Canada’s abolitionist history—from Upper Canada’s 1793 anti-slavery law to the British Empire’s 1807 and 1833 acts freeing 150,000 Africans—contradicts "Black Lives Matter" claims of systemic racism, argues the host. They cite $100B in reparations paid by Britain as moral proof, while framing Islam’s slavery practices as incompatible with Christian-led abolition. Polls show global resistance to mass immigration, yet Justin Trudeau’s policies ignore public sentiment, fueling nationalist movements like Marine Le Pen’s and Narendra Modi’s. The book A National Populism counters media smears, revealing cultural preservation as a universal human drive—one liberalism’s "white guilt" narrative fails to address. [Automatically generated summary]
I've been working on this show for a little while.
I'm very proud of it.
I show you the history of slavery in Canada.
And let me tell you, it is the proudest history of any nation I can imagine.
I want to prove to you that in Canada, black lives have mattered since the 1790s.
And anyone who tells you differently, well, they're lying to you.
I'll prove it to you, too.
Before I do, let me invite you to become a premium subscriber.
If you get the video version of this podcast, you'll see the primary documents to which I refer, including laws passed in the 1790s.
So please go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
It's $8 a month or $80 for the year.
And you get the video version of the show, plus shows by Sheila Gunread and David Menzies.
All right, back to the show, and I will tell you things that I learned that were fascinating to me, and I hope you find them that way too.
Okay, here you go.
Tonight, do black lives matter in Canada?
What's our history when it comes to racism?
It's June 9th, 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.
This is a scene from the hit HBO fantasy series called Game of Thrones.
Liberator of Slaves00:15:54
That super white girl was one of the contenders for the throne.
She was tough and sexy and mysterious, and she had a pair of dragons.
But I think one of the reasons she was so popular with viewers is that she was a white woman freeing black men from chains.
That was one of her official titles in the show, Breaker of Chains, just in case the show was too subtle for you.
And that's the ultimate white liberal dream, isn't it?
To free slaves, but not just any slaves, to free black slaves.
And why not?
Slavery is a stain on society, and it remains the United States of America's worst moral error and its costliest error too.
The U.S. Civil War cost more lives than all other U.S. wars combined, and its seeds of discontent linger on through the era of Jim Crow and segregation and even the racially tinged riots that we've seen these past weeks.
But that's not actually what a liberator of slaves looks like.
This is what a liberator of slaves looks like.
That's who did it.
That's Queen Victoria.
Well, it wasn't just her, of course.
The United Kingdom spent a century fighting against slavery.
And I don't mean going to protests and saying, hey, hey, ho, ho, slavery has got to go in it.
Now, they actually fought against slavery.
They dispatched the Royal Navy, the greatest military force in the world at the time, to stop slavery.
This isn't the statue of Queen Victoria that I know and love.
I know the one right outside Buckingham Palace.
It's stunning.
I hope you get the chance to see it one day in person.
This statue apparently is in Leeds, and it was violated, desecrated.
Look at that.
BLM, Black Lives Matter, and murderer.
And I think they spray-painted her breasts because these protesters are quite woke, I guess.
I think this is a shot of the same statue from another perspective, BLM slave owner and slag, which is a British way of saying the derogatory word slut.
But is it true?
Did Queen Victoria kill blacks and enslave blacks?
No.
Neither did Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator, who freed four million slaves after the bloodiest war in U.S. history.
Neither did Winston Churchill, who led the West against Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany.
Now, you might think, look, that's a mindless mob that defaced the statues.
They're uneducated.
They're animalistic in nature, not thinking, only feeling.
Facts don't matter to their feelings.
Right.
But this Western wave of violence and revolution is intellectually endorsed by people who should know better, by professors, by politicians, by the entire idea establishment, especially the media.
It's worse in the media here in Canada too.
The mindless attacks on Rex Murphy for simply saying he thinks Canada is not systematically racist.
I'm deeply embarrassed for the National Post that they bent the knee to their know-nothing millennial junior writers and let them have an op-ed calling for the deplatforming of Rex Murphy.
I won't go through the whole argument again there.
I did a monologue on that last week.
To be clear, my objection isn't that some woke junior staffer disagrees with Rex.
It's that her argument was Rex shouldn't be able to speak at all because he's a white man.
It's like that image from the Maoist Cultural Revolution I showed you the other day.
If Rex won't denounce himself like so many others are doing to him, well, then we have to stuff a cloth in his mouth to literally shut him up.
But can I ask you a question?
And it involves history and a little bit of reading, so there's just no chance the millennial gripers who are thrilled by this wave of violence will know anything about him.
Can I ask you, what is Queen Victoria's record on slavery?
And what's ours?
What's our Canadian record of slavery?
Do black lives matter here?
