Carolyn Bennett’s mailer—accusing 40% of anti-immigration Canadians as racists via Frank Graves’ disputed poll—ignites debate over political labeling and dissent. The speaker critiques Trudeau’s million-migrant plan, citing 90% of Syrian refugees as functionally illiterate and unemployed, while dismissing Bennett’s claims about northern cities like Kalawit or Inuvik as uninhabitable. Comparing Canada’s "Loyal Opposition" tradition to U.S. ostracization of conservatives, they highlight censorship, like Trudeau’s deletion of Michael Cooper’s anti-terrorist manifesto quote, and Angus Reid data showing just 6% support for expanded immigration. The episode argues that modern political discourse silences dissent under manufactured labels, eroding democratic safeguards. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I read something that I found in my mailbox.
Maybe I'm overreacting.
But it was a household letter from Carolyn Bennett, my member of parliament here in Toronto.
And I think she's gone mad.
Or more likely, I think she just handed over the writing of her household mailer to Justin Trudeau's campaign.
It basically calls everybody in the writing a racist.
And I mean everybody, because there's no answer to her type of multiple choice questions that doesn't call you a racist of some sort.
Anyways, before I get out of the way, can you please consider becoming a premium subscriber to The Rebel?
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of this show.
You get two other shows, and you get the satisfaction of knowing that you help pay our bills.
Because we don't get any government money like Carolyn Bennett's friends do.
Just go to the rebel.media slash shows and you can get it all there.
All right, that's it for me.
Here's the podcast.
You're listening to a Rebel Media Podcast.
Tonight, hate mail in my mailbox here in Toronto in 2019.
It's June 18th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
I came home and found this in my mailbox.
It's a piece of hate mail.
It's extremist literature.
It divides us by race and other grounds that are illegal under the Human Rights Act.
It blames it, stereotypes it.
It was really shocking.
I thought it was gross.
And I think it truly is hate propaganda.
And I don't think you'll be surprised to know that it's an official publication from the House of Commons, a propaganda leaflet paid for by your tax dollars.
It's the liberal newsletter from Carolyn Bennett, the MP for St. Paul's riding, who's literally the whitest minister of Aboriginal affairs that's genetically possible.
I don't just mean that genetically.
I mean that culturally.
I can't think of anyone less in touch with Aboriginal people than her.
It would be like appointing a minister of fisheries from Saskatchewan.
I mean, what did Aboriginal people do to Trudeau to cause him to hate them?
So is it some weird punishment for the whole Jody Wilson-Raybow thing?
I'll never know why he inflicted this daughtering fool on anyone.
Maybe to keep an eye on Seamus O'Regan, who's also in that department too.
Anyway, but back to the hate propaganda that she put in my mailbox.
So what do you think is important in Canada right now?
We're heading into an election.
What are some things that are important to you?
I mean, just tell me, is it jobs?
Taxes, probably, carbon tax?
Maybe free trade with the U.S.?
Is there a recession coming?
Some people says there is.
If you're in Toronto, St. Paul's, maybe high housing costs, extremely expensive.
Crazy bad traffic.
Crime, of course.
Lots of homelessness these days.
Lots of drugs in the streets, made worse by the publicly sanctioned drug shooting galleries.
And of course, dump in 50,000 bogus refugees who just walked in across that U.S. border.
And of course, Quebec didn't want them.
So they were all bussed over here from Quebec and then dumped in Toronto.
Some of them are put up in hotels, but most of them just filling up the hostels and filling up the food banks.
There's a lot of problems in Toronto.
And I didn't even mention schools or hospitals.
But the only thing in Carolyn Bennett's mailer was about how racist Canadians are.
That's the title.
Speaking out against racism.
What?
Is that a problem?
In a majority minority city like Toronto.
We got a black police chief.
The greatest public heroes these days are the almost all-black sports team, the Raptors, whose champion is a black Jewish musician named Drake.
And you're saying the number one issue is racism, and you're white-splaining this as a privileged liberal rich woman.
Yeah, that's exactly what she said because she cited a poll done by a liberal named Frank Graves, but on this poll he is actually accurate.
He says that 40% of Canadians think we have enough immigration right now.
Thank you very much.
According to Angus Reid, 49% of Canadians say that.
But Graves just says, if you're against unlimited immigration, you're racist.
And Bennett agrees.
I'll read you proof in a moment.
