The Bargain That Bought No Room

On Saturday, August 29, the Dominion Society of Canada held its first national conference at the Atrium Banquet and Conference Centre in Burlington, not Hamilton, where DomCon had been advertised for months and where everyone involved had expected it to take place. The change of city was not a minor logistical adjustment. Hamilton’s mayor had barred municipal facilities before leaning on private venues, Hamilton Police had openly declared the gathering unwelcome, and two property owners had cancelled rather than find out how much trouble City Hall could make for a business that refused to cooperate.

Mayor Andrea Horwath began by denying access to city property, a decision she was entitled to defend in public and, if necessary, in court. Instead of stopping there she wrote to businesses that might rent the Society a room, carrying the campaign from public facilities into a market where an official letter does not have to contain an explicit threat in order to be understood. Hamilton Police supplied the heavier pressure. Officers urged venue operators to weigh DomCon’s “impact” on the community, announced a cancellation through the service’s own website, and asked residents to report any new reservation they discovered. Acting Insp. Darren Murphy then appeared before the cameras to say the conference was not welcome in Hamilton.

This extraordinary use of police attention was not tied to an alleged offence. The service’s own public notice identified no crime, which was precisely why the campaign needed private owners. An event the city could not prohibit under law could still be made commercially radioactive. The mayor did not have to order a cancellation when every venue operator understood that accepting the booking meant becoming the next subject of official attention.

Horwath’s letters also arrived after activists had prepared the ground. Jared Taylor counted twenty organizations behind the public campaign, whose joint statement branded the Dominion Society a hate-based group that targeted non-White immigrants and denied an Indigenous genocide. It demanded that public institutions withhold space while instructing private venues to do the same. Residents were encouraged to pull down Dominion Society posters and report where they had found them, turning what was presented as a spontaneous civic response into a coordinated effort to close every possible room before the police arrived.

Hamilton Centre MP Aslam Rana added the federal political voice by declaring that Hamilton had no place for “hate and White supremacy,” then accused DomCon of intimidation and violent extremism before police had identified any violence to investigate. The accusation did its work without evidence because the businesses receiving it were never being asked to decide guilt. They were being told how much risk would follow from a refusal to accept the official verdict. By cancelling, the owners gave that verdict the force of a municipal ban while allowing everyone at City Hall to deny that a ban existed. According to Taylor, the Society found the Burlington venue three days before the conference.

The search became frantic enough to swallow Brock’s Monument. A video showing Dominion Society co-founder Ken Jones at Queenston Heights caused the non-profit Friends of Fort George, which staffs and looks after the memorial, to close the site and send its student employees to Fort George while Niagara Parks Police went on alert. Jones later described the video as a diversion. The Society had never booked the park, and DomCon was already being assembled one city over as its opponents protected an empty monument from a conference that was not coming.

By Saturday morning the quarantine had broken. White men in suits crossed the Atrium parking lot wearing conference lanyards while a sold-out notice greeted late arrivals. General admission cost $150 and the VIP ticket $250. A Red Ensign faced the audience inside. Martin Sellner spoke through a recording because his federal travel authorization had not been resolved before his flight, but the delay did not keep him off the programme. When his image disappeared from the screen, the hall erupted with the words Hamilton had spent a month trying to drive out of town: “Remigration now.”

That demand did not come from nowhere. Ottawa opened population intake like a fire hose and refused to build the drain, leaving employers to use temporary foreign workers against Canadian labour while colleges converted classrooms into unofficial immigration offices. Permanent immigration broke records faster than housing could rise or hospitals could expand. The added competition fell heavily on White workers in industries where bargaining power had already been weakened. Yet every visible failure of the policy was reintroduced as proof that government needed another programme, whether for housing or health care, to manage the consequences. Ottawa created the pressure and then expanded itself to administer the damage.

Landlords took the cleanest profit. Population growth pushed more tenants toward homes Canada had never built, rent followed the shortage upward, and ownership rewarded whoever had acquired title before the policy took effect. This was not an incidental side effect of mass immigration but one of the reasons the arrangement survived political failure after political failure. The property class gained from the scarcity, then claimed the additional power to decide whether opposition to the policy deserved a place to speak.

The Dominion Society uses remigration to describe the reversal Ottawa will not consider. Its published compact would suspend permanent immigration for at least ten years, abolish the temporary-worker pipelines that let employers bypass Canadian labour, and end birthright citizenship. It also proposes broad powers to revoke permanent residence. The estimated removal target ranges from five to nine million people and includes temporary workers, permanent residents, and some Canadian-born children of non-citizen parents. Whatever one thinks of the number, it places the underlying question in the open. If governments can deliberately transform a population through immigration policy, the affected population is entitled to argue for a deliberate reversal.

Remigration reaches beyond the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because immigration has already rewritten the public meaning of Canada. The Multiculturalism Act did not merely accommodate people who arrived after the country existed. It trained institutions to deny that an historic people existed before their arrival. The Society’s proposed National Cohesion Act answers by defining Canada as a European country formed through English and French founding cultures, rejecting the idea that the nation is a hotel where the front desk and flag remain Canadian while every other part can be exchanged without limit.

