All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2022 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
38:58
Jared Taylor Speaks at a Separatist Conference (1997)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
The title of my talk today is The Moral Bases for Racial Separation.
Before I get into that, though, I would like to thank Mr. Anderson for having this conference.
I appreciate being invited to speak, and I'm glad that all of you are here.
I hope that this will result in some larger expression of what I think is the expression of the will of a great number of Americans.
It's an increasing number, in fact.
Bob Hoy did mention my book, Paid With Good Intentions, in my newsletter, American Renaissance.
I have a few copies of the book, and I also have some flyers for American Renaissance.
I'd be happy to talk to anyone afterwards who is interested in either subscribing or buying a copy of the book.
As for this issue of the moral basis for separation, In a way, it shouldn't really be necessary to talk about the moral basis for people separating.
After all, if people wish to go their separate ways, ordinarily there's no objection to this.
However, when it comes to a racial matter, the general view in the United States today is that people of one race Who wish to be among people like themselves, who don't wish to live in a racially mixed United States or society,
that this is an immoral, reprehensible, and loathsome point of view, especially when this position is taken by whites.
It's bad enough if blacks or other non-whites take this view, but somehow for whites, it is particularly nasty for whites to wish to live in an all-white community or an all-white society.
Now, it's curious to me that over the last several decades, liberalism has moved in completely opposite directions on the societal and then the familial aspect of separation.
These days, divorce, for example, is something that people practically take for granted.
And the general trend of liberalism has been to make it easier for people who have, in fact, promised to stay together until they die to separate.
That's okay.
But, oddly enough, for people who have never promised to stay together, who may have never, in fact, expressed any desire to be together at all, people of different races, for them to separate is somehow some kind of moral catastrophe.
It's always struck me as a strange hypocrisy that those who have promised to be together, they can separate.
Those who have never expressed any desire to be together, they must be forced together.
One of the strange, and not the only, but one of the strange aspects of liberalism.
I think, clearly, the most obvious and basic moral basis for separation is the right of free association.
This is something, one of the ancient rights of Englishmen, and I think one of the rights that not only Englishmen, but any sensible person would grant all human beings, the right to associate with the people of one's choice.
It's almost an obvious matter.
In fact, in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes about the time when it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them.
His appeal was a straightforward one to the laws of nature.
People should have the right to associate with whomever they please.
And in fact, when you think about it, this notion of associating with whom one pleases and of dissolving political bans, these ideas have been behind a great deal of what is most significant in the political developments of perhaps the last decade.
The most obvious, of course, is the breakup of the Soviet Union.
We now have any number of nations that didn't exist before.
They are simply expressing this right of free association.
The Ukrainians think of themselves as Ukrainians, the white Russians, Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc.
And now these nations are separate and free and happy to be separate, although in some cases we appear to have certain regrets from those parts of the former Soviet Union that were getting subsidies of one sort or another.
In general, there is no moral objection to these political and ethnic social...
And cultural separations.
The Czechs and the Slovaks, for example, they have decided they're happier to be separate.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, those republics, they're separate and independent.
What is immoral about that?
And I would ask you, in fact, are the Czechs and the Slovaks more different from each other than American blacks and whites?
How different are the Lithuanians from the Poles, for example, or the Lithuanians from the Latvians?
And yet...
That is a sufficient difference in their mind to be politically independent nations.
I would submit to you that the differences of which we are all conscious between people of different races in the United States are vastly more significant, more salient to our daily lives than those aspects of the Czechs and the Slovaks that separate them.
At the same time, the former Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Slovenia, well, Macedonia is not, well, Croatia, Serbia.
All of these new nations are coming forward based on this notion of the right to associate with people of one's own kind.
And when you think about it, the idea of popular self-determination ever since the First World War, this has been a kind of political slogan and watchword throughout Western history.
Self-determination, of course, was the principle by which...
The former European colonies were granted independence.
This is an idea that it's not as though Marcus Garvey invented this.
It's not as though the colonization society invented this.
The idea of people determining their own future separate from the political, cultural, or any kind of economic domination of another is a well-established principle in world history, and I would say it's the principle on which the United States itself was established.
Of course, there has been already one separation attempt in the history of the United States.
That one, of course, was, in my mind, the separation by the Confederate States of America was an entirely justified one, both morally and constitutionally.
However, that effort was put down by a terrible act of violence, resulting in the deaths of 600,000 people.
I would ask you, though, imagine, what would happen if today...
