March 24, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:18:17
4036 The Fall of Canada | Ricardo Duchesne and Stefan Molyneux
"The entire Canadian political establishment, the mainstream media and the academics, are all in harmonious unison with the banks and corporations, in promoting two myths to justify mass immigration.""The first myth this book demolishes is the claim that immigration into Canada 'enriches the country', by demonstrating that mass immigration is not only leading to Euro-Canadians becoming a small minority in their own homeland, but because of the disparity in the birth-rate, the Euro-Canadian population is likely to become almost extinct.""The second myth this book demolishes is the regularly repeated claim that Canada is a 'nation of immigrants' by demonstrating that Canada was founded by Indigenous Quebecois, Acadians, and English speakers.""This book also exposes the rewriting of Canada’s history in the media, schools, and universities, as an attempt to rob Euro-Canadians of their own history by inventing a past that conforms to the ideological goals of a future multiracial and multicultural Canada. Canada In Decay explains the origins of the ideology of immigrant multiculturalism and the inbuilt radicalizing nature of this ideology, and argues that the 'theory of multicultural citizenship' is marred by a double standard which encourages minorities to affirm their collective cultural rights while Euro-Canadians are excluded from affirming theirs."Dr. Ricardo Duchesne is a historical sociologist, a professor at the University of New Brunswick and the author of “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization,” “Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age” and “Canada In Decay: Mass Immigration, Diversity, and the Ethnocide of Euro-Canadians.”Canada In Decay: Mass Immigration, Diversity, and the Ethnocide of Euro-Canadians: http://www.fdrurl.com/duchesne-canada-in-decayThe Uniqueness of Western Civilization: http://www.fdrurl.com/duchesne-uniquenessFaustian Man in a Multicultural Age: http://www.fdrurl.com/duchesne-faustian-manResearchGate Profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ricardo_DuchesneYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Ricardo Duchesne. He is a historical sociologist, a professor at the University of New Brunswick, Canada, and the author of some fantastic books, which we'll link to below, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, and Canada in Decay, Mass Immigration, Diversity, and the Ethnocide of Euro-Canadians.
Professor Duchesne, thank you so much for taking the time today.
Yes, I'm very pleased to be here with your show, finally.
I have used some of your video lectures for my courses, so I know what you do and I really like it and I'm quite pleased to be talking to you.
Well, thank you very much. Now, let's do a little bit of a history here.
The history, of course, of Canada is inseparable in terms of this new paradigm of open borders and everyone's welcome and everyone must be subsidized.
Then we're going to talk about Canadian history, but it is common throughout the Western world at the moment.
But let's talk a little bit about the general narrative.
Canada, first of all, is a nation of immigrants.
We hear this, of course, in the United States as well.
But in particular, in Canada, it seems to be even less accurate than in most other places.
What are your thoughts on that? Well, that was the first topic that I decided to tackle in the opening chapter of my book, Canada in Decay.
And I did so for the reason that it is repeated over and over again.
And I knew there was something wrong about it.
My sense that there was something wrong was because I thought, well, the early people who came here, they did not arrive to a ready-made country with some modern infrastructure.
And when you look at the dictionary definition of what is an immigrant, they themselves say, It's a person that moves from one country to another and the idea is that they're moving to a place that has already been created.
So I was thinking the first Canadians that came in through the first two, three centuries were likely first pioneers and then settlers.
But then I started reading more and more because I'm not a specialist in Canadian history and I started reading and it just struck me right away.
Take, for example, the Quebecois.
They had a very high fertility rate.
If you look at the period from 1600 to 1763, when the British takeover, you could argue that the population through that entire period, maybe 10-12% consisted of immigrants.
The rest were born in the soil of French Canada.
And they were born here Primarily, one of the reasons is that the French Quebecois women had a very high fertility rate, something like 5.3.
And so that also led me to the idea that the Quebecois are people that you do not find anywhere else in the world.
In other words, they're indigenous to this country.
So to call them immigrants in a way is a falsification And it's a denigration of their actual appearance, newly in this land.
And that kind of, that was the first thing, just reading about Quebec's history.
And then I started looking at the Acadians, and it was a similar pattern, very high fertility rate, few immigrants came in, but then they were left It wasn't as if more and more people came in to be Acadians.
So the Acadians, you cannot find them anywhere else.
There are people new to the soul of Canada, New Brunswick, and what we call today Nova Scotia.
And I argue in my book that you can argue something similar about the English-speaking early Canadians.
Right. So, I mean, to take a silly example, if you and I moved to Mars, would we really be called immigrants or would we be called explorers and settlers and so on?
And this is a pretty crucial difference because the country is a whole lot more friendly to come to after it's been civilized and the roads have been paved and the infrastructure has been built and so on.
So, the exploration and to a large degree the creation of Right.
Right. Right. You can't really tell if they're coming for freedom or free stuff.
Yeah, you can say there are three levels of distinction here.
First are the pioneers, the explorers, the people who Samuel Champlain is obviously the main figure here.
And there are many others.
And what pioneer means, when you check the dictionary definition, is someone who is moving around territories that have not been identified.
In the way we understand geography in modern times.
So it doesn't mean that there were no inhabitants there before.
It means that you're actually trying to identify the geographical location, the size, the nature of the rivers, and that kind of thing.
Then you have settlers.
Settlers at that early time meant primarily farming.
That you actually take a wild piece of land and transform it into agriculture.
And you could say that all the way into the late 19th century, into the early 20th century, most of the immigrants were settlers.
We know that the Canadian immigration minister in the 19th century, he was asking for hard-working farmers.
That was the Canada that he wanted to create.
One could say that it was really in the early 20th century that you start seeing immigrants proper coming to cities that are now growing.
But as you just said, even these immigrants should be distinguished from the ones that are arriving today because they are left to their own devices.
They have to really, from the moment they arrive here, find work and survive under very harsh conditions.
And they don't have an entire multicultural state celebrating them.
I'm not saying that people today don't have hardship.
They do. It is tough.
But those distinctions are important to make if we are going to make some sense of this claim that Canada is a nation of immigrants, which is just a falsification of the history of this country.