But there's a delicious part.
If you're against immigration, you're a racist.
I mean, obviously.
But if you're for immigration, this is what's amazing about this hate literature.
If you're an immigrant yourself or if you're a descendant of immigrants, you are a settler.
And so you're racist because you're a colonialist oppressor against Aboriginal people.
I swear to God.
This piece of hate mail that came into my mailbox at my expense calls everyone in a riding a racist.
You're either an anti-immigrant racist, because those are apparently the only people who oppose open borders.
I'm guessing Aboriginal folks who don't like settlers are therefore racist.
Or if you're pro-immigrant, you're a conquering colonial settler racist.
No, I think I know who the racist is.
The daughtering old white woman who looks at people and only sees their race.
Let me read some of this crud to you lest you think I'm exaggerating.
Like I say, this is the very first thing in her district-wide mailing.
It's almost the only thing, the racism part, she's obsessed.
Or maybe it's Trudeau who has commanded all of this, his MPs to smear all of their citizens in the same way.
I only know the hate mail that was delivered into my mailing.
So here's what it said.
It said, last month it was quite alarming to learn in an ECOS poll that about 40% of Canadians feel there are too many immigrants coming to Canada in this huge country with almost 90% of Canadians living within five, oh sorry, 100 miles of the American border and all-time labor shortages.
It seems remarkable that anyone could believe we will not need a robust immigration system to increase our country's productivity and prosperity.
I'm serious she wrote that or someone in Trudeau's office did probably.
Well yeah, we all live within 100 miles of the U.S. because the northern part of our country is uninhabitable.
It's too cold.
It's too cold for people.
It's too cold for agriculture.
It's too far north to be economic.
It's too hard to develop.
I think all those problems are made worse by government policies.
But whatever the reason, we live close to the U.S.
We just do.
Is she suggesting that new immigrants would or should or could all move to Kalawit or Inuvik or Whitehorse?
What an idiot.
Is she suggesting that new immigrants just off the plane from Syria or Somalia or just across the border from the U.S., like the thousands of Haitians who came up?
Is she suggesting they're the economic backbone we've been waiting for, that they're doctors and engineers and architects?
Yeah, no, they're not.
90% of the Syrians Trudeau brought over were functionally illiterate, and the vast majority remain unemployed to this day.
Even Trudeau's new plan of a million migrants in the next three years, almost half of them under the plan aren't economic.
They're either more refugees, or bogus refugees, or they are family reunifications, basically grandparents coming over who don't work but will go straight on to pensions and straight into our hospital waiting lines as seniors.
So yeah, no, we don't need plane loads from Somalia to keep Canada working.
I mean, it will depress wages to bring in underskilled workers.
So yeah, I guess maybe that helps get cheap later.
You get the worst of both worlds.
Rents going higher and wages going lower.
But please stop calling me a racist.
And the other 40% of Canadians who think you're out of control, we're not racist.
Bennett goes on about quoting Frank Graves.
He's a longtime anti-conservative bigot who is a pollster too.
He once counseled the Liberals to paint the Conservative Party as bigots just to provoke them, just to provoke a culture war for the benefit of the election.
I mean, the guy is not a real pollster.
He's a push-polster, a provocateur, a major Liberal Party donor.
But get this, get this.
This is from Carolyn Bennett's memo.
Immigration Minister Ahmed Hassan, himself a refugee from Somalia, responded to the poll by urging, we must remind ourselves that Canada benefits from immigrants regardless of background, and that when faced with misinformation, we must fight fear with facts.
Yeah, no, no, you can't say that everyone is racist except for you and that everyone is stupid except for you.
So I'm going to fight your fear with my facts.
Immigrants who do not speak the language, who don't have our skills, who don't have our cultural values, they are not working out as well.
It's not racism.
It's got nothing to do with color.
I mean, what do you think of this guy?
What would happen to a gay couple in Gaza?
Islam doesn't endorse gayism.
Islam doesn't endorse homosexuality.
Okay, so would you like to see Sharia law in Canada replace Canadian law?
At some point it will.
You know, because we have families, we are making babies.
You're not.
Yeah, the problem with that guy is not the particular hue of his skin.
It's probably not even with his skills.
I got to tell you, that guy actually sounds quite articulate, and I think he sounds educated.
It's that he's a crazy, un-Canadian madman who wants to stone gays to death.