DomCon brought that answer into a physical room after demographic change had proceeded without the historic population’s consent and after the government responsible for it had tried to remove opposition from legitimate debate. Daniel Tyrie, who founded the Dominion Society with Ken Jones and Greg Wycliffe on July 1, 2025, had spent enough time as executive director of the People’s Party of Canada to see the evasion built into civic nationalism. The civic formula defines nationality through legal citizenship and ends there. Tyrie argues that the formula confuses a document issued by the state with the people who created the state in the first place.

His Heritage Canadians begin with the population formed along the St. Lawrence, where English and French settlement established the historical facts that later governments inherited. Scottish and Irish settlers entered that formation. Later Europeans joined it, not as temporary occupants of a neutral market, but by making Canada their own country and adding their descendants to its continuity. Tyrie insists that White Canadians still constitute a people and should remain the majority. His enemies respond to the word with labels whose purpose is to make the underlying claim unsayable.

Hamilton Police tried the same manoeuvre through the language of safety and belonging, but by September 2 neither the police nor the Crown had announced a conference-related charge. Without a crime, the campaign had to pass through the property market. An owner could revoke a booking the police lacked grounds to prohibit and describe his submission as ordinary business judgment. Public officials created the risk, private title delivered the punishment, and the division of labour allowed each side to claim that the other had made the decision.

The room in Burlington answered with deliberate ceremony. Dominion Society director Matthew Baker opened the programme and led “O Canada” beneath the Red Ensign before offering an ironic land acknowledgement that began, “Hamilton was a barren wilderness.” He followed settlement through the building of the city and finished with the sentence Hamilton had tried to suppress by administrative pressure: “We are a nation of settlers, explorers, and soldiers.”

John Carter gave that historical claim its philosophical structure. Liberalism, he argued, makes men morally equal by treating them as replaceable. It begins by emancipating them from inherited obligations to nation and culture before turning against bonds they nominally choose, including marriage. Rights multiply as duties disappear, yet a society stripped of loyalty cannot hold itself together. The state eventually reconstructs order by censoring and vilifying anyone who tries to recover the attachments it dissolved. Hamilton had offered the conference a practical demonstration before Carter reached the microphone.

Carter did not pretend that every liberal insight could be discarded or that post-liberals had somehow escaped the intellectual categories in which they were educated. His target was liberal emancipation as a solvent of permanent bonds, and loyalism was his answer. A person learns fidelity first through inherited attachments that were not selected from a menu. The Crown once gave political form to that relationship with the past, something Carter illustrated through the 50,000 Empire Loyalists who fled the American colonies and joined French settlers still marked by the Ancient Régime. That mixture produced an older Canadian conservatism which affirmed an historic order instead of trailing liberalism while complaining that it moved too quickly.

DomCon therefore put the New Right’s central tactical promise on a rental contract. For half a century, this school has argued that radical politics can enter respectable institutions once its language becomes clean enough and its representatives dress properly. The conference supplied the suits, careful biographies, orderly ticketing, and polished programme that the strategy required. Two Hamilton owners cancelled anyway. Respectability had improved the appearance of the applicant without transferring any power away from the person holding the keys.

Ottawa had already marked the programme before the doors opened. Sellner’s travel authorization remained unresolved when his flight departed, forcing his address onto video. Charlie Downes, the campaign director of Restore Britain, had also been blocked from boarding in London after organizers said officials reopened an electronic authorization that was previously approved. He flew to the United States instead and approached Canada through a land crossing, where the missing electronic authorization was no longer decisive.

Border officers held Downes for three hours and brought a narcotics dog through the vehicle. When the search produced nothing that could legally exclude him, the examination moved into politics. According to Downes, questions about Restore Britain’s finances soon moved to its deportation policy. Officers raised alleged Dominion Society links with neo-Nazism before asking about militias and violent overthrow. He was eventually admitted, which meant the federal government had forced him into a costly detour and furnished him with material for the stage without keeping him off it.

Alexandre Cormier-Denis followed Carter after arriving with a dispute already attached to his invitation. The Quebec sovereigntist, Zionist, and founder of Horizon Québec traces his family through sixteen North American generations. In Burlington he compared Quebec’s relationship to French Canadians with Israel’s relationship to Jews, apparently expecting B’nai Brith to recognize the symmetry. Language, in his account, had become the safe public name for an ancestry Quebecers were afraid to defend openly. Once French alone defined the nation, however, French-speaking immigrants could be counted as proof of its survival. Algerians, Haitians, and Malians satisfied the language test while the people who created French Canada declined beneath the statistic.