Right. And to me, To come to a country where the welfare state has been in existence and massive wealth transfer is occurring and be able to access those programs prior to having paid into that system is kind of like buying a winning lottery ticket or buying a portion of a winning lottery ticket after you know it's already won.
And that, I think, is a big change as well.
The welfare state, I think, originally was sort of like unemployment insurance.
You pay in for it, then in emergencies you can pull out of it.
But if there are waves and waves of people who are pulling out from the welfare state who've never paid into it or who pay little into it at all, that is a very different kind of situation than just people who want to come because they respect Canadian values or they want the free market or they want small government or those opportunities.
Right. It's a very different incentive.
And it is also a very different incentive when you're told that your culture is actually remaking Canada in a better, more improved way.
In other words, in the past, there was a pressure for you to assimilate to the dominant British culture.
They don't feel that pressure anymore.
They arrive and they see a people that is not proud of their heritage, People that they negate, its own ancestors, and they're told that there's something better, special about you that we wish to bring to our own nation.
So, on so many levels, it's such a different reality.
And to project what is going on now to the past and say Canada has been that way from the beginning of time, it just doesn't make any sense.
Well, there is this – I mean, this is what I grew up with.
I was as programmed as everyone else with regards to this stuff.
But I remember when I first started this show, Dr.
Duchesne, I really, really wanted to say I was always going to bow to the empirical evidence.
As an empiricist, first and foremost, because of my love of the scientific method and things like that, I always wanted to bow to the evidence.
So I was told, of course, everyone is equal and therefore preferring one group or one person over another – is evidence of bigotry.
Now, I can sort of understand that at an abstract level.
I mean, if I say redheads are the same as brunettes or bald guys or whatever, and then I say, but I'll never hire...
A redheaded guy.
Groups don't believe the same things.
They really, really don't.
So you have, you know, 85% or so of Hispanics in America voting for the Democrats.
Well, that's not representative of the general population.
If you look at the American electoral map, red versus blue, well, if you look at white males, you get one color.
If you look at, say, black females, you get another color.
Groups don't have the same political perspectives.
There are individual differences, but we're talking about big picture here.
And so, if you want a smaller government, white males is your demographic as a whole, and married white females in particular.
And if you want a larger government, then other demographics will be your preferred route.
So, if groups all act the same, then discriminating between them can be viewed as prejudice.
But if groups don't act the same, and if, like me, you want a smaller government, you have to accept that empirical reality.
But that Really can't be discussed very easily in the modern political climate.
No, there actually has been an effort that is going on now for a few decades to rewrite the entire history of Canada in such a way that you can then kind of argue that what is happening today with this massive entry of immigrants every year, that it is a natural movement.
A natural progression that has roots deep in Canada's past.
So you will see many textbooks that are being used across Canadian universities for first-year students, saying that Canada from the very beginning was a nation of diverse immigrants.
And the fact is that it was not.
And I, at length in my book, demonstrate that that's just not the case.
There is no evidence for that. But they need to create that image In order to say that what is going on now should not take you aback.
It's just the natural course of things.
This is what Canada is about.
The only difference is that in the past whites were uncomfortable with minorities.
They just didn't like them too much.
But now we introduce multiculturalism and they are beginning to accept that reality.
They're welcoming it and that really is the difference according to them.
But it's just inaccurate.
I mean, this kind of revisionism happens when every nation is taken over by a revolutionary regime.
It happened in communist Russia, and it happened in other countries that were taken over by radical Islamic people.
And this is happening across the entire West.
It's not just Canada. They are rewriting the history of Britain.
They are rewriting the history of France, of Spain, of Sweden, and Germany, and other nations.
They, too, are being called immigrant nations.
Insane as that may sound, that's what they're doing.
So if they find a few bonds that suggest that these people could come from a land somewhere in the Mediterranean, they go, oh, look at that.
We have in Germany people from a very different ethnic background and they were not white.
And there are many other commingling arguments that they are making, one of which is that And we know this, that the first inhabitants of Europe were not white-skinned, because white-skinned is something that evolved later in European history,
which again, it should support our argument, because one of the arguments our side makes is that evolution did not stop once Africans departed from Africa 50 or so thousand years ago, that in fact it may have accelerated.
This is the kind of argument they make.
They show you a picture of a kind of darker king ancestor in Britain and says, you see, like our first people were African.
And they're doing this all across Europe, in Germany as well.
So this book that I wrote on Canada, I did it with an awareness that if I am going to explain why it is, and this gets us into another question, Why it is that Canada decided to diversify itself fully, then the answer has to be one that also explains why they decided the same in Australia, New Zealand, United States and Europe as well.
This is another question, of course.
Which we'll get to. Even if the argument was true that Western nations were all nations of immigrants, that doesn't mean that they must remain so in perpetuity.
I sort of think of those subway cars in Tokyo where they have the guys in white jackets jamming everyone in.
It's like... Just because people – well, people walked in.
People just went in.
And so everyone who's in the subway car came in from outside.
But that doesn't mean that the subway car can hold infinite numbers of people.
And when you have an infrastructure that is built for a particular number of people, increasing the numbers of people who consume that infrastructure, particularly when you point out in Canada that the economic impact of immigrants, that they pay about half the taxes – Of the local population or the indigenous population, while they of course consume the same amount of social services, it doesn't, you know, you get 300,000 people into the country, you don't magically produce more schools, more sewers, more houses, more doctors.
So even if it was true, that doesn't mean that it should remain a nation of immigrants ad infinitum.
But of course, it is simply designed to say, well, everyone who's here is an immigrant.
So if you don't like immigrants, you're just a mean guy, which is of course not That's really an argument, which I suppose is kind of the point.
Well, and what you were just saying is something that people ask often, which is that when is enough enough?
Like, where are we going?
So there is this assumption that diversity in and of itself improves a nation.
The more diversity there is, the better it is going to get.
They don't want to even reflect on the possibility that there is a point at which it doesn't get better because then they have to ask themselves, where did that notion come from?
Why did I imply that it would improve Canada?