A group of 12 or 13 American states were to decide to separate with the kind of psychological unanimity demonstrated by the Confederate states.
That they set up a government.
That they raised an army.
That they issued currency.
They had postage stamps and a mail system.
Even issued bonds on the international market.
Had established themselves as firmly as that.
Would the United States government today risk a slaughter of a half a million people to prevent that?
I don't think so.
I think that the fact that the Confederacy was destroyed in the past by no means in any way makes illegitimate their desire for separation, and I believe any state of the Union or any group of states that express that desire as fervently as the Confederacy did 100 years ago,
I think that desire would be recognized today.
In any case, today I believe the line of separation is not a geographic one.
It's a racial one.
And I think it's obvious to anyone that left to their own devices, people of different races simply do not voluntarily mix.
You have a few eccentric individuals around the fringes who will mix, but those people are very much the exception.
By and large, people like to live, work, and be in the company of people like themselves.
There are requirements of law.
We have this horribly intrusive federal government that requires that we ignore race or pretend to ignore race when it comes to matters of accommodation, employment, residence, all of these things.
And, of course, it takes an enormous administrative and enforcement machinery to even give the impression that people are pretending to ignore race.
All of these federal, state, and local busybodies were always snooping around trying to make sure that no one has expressed any kind of racial preference unless it's in the form of affirmative action.
All of this is required, of course, because the idea of making race not to matter is completely contrary to human nature.
You don't require enormous enforcement mechanisms to make people do things that are natural and normal.
No, you only need it when something is utterly contrary to the most basic inclinations of people.
And, of course, in those places where the law on race does not yet reach into our lives, people, of course, are as separate as they always would be when free to do so.
And that's why, as Mr. Anderson mentioned earlier, although children may be forced to go to the same schools...
When they are free to socialize at lunchtime or after school, they invariably separate.
Educators talk about the lunchroom litmus test.
In other words, when it's lunchtime, do blacks sit with whites?
Do Asians sit with Hispanics?
No. There's probably no place in the country that passes the lunchroom litmus test.
I even understand that there are some schools in which children have seating arrangements at lunch.
That's the only way to get blacks and whites to sit next to each other, is give them seating arrangements at lunchtime, just as they have them in the classroom.
Universities, of course, are entirely the same.
You have ethnic-themed dormitories.
You have all kinds of cultural groups.
In some universities, there are separate graduation ceremonies, separate graduation activities for people of different races, and in some cases, even separate yearbooks.
The most obvious expressions of voluntary racial separation that we all take for granted is the fact that churches are so separated.
I know that many liberals bemoan this idea that somehow 11 a.m.
Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America.
Well, we're all supposed to weep and wail and wonder, why is this the case?
It is the case.
Let us live with it.
Let us be perfectly content with it because that's the way, naturally, human beings are.
White liberals think that this kind of thing is preposterous and must be wiped out.
I was reading about a United Methodist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina.
It's Plaza Methodist Church.
This was a church with a white preacher and a white congregation in a part of Charlotte that was becoming increasingly black.
Well, the church hierarchy decided what we really need to do is we will assign a black minister to this church.
That way, all of our good liberal white congregants, they will stay, and this black minister will attract blacks from the surrounding community, and we will have a church that will grow and be multiracial.
Well, three years after the assignment of the new black minister, what has happened?
What has happened is what any fool could have told them what would happen.
There are now practically no whites, and the congregation is all black.
This is part of human nature.
It's a perfectly natural development, and it is only white liberals who refuse to see the obvious, who would ever guess that any other consequence was likely to take place.
Funeral homes.
There's another excellent example of almost complete racial separation.
In fact, even today, there are two separate funeral home professional organizations, one for black funeral homes, one for white funeral homes.
Up until a few years ago, the Black Funeral Home Association even had the word"black" in its name.
But that became a bit of an embarrassment, so they took the word out.
But they're still two separate organizations.
Everybody knows why they exist.
No one is upset about it.
It's only an occasional federal busybody who scratches his head trying to think how to force these two things together.
And in fact, the funeral home business has become more and more segregated as time goes on.
The reason for this is mobility.
Say, 30 or 40 years ago, when fewer people had automobiles and when distances were greater, A small town that could only support one funeral home would have to have a funeral home that catered to everybody who lived there, black and white.
Nowadays, now that people have cars, they're prepared to drive 20, 30 miles to another city where they can be looked after by people of their own race.