Oh, and he's a bit of a deceitful, dishonest, law-breaking liar, too.
When I went for my so-called oath, I was silent.
I didn't say anything.
It was your responsibility to make sure you got it out of me.
So when I didn't say anything, I'm not liable to any.
Did you catch what he said there?
He boasted that he stayed silent during his citizenship ceremony when he was supposed to say the oath of citizenship.
He laughs saying, ha ha, it's your fault for not making me say it.
I didn't say it, Nanya.
I didn't make the promise.
So he's a law-breaking liar.
But then Bennett's letter pivots.
You're a bigot if you don't want immigrants by the million of any sort.
But if you're cool with open borders, unlimited immigration, say if you live in a gated community like she does, send your kids to a fancy private school so there's not a lot of smaller gangs or burkers in your school, you're still a racist.
I mean, that's the title of Bennett's mailing, racism.
She writes, We have made many mistakes with respect to the settler attitudes of superiority, which create a dark chapter in our history and untold image damage to First Peoples.
We must not make new mistakes by pulling up the drawbridge and allowing racism and fear of the unknown to hold our country back.
Well, hang on, are you saying that we are settlers like we are, but people who come over here now are not settlers?
How are we settlers, but not new waves of unlimited immigrants?
Settlers implies that we built the place from scratch.
New immigrants don't really do that.
They just sort of move into an apartment or maybe they're at a Toronto East Hotel paid for by taxpayers.
I don't know.
Okay, let's open the brochure up now.
It's actually a montage of pictures of, surprise, Carolyn Bennett playing the great white savior, like the character Daenerys Targaryen from Game of Thrones, this beautiful white-haired white woman who will be the queen savior to all the minorities who rely on her to white splain for them.
It's sort of pitiful, really.
There really aren't any just Canadians in her mind.
It's everyone in their little ethnic grievance group.
She just doesn't see a Canadian.
Just this grievance and that grievance.
Let me read from her letters section, which you absolutely can bank on, are from real people, I'm sure.
Here's a letter that she says, she says that the letter says, I urge you to establish a national strategy to counter online hate.
It is now widely known that the perpetrator of the heinous attack on Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue was active in promoting anti-Semitism on social media.
Similarly, the recent atrocity that took place at two mosques in Christchurch should remind us of the dangers posed by those who use the internet to promote mass violence.
Well, hang on.
What's the problem?
Is it hate, a natural human emotion, or is it violence?
Because so far this household mailer is, well, it's full of hate.
I think it's helpful for Carolyn Bennett to blur hate and violence, isn't it?
Because you can call anyone you disagree with hateful.
Her first sentence says that 40% of her own voters are haters or racists, that she hates them or whatever.
But then she just conflated it with violence, actual murder.
And I know why she did it, because who could be against stopping murder?
So she blurs the two so she can use heavy laws to shut up mere political disagreement.
She said this, let me read some more.
She said, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, hatred and violence are not welcome anywhere, and they are certainly not welcome in Canada.
We must stand together in the face of hatred and discrimination and denounce it wherever we find it.
But hang on.
David Menzies found it at that Al-Quds Day protest in Toronto I showed you, not far from Bennett's writing.
There were hundreds and hundreds of crazy racist haters right there and not a word against them.
No banning them, no arresting them, no demonizing them, no mentioning them at all.
They're clearly racist.
But plans to bring in so, so many more migrants, because who wouldn't want more bright lights like that guy who said he tricked his way through his citizenship oath.
Let's bring in more folks like him.
The last page.
The last page has a few events in the district and it wraps up with this note.
She says, we need to call out racism in all its forms.
We need to have the courage to correct misinformation.
Social media is a powerful tool and we need to use it to promote inclusion, tolerance, and evidence.
I say again, liberals actually don't call out extremism in immigrant communities because they're vote shopping there, especially for excitable types like that Pakistani fellow at the Al-Quds rally who wants to stone gaze to death.
But look at the premonition, social media.
We need to correct misinformation on it.
Hey, hang on.
Hey, hey.
I thought you were talking about stopping violence, which I'm all for.
Then she talked about hate.
She hates me.
This is a hateful letter.
Hates in the eye of the beholder.
Hates a human emotion.
But hang on.
Now, now, now she's saying that she's going to correct misinformation.
I mean, she's a purveyor of misinformation.
She just called 40% of Canadians racist for not wanting unlimited open borders immigration.