What am I going to say about if I do come to the conclusion that it is not going to improve Canada anymore?
What criteria, what arguments am I going to make?
So they just leave it open.
I mean, when I read the major Exponents of this idea of multicultural citizenship.
People like Wilkin Lika, they just don't.
It's just a statement. Diversity is inherently a good thing.
And never ever do they say, we want to reach this end point.
We want to arrive at this point.
I mean, at least the Marxists say, we want to reach communism.
We want to reach We want to reach a society in which this communal ownership and the state will disappear.
That's our end goal. But I don't see any end goal to this ideology.
So it's part, I don't know, it's part of closing the debate because people may start asking exactly what diversity means.
Why do you want it?
And is it really purely an economic phenomenon or is there something cultural going on here?
Is there something About white nations per se that our current society somehow doesn't like, feels uncomfortable with.
You know, there's so many things around this issue that are not being debated.
Well, I think the end goal is pretty clear.
And the end goal has been adopted by cultural Marxists, which is the destruction of Western liberties, the destruction of free markets, the destruction of limited government, the destruction of free speech, all the stuff that stands in the way of the expansion of the state.
And the end goal, mathematically, as you point out in the book, Dr.
Duchesne, is pretty clear.
In 1971, Multiculturalism became the official policy of Canada, at which point Canada was 96% white.
Where are we in 100 years according to current trends?
There was a recent projection that says that by the end of this century, about 20% of the population will be white.
And that will likely be a population Segregated and excluded in the rural areas and a few pockets inside the cities, but all the cities will have been taken over.
And as you know, once you take over cities, you have taken over the nation because that's the center of gravity for the culture, the politics of that nation.
So right now we're witnessing this phenomenon right in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary.
The future will entail.
And yes, that's what's happening.
And you can't talk about it.
You're supposed to...
I mean, there was an article months or so ago in BBC, which openly said that Canada is set to become a majority Asian.
I forget the date. And they're like happy about it.
And they're almost saying that anybody who would even object to this has something wrong with them.
So you're supposed to sit back and say, oh well, you know, every or large areas will look like Vancouver and you're supposed to accept that.
And there are many issues that have to be raised here because individualism is a unique attribute of European peoples.
We, or it has been exported to some degree to other nations, but in my view, it's not something that comes to them naturally.
And so the more inhabitants you bring from cultures that are collectivist and have been very collectivist throughout the entire history, that is bound to transform the Character of Western culture.
Oh, there's so much.
There's so much that undermines the traditions of liberties that the West, I mean, since the pre-Socratic days, has spent thousands of years and untold millions of lives to create and to maintain.
Something as simple as separation of church and state, which does not appear in other ideologies even remotely.
Yeah. Something like respect and equality for the rights of women, which in other cultures is certainly not a norm.
Something like reasoning with your children rather than propagandizing and beating them.
There's a wide variety of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience.
All of these are beliefs that are rooted in a deep history and, you know, as it's talked about, this magic soil hypothesis that somehow when people step off a boat or they step off a plane, they get the entire infusion of Western history going back thousands of years and the painful development of limited government for the first time in human history just a few hundred years ago.
It's very rare and recent even for Western history around the world.
It still remains worse than a mirage for most cultures.
And the idea that somehow by bringing in collectivist cultures while simultaneously abandoning and rejecting any respect or treasure for your own cultural history is going to result in anything positive, it's so irrational that I guess it can only come out of propaganda and ideology.
Yeah, that's right.
And beyond those basic liberal values that we cherish, there are many other Attributes or traits about European peoples that are being threatened right now.
One of which is the fact that in our universities, the teaching of Western civilization has, to all intents and purposes, been pushed out and replaced by a multicultural form of world history.
One of the last estimates that I saw in a report that came out in 2011 said that in the United States, which was one place that really emphasized the teaching of Western civilisation after the Second World War, only 2% of colleges make the teaching of the West a requirement.
In the rest, it's an option, and in many, it's not even an option, it doesn't exist.
In Canada, Far worse.
And another point is that even those who teach Western civilization, and I noticed this a few years ago, they are rewriting the text in such a way that Europeans seem to not quite be responsible for their own greatness.
They were interconnected to the rest of the world.
Other peoples were participants in the making of the Greek miracle.
Or they were preceded by other people, or they stole stuff from the Egyptians.
And you take the Renaissance, they'll say, well, Italy was part of a complex Mediterranean network of exchanges and trades and peoples, and it wasn't a phenomenon that you can just identify as a European.
So they're doing this kind of thing.
Besides just pushing out that history, they also, as you know, Downgrade the history, they emphasize the transatlantic slave trade.
One argument that they make, and it's really, I would say, the most powerful argument still in our universities is that the West became modern and rose forward because basically it extracted resources and it just luckily stumbled into the Americas.
And this kind of teaching, instead of It's declining.
I thought about 15 years ago, there was a lot of data coming in that in fact, whichever way you calculate the numbers about the slave trade, about the sugar trade, the tobacco trade, and so on, the triangular trade, its contribution to the modernization of Europe may have been somewhat significant for a period of time for Britain, but just for Britain.
Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, all those nations industrialized with next to no colonies.
So it wasn't really significant for them.
And we shouldn't be surprised because when you look at development, development is not a matter of enslaving a few thousand people and putting them to work in some faraway plantation.
You have to have the institutions, you have to have the ideas, the know-how.
And this is a very complicated, drawn-out process.
That happened in Europe, that is what kind of institutions, schools, engineering schools, knowledge made possible the Industrial Revolution.
And so this kind of history is, I thought that it would be brought to the forefront that people would stop saying that the triangular trade was the key.
Well, it hasn't happened.
I mean, even just in comments or magazines, I still see people repeating over and over again, oh, you Europeans just stole stuff from the rest of the world.
That's how you did it.
So a lot of things are happening.
You look at philosophy departments, they are now saying that you can't really teach this philosophy or that philosophy because it's too Eurocentric.
And the reality is, and this is one of the things I argue in my book on uniqueness, is that almost all philosophy is European.
The only contender is China.
