When Will There Be An 'Alternative For Canada'?
Authored by Mark E. Jeftovic via Bombthrower,
On Sunday, Germany's Alternative für Deutschland won Saxony-Anhalt, which shouldn't really surprise anyone, but is being treated by the media like some kind of Black Swan event, blindsiding us all.
The AfD won 43.8% of the vote, more than doubling its result from five years ago and crushing Chancellor Friedrich Merz's CDU, which came in at 17.2%. Apparently, if it wasn't for mail-in voting they would have had a majority.
As it stands, they're within three seats of an outright majority (maybe they can follow the Liberal Party of Canada playbook and induce a few other MPs to defect).
Naturally, practically every headline describing the result contains some variation of the words "far right".
We've been through this before.
A few years ago I wrote "What Does 'Far Right' Even Mean Anymore?" and came up with a working definition:
"Far right" is basically anything that contests the Establishment narrative.
That definition has held up remarkably well.
Because if you listen to the political establishment and its media organs, there are basically only two possible views around the problems facing Western countries.
The first is to double-down on what we've been already doing, irrespective of hard data showing that the policies of the last decade have made Canada the poorest performing country in the entirety of OECD nations, not to mention that the track we're on will keep us there out until 2060...
Here in Canada that means some variation on the policies we've pursued since 2015, many of them mirroring the European model: historically unprecedented immigration volumes, an ever-expanding temporary resident population, increasingly cumbersome restraints on energy and resource development, and a kind of managed degrowth dressed up as environmental stewardship.
Door #2 is that anyone who has an issue with this is a "far-right extremist", or more recently "a maple-MAGA".
There is apparently no middle ground.
Stipulate that immigration is a overall a good thing but that the volume and calibre of the migrants matters? Far right.
Suggest that a country has both the right and obligation to decide who gets to live there and optimize for higher quality immigrants? Far right.
Expect that people who immigrate to this country should integrate into it, obey its laws and be a net contributor economically, instead of a perpetual drain?
Careful now. You don't want to sound like you're "noticing things".
Which raises an interesting question after yesterday's result in Germany:
When will there be an Alternative for Canada?
How Canada's immigration system used to work
Canada was the first country in the world to adopt a merit-based immigration system, in 1967.
The underlying concept was remarkably simple: select for people who were likely to succeed here.
Education. Language. Skilled work experience. Age. Adaptability. Ability to support yourself.
There were family reunification and humanitarian streams alongside it, of course, but the economic immigration system was unapologetically selective and we unabashedly skimmed the cream across all ethnicities, countries, races and religions.
For awhile there, we had it: The Golden Age of Multi-Culturalism - and Canada was, in fact, a classically liberal paradise. For a while.
This is the system under which my parents, my wife, her mother-in-law, our daughter and my entire extended family came to Canada.
All immigrants. Most of them non-white.
It works fine.
For decades we brought in skilled, educated and motivated people from everywhere. While they retained homages to their cultures and religions, they also worked hard, obeyed the law, they opened businesses, raised families, integrated into Canadian society and, over a generation or two, became part of our "Canadian Mosaic".
What Changed
That basic architecture continued for decades and eventually evolved into Express Entry, which was launched under the Harper government in January 2015. Express Entry actually made the selection process more competitive, ranking eligible candidates against one another instead of simply processing qualified applicants in chronological order.
What changed after 2015 wasn't that Canada suddenly abolished the points system, but the Trudeau Liberals made changes to the volume and the pathways.
Permanent immigration targets climbed from roughly 250,000 to 280,000 annually during the Harper years to nearly half-a-million annually by 2024. At the same time, international students, temporary workers and other temporary residents expanded far faster (places like Conestoga College became veritable "diploma factories").
And somewhere along the way, "temporary foreign worker" stopped conjuring up an image of an agricultural worker filling a seasonal shortage and started meaning practically everybody behind the counter at Tim Hortons.