Now, there has been slavery in every continent of the world except Antarctica.
There was slavery throughout Indigenous America before Columbus arrived.
Slavery was an important part of Indian warfare and Indian economy.
In British Columbia, for example, for centuries.
Slavery is a curse.
It's as old as murder, really.
In a way, it's the perpetual threat of murder.
I own you.
You must always do what I say, or I could kill you.
And I am making permanent that threat by calling you my property to do with as I please.
I am taking away any of your dignity or property in yourself.
I own you.
That's an ancient sin and crime, and it has threatened to manifest itself everywhere that humans have lived, and it has.
But my case today is that we didn't let it take root in Canada.
We did not.
In fact, I think Canada is probably one of the least slave-y places in the whole world.
And I tell you that so that when some know-nothing on Twitter or some know-nothing working at the National Post or Toronto Star or Globe and Mail or CBC tells you how racist you are, because we're all racist, because this country is racist, you can deny it with facts and hopefully with your feelings too.
Let's go back a bit.
How does 1772 suit you?
That's before the United States had its revolution.
That's before the French Revolution too.
Here's a court ruling from the UK called Somerset versus Stewart.
Let me read a bit.
On return to a habeas corpus requiring Captain Knowles to show cause for the seizure and detain of the complainant Somerset, a Negro, the case appeared to be this.
Okay, some old-fashioned language there.
Somerset was a black man.
Captain Knowles had seized and detained him as a slave, and Somerset sued, referring to the ancient British tradition of habeas corpus.
As you know, you can't arrest someone without having some proof they've done something wrong.
That's called habeas corpus.
It's actually Latin for have the body.
As in you have to have some proof that there was a crime going on if you're going to hold a man, seize him, detain him.
Police can't just pick you up without habeas corpus.
So if you're treating someone as a slave, well, you just can't do it because you want to do it.
You're treating him like a prisoner.
Prove that he should be a prisoner.
That's what the law says.
I'll read just a little bit more because it's a bit old-fashioned and legalistic language, as you would expect from 250 years ago.
The Negro had been a slave to Mr. Stewart in Virginia, had been purchased from the African coast in the course of the slave trade as tolerated in the plantations.
He had been brought over to England by his master, who, intending to return, by force sent him on board of a Captain Knowles' vessel lying in the river and was there by the order of his master in the custody of Captain Knowles, detained against his consent until returned in obedience to the writ.
Okay, so he's brought from Africa to the colonies and then to Britain.
And here's what the judges said about that.
The question on that is not whether slavery is lawful in the colonies, where a concurrence of unhappy circumstances has caused it to be established as necessary, but whether in England, not whether it has ever existed in England, but whether it be now abolished.
Now maybe I shouldn't, I mean, I want to read this all to you, I just don't have time.
It's a wonderful ruling.
For the next paragraph, the judges give the most forceful denunciation of slavery, I think, that I've ever read.
They describe its immorality, its corrupting effect actually on the slave master too, its practical effects on all of humanity, and mainly on the rights of the slave.
It is a wonderful ruling.
Can I invite you to Google it and read it for yourself?
It's called Somerset's case.
Anyways, the judges here don't try to ban slavery throughout the British Empire.
I don't think they had the jurisdiction.
This was just some guy in a boat in the river.
But a slave presented himself and said, look, I'm in England.
England does not allow slavery.
And the judges said, by George, you're right.
Shall an attempt to introduce perpetual servitude here to this island hope for countenance?
Will not all the other mischiefs of mere utter servitude revive?
And this.
Incompatible with the mild and human precepts of Christianity.
And this.
Tis very doubtful whether the laws of England will permit a man to bind himself by contract to serve for life.
As in, you're not even allowed to sign a contract to be a slave for your whole life.
You just won't be allowed to do it by the government.
This is 250 years ago this was written.
These judges just wouldn't have it.
Anyhow, amazing case.
It was shortly after that case that William Wilberforce's Committee for the Abolition of Slave Trade dedicated itself to the project of banning slavery everywhere, really.
That's the subject of the movie Amazing Grace.
I should say it again.
As the judges said, Christianity was the motivating force for Wilberforce, for so many of the other abolitionists.
It was mentioned in the court cases I showed you.
I contrast that with Islam, which legalizes and normalizes slavery, both slavery of men and the rape slavery of women.
Muhammad himself had slaves.
Christianity is unusual in not only its rejection of slavery, but its motivation to redeem captives around the world.
And that's such a key point here.
The UK was ridding itself of whatever vestiges of slavery were in its own island.
That's what Somerset's case said.
It didn't ban slavery in the 13 colonies in America.
It just said, don't bring your slavery here back to England.
We won't accept it.
That's bold.
But then the Brits said, all right, well, let's free the whole world.
They actually said that, and they went about doing that.