Population change soon gives politicians new clients and institutions follow the electorate they expect to inherit. Cormier-Denis argued that multiculturalism had become part of Canada’s constitutional order while the replacement of Anglo-Canadians passed under an omertà, then told Anglo-Canadian men to recover the inheritance they had stopped defending. Sellner appeared next through the screen, with a full-sized cutout behind the podium, and treated the familiar arguments about immigrant crime or welfare use as evasions. Both can be answered with improved behaviour or a better fiscal balance while leaving identity untouched. Only identity carries continuity across generations. He dated the public arrival of remigration to 2016 and described the idea planted then as a tree now breaking through the surface across Europe and North America.

Ken Jones moved from removal to what would remain afterward. The conference had united foundational French and English Canadians in a way that frightened the governing order, he said, making the day a “shot heard across the nation.” Remigration could still leave a demographic void if Heritage Canadians did not have more children, so higher White fertility had to accompany deportation. Fortissax then placed the crisis further back than Justin Trudeau. Lester Pearson took office in 1963 and moved against the Red Ensign. The points system followed in 1967 by abandoning preference for the founding stock, while Pierre Trudeau completed the official turn toward multiculturalism in 1971. Against that progression Fortissax invoked Robert Borden’s insistence that Canada remain British and French, defining nationhood through ancestry and inherited memory rather than residence.

Downes declared the Western system beyond reform and presented his “Creed of the Revolutionary Right” as a programme for destroying it. European identity came first because a nation that loses its distinct people becomes a market supervised by a state, with the individual reduced to a mobile unit of labour and the family hollowed out by both. He pointed to Lebanon, Yugoslavia, and South Africa as warnings about states forced to administer permanent rivalry among contending peoples. Christian faith supplied his second foundation. Downes declared Christianity true, carried sacred order from marriage through household and nation into the universal Church, and argued that without God desire becomes the only guide while progress takes His place.

Here the programme encountered a problem of its own making. Millions of White Canadians no longer attend church and another substantial number identify with no Christian denomination, yet they remain part of the population remigration claims to preserve. Christianity formed much of Canada’s inheritance, but inheritance cannot become an altar call directed at people who were born here and belong here regardless of church attendance. Once a remigration movement makes confession a condition of national membership, it abandons the border and begins sorting its own people according to a test most of them will not pass. Immigration law governs entry and return. The policy has to remain within those limits.

Tyrie closed the public programme by describing the sleepless work required to make the day happen and treating the success of a year-old organization as an act of Providence. The establishment had tried to stop them, he said, but the organizers had burned their boats and would continue. Chants of “Long live Canada” followed. The advertised event then gave way to a VIP dinner with two names that had never appeared on the speaker card. Jared Taylor attended in person and delivered an address the Society later described as a surprise, placing another veteran of the New Right inside a room Sellner could enter only as a recording.

Lucy White of the American-based White Papers Policy Institute also gave an unannounced presentation. Its Canadian remigration model places Canada’s White share at 96 percent in 1971 and approximately 64 percent today, then projects that a firm twelve-year programme could lift it to 81 or 82 percent while leaving an Indigenous population of 7 percent and a non-Western share of 12 percent. The numbers supplied an end state the public programme had left implicit. Taylor estimated attendance at 250 or more, consistent with a sold-out ticket page and reports of a crowded parking lot. A documentary crew recorded the conference, individual speeches began appearing online before a complete transcript existed, and the day ended without the criminal charge Hamilton’s month of warnings had led the public to expect.

The attendance made DomCon harder to dismiss as an online performance, though it did not vindicate the respectability strategy that shaped much of its programme. In fact, the conference succeeded in spite of that strategy. Its organizers found a room only after two owners cancelled, the keynote speaker remained outside the country, and one of the men who did enter had to circle through the United States before spending three hours with border officers. The same event that made the movement visible also showed how little control its concessions had purchased.

Martin Sellner became Europe’s best-known advocate of remigration by learning how to place a forbidden demand inside language postwar institutions might reluctantly tolerate. He did not approach this problem as an outsider with no political record. At seventeen he put swastika stickers on a synagogue in Baden bei Wien, then avoided an ordinary conviction through a diversionary disposition that required one hundred hours of work at a Jewish cemetery. Die Presse later reconstructed the case from police records. Sellner has described his younger self as wild and antisemitic, while an undercover documentary caught him saying Jews had been “a problem in the 1920s.” When he eventually declared the American right’s fixation on “the Jewish question” a strategic and theoretical failure, that judgment followed years of discovering what his own record would cost him.

His method moved Muslim immigration to the front and cut the older inheritance away from the public presentation. Demographic continuity could now be discussed through welfare, crime, integration, and the survival of European culture without placing Jews on the poster. National Conservative institutions received the public break with antisemitism they demanded, while Sellner gained invitations that would have remained closed to an unreconstructed activist from his youth. This looked like progress as long as admission itself was treated as power. The institution, however, still decided which part of the argument could enter and which memories had to be left with security.

