punjab.

German politicians agree not to say anything bad about illegal aliens

As a follow-up to our post about the Muslim asylum-seeker who killed a Ukrainian refugee last month, we present below a slightly shortened version of an article by Katja Hoyer, a German-British historian and writer, published on UnHerd, yesterday. Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for the lead.

Cologne immigration pact opens doors for AfD

In Cologne, a bizarre conspiracy of silence has settled. Only it's not happening behind closed doors. All of the political parties involved in upcoming local elections, except the anti-immigration AfD, have openly agreed to avoid negative commentary on immigration during their campaigns.

Everyone, from the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to the far-Left Die Linke, has signed a "Fairness Agreement", pledging not to talk about migrants in connection with "negative social developments such as unemployment or threats to domestic security".

This is likely to backfire spectacularly. Democracy thrives on open debate, especially on polarising issues such as immigration. By effectively imposing a gag on critical voices, the agreement tampers with the democratic process itself, stifling dialogue with superficial silence. Citizens deserve a truthful negotiation of competing policies, not a hastily erected facade that ignores discomfort or disagreement.

This curtailment comes at a high cost, especially in Cologne. The city has not forgotten what happened on New Year’s Eve 2015, when hundreds of women reported sexual assaults by groups described as of Arab or North African appearance near Cologne Cathedral and the central train station. Police admitted later that around half the perpetrators had been in the country for less than a year, and that there was "a connection between the appearance of the phenomenon and large-scale migration, especially in 2015."

A decade on and mainstream politicians are agreeing not to talk about this connection, not only alienating victims and witnesses of crimes committed by migrants, but also allowing the AfD a monopoly on the political representations of related concerns.... 

Meanwhile, the broader democratic ecosystem suffers. Voters, particularly working-class ones, and even long-established migrant-origin communities, are shifting toward the Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD), not because they embrace extremism, but because they feel unheard and abandoned by the political centre. Without legitimate channels to express concerns, cynicism grows and democracy erodes. 

To call this silence "fair", when it abandons one of Germans’ most pressing concerns, seems cynical. It's a capitulation: a denial of many people’s everyday experiences, fears and frustrations. It validates the smug belief that "politics knows best", even when public safety and social cohesion are at stake. Fairness demands honest engagement. Problems and conflicts in Cologne, including the horrors of New Year’s Eve 2015, must be acknowledged — not exploited, but confronted openly. 

Even if the intention of the agreement was solely political, it would backfire on those terms. By collectively signing the “Fairness Agreement” and singling out the AfD as the only dissenting voice, mainstream parties confirm a huge frustration that has driven so many voters towards the Right in the first place: the idea of a "uniparty" that blocks all change. 

Many Germans already feel that all establishment parties, regardless of ideological labels, are essentially the same, offering no genuine choice — especially on immigration. When voters see everyone from across the spectrum agreeing not to criticise immigration policies, despite widespread public concern, it reinforces the perception that no real political alternative exists within the system....  

In attempting to isolate the AfD, Cologne's political establishment is feeding directly into the party’s most effective messaging. The "Fairness Agreement" is no honour to fairness. It's yet another sign of how detached the political mainstream has become from voters. Migration is the big issue of our time. If centrists want to remain part of a conversation they can't stop, they need to pull their heads out of the sand and do what politicians are supposed to do in a functioning democracy: listen to voters.

VIDEO: Victor Davis Hanson: Germany is committing suicide!

On the latest episode of "The Daily Signal", Victor Davis Hanson weighs in on what appears to be Germany's death wish. He's talking about the country's domestic intelligence agency's labelling of Alternativ für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) as an "extremist" group -- just one level below "terrorist", evidently. 

AfD is challenging the designation in the courts, but Mr Hanson says the damage has already been done. He calls the move to effectively silence Germany's only rightist party about political control, not public safety as touted. The classification ensures AfD will never get its hands on the levers of political power, he says, no matter how many people support them.

If the AfD are "officially" extremists, Mr Hanson explains, "no government under [the German] parliamentary democracy system will ask them to join to form a majority government. So the process of ostracism and demonization of this party continues."

Why, he asks, would the German government do this? Because, the AfD offers a different vision, contrary to the politically correct narrative. "The party is advocating an alternative for the way that Germany is going." 