And not by rioting and looting their own cities.
Look at this.
An act for the abolition of the slave trade.
It was passed in Parliament in 1807.
Now, it didn't ban slavery itself in the British Empire, but it banned the slave trade.
So if you were already a slave, it did not free you yet.
But it was a direct attack on the industry of slavery, the capturing of slaves, the shipment of slaves to auctions.
It was the starter pistol for the Royal Navy's Great War on Slave Traders back in 1807.
And if that wasn't tough enough, well, it got tougher.
The Slave Trade Felony Act turned slave trading into a crime on par with piracy.
And if you don't know, pirates, especially back then, were deemed to be outside the law.
It's sort of like terrorists.
They had no, very few rights in law.
They could be executed almost on site after a drumhead trial.
To be a slave trader in the face of the Slave Trade Felony Act was as risky back then as being a member of ISIS.
Now, actually, riskier.
They didn't have a Guantanamo Bay.
They just killed them.
Back then they had Royal Navy ships, not drones.
The Royal Navy set up a special fleet just for the purpose of stopping slave ships.
They called it the West Africa Squadron.
It was fully one-sixth of the entire Royal Navy, ships and marines.
Over the course of 50 years, this was a 50-year war against slavery.
This West Africa squadron seized 1,600 different slave ships.
1,600.
Can you imagine?
They freed 150,000 Africans who were being shipped to slave markets.
It's like Schindler's List.
Now, these were not British citizens.
This was not actually in the economic interest of Britain or the colonies.
This was purely done as a moral expression of British and Christian ideology in the face of evil.
It wasn't just military.
Britain signed treaties with countries throughout Africa to press them to stop the slave trade.
This had never happened before in history.
Forget your darner's Targaryen Game of Thrones.
This was on Queen Victoria's watch.
This was the woman who was freeing the world.
You know, Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem that is now obviously considered racist.
Even its title, it's called The White Man's Burden.
I don't even know if you're allowed to say the name of the poem anymore, let alone read from it, but I do want to read a little bit from it.
It's published in 1899, 121 years ago.
It was Kipling's view about the British Empire, about how Britain was taking pains to bring Western ideas of morality and law and health and wealth to the whole world and was just being blamed for it, no matter.
Let me read a few passages.
What do you think of this?
Take up the white man's burden, send forth the best ye breed.
Go bind your sons to exile to serve your captives' need.
Take up the white man's burden, the savage wars of peace, fill full the mouth of famine and bid the sickness cease.
Take up the white man's burden and reap his old reward.
The blame of those ye better, the hate of those you guard.
I'm not going to read anymore.
It's probably illegal to read Kipling now.
I'm quite sure his statues will be taken down across the UK as they're toppling other statues even as I speak.
You know, they toppled the statue of Christopher Columbus in Richmond, Virginia the other day.
Hey, if you hate living in America so much, if you hate the idea that Columbus came there, leave.
Why blame the man who discovered it if you're going to enjoy his discovery?
If you hate Christopher Columbus for discovering America, if you don't believe he discovered it but rather think he invaded and stole it from Indians, then how can you possibly morally, ethically still live there?
It's like you're in a stolen house.
Britain passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833.
So they're passing law after law after law.
Basically, that law said, okay, we're done.
It's over.
It's now illegal to have a slave anywhere in the entire British Empire, except in a few technical exceptions that I won't get into here.
And I want to tell you something stunning that I did not actually know until now.
So if someone had bought a slave over the years, anywhere in the British Empire, and had the knowledge and security that what they were doing was lawful when they bought the slave, even if it was immoral, it was lawful, well, this abolition of slavery in a way was taking away the property right they had in the slave, of course, because people aren't property.
But they had been in law for years, even if it wasn't moral.
So the British Empire did something that I did not know about.
And I wonder if you had ever heard of this before either, because for some reason, they don't teach it in schools.
And I doubt the Black Lives Matter protesters know this either.
The British Empire literally paid to liberate and emancipate every single slave in the empire.
They didn't have a civil war about it.
They didn't kill a half million of their own souls in a bloody battle over slavery.
They emancipated all the slaves by paying out their slave owners, redeeming the slaves as the Bible tells Christians to do.
The British Empire borrowed 20 million pounds back in 1833.
Do you know how much money that is in today's currency?
That's more than 100 billion pounds in today's money.
We're talking British pounds.
So we're talking close to a quarter of a trillion Canadian mini-dollars.
It was the size of 40% of the entire revenues of the empire.
In fact, that special slave redemption loan, they borrowed the money, would not be paid off until, I'm not even kidding, it was only paid off five years ago.
More than a century, Brits have been paying interest on that emancipation loan.
So let's recap.
Britain banned the slave trade.