That's not misinformation for her to smear you, apparently.
But if you push back at that smear or her smear of you as some imperialistic settler, well, that's misinformation.
We've got to stop that on social media.
By the way, I don't think Carolyn Bennett wrote a word of this.
I think she's perpetually distracted and a bit clueless and out of it and maybe is past her prime.
Here's our friend Kian Bexti asking her a question the other day and her answer is just to stammer a bit and run away to a safe place.
Misinformation Wars00:14:11
Take a look.
Minister Bennett, Minister Bennett, would you be able to tell me what you spent $300 an hour on in consultants for the Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women Commission?
You're way too close.
You're way too close.
You're wicked.
You don't have an answer?
Yeah, no, I think this brochure was written by the 2019 Justin Trudeau campaign team.
I call it hate speech, but Trudeau calls it his campaign talking points.
Get ready for a brutal five months, you racists.
Welcome back.
Well, one of the things we talk a lot about on this show is de-platforming, particularly in the new public square, which more often than not is social media, digital deplatforming, having your Facebook account, your Twitter account, your YouTube account shut down.
It's bad enough when you're a person with a normal account, but imagine being a political spokesman, being a company like us with 1.2 million YouTube subscribers.
Well, with a flick of a button, that can be ended.
It's also deplatforming takes place in physical venues, too.
We ourselves had a cruise canceled when George Soros-funded activists complained to the cruise company.
But what about just plain old shunning?
A denormalization of even saying you support, let's say, Donald Trump.
The personal vilification and demonization that comes at you, not even from strangers, but sometimes from your own family and friends.
Well, joining us now to talk about this troubling phenomenon is our friend Joel Pollack, the senior editor-at-large at Breitbart.com.
He's got a new article called, Conservatives Face the Great Shunning Over Trump.
Great to see you again, Joel.
Good to be with you.
You know, you are in a city that is Democrats, as most big cities in the United States are.
There are some parts, though, especially in California and New York, where even just saying you might be amongst the 60-plus million people who voted for Trump, you're treated like, in the olden days, they would have said like a leper.
You're treated like, as you say in your article, like you just said, oh, I should tell you I'm a child molester.
Like it's that kind of a shocking, repulsive, friendship-breaking thing to say.
Right.
I was quoting Tom Wolf, the late great American author, who said that when he suggested voting for George W. Bush, this is, by the way, 15 years ago, long before Trump, he suggested voting for Bush.
He said, I may as well have said I'm a child molester.
You know, it's amazing how the tolerant left shows complete intolerance toward political dissent.
You often want to ask people, what part of a two-party system don't you like?
What is it about opposition that really bothers you?
And when you put it that way, they're a little bit embarrassed, and then they want to talk about how they really do care about the ideas from the other side, but it's just the extremists that make those ideas unpalatable, or it's the corruption, or it's Trump, or whatever it is.
But basically, the left in this country has practiced this kind of behavior for a long time.
They've shut themselves off into an insular bubble.
And if you dissent, you are shunned.
So we're seeing that in Silicon Valley and the tech companies, which are deplatforming people.
We're seeing it in social behavior.
And what I wrote in that article is that actually will have an effect on public opinion.
That if enough people are conforming in this way and they're attacking the non-conformists or those who conform insufficiently well, in other words, you're not Democratic enough, not left-wing enough.
You might still have voted for Hillary Clinton.
Look at what's happened to Alan Dershowitz.
I mean, he voted for Hillary Clinton.
He just said he would vote for Joe Biden, possibly.
But he's off the reservation as far as Democrats are concerned because he has defended Trump, not because he is a Trump voter or Trump supporter, but because he is a civil libertarian and has defended parties, has defended candidates from both parties and presidents from both parties against the erosion of their own civil liberties.
So Dershowitz has made this case.
I remember him making it for Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
I went to an anti-impeachment rally when I was a student and Dershowitz was there making the same argument.
So he's actually consistent.
But the Democratic Party today has shifted so far to the left.
And of course, if you're not down with the struggle, if you're not on board with the program, you can be ostracized.
And many people are.
And very few people have the personal resources or confidence to face their peers and say, I actually think about things differently than you do, and here's why.
Yeah.
You know, part of it is it's so ubiquitous to be anti-Trump that people who are very shallow in their interest in politics.
I mean, I confess I'm not deeply interested in sports.