And strictly speaking, in my estimation, no Chinese thinker would make it in a top 50 list.
Not even a 70 Top list, because there are so many great thinkers in Europe.
Well, and sorry, just to buttress that point, but the point that you make in the book, Charles Murray's book on human achievement.
If you want to take the history of science from 800 BC to 1950, 97% Of the advances in science came from Europe and from North America.
97%. Yes. So you tell me how you're supposed to teach a non-Eurocentric history of science.
Do you focus on the 3% and make that half your course?
Well, that seems kind of bigoted.
They're just not teaching it.
it.
That's their answer to that.
And the slavery argument drives me crazy, too, because slaves were endemic to human society ever since there was a human society for at least 150,000 years.
So if slavery makes you rich, why on earth did it only happen to the culture that just magically happened to discover the free market, limited government, individual liberties, free speech, and also white Western European Christians were the group that spent countless blood and treasure eliminating slavery from the world, not just within their own borders, and also white Western European Christians were the group that spent countless blood and treasure eliminating slavery from So So slavery was everywhere and all the time it occurred among the indigenous populations in North America.
It occurred throughout Africa.
It still occurs throughout the world in the Middle East and there are open slave markets in Libya.
Why isn't Libya becoming fantastically rich?
It's one of these, it only takes a moment's thought to destroy the whole edifice, which just shows you how terribly degraded any capacity for critical thinking.
He is in universities these days.
The people who make these arguments are like gurus in academia.
People like Immanuel Wallenstein, he is one of the key persons making the argument that Europe, what makes it different was that the transatlantic trade, that it created a world capitalist system I mean, Russia, sorry to interrupt, Russia had the gulag.
Russia had endless slave labor in the gulags under Lenin, under Stalin, under Brezhnev.
Why didn't they become fantastically wealthy if slave labor is the way to become wealthy?
No, slave labor stands in the way because slave labor stands in the way of automation, which is what generally produces wealth.
Yeah. The same with Spain.
I mean, Spain took the silver, the gold, and it just squandered its wealth.
400 years of economic depression in Spain after the discovery of the New World because they hyperinflated their entire currency, drove all the professionals and smart people out of Spain, and then 400 years was the price they paid for colonialism of economic depression.
Yeah. Germany, the same.
Had one little colony, Namibia.
And Germany was the nation behind the second industrial revolution associated with the chemical industries, electricity and steel proper, and all kinds of different tools and machines.
And it did it without exploiting colonies.
It just did it from its own effort, cultural institutions, research centers, and science at this point is being fully applied to industry in the second industrial revolution after 1850.
So yeah, all of that stuff.
I mean, the books are there for you to read, but the people that hold the wider interpretive scheme of how to see the West, they dominate.
And yeah, so I mean, this is a component of the diversification of the West, this rewriting of history that We have been witnessing for the last few decades and it's just really amazing because our universities themselves were created by Europeans and right in the middle of our universities,
which are supposed to be places in which you dedicate yourselves to the truths and to the highest achievements of humanity, right there in those very places they're doing the opposite.
They are bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator.
They are not willing to teach philosophy that much, not teach Western history that much.
And so something really bad is happening because my view is that if I could get away with it, BA education, the best BA education you can get is to be fully concentrated on Western history.
Because it is only by studying that history that you get to know what it means to create a nation-state, for example, what it means to create constitutional government, what it means to have separation of church and state, to understand the Protestant Revolution, what was it about.
The Roman Empire, you have an empire here that people argue that it was the Romans who created the first rationalized and systematized legal system and that envision the idea that a person,
an individual, as an individual could have contractual relationships with another individual and be responsible as an individual rather than as a member of a tribe or a kinship group.
So this notion of the persona engaging in contractual arrangements and there's a lot more in the development of many different types of laws That were then fully developed with the paper revolution in the 12th century,
like Marathon Law, Ferdinand Law, Royal Law, even Minorial Law, and all the types of law that gave precision to each sphere of life and what kind of law and how we think legally about those different spheres of life, including offering an autonomous existence to towns as corporate bodies, All of that comes out of the West.
And so to really understand history, you must understand Western civilization because it's not that you're not going to learn from other civilizations.
You do, particularly because they were the creators of the first civilizations.
So during the Bronze Age, from around 3000 BC to around 1000 BC, you could say that the ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, That was the place where things were happening.
All those developments that we associate with civilizational development like metallurgy, pottery, monumental architecture, white networks of trade, rioting, they are the ones that originated all of that and we need to know about that.
But really after 1000 BC thereafter it's pretty much stuff that's going on in the West because In the rest of the world, it's repetition or expansion of the same technologies.
Well, and even this word diversity, Dr.
Duchesne, is not accurate.
First of all, there was diversity in Canada, as there was in America.
The only way that you can think that there wasn't diversity is by not recognizing and respecting the vast amounts of diversity in Europe.
So if you have Italians and Germans and Nordics and Scandinavians and Swiss people and British, that's a lot of diversity.
But none of that matters.
Because from the outside, well, they're all white, therefore there's no diversity.
Which, of course, is incredibly bigoted.
It's like me looking at Africa and saying, they're all blacks, they're all the same.
It's like, no, there's a lot of varied history and tribes and so on.
And it is not diversity, because diversity on its face means respect for various cultures.
Right. No way.
Absolutely no way.
You are a racist, xenophobic, Nazi, white supremacist.
I mean, so it's not diversity.
It is not respect for all cultures.
And that is the fundamental lie that we need to stare directly in its skull eyes because that is a very dangerous thing to occur within a country.
Yeah, I tell my students quite often, I mean, do you really want to see The cities of Europe look like Toronto, all of them.
You want to travel there and you actually don't get to see German culture and German habits and foods.
And they sort of get it at that point, that diversity really means preserving a certain homogeneity.
I mean, some countries have slightly more diversity that has been there historically.
Because this is another point in my book kind of indicate that we need to make it clear to the establishment that we are for minority rights.
We are for basic liberal principles.
But the way the multicultural theories have reinterpreted minority rights is that they take them to mean that you must be obligated to ever larger numbers of minorities into your own land.