Nor did the concessions erase the old file. Britain permanently excluded him in 2019, the same year a €1,500 donation from Brenton Tarrant became public after Tarrant murdered worshippers at two Christchurch mosques. Sellner acknowledged that his Identitarian organization received the money and denied any connection to the attack. DomCon nevertheless chose him because no European figure had done more to make remigration presentable to a banquet-hall audience. On his Burlington recording he described Canadian immigration as silent ethnic replacement, concentrating on Indian and Chinese arrivals, while B’nai Brith answered with the record his entire strategy had been designed to outgrow.

Its August 23 submission to federal authorities joined the synagogue case to Tarrant’s donation and the British ban. Ottawa has never said that the file determined Sellner’s authorization or even publicly ruled him inadmissible. Officials only allowed the application to remain unresolved until the scheduled flight left without him, a method that secured the practical result while avoiding a decision that could be examined. The institutions Sellner had spent years reassuring reached around his current language, picked up the older record, and kept him outside anyway.

That missed flight sharpened a quarrel already underway on the European right. Sellner had recently complained that organizations he classified as Old Right were taking young people from the identitarian milieu, naming National Socialist or Third Position formations such as Die Heimat and Der Dritte Weg. These groups do not believe respectable conservatives will reward moderation, and the youth moving toward them have no memory of a time when the postwar bargain delivered anything worth conserving. Sellner spent years teaching them that a polished slogan, a choreographed confrontation, and the correct distance from fascism could move radical demographic politics into the mainstream. What they see is a man who paid every demanded cover charge and still could not board a flight to speak on a screen in Canada.

This dependency reaches back through Alain de Benoist and GRECE, whose metapolitical strategy offered a serious answer to the isolation facing the European right after 1945. Media boycotts and state pressure could seal a movement inside a political ghetto. The Second World War made the bourgeois public easy to frighten, while the older right carried responsibility for tens of millions of European dead. Rather than attempt an impossible frontal assault, the New Right would begin with publishing and education. It would then move through parties and other cultural institutions until influence inside them made political power possible.

The theory failed where any strategy of admission was bound to fail: the gatekeeper controls the pace. He decides which words are too costly, how much historical memory may enter, and when an applicant who passed yesterday’s test must sit another one tomorrow. Every invitation rewards a concession. Every exclusion is interpreted as proof that a further concession is needed. Over time the institution stops being the object of infiltration and becomes the author of the people supposedly infiltrating it, until a movement that began by seeking power over the future is reduced to asking for two minutes of airtime that will not embarrass the host.

DomCon delivered the Canadian version of that verdict. Its organizers left the European street formations outside and booked the man who had worked hardest to make remigration suitable for a lectern. A Jewish advocacy organization still reached federal authorities before his travel approval reached him, while Hamilton’s venue owners cancelled a domestic conference whose organizers had followed the same presentational rules. The establishment kept the concessions and withheld the protection that was supposed to come in return.

Sellner’s younger critics reverse his telling of the twentieth century. Spengler described Western decline before Hitler took the oath, allowing them to interpret the interwar movements as responses to a crisis rather than its original cause. From that perspective, attributing every ruin or demographic reversal now visible in European capitals to the defeated movement is history written backwards from the victor’s verdict. Heidegger’s 1936 Schelling lectures, in which he praised Hitler and Mussolini for introducing a countermovement to nihilism, matter to them because they recall a right that understood itself as an attempt to break the decay rather than manage it politely.

Young people moving toward Die Heimat or Der Dritte Weg inherited the postwar settlement without building it and without receiving the material stake that once gave their grandparents a reason to defend it. Sellner offers them a larger cage inside that settlement. They look at the record of concessions, see that the door remains locked, and ask why preserving the cage should be the limit of their politics. His New Right still negotiates with the hand around its legs. The current to his right studies the hand for weakness.

A movement formed through this process wants the diagnosis while amputating the inheritance that produced it. Its publications invoke Weimar whenever contemporary government decays, yet it obeys the postwar command to discard every lesson from the force that broke the original Weimar order. The reward is an occasional appearance on an established right-wing channel, often owned by people who will tolerate immigration criticism only if Israel remains beyond criticism. Historical memory buys the access. The institution accepts the concession and owes nothing in return.

Jared Taylor’s surprise appearance at the DomCon dinner widened this fault line. In 2025 he sat down with Renaud Camus, the theorist of the Great Replacement who has called Israel the “gold standard of belonging.” The exception gives away the bargain. The New Right condemns demographic replacement in Europe or Canada while shielding a favoured foreign state from the principle it applies everywhere else, assuring the gatekeeper that its nationalism will stop at the border of the one question most likely to cost it an invitation. The system preserves its exception. The dissident celebrates being allowed into a room he ordinarily never receives.

Outside those rooms, the public has moved further on immigration than the professionals who spent decades dressing for them. Dublin and Southport erupted without waiting for a seminar on respectable vocabulary. Populist parties harvest the resulting anger by promising a break with mass immigration, then narrow the promise to illegal entries or administrative reform once the votes have been counted. Italy supplies the clearest version. Giorgia Meloni and Matteo Salvini reached office through a movement that promised deportations, only to preside over a huge expansion of legal non-European migration while pointing to reductions in illegal boat arrivals as proof that the mandate had been honoured. The language moved right as the policy moved in the opposite direction.

