It is clear that there is an agenda to annex Canada -- it is not a fantasy being spread by Carney

original to FR | Aug 18 2025 | Peter O'Donnell

[Peter ODonnell]

I often read on Free Republic that Canada's new prime minister, Mark Carney, is using a false narrative of an American desire to annex Canada as a method for gaining support in Canada against what was before Justin Trudeau's departure a near-certain change of government.

My opinion is that there is indeed a real desire in corridors of power in Washington DC, a plan to annex Canada or force Canadian provinces one by one to choose the option of seeking statehood as their citizens come to the conclusion that Canada is incapable of meeting their economic basic needs.

To some extent this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Trump administration places enough economic pressure on Canada to weaken the national economy, one by one (starting with Alberta and Saskatchewan) longer-term grievances come to a critical mass and their residents decide through already-extant political processes to seek either independence or U.S. statehood.

President Trump gave the game away with his comments about Canada being potentially a cherished 51st state, with Justin Trudeau its governor. Combined with insulting narratives about Canada having nothing that the U.S. wants or needs, and the whipping up through color-revolution strategies (directed most likely from parallel non-governmental offices in the Washington DC area) of anti-Canadian sentiments, two objectives are met. First, predictably, there will be massive Canadian dislike for Trump and his administration. This will induce a political reaction, as it did in the April election, to stay with the doomed globalist experiment under the Liberals, avoiding a more skilled and nuanced response that would likely come from the Conservatives.

It has further weakened Canada politically that the Conservative leader, unable to hold back the Liberal tide in April, lost his own seat and is thereby distracted by concerns about winning a by-election in what was supposed to be a safe seat in Alberta (in coming weeks). This byelection is giving Albertans a chance to register a third option vote and also to give an updated opinion on how Carney is responding to the threat.

Make no mistake, fellow FR members, your reporter here is certainly a pro-Trump, pro-MAGA individual personally and would probably be delighted (unlike 95% of my fellow citizens) if there were to be political union in the future between the USA and Canada. If it were within my power to do so, I would lead a political movement in that direction (nobody active in politics in Canada today has a good word to say about it). But as I say, make no mistake ... 95% or perhaps closer to 99% of Canadians want nothing to do with political union. There are three reasons for this:

1. Anyone who might be in favor of political union would likely be, like myself, a libertarian conservative with favorable views of Trump and MAGA. But they realistically understand that for Canada to enter union with the United States would further enhance the prospects of Democrat return to power, and in any case, we would be further behind to be swept up into a globalist America than we are in a globalist Canada. At the very best, it would be a no-win situation. Where such people exist, mainly in western Canada, independence is therefore seen as a better option, figuring that an independent western Canada would have a better chance of remaining anti-globalist.

2. More widely, Canadians figure that as citizens of the United States, they would continue to be looked down upon South Park style, and nobody wants to give up their sovereignty to become a regional have-not minority. Related to this, there would be questions about what rights Canadians would actually have as American citizens, would they gain full rights or would there be a period of partial second-class treatment? Canadians generally expect that they would be treated like dirt (not cherished as Trump stated) and exposed to all sorts of baseless prejudices of which there has been no shortage of examples here on FR (Canadians are retarded, Canadians do not tip, Canadians are stupid, Canadians are grifters, etc etc). None of these prejudices have any basis in fact and can be easily disproved. But unfortunately there is a triumphalist element to MAGA and it has whipped up the lowest common denominator of what people used to call the ugly American syndrome.

(and that introduces a paradox, Trump made political gains by promising to be less involved in imperial neo-con militaristic movements, yet here is an obvious attempt to annex a neighbor country and I often read statements here about how Canada must follow the orders of their superiors in Washington DC. Can you imagine how that plays here? In 1776, or 1814, if I were to post on a hypothetical internet, the Colonies should listen to their natural masters in London, how would you view that? This is how we view your pronouncements)

3. It is widely believed in Canada that political union would result in a shift in economic control from our own centres of power to American centres of power such as New York City, Houston, Dallas, California, etc, and Canadians would be gradually reduced to second-class status in all aspects of daily life -- all we need to do to assess this is to look at how things unfold in border states relative to centres of power. There is a noticeable reduction in standard of living on the U.S. side of our common border, you may not realize it, but it's obvious driving south into the U.S.A. that the standard of living is 25% or more lower than we have on our side of the border. That would of course quickly become similar once the border meant nothing.

-----

Now, where is this annexation strategy coming from? Is it something Donald Trump always wanted to do. I believe not. I don't think Canada was ever on Donald Trump's personal radar at all. There are political forces in the conservative portion of American politics that existed before Trump came down the escalator in 2015 to enter politics. Those forces are triumphalist (America is wonderful, Canada is terrible), and vengeful (Canada participated in the pro-Obama globalist campaign to weaken America). I get that part. I didn't like it myself and frankly, I am no great defender of Canada, the country has treated me personally like a leper on the basis of my own non-Canadian origins (born in England, not a good thing) and my Christian beliefs (stated in public, not a good thing). Parts of me would be delighted to see Canada humiliated on the world stage, I fully agree with sentiments I read about Canadians thinking they are special. Of course special just means different for a good reason. So it's half true, because Canadians are different for a bad reason (to advance socialism).