So this is a profession that becomes more and more segregated only, of course, because that is what the customers demand.
And so when you think about it, a wedding reception or a dinner party or a Fourth of July picnic or a birthday party or a camping trip, all of these associations in which Americans are not bound by government regulations but are free to act entirely on their own,
how much integration do you see?
When Americans are free to be themselves, do they celebrate diversity?
Of course not.
They celebrate homogeneity.
The theory, of course, the prevailing theory about separation in our private lives is white racism.
It is these wicked white people who are conspiring to keep every other group at arm's length, forcing them out of this area, kicking them out of their homes, whatever it is that these wicked white people are doing.
Of course, when you think about this, it's rather insulting to non-whites.
It's as if...
Every black person in America is just dying to live next door to white people or go to school with white people or have picnics with white people.
That everybody of every race and description is just hankering, perishing, to sit next to somebody unlike himself.
Well, this, of course, is pure foolishness.
In fact, I believe that back in the days of segregation, when blacks were forcibly excluded from certain accommodations, Certain movie theaters, lunch counters.
What blacks were seeking was not racial mixing per se.
It was access to services.
Once the access to services was achieved, what interest do most blacks have in racial mixing per se?
Okay, you can go to the movie theater down the block where you couldn't before.
Does that mean you really want to go snuggle up and sit next to a white person?
I don't think that was the motivation.
But somehow, this notion of race mixing for its own sake is the liberal watchword and byword.
And I think that this fundamental motivation for integration, namely to secure services, is beginning to show itself in the fact that fewer and fewer blacks any longer support the kind of forcible racial mixing in schools that the Supreme Court and others have been forcing upon us.
Many school boards, in fact, have many black board members.
Now that there are states in the country that ensure that the money is spread more or less equally in different parts of the school district, blacks are prepared to say, well, wait a minute.
What's all this buzzing?
What's the point of that?
It takes a lot of money.
It takes people out of their neighborhoods.
So long as we get the resources for our schools, who needs to sit next to white kids?
Amos Quick is a member of a citizens committee that has been appointed.
To draw up school districts in Greensboro, North Carolina.
As he says, separate but truly equal, that wouldn't be so bad.
There's another black member, this time of the Kansas City, Missouri School Board.
He says, I think desegregation is dead and should have died a long time ago if the focus is on trying to have a physical mix of the races.
There is a professor in San Diego Law School.
Who puts it quite plainly also.
He says, clearly, the homogeneous community rather than the larger white society is the environment in which the personal self-esteem of African Americans develops positively.
And another black law professor, this is Alex Johnson of the University of Virginia.
He says, Brown, that is to say the Supreme Court decision that integrated schools, Brown was a mistake.
It fails to respect...
That the African American community has a distinct cultural community, and it ignores the wishes of African Americans to protect that community.
And I'll give you just one final quote.
This is of Harry Edwards, sociology professor at the University of California.
He puts it most bluntly of all.
He says, integration has not been approached or achieved because nobody wants it.
Blacks have always wanted to associate with themselves.
Now, as Mr. Edison pointed out earlier, Blacks are generally freer about expressing this preference for their own kind.
They've been less browbeaten by the prevailing liberal ideology that it's somehow evil and wicked to prefer to be with people like yourself, or at least to admit it.
But I think what we see here is an expression that is common to all ethnic groups, but one that blacks are much more willing to speak out on and much less likely to be punished for speaking about.
I think Harry Edwards' position that blacks have always wanted to associate with themselves is increasingly borne out in housing patterns.
There are now plenty of blacks who have the means to live in whatever white suburb they wish to.
But do they go out and live in the white suburbs?
No. Increasingly, they create their own black suburbs or black neighborhoods here in Washington, D.C., Prince George's County.
There are plenty of increasingly upscale black suburbs in the Atlantic area.
Miami, St. Louis.
There's a black journalist named Sam Fullwood.
He wrote about that experience he had in one of these black suburbs of Atlanta.
This was an all-black barbecue party.
And everybody fell silent at this party when they saw a realtor's automobile cruising slowly down the street.
It had a realtor's sign on it.
And lo and behold, in this automobile was a white couple.
And one of the blacks looked around and said, gosh, I sure hope they don't find anything they like.
If they do, there goes the neighborhood.
Of course, it's not just whites that these blacks want to keep out of their neighborhoods.
In South Central Los Angeles, for example, there is increasingly this influx of Hispanics, Mexicans, Central Americans, and not too long ago, The black president of a black homeowners association was quoted as explaining why she didn't want all these Mexicans moving in.