I would avoid the subject, but if I'm pressed on it, I would probably just repeat the last thing I heard someone smarter than me say, you know, like my son, for example.
So my point is, the way I am about sports, a lot of people are about politics.
So if all you hear is a shallow message track, Trump is racist, I'll make America great again, hat is racist.
And you never really think about it.
But when the issue comes up, you just say, oh, I know what to say.
And so it's the casual ubiquity of it that that becomes the normal.
Well, yeah, we all know that.
Everybody knows it.
And you could never press anyone on that because their belief in it is so shallow.
They've never tested the theory themselves, but they're not in the theory testing business.
They're severely normal people who don't think about politics more than a few times a year.
I think that there comes a point when you denormalize something so much, it's like cigarettes.
And, well, of course we're against cigarettes.
Of course we're against littering.
Of course we're, you know, there's certain things that they get past the tipping board.
I think that's what your article says.
Am I right?
Right.
And this has been a phenomenon in democracy in the United States since the early 19th century.
I mean, Alexis de Tocqueville talked about the importance of public opinion.
He saw it as a force of social stability, but he also said it could be a force of conformity.
And not only does it keep people silent who disagree, but it actually changes their minds.
If you are so used to hearing things put a certain way, you will begin to look at things differently than you might have looked at them otherwise.
Many of our opinions come to us from other places.
Very few of us sit and contemplate, very few of us have time to contemplate what we actually might think about a particular issue.
If we did, we'd probably have better political conversations.
But people just don't have the time and don't have the energy and don't want to engage in these kinds of arguments.
And so they just find political parties are a neat approximation to what they might think, even if it's not exactly a good fit.
And therefore, people basically conform to wherever the party is going.
Now, that can be useful also.
Again, as Tocqueville himself said, there is some use to that.
I'll give you an example.
The flexibility on trade that the Republican Party is now showing is entirely due to Donald Trump basically saying we need to think about tariffs.
The party had been essentially the party of free trade.
Democrats had been more or less the party of protectionism, although there were sizable differences in both of those parties.
Certainly the Democratic establishment was for free trade, even if many of the Democratic voters were not.
But it took a President Trump to impose tariffs on China.
Part of the reason he did so and was able to do so was that the people most badly hit by these tariffs are the farmers, not because the tariffs affect the farmers directly, but because China's retaliatory tariffs are striking our agriculture sector.
And if Trump hadn't had the support of the big farming states, if he hadn't had that depth of conservative support, he would not be able to weather the political storm that would have erupted from the imposition of these tariffs and the countermeasures by the Chinese.
So in a way, it takes some amount of social persuasion to bring everybody on board with something that society arguably needs to do to confront the threat of Chinese economic dominance.
You needed Trump and people around Trump essentially to kind of create an environment where it was okay to conform with this because previously it was not.
But at the same time, you don't want people to be drowned out who are at odds with the current policy for whatever reason.
And what's happened in the United States, again, it's not new.
It's been going on for 50, 60 years, but it's especially acute now is that the media, Hollywood, the academy, even elementary schools, communities, people are shunning those with pro-Trump opinions.
Again, not because there's anything wrong with those opinions.
many cases Trump is doing what every other president of both parties has promised to do to get talk on China to move the embassy to Israel so forth.
He's doing all of those things.
People ought to be happy that he's doing them regardless of how they feel about him personally, but they don't even see that he's doing those things because you're not allowed to see Trump in a certain way.
The conformity that's being imposed actually changes the way people think about the world and I do think that's going to have an effect in 2020.
Whether it's decisive, I don't know, but it is going to affect things.
You know, it's funny, you just made me think that in Saskatchewan, one of the most, every province is Canadian, but I can't think of a more Canadian place than small town Saskatchewan.
There was a story we did a few weeks back of a teacher who made someone wearing a Make America Great Again hat stand up in class and be abused by the teacher, and the teacher invited other people to be in Canada, in Saskatchewan, small town Saskatchewan.
That is the proof of the reach of this denormalization.
But there's another reason why I think it works because, of course, both sides of the debate are trying to persuade the other.
But there's a difference in tactics and in threat and punishment and pain.
If you wear a MAGA hat, a Make America Great Again hat, to school in Saskatchewan or on the streets of Manhattan, people will hurl abuse at you.
Maybe they'll even physically abuse you.
They might spit at you.
They might swear at you.