Sellner’s failure to enter Canada completed the same argument on a smaller stage. He had made remigration smooth enough for a catered conference, yet the federal government did not grant him the dignity of a clear refusal and Hamilton still treated the gathering as untouchable. Respectability did not break his isolation. It left him outside a room that had already been cancelled twice, with no obvious concession remaining to offer.

B’nai Brith Canada was unusually open about its part in the federal pressure. On August 23, research and advocacy director Richard Robertson called on authorities to block Sellner, Downes, and other foreign speakers. Four days later the organization claimed its investigation had produced Sellner’s exclusion, although Ottawa continued to hide behind privacy and never explained why the authorization had stalled. Sellner tagged the organization when he announced that Canada had stopped him in the “Canadian way.”

Different forms of power had converged without a single order connecting them. B’nai Brith wrote to the federal government and claimed the result. Horwath used municipal office to pressure businesses while Murphy placed the police service behind the same message. Venue owners then imposed the practical ban. A liberal state that still wants to describe itself as free can censor through this division of labour because no institution needs enough authority to prohibit the speech outright. Each contributes the pressure needed to make another institution act.

Downes exposed the system’s limit. After Nigel Farage claimed he could not be bought, Downes replied with a photograph of him at the Reform Jewish Alliance launch standing before a Star of David. Farage and Reform UK interpreted the image as an allegation that Israeli money had purchased him, an interpretation repeated through establishment media, then used Downes’s role inside Restore Britain to reject any pact with Rupert Lowe. B’nai Brith added that incident to his description of Israel’s war in Gaza as genocide when it asked Ottawa to keep him out. He crossed the land border after detention and spoke anyway.

The campaign had narrowed the available entrances without sealing every one, which is more than a small tactical detail. New Right respectability guaranteed no right of admission; at most it made the refusal more embarrassing to the institution carrying it out. The movement could use that embarrassment for publicity, as Downes did, but publicity is not sovereignty and the ability to turn an interrogation into a good speech is not control over the border.

Nor did the pressure outside DomCon settle the conflict unfolding inside it. Cormier-Denis arrived in Burlington carrying an argument that had already been fought in public for seventeen days. When the Dominion Society announced his invitation on August 12, I challenged it. I agreed with his insistence that Quebec should return Algerians and Moroccans along with other Muslim immigrants. The agreement collapsed when the principle of national continuity crossed the Mediterranean and reached Palestine.

Cormier-Denis assigns responsibility for Israel’s wars to Iran and Hezbollah, describes Israeli strikes as righteous retaliation against enemies that chose war without cause, and has claimed the bombing of Lebanon remained confined to Hezbollah strongholds. In his account, peace comes when the region accepts submission to a Greater Israel. When annexing Gaza and Judea-Samaria raises the fate of the Palestinians living there, he dismisses the subject as irrelevant to whether Quebec survives demographically.

His answer to my criticism was brief: “Oui. Quel est le problème?” He preferred ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem to Outremont, he wrote, because Zionism had settled the twentieth century’s “Jewish question.” This was logical nationalism rather than surrender to foreign influence. Yet following that logic to its conclusion means asking where the Palestinians are expected to go once Gaza and the West Bank have been absorbed. Renaming Jordan or Egypt as their real country does not restore a confiscated house, and a nationalist who condemns replacement in Quebec cannot bless it in Palestine without breaking the principle he claims to defend.

The consequences would not remain in the Near East. Egypt and Jordan have no intention of receiving millions of expelled Palestinians, leaving Ottawa and Brussels to rediscover another endless humanitarian obligation as soon as Israel presented the West with a population it no longer wanted. Israel would keep the territory. Canada and Europe would inherit the refugees, the political conflict, and the cost. Zionism has not even passed Cormier-Denis’s Outremont test. Israel has existed since 1948 without emptying that neighbourhood of Jews or reducing pro-Israel influence across the West, meaning Canada receives none of the benefits supposedly promised by the arrangement.

Cormier-Denis begins from the fact of another people’s victory. Israel is permanent, he argues, because Jews won their wars and secured the final insurance policy in nuclear weapons. The Trump administration demonstrated that Washington could support Israel without limit while refusing Palestinian refugees, and regional normalization appeared to confirm that the Arabs had accepted defeat. Egypt and Jordan made peace long ago. Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates followed under the Abraham Accords. Total submission would merely complete what history had already decided.

This alleged settlement moves Palestine east of the Jordan River and calls the problem solved. Cormier-Denis describes Jordan as Palestinian in population, then uses that fact to dispose of claims rooted west of the river on land Israel wants. Afterward he returns to Canada, arguing that even an Iranian missile barrage capable of reducing Israel to ashes would do nothing to stop Ontario from drifting toward an Indo-Pakistani future, Quebec from becoming Francophone Africa, or British Columbia from being turned into an outpost of western China. Anti-Zionism therefore becomes misplaced resentment that offers no practical solution to demographic change at home.