She says, it's a different culture, a different breed of people.
They don't have the same values.
You can't get together with them.
It's like mixing oil and water.
Well, I have every sympathy for this black lady.
Why should she and her neighbors be forced to mix like oil and water with people they never invited in, with people with whom they have nothing in common?
Another man who has lived in South Central Los Angeles since 1954, he puts it just as explicitly.
He says, my neighborhood is lost.
They're telling black children who still live here that they've got to learn Spanish in order to work at McDonald's.
Whose country is this?
These people are expressing perfectly natural feelings that every group has.
Now, the question, of course, becomes, if so many people...
Express this natural preference for separation or for community homogeneity.
Why is it not allowed to happen?
Well, I think that there is a minor problem and then a far greater problem.
And part of the minor problem I would suggest is that I'm not always sure when blacks talk about separation how serious they are.
I was deeply disappointed when Louis Farrakhan had A million-man audience and a nationwide television opportunity, and he had, I can't remember, two hours?
Did he speak for two hours?
He spoke for a mighty long time.
Not once on that occasion did he talk about what is supposed to be one of the central planks of the nation of Islam, and that is separation.
Why didn't he talk about separation?
Is this man still serious about separation?
So sometimes I wonder just how serious blacks are about genuine political independence and separation.
Sometimes it seems to me that that may be a threat that is handy for keeping Whitey off balance so that you can shake him down for something else, but just how serious are we about this?
The bigger problem, the far bigger problem, is white liberals.
Why is it, after all, that black people are seeing their neighborhoods slip away right beneath their feet with all of these Hispanics moving in?
Where do these Hispanics come from?
Who lets them in?
Whites are still a majority in this country.
If whites didn't want them in, they wouldn't be coming in.
The elites, the liberals that run this country have this absolute horror of any kind of racial homogeneity, and it is they who actually, I think perhaps some of them do believe in diversity.
But this notion that somehow homogeneity, that tradition, that feelings of distinction between us and them are immoral.
is the thinking that pervades the highest levels of this country.
After all, what is it we're doing all around the world, really?
Why are our troops in Bosnia?
Why are they there?
Essentially, we are forcing people, we're trying to force people to live together who don't want to live together.
The best thing for all of those conflicts would be simply for people to separate.
In Rwanda, the Hutu and the Tutsi would be vastly better off.
If one group lived in Rwanda and the other group lived in Burundi.
No, no, we can't have that.
We have to force people to live together, like it or not.
And that's, of course, why all those wicked people in former Yugoslavia are ostensible enemies, because they have a temerity to say, we want a country for people like us.
No, we can't have that.
I think it was The Economist magazine who said they did a survey.
Of all of the wars, as they defined them, that had taken place between 1989 and 1992.
And they defined a war as an incident in which over a thousand people are killed over some kind of political difference.
And they counted 82 of them.
82 of them in this period of three years, 89 to 92. Of these 82 wars, 79 of them...
We're fought within the borders of one country.
They were fights between different ethnic and religious groups.
Now, one of the speakers today is the author of a book called Civil War II.
I think that the lesson of what the economists discovered here about the number of fights that are within borders of people that are different, people who are forced to share territory with people unlike themselves.
The lesson for the United States is potentially an extremely grim one.
And after all, if you're talking about killings of a thousand people, there are certainly about 1,500 whites who are murdered every year by blacks.
Now, the Economist probably did not call this one of its little wars.
But in some respects, this is one aspect of the undeclared war.
No one in this room wants a war of this kind.
And yet...
Not only by letting the black-white situation fester, by adding more racial variety to this already simmering pot, our government is certainly preparing the way for some kind of extremely unfortunate and possibly violent solution to the tensions that are building.
In conclusion, it's obvious.
It's obvious that without race mixing, you don't have racial conflict.
Without integration, you cannot have racial friction.
Integration has failed, and the government should get out of the business of trying to make people mix with people unlike themselves.
People should clearly have the right to have their own communities, their own schools, their own neighborhoods, and even their own nations.
And this immigration policy we have, which is nothing more than shoving more and more people into a country that are unlike each other.
Unlike the people who are already here, it is only adding up, increasing the possibilities that we will culminate in some kind of extremely unfortunate entity.
Thank you very much.
Do we have time for questions?
Sure, we do.