It will be an incredibly personally stressful experience.
Whereas if you wore a Hillary Clinton shirt, you might get the odd snicker or heckle, but the intensity of the threats and the energy directed at you, and I'm not just saying that because I'm on the right.
I just think it's a fact that one side is far more punitive than the other.
The shock tactics of the left, the professional violence, paramilitaries of the left, the anti-fathugs in Canada, we have our versions of those.
I think that's an important part too.
That psychological conditioning.
I want to go out in the street and not be abused, so there's no way I'm going to identify as a Trump supporter.
No Hillary Clinton supporter ever has to say that.
Right.
I mean, I have neighbors who wear t-shirts with obscenities on them attacking Trump.
And they walk around the neighborhood and nobody stops them and says, hey, there are kids here.
Do you think you should be wearing a shirt like that?
I saw a guy at the local coffee shop wearing a shirt that said, Deport ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.
They wear those shirts without fear of anybody stopping them and asking them about it.
And that's fine.
People shouldn't be accosted for their political views.
People understand these views are out there, fine.
But if I wear a Trump shirt, first of all, not only would I be probably kicked out of places, but also people would stop and tell me I shouldn't do that.
And it's happened to me, even though I don't wear political clothing everywhere I go.
I mean, I very rarely wear it at all.
I prefer other clothing.
And that's okay, too.
But, you know, I get stopped by people who know what I do for a living and they attack me or accost me.
A few are actually curious and want to have a discussion, and that's always welcome.
But you just can't have conservative views and be left alone if those views are known.
And it's considered socially acceptable for the left to and for liberals to basically single out those with conservative views and interrogate those views, mock those views.
A former neighbor came up to me on the street the other night and said, boy, you guys are getting the short end of the argument lately, aren't you?
I had no idea what he meant.
Because in my mind, Trump's doing very well.
So he's obviously trapped in a left-wing news bubble where every new story that's anti-Trump is added to the list.
And surely this list has to be growing so long that the weight of the list itself, if you put it on paper, should be enough to sink Trump.
Why would you presume to, first of all, start a conversation that way?
But secondly, why would you presume that I agree?
I don't see the world the way you do.
I don't support the candidates you do.
So maybe I would look at things a little differently.
Maybe you would be interested in that perspective.
The funniest thing about it is that they don't know they're in a bubble.
And when the world doesn't work out the way they think it ought to, they're incapable of understanding it.
And so they invent conspiracy theories like Russia collusion.
I mean, this week and last week, you know, it's all about what Trump said about foreign interference in the election, or actually specifically what he said was what he would do if a foreign government offered him information about his opponent.
He said many things in response.
One is that he'd listen to it.
The other is that he would probably go to the FBI or he might throw the person out of his office.
But it was reported as Trump willing to accept.
And all Trump did was basically say what every politician would do.
I don't think there's a single politician who would not at least find out what the information was.
And we know that Hillary Clinton actively solicited this kind of information.
So they're acting like it's a big scandal.
But of course, if you ask Hillary Clinton and if you ask James Comey about what they did about it when the Clinton campaign went to Christopher Steele in Russia and so forth, you can't ask that.
That's interfering with the investigation of Trump.
Adolescents Versus Parents00:02:21
We're talking about Trump here.
We're not talking about some other principles.
So just to kind of round things out, basically we've accepted and allowed it to become acceptable to challenge conservatives.
And I think it goes to something very deeply rooted that isn't even political.
And maybe I should have said this in the article.
But essentially, we have delegated the responsibilities of governing to conservative parties, conservative leaders.
Basically, we expect them to be the parents.
They are the grown-ups.
And the liberals are entitled to be the teenagers in constant rebellion.
The teenagers will point out everything that the parents do that is wrong, that is unfair, or not like what the other kids have, or seems overly punitive, or not helpful enough.
And there's this constant argument going on.
Essentially, it's like living in a household with an adolescent teenager, basically, or being an adolescent teenager, I mean, fighting with your parents.
But that's the nature of this conversation.
The Republicans are the mommy and daddy party, and the Democrats are the bored, angry teenager party.
And, you know, sometimes a teenager will bring up flaws that the parents do have, and sometimes teenagers will invent things that are new and interesting that parents wouldn't have thought of, or they'll think of a new way to do something, and it's very valuable.
But a lot of the time, it's just infuriating.