His warning goes further. Israel’s collapse would send Jewish refugees toward Europe and North America while Islamists celebrated the recovery of Jerusalem as the opening victory in a renewed march through Madrid, Rome, Paris, and London. To support this civilizational picture he treats mass population transfer as an ordinary feature of history, invoking Germans expelled from Central and Eastern Europe, the Greek-Turkish exchange, and the partition of India. Capital financed the movement of labour long before unions gave it legitimacy and universities converted it into a moral instruction for the press. From this perspective, anti-Zionism fractures the nationalist coalition and diverts energy from immigration while Islam advances at home.

The march from Jerusalem to Madrid is Benjamin Netanyahu’s conscription speech rewritten for European use. Israel presents its regional enemies as Europe’s enemies so that European money will finance Israeli policy and European weapons will enforce it. Much of the nationalist opposition falls into line because any refusal can be characterized as surrender to Islam, allowing a foreign government to turn its own territorial project into a test of whether European nationalists are civilized enough to be admitted into respectable politics.

Israel’s actual policy destroys the story. In May 2025 Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said Gaza would be “entirely destroyed” and that Palestinians would leave in great numbers for third countries. Defence Minister Israel Katz had already ordered the military to prepare land, sea, and air routes for what the government called voluntary departure. Netanyahu told his cabinet that Israel would carry out the migration plan, adding, “We are not hiding this.” They were not hiding it. A Defence Ministry bureau was established to facilitate departures, carrying forward Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel’s 2023 demand that the international community resettle Palestinians abroad.

There is nothing voluntary about destroying a place, concentrating its population in a shrinking strip, and then offering escape after making normal life impossible. The policy turns the supposed shield of the West into an exporter of the displacement Western countries will later be asked to absorb. Canada should refuse that refugee wave, but refusal does not begin at the airport after annexation has erased the destination to which Palestinians could return. It begins by refusing Canadian support for the state creating the wave. Canadian weapons and soldiers should remain at home, and Canadian diplomacy owes Israel no silence while it prepares another population for export.

The respectable New Right avoids this question because Israel sits near the centre of the institutions from which it still wants approval. Sellner walks around the problem after deciding that “the Jewish question” is a strategic failure. Cormier-Denis defends right-wing Zionists and pushes Palestinian dispossession into a foreign category irrelevant to Quebec. Both positions allow somebody else to determine where nationalism may apply, which defeats the point of recovering national judgment in the first place.

Younger radicals see the evasion while watching Western aircraft carry Western weapons into a war that buries Palestinian children. Their governments exhaust the remains of Western credibility to defend it, then tell their own populations that supporting a foreign state is a civilizational obligation even as those populations lose control of immigration at home. The New Right answers with another conference on reassuring the bourgeoisie and presents a few hundred men in suits as proof that the strategy is working.

Gramsci’s war for cultural leadership never required a movement to surrender its speech to the gatekeeper. Once it does, hegemony becomes employment. Brokers fund an instrument while it is useful and throw it away after the work is finished, a method the Sorosite left has demonstrated repeatedly. A right that copies the method may gain an office, a media spot, or a seat at somebody else’s policy table, but it will remain there on the condition that it does not touch the interests of the person paying for the table.

Cormier-Denis retreated to a narrower claim when pressed. Israel was merely defending itself, he said, and Canadian interests could overlap with Israeli interests on one issue before diverging on another, just as they might with Qatar or Saudi Arabia. He challenged me to identify any Canadian interest in Israel’s destruction, then returned responsibility for mass immigration to Canadian elites who engineered the cosmopolitan turn during the 1960s. Because Canada could not decide a war in the Near East, nationalists who raised Zionism were indulging a distraction and dividing the coalition against the Great Replacement. After attacking me over a subject he called irrelevant, he asked whether I would work with anyone committed to the Canadian fight.

The answer begins with the absence of any Canadian duty to guarantee Israel’s survival. Avoiding war, including a nuclear one, does not require Ottawa to underwrite occupation because a future Israeli collapse might produce Jewish refugees. Repetition does not sanctify displacement, nor does the existence of older conquests make the next conquest just. If it did, Canada’s own demographic replacement could be excused because history contains many earlier replacements. Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking and abuse of White women could be dismissed because sexual predation is ancient, while the Holodomor could be absorbed into the longer history of mass killing. A principle that disappears whenever its violation has a precedent was never a principle.

European settlement in Canada and Zionist settlement in Palestine did not follow the same course. European expansion carried nations across the Atlantic and produced Canada. European languages took root, European law ordered the territory, and White labour and capital built the institutions inherited by the present state. Zionism constructed a Jewish majority through a transnational project inside a country already settled and governed. British rule replaced Ottoman administration without finding an empty land. Palestinians lived in cities tied to world trade, courts recognized their claims, and written titles connected families to identifiable property. The 1948 war forced more than 700,000 of them from the country and Israel permanently denied their return.