Whereas, in fact, Canada could easily have said in the 1970s, it could have said, okay, fine, yes, we are multicultural, we have Ukrainians, we have some Scandinavians, some Italians, we recognize all that.
We believe, and also the Aboriginals, that they should have the same civic rights as everyone else.
Period. We recognize it.
That's a classic liberal argument.
But when you read these guys like Charles Taylor and Wynke Mlicka in a very devious way, because at heart they are Marxists, they started twisting and bending what liberal principles meant in such a way That it means you must diversify your nation to demonstrate your commitment to minority rights.
And I just ask them a simple question.
Why can't you just stop it now in Germany, say no more immigration, zero, and still respect or give equal rights to anyone regardless of race, but you say no more immigration?
And they are like, No, no, it has to mean more diversity.
And at that point, all the issues get in.
The globalists get in and so on.
But the point I wanted to make is that it's important always to stress that having historical minorities and recognizing them is worthwhile and it's valid.
Russia has some historical minorities.
It is in their interest to recognize them.
Now, they may want to go their own ways and they could be both and they could go their separate ways.
But you could say, you know, we got to get along together.
We cannot have a system in which blacks sort of have less rights and that kind of thing.
But to me, that doesn't extend to the notion, therefore, we must have immigration.
That's a different issue altogether that is extraneous to the principles of liberalism.
Well, and you know this as well as I do, probably even better.
Which is that academics, whether in Canada or around the world in the West, they have no interest whatsoever in diversity.
And I know that for a fact because they're all so relentlessly left of center.
They don't sit there and say, well, you know, there are a lot of conservatives in Canada.
Conservatives make up, you know, close to half the population.
How many conservatives do we have in our department?
Well, we don't have any.
Or we have one who we never invite out, you know?
And so they don't sit there and say, well, we're really into diversity.
It's kind of become an echo chamber.
We've got a monoculture in here.
So we've got to have an outreach to try and bring more conservatives or more libertarians or objectivists or whatever.
Because I remember when I was at McGill.
I took, I think it was a full year course with Charles Taylor on political science, political theory, and so on.
And every day I'd go into that class and I'd be like, okay, today I'm going to get something out of here that I can use.
Today I'm going to get something that brings the world into focus.
Today I'm going to get it. And he just would talk and talk.
And I remember taking notes and I was like, I don't know what he's talking about.
Like nothing has any form.
Nothing has any rationality.
Nothing has any empirical evidence.
It's all just a bunch of...
Language just floating around like moths at a middle distance.
And so I'll believe that academia is interested in diversity when they open up their own echo chamber to other viewpoints than mid to hard left.
And until they do that, I know that everything they talk about with regards to diversity is complete bullshit.
Yes. And one of the things I have noticed, because I am a dissenter in academia, is that they either...
They ostracize you and they just put labels on you.
But if they have to engage you and you start talking to them, they don't know what to do.
They kind of walk away.
They change the conversation.
So it says to me that their arguments are not strong and they know it.
Something tells them maybe that they're not strong, which I find incredible because why would you not want to engage someone That's telling you something that you may not have known.
That's how I got out of the left, because I was on the left.
You can't make it into the doctorate without being on the left.
Unfortunately, I left the left before I got to university, so it was all over for me.
Yeah, no, I was an all-out Marxist, all through my BA, and I studied with Marxist, leftist, postmodernist professors.
And did you meet one...
Person who wasn't on the left in that capacity, or did you meet any advisors or anything like that, or anyone who challenged those perspectives?
Early on, because I was such a Marxist that if you were not a Marxist, to me, you were a right wing.
So it's not clear.
Right. So it's not clear that I really meet.
But I do know there was a guy that would question some of the things I was saying about, like the slave trade, for example.
He would tell me, Are you aware that it was the British who went out to abolish the slave trade?
Are you aware that there was a lot of intense debate among Americans as to whether they should drop an atomic bomb on Japan?
And they calculated that to do it through normal bombing, it was more destructive, that kind of thing.
I encountered that, but I gravitated as well towards the leftists.
So that may explain it.
But generally, it's very rare to find a conservative in academia.
And certainly, you're not going to find anyone, at least I don't know anyone except myself, who talks about immigration in Canada.
It's one topic that is avoided at all costs.
And let's talk a little bit about whether Canadians wanted it or not.
Because, to me, if a population generally wants something, they don't need a huge amount of propaganda.
Like, I don't need to wake up my daughter every morning and say, chocolate's really good.
You really like chocolate. Chocolate's fantastic.
Chocolate is a strength. Chocolate is wonderful.
Because she likes chocolate. I basically have to say don't have chocolate a lot of times.
So, when Canada was 96% white in 1971, what did Canadians think of...
Third world immigration. What did they think and what if they thought repeatedly when actually asked about their perspectives on whether they wish to keep the country their ancestors built?
When Mackenzie King said in the early 1940s that Canadians wish to keep their nation as it is, and he meant really white British and not bringing Asians, he was not A long voice by any means.
He was expressing the majority feelings of Canadians.
This is in the 1940s.
I do cite polls that were taken in the 60s.
And again, the majority of Canadians did want some immigration.
They were all right with it, but not large numbers and preferably people with similar cultural backgrounds.
I have seen polls even in the 80s saying this, but gradually through incredible indoctrination by the 1990s you start seeing a shift.
Now they are kind of manipulating those polls, but let's just give them that argument that you do start seeing by the 1990s into the 21st century an increasing number of Canadians who Like diversity, multiculturalism, and all of that.
Nevertheless, I do cite polls, recent polls, that there is increasing ambivalence.
And that depending on how you word the question, they clearly actually say they want a limitation.
They want an emphasis on Canadian values.
We need to understand that we live in a totalitarian society.
There is no other way to word it.
You cannot be in CBC, you cannot be in many, many companies, in schools, primary schools, in hospitals, in universities, nowhere and openly question the process of diversification.
You can't do that.
And if you say, I really lament the way in which whites are being reduced to minority, you're fired.
That's racist. You can't say that.
So that's totalitarianism.
You could say that Canada had a higher level of freedom in the 50s and 40s than it does now.