Trust me on this, you would not get the result the think tank triumphalists think they will get, if you absorb Canada. Canadians are very cunning people and very skilled at fitting into difficult situations (note our national sport, an obvious example). My prediction is that a merged USA-Canada would look more like Canada than they (or you) might expect, after a generation or two. And this is because Canadians would infiltrate your power structures and without changing their own values would begin to project those values out. It would not be a perfect victory, but ironically, if America thinks it can take over Canada, the only way for Canada to take over America is for America to do just that.

Comprende amigos? I hope so.

---

TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Government; History
KEYWORDS: canada; dontbeahosehead; tds; vanity

[Peter ODonnell]

Some general replies from what I’ve read so far.

I perceive the form of annexation would be to create five new states. BC, AB-SK-MB, ON, QC, Atlantic Canada. These would be roughly similar to Washington, Minnesota, Ohio, Massachusetts (if it were francophone), and Maine, in terms of politics, population and impact.

I assume our three territories would either join up with closest states, but Yukon could be absorbed by Alaska, in fact all three territories could be; Nunavut could be twinned with Greenland which I perceive is also coveted and perhaps will fall into line. (probably not without a fight)

As to the actual outcome for Quebec, almost sure to be independence, they would fight to the death any effort to absorb them into a huge anglophone country, so the plan as I outlined above would change into four new states. That’s eight new Senators and probably about 40 new representatives. So states 51-54, or 52-55 if Puerto Rico beats us to it, 53-57 if Greenland takes the bait (possibly Greenland would be absorbed into Maine, as a political entity).

Once again, I want to make it clear, I don’t see this as Trump’s prime project, but one he heard about at a meeting of influential backers, and decided to enable. What would Donald Trump care about Canada’s history or culture? Nothing. Partly because it’s a bit of a hothouse orchid difficult to expose to reality, and partly because it’s all foreign to American thinking anyway, the concept of a successful nation in North America not being a republic and having ties to Europe — unthinkable, essentially anti-American in its very nature. And this is why it persists in Canada, which to some extent is a vast project of denial, that the United States even exists, for many Canadians, it is an unknown void. The people you see coming across the border are in almost every case not part of Canada’s established classes, but socially isolated pro-American types (now having the rug pulled out from under their feet by Trump’s insults) or quite often, new Canadians visting their relatives or stocking up on bargains. The people who run Canada have no time for America or Americans, I know the attitude very well having lived with it for over 70 years.

It is very similar to the French attitude, or the London attitude, or the Dublin attitude — why should we care about whatever is beyond the pale? (it’s an expression that refers to the political situation in Ireland under British rule from Dublin). Irish people often refer to Dubliners as “west Brits” by which they mean, Irish who never fully rejected the united status of Ireland within the U.K. that existed pre-1916.

Eastern Canada is dominated by Loyalist thought processes; people with seven or eight generations of Canadian ancestors are likely to have a Loyalist origin. This is much less of a factor in western Canada, and people who are turned off by the culture in eastern Canada tend to move west (as I did in 1995). This is basically why western Canada is more pro-American than eastern Canada, but when Obama was in power, there was a thin veneer of pro-American sentiment in ruling circles of Canadian society, as in “okay, as long as a guy like him is in charge.” And I can see how that would leave a mark on the likes of J.D. Vance and Steve Bannon, the sorts of people who have a lot of influence over Trump who left to his own devices would probably be much less imperialist.

[old school]

Canada is a “stark” reminder of “American Exceptionalism” and they’re on our border!

[cephalopod]

An interesting speculation or prediction. Living near the Canadian border for most of my life, always gave me the impression that Canadian’s are proudly Canadian and cherish their differences to their southern cousins.
I really doubt that there will be any concerted effort from either side to force a union, at least in any near-term. Too many problems of culture and logistics (which both countries have internally to themselves now as well).
In the long term though (100 years), I see the merger of blocks of countries with generally similar goals and interests; the EU as being the first attempt at such. But there, there is some unity in culture and economic interest that I don’t see in the Americas yet. Nationalistic differences are quickly being overridden by migrations of people and a shrinking earth. Ultimately there will be fewer separate national entities and more aligned blocks, perhaps with an ultimate global governance when culture and economics blur together globally.
It is not my hope to see such; especially in a non-American model (we all see our own countries as being superior). But as a practical comparison, we saw the US become less state specific and more national interest oriented after our Civil War. Something like that will trend for the world as well in time.

[citizen]

One can imagine future conflicts will be about all the above, rather like the competition between haves and have-nots within any given frame of reference.

---

Future conflicts will primarily arise from worldwide food scarcity in a cooling climate. Shorter growing seasons, and from unfriendly seasonal weather: too wet this year, too dry in another. Most Americans won't starve but competent resource management will be a must.