Then they created a special force in the Royal Navy and Marines that went to war against slave ships for half a century, freeing 150,000 slaves and stopping countless more from being enslaved.
Canada's Anti-Slavery Laws00:07:05
And then they made slave trading a crime tantamount to terrorism, and then they banned slavery outright and incurred a 180-year mortgage of a quarter trillion Canadian dollars to redeem slaves.
That's the United Kingdom.
White people, by the way, Christians, by the way, only Abraham Lincoln rivals that effort.
And as he wrote to a New York newspaper in 1862, if I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.
And if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it.
And if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
So, yes, he freed the slaves, four million, and he was a great, great president, but freeing the slaves was not his main purpose.
His main purpose was stopping the South from seceding.
He hated slavery, obviously, but he didn't dedicate his entire country's efforts just to eradicating slavery per se.
The British Empire did.
And of course, Canada was part of that British Empire.
And let me close by showing you something that I never learned in school.
And I went to school in Canada, and I want to learn about Canada because it's my country.
When did we get involved in this?
What's our role?
Are we racist?
As Trudeau the Ignoramus says, Trudeau, who's never read a book that wasn't a comic.
But it is a time for us as Canadians to recognize that we too have our challenges.
That black Canadians and racialized Canadians face discrimination as a lived reality every single day.
There is systemic discrimination in Canada, which means our systems treat Canadians of color, Canadians who are racialized differently than they do others.
Yeah, read a book, you liar.
Here's the truth.
On July 9th, 1793, the Parliament of Upper Canada, that's what they called, that's what they called Canada back then, it wasn't Canada, we passed an act against slavery.
It banned the slave trade.
No slaves could be brought to Canada, and of the slaves already here, anyone born to a slave would automatically be freed upon reaching the age of 25.
Now, it wasn't a huge issue.
There weren't a lot of slaves in Canada to begin with.
I read one census that put the black population of Toronto at the time at around 16 people.
But if there was any doubt, it was flattened.
John Simcoe, the lieutenant governor of Upper Canada, was an abolitionist.
I'm sure they'll tear down his statue too and rename anything with the word Simcoe in it, just like they're defacing everything else, white and male and old.
But John Simcoe abolished slavery more than 200 years ago.
He helped make Canada the place to which black Americans fled when they escaped slavery.
That is our Canadian history.
I'm going to read a bit from this law because you're not going to see this on the CBC or in the Toronto Star.
Let me read from the law more than 200 years old.
Whereas it is unjust that a people who enjoy freedom by law should encourage the introduction of slavery in this province.
And whereas it is highly expedient to abolish slavery in this province, so far as the same may gradually be done without violating private property, to grant a license for importing into the same any Negro or Negroes shall be, and the same is hereby repealed.
And that from and after the passing of this act, it shall not be lawful for the governor, lieutenant governor, or other person administering the government of this province to grant a license for the importation any Negro or other person to be subjected to the condition of a slave or to a bound in voluntary service for life into any part of the province.
Nor shall any Negro or other person who shall come or be brought into this province after the passing of this act be subject to the condition of a slave or to such service as aforesaid within this province.
Nor shall any voluntary contract of service or indentures that may be entered into by any parties within this province after the passing of this act be binding on them or either of them for a longer time than a term of nine years from the day of the date of such a contract.
So it's done.
You couldn't even sign a contract to be a slave.
Nine-year work term is the maximum.
I'll read a little bit more.
I thought this was interesting.
The children that shall be born of female slaves to remain in the service of the owner of their mother until the age of 25 years when they shall be discharged.
So this law didn't set free all the existing slaves yet.
That came from Britain along with a redemption payment later.
But until then, the Canadian law protected the treatment of slaves in a way.
Look at this.
Such master or mistress shall and is hereby required to give proper nourishment and clothing to such child or children and shall and may put such child or children to work and shall and may retain him or her in their service until every such child shall have attained the age of 25 years, at which time they and each of them shall be entitled to demand his or her discharge from and shall Be discharged by such master and mistress from further service.
So they actually had a duty of care towards children.
I won't go on, but let me end by quoting my friend Alam Bokhari.
Now, I don't know exactly Alam's background, but I know he comes from the UK.
But before that, I know his people came from somewhere else in the British Empire.
And like so many people who were the subjects of that happy and gentle empire, he knows that despite all of its flaws, the British Empire was the best thing to ever happen to a place in the world because it brought the rule of law and justice and education and health and construction and it brought the liberal precepts of Christianity even to lands that had never heard of it before.
And they were the breakers of chains.
And here's what my friend Alam said last night, and oh, did it cause a fuss?
He said, and he's not white.
He said, white people abolished slavery.
And you know what?
It's true.
Now there is still slavery in parts of the world, in Africa, in Arabia, in parts of Asia, even in China.