And, you know, if the parent finally gives in and gives the keys to the car to their angry teenager, well, sometimes the teenager wrecks the car.
And yet the rebellion continues.
So that's the kind of dialogue we have right now.
And of course, parents in that situation always feel like they're the ones who people are allowed to beat up on.
You can't tell your teenager to treat you with respect.
If you do, they just storm out of the house.
It's that kind of dynamic.
And I think that we repeated that in our political parties.
Essentially, the Republicans are the responsible adults and Democrats are the rebellious teenagers.
And hey, our popular culture is all about celebrating that rebellion, rock and roll, rap music, whatever else it is we enjoy.
It's about that insurrection.
And it's not about the ordinary, boring, plotting business of government.
Except to a few of the new left intellectuals who are kind of nerdy and into that sort of thing, I'd sort of put Pete Buttigieg in that category.
I think one of the reasons he walks around without a suit jacket is because he's trying to counter that image of himself.
He's the kid who became mayor at a young age, and now he has to remind the left that he's still sort of down with the struggle.
He's not really one of them.
Leader Opposition Dynamics00:02:11
He's not one of the squares.
He takes off his suit jacket.
But basically, that's what we've got.
We've got the adolescents versus the parents.
Well, Joel, you got nothing on us here.
We got Justin Trudeau as our prime minister, and you just have no clue.
I want to, very interesting things you've said.
Joel, we're rebranding our company in a few weeks.
We're coming out with a slightly different name and a logo and a motto, and I don't want to give it away yet.
We'll be announcing it on Canada Day, which is July 1st.
But it goes to what you're talking about here.
I'm excited about our new sound, look, and feel.
Because people have forgotten that there are more than one side to the story.
In Canada, we have a position.
The loser of our election is called the leader of the opposition, or actually, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which if you think about that strange and archaic title, it's very meaningful.
It means you are paid to oppose.
You're paid to criticize.
You're paid to differ, but you're loyal to the country and the queen.
You're just fighting with the guy who beat you in an election.
But you both love Canada.
And we've gotten to the point in Canada even where any dissent, oh, no, no, no, you're not allowed to oppose.
There's only one narrative, even though the position is called the leader of the opposition.
I mean, I know you have similar language in the States, but I think it's very vivid when you call yourself Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
We're losing that up here, too.
Well, we've never really had that here.
We don't have sort of constitutionally enshrined opposition office.
In South Africa, where I worked for several years, the leader of the opposition is actually mentioned in the Constitution.
So, you know, there's this tradition in the British Commonwealth of enshrining that position of opposition.
I think if you read Jon Stuart Mill, he talks about how opposition is sort of a natural force in democracy that protects liberty in a representative system.
We don't really have that.
Our constitutional opposition comes from our federal system and the separation of powers, which is a very big part of our Constitution.
Opposition Outside The Capitol00:03:29
I think more so than in other democratic systems.
And that's sort of the inbuilt opposition.
But, you know, in our legislative chambers, we have the minority leader, House minority leader, Senate minority leader.
They have certain prerogatives.
They don't have many.
And in both the House and the Senate, the majority wields enormous power.
The Senate has the filibuster, which is a break or was a break on the power of the majority.
But essentially, the leaders of the parties in the respective chambers exert incredible power.
And much of the opposition to whatever the government happens to be doing comes from outside of the institutional structure.
That's why you almost always see the response to the State of the Union address in the United States being delivered by a local politician or by somebody outside of a Capitol building or something like that.
The opposition comes from outside government.
It's not seen as part of the system.
Or it's outside the executive or outside the legislative.
It's basically dispersed in a bunch of different places.
But I don't know whether that really makes much of a difference.
I do think the interesting thing that has happened since Barack Obama was elected, and I saw it for the first time with the Tea Party movement.
The left has started to call people with whom it disagrees un-American.
And I was struck by that the first time I saw it.
The first time I saw it was when the Tea Party movement started in the summer of 2009, Nancy Pelosi calling it un-American, saying that people were showing up with swastikas at town hall meetings, which wasn't happening.
They called it un-American to oppose what Obama was doing.
Now they call it un-American not to oppose what Trump is doing.
They have thrown around this term un-American for a decade.
It struck me as interesting because the Democrats, of course, always tell the story of how terrible the McCarthy hearings were in the 1950s, 1960s, the pursuit of communists by the House Un-American, the House Un-American Activities Committee, WHO AC, or whatever.