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program was never designed as a mass pipeline for cashiers and fry cooks, but successive rule changes, plus a much larger companion program that does not require a labour-market test, made low-wage service jobs a normal use of temporary labour.
What makes it worse?
As many of those living in the GTA area are aware: home invasions are up, car thefts are up, assaults are up, so is firebombing Christian churches and anti-Semitic violence. The streets of Canada's major cities are routinely taken over by Islamic and far-left extremists who openly hate this country and pine for it's downfall...
(One wonders, why is she here then?)
And when non-citizens commit crimes, get caught, get released again, commit more crimes, and eventually, finally are convicted...
The final catalyst: The immigration discount on criminal sentencing
This may ultimately be the issue that causes the pot to boil over.
Canadian citizens watched citizens getting tackled by cops grocery stores for not wearing masks, people got tazed at outdoor hockey rinks. The federal government imposed martial law and seized your bank accounts for donating to the Freedom Convoy.
And now, they open the news and encounter an endless procession of home invasions, carjackings, sexual assaults, human trafficking cases and violent crimes where some variation of the same phrase seems to invariably appear:
"The accused was already out on release for previous unrelated charges."
...and they end up being released again, and people can't help but notice, that many such cases turn out to be, "Brampton men" (IYKYK).
This has become common enough that Ottawa has finally had to respond. This year the federal government enacted more than 80 changes to Canada's bail and sentencing laws, specifically targeting repeat violent offenders, home invasions, human trafficking, auto theft and accused persons carrying numerous or serious outstanding charges.
So the problem wasn't some imaginary, shared hallucination that came out of a far-right echo chamber.
More corrosive still is the perception that non-citizens who commit crimes have been receiving so-called "immigration discounts" precisely because they are non-citizens and the Supreme Court, in R. v. Pham held that judges may consider the immigration consequences of a sentence.
This has lead to examples such as:
- A Kitchener man who battered his girlfriend was given a conditional discharge to avoid deportation to India
- An Ontario court of appeal reduced the sentence of a man convicted of assault and multiple probation violations by one day in order to prevent a "potentially devastating immigration consequence". The Crown did not object.
- A foreign resident on a work permit who was working as a Bell Technician who exposed himself to a woman in who's apartment he was servicing was granted no jail time because doing so would result in deportation. The man feels "stigmatized" and laments that he had to leave the area.
- Finally, this guy, who was caught in a Peel Regional Police sting operation, because he thought he was soliciting sex from a 15 year-old minor. He was convicted, then argued that his immigration status should not be impacted by his sentencing because he still wants to bring his wife to Canada (who presumably still wants to be with him, for some reason). Justice Paul O'Marra concurred,
"A conviction could lead to severe collateral consequences, such as jeopardizing his immigration status, delaying his citizenship, and preventing him from sponsoring his wife, which would likely result in their separation"
Uh, yeah, no shit. That a conviction could lead to severe collateral consequences is the entire point of having a legal system.
The far-right extremist in me can't help but notice, can't restrain myself from wondering out loud...
Do we really want anybody here who can't govern themselves accordingly before they even become a citizen?
Shouldn't this be the most obvious filter available?
By all means, come to Canada, build a better life, work hard and follow the fucking rules.
Otherwise, don't come, or get deported.
Too simple.
But try explaining the optics of that to a Canadian citizen who has just watched the state demonstrate zero reluctance to use its full powers against him and tell him that noticing the discrepancy makes him "literally Hitler".
At what point does "far right" simply mean "normal"?
One of the more revealing moments in CNN's coverage ahead of yesterday's German election came when correspondent Fred Pleitgen described the AfD's supposedly radical immigration platform.
'The AfD openly calls for mass deportation of undocumented foreigners and foreigners who have committed crimes"
Narrator's note: "undocumented foreigner" is someone who is there illegally.
When a person enters your country as a guest, commits a serious crime against somebody who lives there, they should, as a consequence, lose the privilege of remaining.
Holding this opinion will get you branded "far-right" extremist.
I suspect a fairly large percentage of Canadians would consider it common sense.