So you have to see that climate when you're debating all these issues and the question that you were just asking.
So that's what I would say, yes.
Now, when it comes to, I think, without a doubt, the most radical experiment in all of human history, which is not just mass immigration, but mass immigration wherein the native population is forced to subsidize that immigration.
That is, to me, a radical experiment that really is only possible in the West because West has the credit and the excess wealth to pursue such a transfer of Political power and material resources, basically money.
So to me, if people say, okay, well, we have this hypothesis around mass immigration.
And so what we're going to do is we're going to look at examples in history of different ethnicities getting along peacefully and fruitfully, of a monoculture fragmenting into a multi-culture with hostility towards the dominant culture as long as it stays dominant or at least the majority.
We're going to look at the science.
We're going to look at oxytocin and its relationship to human ethnocentrism.
We're going to look at the biology.
We're going to look at the history.
We're going to look at the examples.
We're going to look at the theory before we start any of this.
Because it is a massive experiment.
If it goes wrong, it is going to go wrong in the kind of ways that can scarcely be imagined in terms of how bad things could get.
So if you're going...
Like if you had... Honesty.
If your goal was not, you know, harshness and destruction, if you had honesty, then you would do the research before you even thought of embarking on such a massive experiment.
And that's what Pierre Trudeau, right?
Justin Trudeau's father said, this is a big, massive experiment that we're going on with.
And it sort of bothers me the way that they do this with education, too.
They keep, oh, we're going to try Common Core.
We're going to try this. It's like, can't you do little localized trials and see if it works?
And this... To me, makes me suspicious of the whole thing.
I'll just be quite frank with you, because such a huge experiment that is conducted without reference to science, to evolution, to evolution!
Human evolution, like all evolution, relies on genetic in-group preference.
And it doesn't mean that you dislike.
I love my daughter. That doesn't mean I hate other children.
It's just that's where my loyalties are.
And so that all of this was embarked upon with no regard to history, biology, science, genetics, any examples in the past, to me says that it was not something that was embarked upon in good faith, but something less overt and more sinister was at work.
Yes, what you say about oxytoxin is quite true, and I have a section on that.
At first, it was thought to be a love molecule, and there were even some psychologists saying if we just insert a little bit of this on human beings, we'll really get along and start loving one another.
But soon they realized that oxytoxin is associated with an in-group, out-group, Sense of identity.
And the love is really love for the people that you know, that you're attached to.
And as you just said, it doesn't mean you necessarily hate the out-group.
It just means they're not you and you mistrust them or don't trust them to the same degree.
So once that happened, the whole idea of injecting this disappeared among pop psychologists.
But another thing that I noticed in the book is that even the scientists Who have recognized that this molecule is more complicated than just saying love molecule.
And they recognize that it is associated with separation, some degree of dislike for others.
They don't seem to be able to come to terms with the fact that this is good.
It's not just the love per se.
But that a sense of saying us and them is actually a good thing for a number of reasons.
One of them is that human beings need to belong to something.
They need to say, this is my group.
This is my people.
And that gives them a sense of cohesion.
And then you get all their beautiful values like loyalty, honor, dedication.
And they don't get into that.
The scientists themselves, because they're working for a multicultural state, they start pointing to, well, yeah, people could become excessively in group, excessively against someone else.
And they sort of say, we need to work and maneuver with this thing.
Instead of saying, we have now evidence that multiculturalism could be a total disaster in the future.
That's not what they're saying.
I just wanted to say that about oxytoxam.
And I'm sorry, I just wanted to mention too, it does kind of frustrate me that it's just one of these things that should be pretty obvious to everyone.
If your political system, if your hypothesis requires the mass drugging of human beings, you might not be on the right path.
Like, you know, like the Soviet Union said, well, anyone who's not happy under communism, clearly they're mentally ill and need to be drugged.
It's like, well, anybody who's not happy under multiculturalism clearly is deficient in this drug, and therefore we're going to drug them in order for our system to work.
And if you really have to start messing with the biochemicals of human beings in order for your system to work, it might, just might possibly give you the incentive to step back and question your principles.
Yeah, that's where they are at now.
They are working on ways to carry on some genetic engineering and also Chemical engineering to drugs to create human beings that can operate in a multicultural diverse environment because the evidence is suggesting that it doesn't make us more harmonious or stable in our personalities, but the other way around.
I don't imagine that drug will be applied equally across the ethnic spectrum.
Let's just put it put it that way.
No, they have said whites in particular.
Yeah, whites have to be drugged. Yeah, whites have to be drugged.
And this is, again, the science, the Putnam studies, I'm sure you're aware of them.
Putnam, the researcher who sat on this, I think, for half a decade, these numbers, where he looked at multicultural neighborhoods, and he found unhappiness, what's called cocooning.
People don't like to go out. Why are kids getting fat?
Because people don't trust their neighborhoods anymore.
And there was a huge drop of social trust, even among people of the same ethnic background.
And it It destroys community.
And of course, when you don't have community, you need the state even more, which is why the government regularly goes after things like marriage, and it goes after in-group preferences, particularly for whites.
It goes after neighborhood cohesion and so on, because then you get dependent more and more on state power.
Yeah, an amazing thing about the Putnam study was that not only did he recant it, if that's the right word, he distanced himself from his own research and has never pursued it anymore, but Right after he came up with that research, 2006-2007, there was soon many other empirically oriented studies.
Because before that, most of the studies were fluffy philosophical treatises on the blessings of diversity.
But after 2006, you do start seeing a continuous sequence of empirically oriented studies coming out.
And many of them determined to refute what Putnam says.
And just recently, I wrote a long article in my blog a few months ago about this.
Just recently, Alejandro, his second name escapes me, but he's a professor at Princeton.
He came up with a paper in which he says that these studies that came out after Putnam, when you put them together, they refute decisively what Putnam says, And so I went and examined those studies, examined what Alejandro says, Portes, it's Alejandro Portes.
And I realized that actually those studies don't refute what Putnam says, but in fact reinforce it, except that there is a very twisted way of interpreting the data.