But essentially, they called communism un-American, and they pursued anyone who was a communist or a fellow traveler in what many people today would regard as a form of political persecution.
I mean, who really cares?
And yes, we had a Cold War enemy, but that attempt to stamp out dissent is a really dark chapter in our country's history.
But Democrats have revived the language of that chapter, and they now use terms like un-American with gay abandon, no pun intended.
Under George W. Bush, they proudly marched behind banners like dissent is patriotic.
But now if you dissent from their view, you are not a patriot.
You are basically treasonous.
I get that all the time on social media.
How much is Russia paying you to support Trump?
Those are a few anonymous people, but essentially that's the message of the party, that if you don't oppose Trump, you are somehow un-American or in fact a traitor to the country.
So I see Democrats embracing that kind of language in the same way that they have embraced the military as a sort of, not for what it's supposed to do, protect the country from enemies, but as a model for the economy.
You often start to hear militaristic language.
There's a kind of fascism that's creeping in, and I don't think Democrats are aware of it.
And again, if they listened to criticism, if they could hear how they sound to other people, they would probably be more reluctant.
But they don't step outside that bubble.
And it's because the mainstream institutions of education, of media, and of popular culture are all controlled by the left.
Fascism's Creep?00:03:52
And that comes back to our original point.
This is the great shunning.
They basically don't even want to hear from people who have a dissenting view.
It disturbs them so much to hear that dissent that they just try to block it.
Well, Joel, you're very generous with your time, and we love your words of wisdom and great insight.
I do, however, enjoy telling you Canadian horror stories for you just to shake your head at.
And permit me to close with 30 seconds.
I should tell you that this week, a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, a duly elected member of parliament, and the word parliament, as you can see, the root of it comes from the French word parlay, to speak.
Right.
Parliamentary privilege.
It's your duty.
You have these extra powerful rights to speak without limit.
Anything said in the parliament is immune to litigation, for example.
You can't sue someone for defamation what they say in parliament.
A member of parliament from St. Albert, Alberta, named Michael Cooper, who quoted the manifesto of the anti-Muslim terrorist in New Zealand to rebut a false accusation about it by a Muslim lobbyist who said he was conservative.
Michael Cooper said no, he revered the Chinese Communist Party.
Here's the quote.
That quote by an elected parliamentarian on the official opposition was deemed so odious by the governing Trudeau party that they not only rebuked him, but they deleted it.
They voted to delete what was said in that committee and erase it for all time, throw it down the memory hole because it was, according to one of the government MPs, it made a committee an unsafe space.
So even a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition cannot speak out against the dominant narrative in a parliament.
That happened in Canada this week.
Amazing.
Well, you know, this whole notion of safe spaces is, again, part of the shunning.
Your point of view is not just disagreeable to me.
It's not just something that makes me upset.
It is a physical threat to my health and safety, and therefore it must be shut down.
That's part of the justification of this whole thing.
Yeah, well, it's crazy times.
You keep up the fight down there, my friend.
Thanks for watching.
All right, well.
All right, there you have it.
Joel Pollack, senior editor at large at Breitbart dot com.
Hey, welcome back.
What do you think about this mailer? that I got from Carolyn Bennett.
I think it's crazy.
I mean, I live in a very multicultural, multiracial neighborhood, and no one talks this way.
Nobody.
Nobody's calling each other names.
Nobody's saying, oh, you're a racist if you want open borders.
In fact, I'd put it to you, most immigrants to Canada think Trudeau's open border stuff is nuts.
I know that to be a fact because according to Angus Reed, only 6% of people want larger immigration numbers.
Obviously, a lot of visible minorities and new immigrants hate it too.
They're not racist.
And no one's calling each other settler.
That's just a weird thing.
I used to live out west and have a lot more interaction with Indians, including on reserve.
I've never heard that.
That's a white girl talking, trying to, it's like a super white woman reading the lyrics to a rap song.
It's just so unnatural.
But I think that this is a premonition of Trudeau's election campaign.
Everyone's a racist, and if you're not a racist, you're a settler.
And if you're not a settler, you're a sexist.
And if you're not a sexist, you're an Islamophobe.
And if you're not an Islamophobe, you're a homophobe.
And between all those, we got you covered at least one way.
So shut up and let Justin Trudeau censor things.
That's what this is.
Well, folks, that's the show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, good night.