There are more than a billion people who follow a prophet who not only kept slaves himself, but instructed his followers on the power you have over a slave.
You can kill a male slave, you can rape a woman's slave.
Best not to talk about that, though.
Yeah, every country has its flaws because every human being has flaws.
Queen Victoria, you know, other than Moses himself, no one in history freed or saved or stopped more slavery than Queen Victoria.
And we Canadians were right beside her in the fight.
In fact, we were passing anti-slavery laws in Canada decades before she was even born.
Black Lives Matter?
Yeah, mate, we know because we're Canadians.
Why National Populism Matters00:15:12
Maybe read a book.
Stay with us for more.
Well, when I first heard of Brexit, I didn't know what it was about.
I don't think most people were paying attention to it.
Maybe not even in the United Kingdom itself.
It sort of sneaked up on everybody.
It was supposed to fail, but wouldn't you know it, the people had other plans.
Well, while the world scratched its head about that, another wave of nationalism and populism rose, and it was Donald Trump.
Again, the experts dismissed it.
There was no chance.
You know, that highlight reel that Donald Trump himself loves to tweet, where every important person said, no chance he'll be president.
And they laughed at Ann Coulter when she said he would be.
Remember this?
Do it.
Do it.
Look at me.
Do it.
I will personally write you a campaign check now on behalf of this country, which does not want you to be president, but which badly wants you to run.
So when you stand and deliver that State of the Union address, in no part of your mind or brain can you imagine Donald Trump standing up one day and delivering a State of the Union address?
Well, I can imagine it in a Saturday night skit.
I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president.
He will never be president of the United States.
And we better be ready for the fact that he might be leading the Republican ticket.
Next year.
I know you don't believe that, but I want to go on to Matthew Cat.
Sorry to laugh.
Next year.
Okay, here we are.
And which Republican candidate has the best chance of winning the general election?
Of the declared ones right now, Donald Trump.
Well, what's going on?
I tell you one thing, when Trump won, they stopped sleepwalking, and now there's a war by the media elites against nationalism, populism.
And there's an interesting book coming out next week by Ryan James Gerduski.
The title of the book, and he writes it with Harlan Hill.
The book is They're Not Listening, How the Elites Created the National Populist Revolution.
Harlan Hill was a founder of Democrats for Trump, and today we're joined via Skype by his co-author, Ryan James Gerduski from New York.
Ryan, what a pleasure to meet you.
Thanks for being here.
Thank you for having me.
Well, I find this a fascinating subject.
Can you define national populism?
Yes.
So there's basically two major movements.
There's nationalism, which is the fight against global elites and international organizations and the loss of sovereignty.
And then there's populism, which is a class struggle really against the elites.
And national populism has kind of been fused together because they're focused on the same enemy, which is those in the elites pushing globalism, pushing open borders, pushing for more corporatist style economics are just the same people.
And this fusion has been going on for decades now.
You know, when Trump and Brexit happened, people finally sat there and said, hmm, this is something.
But it's actually been going on across the world since the 90s.
And you saw it, you know, as early as Victor Orban's victory in 1998, which is where the book starts out from.
But then it goes into the Swiss People's Party and their election victory in 1999.
You have the Danish People's Party in 2001.
And it looks at national populism from a global perspective because it is a global movement.
It's not just derided like it is in the media as just old white people from either the Rust Belt or Northern England who are angry about the loss of sovereignty and mass immigration.
You have national populist movements, parties, and positions on every continent on the globe.
And the book opens up talking about the immigration policy in Angola and Chile and India, Israel, and throughout Europe and the United States and Canada as well with the Albanio-Quebec coalition.
And I think that it's really important to sit there and realize that this movement goes beyond race or religion or creed or political orientation or any national borders.
It is a global movement that you're seeing a pushback from neoliberalism.
In Canada, our media and political elites like to say we don't have nationalism or populism here.
They point to the lack of success amongst a candidate who was squarely in that zone.
In the last election, Maxime Bernier and the People's Party.
I would ascribe that personally to the fact that conservatives all strategically voted for the most likely party to beat Trudeau.
But Canadian establishments said, no, no, no, Canada doesn't support populism.
Canada doesn't support nationalism.
We're just little mini Trudeau's who love the United Nations, love open borders, love foreign aid, and don't even believe in a country.
What would you say to those Canadian elites?
They're our competitors here.
And they sneer, no, no, no.
Canadians are different.
What would you say to them?
Well, you have one, the Avigno-Quebec Coalition, which is the governing party, the absolute governing party over in the province of Quebec.
It campaigned on preserving French Canadian culture.
And the first thing they did were in office were having the ban on religious governments in government buildings and supporting a change to their immigration policy.
But there's a lot of these rumors that go around saying these countries are immune from national populism.