Foreign power sustained the supremacy that followed. Britain opened the political structure, Czech arms helped win the first war, and France carried Israeli power forward until American assistance became its permanent foundation. The current American commitment provides $38 billion in military aid through 2028, while the Congressional Research Service estimates that total United States aid obligated to Israel between 1946 and 2024 reached $298 billion in constant 2024 dollars. A project maintained through that scale of outside power cannot be presented to Canadian nationalists as a spontaneous triumph of rooted nationhood which they are morally required to finance.

Canadian elites remain wholly responsible for opening Canada’s borders. Their betrayal does not become less domestic because Israeli officials also want to export Palestinians, but neither does domestic responsibility make that foreign pressure harmless. The same rule applies to the war between Moscow and Kyiv. Canada should refuse participation because Washington’s orders and Tel Aviv’s loyalty tests are incompatible with national sovereignty, not because one foreign belligerent can be trusted to decide Canadian interests more wisely than another.

Cormier-Denis called such sovereignty a daydream. NORAD binds Canadian defence to the United States, NATO extends the obligation across the Atlantic, and Five Eyes attaches the intelligence apparatus to American power. Canada formally recognized the State of Palestine in September 2025 without changing the facts on the ground, evidence in his view that foreign-policy debate has no operational meaning. A nationalist who raises Israel therefore abandons the urgent domestic contest for an argument Canada lacks the power to settle.

This realism hides a permanent obligation inside a description of Canadian weakness. If a nationalist government could refuse millions of Palestinians displaced by Israeli annexation, it could refuse Jewish refugees following a hypothetical Israeli collapse. Existing treaties are not laws of nature, and a country that treats NORAD, NATO, or Five Eyes as an excuse for surrender has converted past decisions into a ban on future sovereignty. Canada must leave all three and rebuild the independent capacity required to secure the Arctic. Canadian shipyards must build the navy behind our coasts. Domestic industry must supply its steel and electronics before producing the munitions it would need in war. Parliament should control deployments so Canadian soldiers cannot be carried into an American war by institutional momentum.

Remigration makes the Palestinian question more relevant rather than less. A policy of return requires a country to which people can return. For Palestinians that country is Palestine, which is why annexation comes before the Western demand to absorb the population Israel has made stateless. Canada can cooperate with any government willing to end mass immigration without purchasing admission to a nationalist coalition through Zionism or obedience to Washington. Israel and the United States can face their own futures. Canada must regain the power to decide its own.

That dispute had been public for seventeen days when the Atrium filled. DomCon kept Cormier-Denis on the programme and left his sanitized biography intact. Fortissax and Carter have no comparable public history of defending Israeli patronage, while Tyrie has deliberately kept the Society’s platform away from the subject. His tactical case is that a domestic crisis of housing, wages, and national continuity should not disappear into a foreign metaphysical war.

The speaker card nevertheless placed Downes and Cormier-Denis beneath the same roof while Sellner hovered above them on a screen after a career spent telling young activists to wait. Immigration assembled the coalition. Israel divided it. The search for respectability exposed the weakness running through the disagreement because B’nai Brith could still reach the border agency and force the precise question DomCon preferred to defer: what price is Canada expected to pay for another people’s security and somebody else’s state?

Hiding the argument would complete the movement’s transformation into another controlled conservative room, where a few hundred respectable faces sit beneath a slogan that has already escaped into the street while their leaders ask permission to say it. Political performance can distinguish the vital from the decaying in theory, but after the audience leaves, the organizers still have to seek another invitation from a landlord who can cancel by telephone.

Hamilton spent the weekend congratulating itself for pushing that argument down the highway. Hope Not Hate held a celebration at City Hall where CHCH counted more than 200 people gathered around Horwath and other elected officials. Lyndon George of the Hamilton Anti-Racism Resource Centre described the preceding month as a coordinated effort to keep hate out of Hamilton, which was accurate in one sense. The effort was coordinated. It had not kept the conference from taking place.

Twenty to thirty masked protesters followed DomCon to the Atrium and met Halton police outside. Video circulated by Harrison Faulkner caught one demonstrator calling the gathering a fascist Nazi convention before officers pursued people who, according to Faulkner, tried to enter without tickets. Inside, the programme continued. Hamilton’s property owners had complied with City Hall, so the event crossed the municipal line and became Burlington’s controversy instead.

Atrium chief executive Alexandre R. Figueiredo retreated from the contract after honouring it. He said the venue had not known the client’s politics because it did not normally demand such a disclosure, while the Hamilton Spectator later reported that he felt misled. The Atrium had sold a room, received payment, and provided the service. Once political criticism attached itself to the address, a routine commercial transaction was redescribed as something the owner had innocently wandered into.