Okay. Assuming anyone has any questions or comments.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor, could you tell us of any cases where there has been separation between
national groups and it has failed?
And it has failed?
Well, ordinarily it fails because the larger entity prevents it from happening.
The Biafran Civil War, for example.
I think the Igbos in Nigeria had a perfect right to a nation of their own.
They had a national consciousness, they had a language, they had an ethnic group, and yet the larger nation of Nigeria refused to let them go.
Primarily because Igbo land also tended to have a lot of the natural resources, the oil in the ground.
Well, what's happening in Chechnya?
The Chechens, of course, have a very vigorous national consciousness.
I can't help but admire the vigor of the Chechen national consciousness, and yet the Soviets have been murdering hundreds and thousands of them, trying to keep them in.
The successful ones, there have been some successful ones.
Singapore was part of the Malay Federation.
It's overwhelmingly Chinese, and Malaysia, the current Malaysia, is Malay.
They separated primarily on ethnic basis.
Let's see.
Of course, as I say, the ones that have succeeded recently, the former Soviet Union.
All of these new nations.
That's extremely encouraging to me.
Occasionally you do have things that go in the other way, East Germany and West Germany.
But here you have a people that was once together.
That they are linguistically and historically and racially the same.
They've come together.
But, no, the number of independence movements that are thwarted not because the people of that group don't want it, but only because there is some larger force that prevents it, there are many, many examples of that kind.
And the one, of course, in the United States was the Confederacy.
It was the Second Revolution, as the Confederates called it, thwarted.
By a militarily superior, but it seems to me, morally inferior power.
There have been cases where the United Nations has actually sponsored a separation.
I think India and Pakistan is an example of that.
Weren't they involved?
You know, I don't believe the UN had much to do with that.
The UN was very young, but in 1947, it was only two years old at the time.
I think the British recognized that it was probably better off for India, for Pakistan and India, to be separate.
But even so, the process of splitting up left hundreds of thousands of people killed.
And in fact, that's a kind of ambiguous example.
some people actually would try to cite that as an example against separation.
They'd say, "Well, look what happened.
Even the process of separating, they had all these deaths, and then they fought wars afterwards.
If they'd been one country, it might have been better off." I don't think so.
I think they're vastly better off having a Hindu Indian and Muslim Pakistan.
Yes, sir.
I'm wondering, do you give much consideration to third and fourth entities of power, considering international finance banking?
Maybe multinational, if you use the word"national" connected to that.
Commerce, such as that that goes on through the exploitation of oil resources, or the banking institutions that have to work with money as the great power.
And if you are giving consideration to these sorts of things, as well as the racial that you mentioned, I think quite well, and the geographical boundaries and so forth.
It seems to me, having known South Africa, as I do, and I've been there, and I was very much involved with people there in the former government, that the powers that separated the government from itself at that time was more religious in character through the Dutch Reformed Church and its attitude among them,
and changes for the Africana.
So there's a third entity that I'd like to mention, the religious entities.
You've touched on it.
Whether it's Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or specifics like the Dutch Reformed Church.
But in any case, I'm trying to bring out religion and international finance and commerce, whatever.
Do you consider that as well as the color of the situation?
Well, it's certainly true that international commerce and finance does tend to have a negative effect on regionalism or nationalism.
I think, well, the North American Free Trade Association.
In fact, there is an excellent theoretical case to be made for free trade.
I happen to be in favor of free trade.
I know many people in this room probably are not.
An excellent case to be made for it.
It creates wealth where autarky does not.
On the other hand, wealth, of course, is not everything.
When I read about what the European Union, as it's now called, It's no longer just a European common market.
Now they're the European Union.
It becomes more and more federal and unitary all the time.
It used to be the European Cold Steel Community.
That was a common market.
Now that's the European Union.
Pretty soon it'll be just the Republic of Europe.
At least that's what the bureaucrats would like.
In the interests of financial efficiency, they want to do away with every single European currency.
Now to me, if I were a German, the idea of giving up the Deutsche Mark...
Or, as an Englishman, giving up the pound sterling.
This is just a preposterous thing, an absolutely preposterous thing.
And in fact, it's my understanding that most ordinary Europeans are dead set against this.
They don't want bureaucrats in Brussels making their decisions for them.
Let me give you just an interesting example of the extent to which the European community does run things at the local level.
A friend of mine, who's English, goes back to England every so often.
And it used to be that if you went to a British tea room, they would serve you sugar in a pot with a spoon.