This was the thinking of Spain for a very, very long time, that Spain could not be influenced by national populism.
And in 2018, you had the creation of the Vox Party, 2018 or 2017.
And by 2019, the Vox Party was the third largest party in Spain.
Portugal just elected their first national populace to their parliament.
No country or people is immune to this because so long as the people are not being listened to, they will gravitate towards national populist leaders.
And in the book, I separate two very, very interesting countries that are experiencing or will experience national populism.
One is Canada and the other is Australia.
So both Canada and Australia in opinion polls say we want less immigration, we want it more geared toward, we want better living qualities in the cities.
We don't want as expensive a living cost in the cities.
So on Australia's side, they reduced legal immigration and they said new legal immigrants cannot move to the most overpopulated cities because we want to keep the cost of living, especially with the cost of housing lower.
Trudeau did the complete opposite where he said, no, we're going to actually increase legal immigration and they can move wherever they want, which is why you had the Abenier-Quebec coalition, I think, winning in such a resounding number in their provincial election.
And that's really the dichotomy.
And the longer that the ruling class and the governing class kind of ignores the will of the people, and you'll see an opinion poll after opinion poll, the larger the strike may be and the larger the blowback may be.
Now, it may not be in the sense of having an independent, independent national populist party, but independent national populist politicians may take over an existing party the way that they did with Donald Trump.
Interesting.
We're talking with Ryan Gerduski.
He's the co-author of a book, They're Not Listening: How the Elites Created the National Populist Revolution.
You can buy the book directly at the Amazon.ca link below this video, by the way.
Hey, Ryan, I got a question for you.
In Canada, anyone who expresses nationalist views or even patriotic views, anyone who's a populist is immediately labeled far-right, alt-right, white supremacist, racist.
The worst names thrown almost reflexively, especially by the media, especially our state media here, which is very large.
And I listened to some of the countries you referred to.
You mentioned Victor Orban and Hungary.
Completely smeared in our Canadian media and most of the American media too.
I know that David Goldberg, who is an observant Jew, went there, walked around with a Jewish yarmulke on, and said he felt much more comfortable expressing himself outwardly as a Jew there than in many Western leftist European countries.
I think there's a myth, and I think there's a smear against national populists that they're anti-Semitic or racist or even Nazi-like.
What do you make about that?
What would you say to the establishment that says, no, no, no, national populism, that's just a fancy way of saying alt-right?
Right.
So the way that the media likes to, and there's a whole section about the media and how the media likes to characterize national populism and really promote fake news.
The way the media likes to categorize these people is in the right-left paradigm that we're used to understanding politics.
But it's not really left or right because national populists in many places support a very strong welfare state.
They support raising workers' rights.
Many support labor unions.
Marine Le Pen is certainly much more economically progressive than most Democrats in the United States, for example.
That does not mean, so it doesn't really work in the dichotomy of right versus left.
It's kind of a very lazy smear.
But that's why the book talks about Modi.
Modi is Indian, representing a country that is 98% non-white.
This Democratic Center in Colombia, the politicians in Chile, Angola.
Angola has some of the strongest anti-illegal immigration politicians in the entire world, is in a country that is all black, that is opposed to illegal immigration from other black countries.
And the book has over 700 citations, so it's very well researched where you can look at the fact that it's human nature to do things and to believe in principles like that cultures and countries and histories are important and worth preserving.
And when you are forced things like diversity from mass diversity without the consent of the government, and over a very short period of time, trust breaks down.
Not only trust among people who are different than you, but trust among people who are the same as you.
And there's a lacking of people willing to invest in institutions, the institutions that keep governing societies together, that keep social institutions together, that keep the peace and keep prosperity going.
Without those things, really, you see a breakdown in civilization.
And Generation Z, which is the most diverse generation in the United States, is the least trusting generation in the United States.
And I think that there is a very important thing, a part of that.
You know, part of the great American experiment of diversity and assimilation was 40 years of extremely low immigration levels from 1924 to 1965, where we experienced a World War and the Korean War and the Vietnam War and mass technology and the international highway system.
And we kind of came together more and more in the Civil Rights Act as a country.
And we brought people in and we were able to assimilate.
That can't happen so long as you have mass immigration.
And this is part of human nature.
It is not something that is unique to white people or to brown people or to any kinds of people.
It is unique to humans, all humans.
And there have been social studies about people having those feelings towards other whites, towards other blacks.
Part of this, part of the media's reaction is truly because the media is very far, it was very liberal.
It's made up of a majority of white liberals.
And there's been social science that sits there and says white liberals are the only people to actually, in the United States anyway, white liberals are the only people to have a negative inflection towards other whites.
They are towards their own inward racial group.
So while blacks look at other blacks and have warm feelings, same with Hispanics, same with non-liberal whites, liberal whites look at other whites and actually have a negative bias attributed to that.