So for example, if the data says that these immigrants Feel comfortable in the neighborhoods, they are voting, they are getting married, their children are going to school, they play baseball, so they are in their communities.
But if it says something about whites that they don't feel as comfortable, they're not participating as much, then that's a problem that they have that needs to be fixed By bringing even more diversification and more training and more teaching, they never really seriously take the voice of the whites because that is almost automatically deemed to be racist or bigoted.
Why are you not going to that club?
Is it because you don't like that different race?
So I started noticing this.
I mean, there's a lot of interesting details here.
And this guy, Alejandro Portes, I mean, what he does is so bad.
Reading this article because some people were telling me, oh no, for sure, this guy has refuted what Putin says.
It's an incredible article, so I spent a lot of time reading it.
He misreads totally Emil Durkheim, warps what he says just to suit his own ideas.
And this is another phenomenon that I noticed over and over again.
They are misinterpreting thinkers like Kant, like John Stuart Mill, like Darwin, one after another.
They're trying to twist and bend them to say things that justify the current program.
I wrote an article about Herder, the German.
They say he's the father of multiculturalism.
I read and read about him.
He's not the father of multiculturalism.
He's the father of ethnic nationalism, except that he said, look, We Europeans should not be arrogant about our ways and impose it on other peoples.
They may have their own ways, they like it, and we could possibly learn a few things from them.
But Herder never says, oh, by the way, let's invite Africans and Muslims into Germany.
But this is what the current academics actually deduce from what Herder says.
And Herder, I should also say, he was actually emphasizing the striving for perfection.
That the European peoples should aspire for the highest, and he meant for the highest that is within their own culture.
But anyways, your listeners may not be familiar with Herder, but the same thing with Durkheim, the famous sociologist.
He has this concept of organic and mechanical solidarity.
So Alejandro Porte says that Putnam wants to go back to an organic Pre-modern solidarity.
It's not true at all.
I won't say much, but he misinterprets Durkheim in ways that will justify his ideas.
And this is something to look out.
Kant, too, was not calling for a cosmopolitan get-together of all nations.
He meant a federation of European nations.
He in no way was a globalist as that is understood today.
So you cannot project this idea back onto thinkers in the past because they did not even think about what's going on today.
Let's talk a little bit.
You've got a great thesis, the four points that you talk about in the book regarding what happened in the post-war period.
Now, I know there are people who talk about the ethnostate and, you know, I'm happy to listen.
I mean, I have concerns about, I mean, there was an ethnostate in Europe in the first half of the 20th century that produced two god-awful world wars and atomic weapons.
So, I don't think and look and say, oh, ethnostate, you know, boy, that's going to solve all the problems in the known universe.
But you do have an argument about what happened, particularly with our perspectives on Nazism, after the Second World War that helped pave the way for this radical egalitarianism combined with a dismissal, if not a disgust at white preferences.
Yes. I try to ask myself, Why was that the same nations that fought Nazism and that were completely against it, somehow came to the conclusion that ethnic identity was inherently bad,
even though we know that Canada, when it fought in the Second World War, had immigration laws that restricted Immigration to certain ethnic groups.
And I just wanted to, just for a second to back that up, to point out, until relatively recently, 90% of immigrants to Canada came not just from Europe, but from Britain.
90%. Yeah, the statistic I think is in 1961, 1960.
Up until 1960, if you calculate, 90% come from the British world.
So I was asking myself, Why would nations, in the course of a short time, a few decades, shift away from confident pride in their ethnic identity into a complete rejection of it in an almost, today I would say, hysterical pathological way?
Why did that happen?
And I Point to four factors that I think may have played a role.
And the Second World War, what happened in the Second World War created that climate.
One is that race doesn't exist.
It is a construct.
The other one is tightly connected, which is that any form of ethnic identity is automatically a form of racism that excludes other races And that aims to create racial hierarchies.
So the idea is that if you have a nation that says this nation is for Germans, they are the ones that have citizenship, you are then elevating the German ethnic group above what could be all their minorities inside there.
Like there could be some Poles or some Ukrainians in German and you're automatically, just by saying that it is ethnically a German nation, That they're somehow lesser beings, lesser citizens.
Although the fact that conservatives aren't allowed in academics is completely different and must never be spoken of.
Just wanted to mention that. Sorry, go ahead.
Yes. So there is that discrediting of ethnic nationalism.
And then combined with this, and this is a complicated phenomenon.
It's associated with European interests in the rest of the world.
European rejection of their own imperialism, and there is decolonization movement across the world, their own nationalism in Africa.
So there is this elevation, and this has roots with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others, there is an elevation of third world peoples as being people that are more natural, more egalitarian, authentic, connected to the roots of life, Whereas we are modern, artificial.
I mean, Trudeau even has a passage that I cite in which he almost says, guys, it's going to be great bringing these people because we're kind of like modern and mechanized and these guys are just going to bring some vibrancy and so on.
So there is this third world romanticism going on as well.
And the force factor is just escaping my mind right now.
I have the book that- Oh, Universal Human Rights.
Right, which is a very important one.
So one of the things that happens is that we get the UN Declaration of Universal Rights.
And when you read that document, it actually reads in a way that is very similar to the documents of liberal nations, their constitutions.
Everyone has a right to freedom of expression, a right to choose their own religion, a right to certain securities and protection under the law, and so on and so forth.
There are few that you could say, well, you know, they are meant more for the world.
But you do notice that liberal rights, which are based on natural rights, We're interpreted to mean human rights for everyone.
I don't know if the audience will understand this because the very principle of natural rights that goes back to John Locke and others already contains within it the seed of human rights because you're saying that human beings as human beings are born with certain natural rights just because they are human beings.
But John Locke If you read him and read his critics, the so-called Republicans of that period, he really meant British citizens.
He meant to say that British citizens should have these rights that they're born with so that when we have a government, it is not that the British people wish to concede or contract out all their rights because they want security.
Yes, they want security They will allow you to be the one that's armed.
We're going to give up our arms and you're going to give us peaceful order because then we can dedicate ourselves to our farms, our businesses, because we also love prosperity and comfort and happiness.