And you'd spoon out the sugar into your cup.
Well, lo and behold, she went back and she noticed everywhere she went, the sugar comes in these little paper packets.
And it's just less homey and less natural.
And she asked her friend, gosh, is this some sort of American influence?
No, this is a European community regulation.
The bureaucrats in Brussels say, for sanitary purposes, every little bit of sugar has got to be in its own little paper pouch.
People hate that kind of thing.
But, to me, this is yet another example of how undemocratic our ostensible democracies are, just as the vast majority of Americans are opposed to massive third world immigration.
We have it nevertheless.
And just as most ordinary Europeans are very much opposed to losing their nationality, losing their autonomy, losing their central bank, their currency, their own labor regulations, it is the authorities in charge, motivated, I think,
in the case of the European common market, by almost strictly financial interests, who are the dominant force and who are going to ram this down the throats of any European group that does not have an opportunity to reject it.
in a one-man, one-vote kind of situation, the way the Swedes recently did, that the Danes fought it for a while.
The Swiss, of course, have been stout fellows
I agree entirely with your suggestion that there are financial interests that are working to obliterate national boundaries.
Now, I would not be one to say that they are doing this because they They hate America or they despise national distinctions.
There is simply a great deal of economic efficiency to be had with larger markets, single currency, you don't have to worry about exchange rates, foreign exchange contracts, all this kind of thing.
There's a great deal of efficiency involved in doing this.
But I think what most people realize is that there are things that are more important than efficiency.
Their traditions, their nation, their language, their heritage, their literature.
All of these things are far more important than some 2% or 3% increase in economic efficiency.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor, here's a white separatist on the internet that I read off.
His name is Steve Dressel.
And he cites, in the case of colonies, for example, the Soviet Union, he says that the overall quota for retaining colonies is economical.
of course, and when the Russians, who dominated the Soviet Union, are no longer getting their money's worth out of Kazakhstan, they let Kazakhstan go.
Now, considering the present federal government of the United States that is running out of
I think there's a possibility that there might be some devolution, that the federal government will let the races separate as they naturally would.
I think the chances of that coming from the federal government without some kind of enormous pressure from below or next to zero, I don't think they're about to do that.
In fact, the whole issue of whether or not colonies are an economic benefit or an economic drain, I don't think that the British had an empire.
I don't think the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, except under the most unusual circumstances.
Really can be counted necessarily as a net economic gain.
It's an awful lot of work administering colonies.
As far as the United States, say, I mean, the theoretical situation that you're describing is one in which the United States, some guy calculating his figures with a pretty sharp pencil, realizes that it's very inefficient, constantly keeping blacks in the throats of Hispanics and whites in the throats of Asians or whatever it is,
and so they've said, okay.
Let's just let them separate and go their own way.
I think the chances of that happening are nil, and primarily because the temptation of empire and the temptation of a continental United States, I think is one that has more to do with prestige and glory, the notion of bigness,
the notion of, you know, we're the superpower.
That kind of thing is just far too attractive for any kind of government entity to give up.
I think that's what motivated Abraham Lincoln.
I think that's what motivated the Soviets to a large degree.
They wanted this huge eight time zones nation.
That kind of thing makes certain people feel great.
Whereas myself, I would rather be a patriotic Lithuanian and a free Lithuanian than as part of this enormous, featureless, multi-whatever-it-is empire of the Soviet Union.
Yes, sir.
Do you see any hope for a continuation of French successions in Quebec?
Do you think if they're successful, would that have any influence more than the government?
I'm very hopeful about the people in Quebec.
As you probably know, the last vote that was taken was basically defeated by the small immigrant community.
I think that was one of the most vivid examples of how immigration can thwart the will of a native people.
Immigrants, I mean, what attachment do they have to Quebec?
Many of them don't speak French.
They don't care.
And they'd rather be part of a big country than a small country, especially...
I beg your pardon?
That did what?
Well, it's my understanding that largely it had to do with immigrants to Quebec who had not done.
Why don't you just mention the Jew?
Well, I think...
Can you thank everybody's here?
Well, you're certainly welcome to mention him as often or as loudly as you like.
But this was a case in which I think the aspirations of the people of Quebec were thwarted by people who were not of Quebec.
I think that, well, even the French-speaking...
People of Quebec have been brainwashed to a very large degree about how, well, you know, tolerance and multi-this and multi-that.
But I have hopes that the day will come when there is a free Quebec.
▲
Export Selection