And I think that that is much part of the reason you sit there and see them sitting there and wanting to smear anybody who talks about the preservation of history and culture and traditions.
That's incredible.
You know, we use the phrase self-loathing amongst many liberals.
And I'm Jewish myself, and I see even some vestigial Jews who have a self-loathing towards Israel themselves.
I think it's a real curse of liberalism that people are so desperate to prove how much they care for others that they say, well, I'll just show how I despise myself.
I think we see a lot of that ideology at play in the race riots of the last two weeks.
I think you see extremism, extreme anti-I don't even know what you call it, when I saw a police chief from Worcester, Massachusetts, literally lying face down on the sidewalk as some sort of self-abnegation.
That is just not normal.
That's not a normal thing to do.
Well, part of it is people wanting to get along with the crowd.
But part of it is a secular religion.
I mean, and that's what they have created is a secular religion.
They have their own version of original sin.
It's called white guilt.
And only salvation can be achieved by condemning your own original sin, which is being of white guilt.
You have practices.
You have iconography now.
There is all the symbolism of a pagan religion.
And this is what happens when there's the loss of real religion.
When you have the loss of real religion, you don't end up having mass atheism or people just simply believing in science.
You have people believing in bumper sticker mentalities that sit there and fill that void of emptiness that is created by neoliberalism and just by the mediocrity of their own lives.
And that is what's happened to a lot of people in the wake of the last 30 to 40 years.
You can't fill those things up with just corporatism and cheap televisions from China.
You have to have a real belief in the nation, the people, and a common faith.
You don't have to be openly religious, but religious institutions are overwhelmingly positive in the sense that religious people give more to charity.
They're more likely to volunteer for things.
This has been understood in social science for years and years and years, and secular religion cannot replace that.
And this is the secular religion's attempt to in all contexts.
But going back to the book, A National Populism, I think that this is the real way that, you know, Francis Fukuyama back in the 90s said that history had come to an end, that neoliberalism was the way of the future.
And I think that this is the, I outline in the book really what national populists believe, their nine principles.
I sit there and write them out.
And really how the history of how they have grown, the issues that they have ran on.
And if you are a critic of national populism, this explains it and explains the future we're going to have if you continue to ignore the growth of that movement.
And if you are a supporter of national populism, this really gives you the facts and the figures and the statistics to really refine your arguments of why you may believe what you believe.
Maybe you don't understand the full argument of it or the social science behind what you believe, but this will sit there and lay the groundwork for you.
Yeah, well, I am very excited about this book.
Let me just read one sentence from your promotional brochure that really struck a chord with me.
Using Their Words Against Them00:06:53
Issues like mass immigration, war, economic inequality, and national sovereignty were sacrosanct to neoliberals.
And ultimately, their unwillingness to concede on these issues built discontent among millions of people.
Some of those issues traditionally being the left.
It used to be the left was anti-war.
It used to be the left was worried about free trade.
Trump is the president bringing the soldiers home.
Trump is the one who's fighting China on trade like Obama never did, like Clinton never did.
I think that Donald Trump's wisdom, and maybe it's just innate and natural, I don't know if he's thought it through, he is a better blue-collar president than the official parties of the left.
Right.
Well, and that's why I said in the beginning of this segment that it's to say it's far right is really a lazy condemnation of national populists because it isn't traditional right.
I mean, there's not economic libertarianism running through the veins of most of these leaders and most of these political parties and these political movements.
It's the understanding that your fellow patriot, your fellow countrymen, deserves respectability, deserves a life worth living, and shouldn't be left out in the cold if they have misfortunes of life that many, many, many people have, and raising national standards for the betterment of everybody.
But what happens is when you have mass immigration and you see the abuse of that, or you see not the abuse of the welfare system, but also giving to people who just came or seeing demands from people who just came to your country to alter your way of life, people grow in distrust of those institutions.
They don't want to give as much.
They don't want to care as much.
And it creates a complete lacking.
When you do have a dynamic candidate like a Donald Trump or a Modi or a Salvini or a Le Pen or the Law and Justice Party or a Victor Orb, and I can go on and on and on and on, you will have them sitting there and saying, yeah, we shouldn't believe in this.
We should reject this.
And it's in every continent on the globe.
It's not a white thing.
It's not a European thing.
It's not a Republican thing or a Conservative Party thing or People's Party thing.
This is a human thing.
This is a part of humanity.
This is part of the way human nature works.
And as we've seen with the left, their demands to rewire human nature in a vision that suits them is not sustainable.
And it doesn't work.
It just doesn't ever seem to work since the French Revolution.
And that's why they're promoting this new secular religion and hope it fills the void of God, country, and flag.
But I don't think that it will.