And where is Germany going? Mr Hanson paints a bleak picture of economic decline, energy failure, and political denial. But, he says, there is a deeper crisis -- one that strikes at the heart of Germany’s identity, and beyond that to the very idea of "Europe". 

The consequences of the denial of the rightist alternatives are both cultural and existential. Mr Hanson estimates that 16%  to 18% of Germany's population are foreigners -- not born in the Fatherland -- and have not not assimilated. "These are refugees -- or I don’t think they're refugees," he says. "They’re illegal immigrants from the volatile Middle East. Most of them are Muslim. Most of them do not have an intention of assimilating, intermarrying, and integrating fully in German society."

The [German] government's refusal to address this, he says, has allowed a demographic transformation to unfold without public debate or accountability. Today's Germany is a far cry from the Germany that once held Europe together. "For years, Germany was the powerhouse, the cohesive economic power that kept the EU together.... It's very tragic."

Instead of a healthy debate about what is to be done to resolve this crisis, Mr Hanson says the one party calling for such a debate and proposing solutions is being silenced. "They demonize [the AfD] because it's out of the norm. And the norm, unfortunately in Germany today, is national suicide."

Recommended reading: Suicide of the West, by James Burnham. The John Day Company, New York, 1964. That's right -- 1964. Conservative political pundits like Mr Burnham have seen this coming for six decades. Read the book (if you can find a copy) and marvel at the degree to which his vision of the future has become today's reality.

Meanwhile, back in the auld sod

In Eire, Easter Week is traditionally marked by Republicans with parades and marches commemorating the 1916 Rising against British rule. The tradition has now been adopted by Ireland's fast-growing anti-immigration movement/

Outside Dublin's Gardens of Remembrance, tens of thousands of anti-immigration marchers gathered for their largest protest yet. Speaking of the Irish government, an older woman carrying a commenorative wreath ranted, "They need to be dragged out by their balls!"

In the Republic, though very much not in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin voters are by far the strongest anti-immigration constituency. Scattered across a broad spectrum of microparties, Ireland's anti-immigration movement achieved electoral success last year only in winning council seats in working-class areas of Dublin. 

Judging by the fiery speeches, the protest's organisers have decided to lean strongly into capturing Sinn Féin’s disaffected urban voter base. "We don’t need big posh people to come on and represent the working class," independent candidate Gavin Pepper roared at the vast crowd outside the grand neoclassical Custom House. “"We are the working class."

Myles naGopaleen, God rest him, always referred to them as "the plain people of Ireland". Speaking for them, he would surely have used a richer epithetn that "big posh people". He might well have called them "that ignorant, self-opinionated, sod-minded, suet-brained, ham-faced, mealy-mouthed, streptococcus-ridden gang of naatural gobdaws!" Myles was never one to sugar-coat things.

Neither is newly-elected councillor Patrick Quinlan of the National Party, an identitarian movement standing on a platform of mass deportations and re-Gaelicising Ireland. He gave a speech railing against "the den of rats inside Dáil Éireann" (the Irish parliament). It was the sort of political speech that would be recognisable to historians of Ireland’s 19th-century mass movement nationalism. :They fear not chaos but our awakening," Quinlan roared, "The holy fire that blazed in our patriot dead…lives on here today. The heroes of 1916 triumphed, and so shall we."

Source (excepting the paragraph of remarks by Myles na Gopaleen): UnHerd 27/4/2025. Thanks to BCF for pointing us in the right direction. If you want to read more of Myles' tales of the plain people of Ireland, try to find a copy of The Best of Myles, Picador Books, 1968.

Also recommended: The Rising: Ireland: Easter 1916, by Fearghal McGarry, Oxford University Press, 2010, and of course the excellent (except for Julia Roberts' performance) movie, Michael Collins (1996).

Common sense immigration policy

Walt will return when he has something to say.

A meme for Canadians deciding how to vote

Regular readers know that we run a lot of memes from the Memesters Union at the Patriot Post. Today we have something from north of the World's Longest Partially Defended Border (TM), which we're sure expresses the feelings of a great many Canadians.

You're not likely to see this in the Canuck social media though. It's not "social" enough for the oh-so-polite frost-backs. More like ANTI-social, the lamestream media say. Thanks to all at Blazing Cat Fur.