Look at food and energy availability in the coming decades.

[Dr. Sivana]

My wife is Canadian, and lived in Ontario, BC, and Alberta. Her mother was originally from Quebec, and also lived in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and BC. The standard of living in Canada, especially the prairie provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan) is collapsing. When I discussed the possibility of an Albertan referendum and independence for Alberta, my wife pointed out that I was still speaking of it in terms of "how can the U.S. exploit Canadian resources?" (e.g. oil), and not, how can this be mutually beneficial. Yes, the Albertans are more conservative in general, but they have had three generations of indoctrination in socialized medicine, and asking them to give that up literally scares many of them, including the employers who aren't expected to manage the headache of health insurance. Yes, in an emergency, they will use the U.S. and even Mexico for purchased health insurance, but outside of the occasional reckless Canadian ski bum, they all buy travel insurance when they come here because they see themselves dying on the steps of the Emergency Room. (Hyperbole, but only slight)

Albertans are majority sound on guns. Sound on free enterprise for agriculture and oil.

If we took in Ontario, they in turn have already taken in proportionately more aliens from non-western parts of the world than we have.

Canadian military is small, and top heavy, and has had DEI for longer. Canada benefits from the U.S. military shield, providing only ceremonial (and location) support. That frees up more for welfare state spending.

Canadian Injuns (feather, not dot) are a substantial, ongoing problem, and there are deals worked out where independence from Canada would be complicated by their land claims.

My mother-in-law will be voting for independence if it hits the ballot. Right now support is at 20%, not quite Quebec-in-the-80s levels, but you have to start somewhere.

I would rather simply see Alberta simply be independent, making deals with both Canada and the U.S. to her benefit before an outright annexation.

[Peter ODonnell]

Canada is a “stark” reminder of “American Exceptionalism” and they’re on our border!

Canadian version: Canada is a stark counter-example to American Exceptionalism and they’re on your border!

My own view — given that there have always been 10-20 times as many people in America as in Canada, the actual accomplishments of their citizens is broadly speaking comparable. As to what the political entities or societies create, that is a different question. I tend to agree a republican form of government creates greater opportunity and potential equality than a monarchist form of government. But in reality, Canada is nowadays a republic with a thin coating of monarchist practices left over from what was a much more significant forcing in the past. Do you suppose the average Canadian gives a fig about the British monarchy? No, it is almost irrelevant to our population nowadays. Our federal government operates just like most republics.

[reed13k]

Let them keep Quebec and Ontario...we’ll take the rest...though Vancouver is a Little Seattle from what I hear we could let them be subsumed by Washington to relieve the rest of British Columbia of that issue.

[Peter ODonnell]

Not going to happen.

Willing to wager whatever.

- - - - -

I agree it is not likely to happen, I said there was a plan. Putin had a plan to take over Ukraine. Hillary Clinton had a plan to create national health care. Etc etc.

Nor did I say I was opposed personally. If they want my help they know where to find me.

[Bullish]

I’m not even going to bother reading this other than the headline.

No one’s going to ‘annex’ Canada. It’s ridiculous.

[grumpygresh]

Take back all the manufacturing that went up there, yes.
After that’s fine make a deal.

[Bullish]

I don’t have time for idiots.

Because you ARE one?

[paudio]

It went like this:
Trump joked with Trudeau who made it a war cry to unify Canadian behind him. Trudeau succeeded, Carney was elected.

Some conservative provinces that were tired of libeeal Ottawa were considering to secede from Canada, and thinking, “If Quebec could hold referendums, why can’t we?” So, it’s scheduled for next year if it’s approved by Canadian parliament.

All parties need to back off a bit. Seceding from Canada does not mean joining the US Territory. At least for a couple of decade...

[Fury]

Understand - thanks!

[lee martell]

Not just any generic ‘French’ will do!
The Quebecois have their own specific dialect of French, and the older generation of that group will accept absolutely no other type of French within their borders.
See the Charter of the French Language as shown in Bills 101 and Bill 96 for reference.

[Peter ODonnell]

I would certainly be qualified to be an idiot if I said there was a plan to annex Canada and there was no plan.

I never said it was Donald Trump’s plan. I said it was a plan of powerful people behind the scenes in Washington DC.

But you never read the original post, you said at any rate, so you don’t actually know what I was saying. But you said I had to be an idiot despite that.

That moves you ahead of me in the idiot sweepstakes. But not to worry, neither of us is going to medal.

[T.B. Yoits]

Nobody wants Canada’s problems.

Including The Crown, who might try to unload it onto the ungrateful Colonials.

[paulcissa]

Canada is uniquely different and should remain as such. We don’t want their bags and they don’t want ours. Borders work when enforced. Sovereignty is a good thing.

[Neanderthal]

"There is no plan to annex Canada"

**********************************************************

But there is a plan for Mexico to annex the USA.

[Savage Beast]

NOT Ontario, Quebec, or the Maritime Provinces!

Everybody else: WELCOME!

[AppyPappy]

California is on the table