And there are millions of people right now who are fuming and who are angry.
And, you know, they're afraid of being called a racist and they're afraid of losing their jobs or being socially ostracized.
But those feelings are there and they will pen them up in the ballot box when they can be completely themselves with anybody else around them.
Well, I have to tell you, I talk to authors from time to time about books that are of interest, but the way you describe your book, it's like it sums up everything I've been talking about with our viewers here for years.
And even our foreign travels, when we traveled to the United Kingdom and we met Geert Wilderss in Amsterdam and our observations.
I have to say, I am looking forward to this book greatly.
And I know it goes on sale next week.
I am going to order.
It's on pre-sale.
That's right.
Oh, that's right.
It's published next week.
What I meant to say was you can order it now.
I am going to order this now.
I can hardly wait to read it.
There's so many things.
And I look forward to your treatment of Quebec because I think you exactly spotted it.
And you've just spoken more about the true nature of the Coalition Avonir Quebec than most Canadian journalists do.
And you're not even a Canadian.
This I can hardly wait to read it once I actually go through it.
Maybe you can do us the favor.
I know you're busy with the book tour now, but once I go through it, I might have some questions.
Maybe you could do us the favor of coming back again and we'll search.
Yeah, in a heartbeat.
Well, I've enjoyed this conversation.
I follow you on Twitter, and I really recommend that.
And we'll put your Twitter handle on the screen because you're always talking about these issues in a provocative way to get my attention, but a substantive way.
I've learned a lot even in this conversation.
I'm very grateful to you, and I'm sure it will be a best slow.
I certainly hope it will be, and I'll contribute to that myself.
Well, thank you so much.
I think it's really important.
You know, there's a lot of people who are sitting there and trying to jump on the movement because they can sell stuff.
And I was a Donald Trump supporter the day he walked down that escalator.
I remember being five years old and telling my parents to vote for Ross Perot.
This has been something in my veins since I was a child, and I've learned more to understand it.
And I think that the best way to fight those willing to suppress national populism is not by just incendiary comments or fighting them.
It's fighting them on the facts and the statistics and the information and the studies, using their own knowledge against them.
I mean, I cite the Cato Institute to talk about why mass immigration is wrong.
And I think that that's very, very, very important is to use their own words and their own studies against them and try to enlighten people to be the best forms of debaters and fighters and patriots that they can possibly be.
Well, you know what?
I think I'm going to order that book and I'm going to do a book review of it in video form.
You've got me so wrapped up about it.
I'll let you go because I know you're busy on tour.
It's a virtual tour, but that's how it is.
Well, there you have it.
Thanks so much for your time.
And I look forward to following you on Twitter and talking to you again.
Thank you so much.
All right.
There you have it, Ryan.
James Gurduski, along with Harlan Hill, the co-authors of the new book, They're Not Listening, How the Elites Created the National Populist Revolution.
You can buy the book now in a pre-order.
I'm going to do that right now.
And it's going to be released next week.
And I can hardly wait to read it.
What do you think?
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
On my monologue yesterday, John writes, 1,000% self-defense.
He might as well have been out for a Sunday drive.
I've seen far more aggressive drivers putting our motorways at risk while commuting to work in Ottawa on any average morning of the week.
Yeah, I do not believe he was looking for trouble.
I think he went down that street, sort of panicked, thought he would scooch through, but he breaked within one second, I think.
Obviously, he didn't want trouble, but trouble came to him.
Sharon writes, good guy, no question.
If the cops aren't going to help, you help yourself.
We're in survival mode.
By the way, we're talking about that car in Seattle, if you didn't catch on, where the guy was mobbed, shot someone who was carjacking him, and then immediately turned himself into police.
They called him a white supremacist, but in fact, he's Hispanic.
Nicolas Fernandez is his name.
On my interview with Mayor Tussi, Ron writes, Mayor Toussi is a sensible, common sense guy.
Following YouTube Stars00:01:02
Yeah, I had actually never heard of him before.
I mean, it's a big world out there, and he's in the UK.
But I thought, who is this fellow getting up at dawn to go and scrub the statue of Winston Churchill?
Who is that guy?
Well, I thought he was very interesting, didn't you?
Seems like a friendly fellow.
I'm going to follow him on YouTube.
And who knows?
Maybe he'll even do some videos for us from time to time.
But I was glad to meet him.
Well, that's our show for today.
What did you think of my show, my monologue today?
Did you know those things about Canada and slavery?
Did you know that we abolished the slave trade in the 1790s?
I didn't know that.
Did you know the British Empire actually took out a loan for more than 100 years, a massive mortgage to redeem every slave in the British Empire?
I did not know that.
And did you know they had a full-time Navy squadron that for 50 years hunted down slave ships?
I did not know that because alas, I went to government schools.