Living in Canada should be considered a privilege for non-citizens, and citizenship should mean something. It should be earned through some combination of productivity, commitment, integration and time.
None of this has anything to do with race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference.
In fact, Canada's old system demonstrated precisely how unnecessary those criteria are.
This is where the "far-right" branding becomes dangerous
The problem with reflexively branding every objection to the current system as "far right" isn't simply that the label eventually becomes meaningless.
There is a much worse consequence.
For starters, you eliminate the legitimate middle.
People who simply say "immigration levels are too high" get called racists.
People who say temporary workers shouldn't displace Canadian teenagers from entry-level jobs are deemed xenophobes.
People who think convicted non-citizen criminals should be deported are branded as extremists.
Eventually some of those people stop caring what you call them.
That's when some truly unhinged egregores can arise.
I've been warning about this phenomenon for years, including in my book, Unassailable: when legitimate grievances are declared impermissible, they don't just go away.
They go underground, they tend to mutate, and they resurface as increased polarization, siege mentality and, eventually, real extremism.
We're already seeing the emergence Canadian groups openly espousing ideas that really are extreme, including ethnic cleansing, as though removing entire populations based on their skin-colour is the only remaining solution to problems the political system refuses to confront honestly.
As I lamented in my earlier "Canada Was A Liberal Paradise" piece, racism in Canada was for the most part, a thing of the past.
It was over.
Aside from the fringes and the individual Archie Bunker types, Canada was, for a brief, bygone age, a largely colour-blind meritocracy.
Then we made race central to practically everything again: post-nationalism, colonialism. Settlers on stolen land - this isn't coffee house Marxism by purple haired they/them's from affluent families anymore - it's literally baked into the curriculum, it's being taught in our schools and our universities by an academia overrun with Fabians and Malthusians.
Meanwhile, any criticism of immigration policy is synonymous with racial animus.
Is it any wonder that there are populist backlashes occurring in Germany, Ceuta, France, the UK?
The Alternative for Canada is not what you think.
I'm not here to tell you that some manner of nationalist, populist party is going to save Canada - I don't even think the AfD or any of these reaction movements will "save" their own respective countries.
The reason is that I think this is part of a much wider issue: the collapse of the global debt-based monetary system and a Fourth Turning-style destruction of our Industrial Age institutions. The dysfunction we see here in Canada and abroad isn't the result of the wrong political party or bad policy tracks. Those are symptoms of something much larger.
Populations vote in the wrong political parties, who embark on horrifically bad policy tracks, because there is no workable or tenable solutions to the current problems. Only emergent, alternative systems that are better suited to operating in world's network-shaped topology and hyper-accelerating pace will persevere, and a big part of that is just staying out of the blast radius of the failing machinery (much more on this in my new book, The Blueprint: Survive and Thrive in an Overclocked Timeline - my premium membership already has access to it)
However intractable the problems of building a global financial system atop debt-based money, the situation is even more acute here in Canada, where the older generations still believe everything the CBC tells them, and the younger ones are indoctrinated to hate this country from pre-school onward.
In other words, Canada is cooked, and the "Alternative for Canada" is not having a different party in power, it isn't having some establishment outsider like Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke entering politics (although that would be refreshing), or a firebrand like Kevin O'Leary taking over the CPC (which also would be awesome).
Nor is it becoming "the 51st State" or merging with the US (although anybody who's ever read Dianne Francis' book on the topic would find themselves agreeing with a lot of it. It was written before the rise of Trump and TDS infected the majority of the Canadian "Elbows Up" contingent).
For our cousins out in Alberta, it's not even separation.
All of these things might forestall the inevitable, add a decade or two onto the long descent of The Industrial Age - but the real solution in an era where politics is just institutionalized grift and the masses are intentionally dumbing themselves down, the way forward is through radical personal sovereignty, critical thinking skills, financial independence, and optionality. Lots and lots of optionality.
The Alternative for Canada is you.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/08/2026 - 15:40
AFP via Getty Images
Recent comments