Burlington performed a similar retreat through municipal language. The city rejected hatred and emphasized that the booking occurred on private property, distancing itself from a contract over which it had exercised no authority while Figueiredo distanced himself from the contract he had completed. Neither statement could empty a hall that was already full. They only confirmed how thoroughly the Hamilton campaign had taught every institution to protect itself from association after no unlawful conduct had occurred.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms warned Horwath and Police Chief Frank Bergen that the city had used public office against expression and assembly protected by sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Charter. Its letter treated the municipal and private pressure as one campaign, beginning with the refusal of city facilities before following Horwath’s letters into the private market and Murphy’s declaration that DomCon was unwelcome. Hamilton Police completed the sequence by asking the public to report possible bookings.

No proceeding had been filed by September 2, which meant the Justice Centre had issued a warning rather than won a case. That procedural fact did not repair the boundary Hamilton crossed. Legal expression remains protected when municipal officials despise it, and government cannot avoid the Charter merely by frightening private owners into doing what officials may not be able to order directly. City Hall controlled the risk attached to renting the room. The owner controlled the key. Calling the eventual cancellation an exercise of private freedom concealed the public campaign that made one commercial decision safer than the other.

The Democracy Fund joined the criticism on August 31 and used Hamilton Police’s own admission against it. A police spokesperson had acknowledged that the conference’s message did not cross a criminal or unlawful threshold, leaving no public-safety explanation for officers to visit venues and evaluate a political movement on their behalf. The charity’s objection focused on that misuse of police power, arguing that law enforcement should respond to evidence of crime rather than supply one side of a political dispute with official intimidation.

Conservative MP Andrew Lawton called the result censorship without a charge. Erin O’Toole described the Society’s views as immature and repugnant but defended its right to meet, a position that becomes meaningful precisely because he disliked the gathering. Hamilton behaved as though legal expression were protected only until officials found it offensive enough to pressure the owner. The Charter cannot survive that test because every political censorship campaign begins by insisting that its target deserves the exception.

By September 2 the city’s only durable achievement was displacement. Ottawa kept Sellner’s body off the plane but not his image off the screen, and B’nai Brith declared victory over the difference. Downes turned his detention into part of the programme. Taylor and White transformed the VIP dinner into an event that had never appeared on the published card. Even the effort to frighten the Society into invisibility supplied the publicity through which many people first learned the conference existed.

Tyrie has promised another DomCon, leaving the organizers in search of a city prepared to leave a lawful meeting alone and an owner capable of honouring an ordinary contract after activists discover the address. The legal groups may eventually test Hamilton’s conduct in court. Whether they do or not, the political lesson has already been delivered. A municipal government can use the police and the property market together without issuing a prohibition, forcing a lawful organization to move while every official denies responsibility for the result.

No cancellation reaches the reason such an organization exists. A country that imports a population it cannot assimilate, employ, or house will produce people demanding that the flow be reversed and the founding stock preserved. Landlords collect the scarcity premium created by population policy, then try to police the anger rising from rent. Employers gain a larger labour pool and use its presence to discipline wages, then allow politicians to describe the arrangement as compassion. Mayors can push opposition across a city line and border officers can delay foreign speakers, but neither act removes the policy producing the opposition.

Suppression therefore became DomCon’s strongest advertisement, though it should not be mistaken for power. The cancellations made defiance visible, Ottawa’s delay turned a keynote address into a cause, and the border examination gave Downes a story that travelled further than an uneventful flight would have. The coalition’s internal problems survived as well. A polished biography could not erase Cormier-Denis’s Zionism, while a Canadian booking could not recover the young Europeans already moving beyond Sellner’s command.

For fifty years the New Right has refused to confront the bargain at the centre of its strategy. It promised that moderation would purchase influence from institutions which never surrendered control over admission. DomCon obtained a room only after two Hamilton owners cancelled on the exact grounds that respectable presentation was supposed to overcome. Burlington granted temporary access, but the owner still held the key. A border official controlled entry into the country. An advocacy organization could trigger scrutiny, and the police service could make the next booking commercially impossible.

The same bargain governs elections. The populist right says immigration has gone too far, waits for public anger to deliver votes, then narrows the mandate to illegal crossings or a change in administrative categories. Legal immigration expands while ministers boast about fewer boats. Each retreat is presented as a breakthrough because performance has replaced the acquisition of power. Italy has already shown where this ends. Canada’s conservative parties will follow the same course for as long as nationalists accept a tougher speech in place of control over policy.

DomCon broke one silence by assembling after Hamilton tried to prevent it, but survival alone cannot become the measure of victory. Burlington’s owner could not unhost a completed event, Hamilton could not stop the Society from crossing a municipal boundary, and B’nai Brith could not keep every invited foreign speaker outside Canada. Each institution nevertheless retained the ability to impose costs and dictate terms because the movement still depended on property, platforms, and permissions it did not control.

The next step cannot be another application written more carefully for the same hostile landlord. A movement claiming to speak for a people has to build institutions able to survive an owner’s panic, a mayor’s letter, and a police service’s warning. Until then it may fill a room, win an evening of publicity, and chant that history has changed while the real authority remains outside with whoever can lock the door before the following Saturday.