And we too want to be free.
We want to criticize you.
And if you happen to be a tyrant, we believe we have the right to take you out.
Yeah, it's the idea that it's a rational contract between subject and ruler, that you're willing to surrender certain rights to give them a disproportionate amount of military and coercive power in return for security.
But when the state is not serving you, when it no longer serves your security or the continuation of your culture, then it becomes invalid.
Yeah, so... Implicitly, Locke and other thinkers at that time that gave variations of this idea, they didn't say because it was kind of obvious, but they meant British people.
Locke wasn't saying, look, I have just spoken about natural rights, therefore the people of Belgium have a natural right to become citizens in Britain.
He didn't feel he had to say that.
But after the Second World War, and obviously the idea of human rights has roots before the Second World War, but after the Second World War, this just takes off.
Because people get a sense that the reason some people here were bombed and they were kind of put in concentration camps and their nations were just destroyed is because we don't have a concept of rights that extends to all human beings.
And gradually and slowly as you follow legal theories and read their works, and this is where we are now, it is almost as if the rights that we have are no longer the rights of Canadians per se because what we have are human rights and human rights everybody has them.
Therefore an immigrant that comes illegally they start saying it isn't quite illegally because Yes, maybe they didn't come the right way, but after all, they're now in your nation And would you deny that they don't have the same human rights as you do?
And you're locked into that.
You go, yes, they do have the same human rights.
Well, if they do have the same human rights, you read those human rights, they include right to citizenship.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
I'm just picturing myself going into some liberal classroom and teaching a class when the teacher is supposed to be there.
I wonder what he, hey, I'm in your class.
I'm teaching. I mean, what's the problem?
Of course, they would call security right away, but that's a different matter.
Yeah, it's an interesting topic to examine.
So those four factors, I believe, kind of started to take over the Western world and became like a spiral.
Once you accept them, they entrapped you within it.
If you really do accept the principle that someone else in another land has the same human rights as you do, it is but a short step For that human being who then comes into your land and lands there by whatever means to say, therefore, I should be treated equally in your land.
Well, you know, I mean, if I say that everyone has the right to own a house, that doesn't mean you have the right to own my house.
I can have universal rights of property without surrendering my property to you.
So, I think it's a challenge for sure.
Now, let's talk a little bit, just I guess two more topics, and I really appreciate your time today.
This idea that somehow it was nationalism or it was ethnic in-group preferences that created the First and Second World War.
To me, I know that Pierre Elliott Trudeau blamed nationalism for the wars and so on.
The idea that any kind of national preference, and his son now, we're talking about a post-nation state or whatever that means.
It's a fundamental misreading, I think, of what happened.
What happened was you had central banking, you had massive expansions of state power, you had income taxes, you had all of this to create the capacity to wage wars.
You know, once the 19th century produced all of this wealth, that wealth could then be used as collateral for which governments could use to borrow against and sell their gold against to create massive destructive wars.
Once a country becomes rich, Through free markets, the government becomes increasingly dangerous because it can co-opt those resources for its own nefarious ends.
And so as the free market grew, people could then surrender more of their income to the government without pushing back against it because you weren't going to starve.
And so the lack or the failure of intellectuals to push back against increasing government control over the resources of an increasingly rich set of countries, to me, was the foundational reasons behind all of this.
And yet, somehow, it is the nation-state that is blamed for all of this.
Now, the fact that communism, in a way, won the Second World War, because it maintained itself in the Soviet Union, it spread shortly thereafter to China, and of course, in the decolonized Western or ex-Western countries or ex-Western protectorates, you had a massive influx of Marxism to fill the void.
And this is another thing, just basic critical thinking.
Oh, the West became rich through colonialism.
It's like, okay, well, then why at the end of the Second World War when the West was completely broke, the first thing it did was ditch its colonies?
It makes no sense at all.
If it's going to make you rich, you should use those colonies to rebuild your wealth.
But it was always a net loss for the population as a whole.
So... This misreading of history, which serves collectivism, which serves Marxism, and the fact that Marxists took over in the universities, it's not to me too surprising that they would then blame in-group preferences, that they would then blame nations, because of Marxism, of course, has always been internationalist in scope.
And so this misreading of history for ideological ends, I think, really did set us on that path.
Yeah, I mean, I... I believe that one should make a distinction between natural in-group collective preferences.
Because anytime you talk about in-group, that's a form of collectivism.
And that can coexist with individual liberty and freedom for those members.
If you then have a nation-state, the nation-state is a way of saying that, no, we have a group and all the liberties that we have Only apply to the people that are living in this land.
And if you're sovereign, because having a nation means you're sovereign and you can declare what it is that you want for your nation and what is in the best interest of nations, you may say, we don't want any immigration like Japan does.
So there is always implicit a form of collectivism in any form of individualism.
The issue that What I am against is when you have artificial form of collectivism superimposed from above, like communism is a case in point.
The communists simply theoretically came to the conclusion that the working classes did not like commerce, did not like capitalism generally, But that was not true because once you give them a better deal and you let them organize in trade unions, they were comfortable with capitalism and they understood that some people make more and that Those people give them jobs and employment that's good for them.
Oh, and a lot of the people, like I worked in a lot of low-rent occupations when I was younger, and a lot of the workers looked upon the bosses with pity.
Like, oh man, you couldn't pay me to do that job.
They recognized the costs and benefits.
Yeah, he gets paid more, but he doesn't get to go home.
He's always stressed. He gets yelled at by customers.
I can, you know, they did not want that job and did not resent the people who had it for the most part.
Right. And so the communists then had to superimpose it.
You see this in Lenin.
In Lenin's writings, in his book, What Is To Be Done, he explicitly says the working class left to its own can only go so far as straight unionism.
They're never going to reject capitalism on their own.
Therefore, we need an organization of professional revolutionaries who articulate that theory of communism.
And once we get the chance, we just superimpose it on everyone.
And so this notion of a collective From the left has always been a top-down approach.
But I have no problem when you talk about sense of collective identity, let's say a small town that has been there for hundreds and hundreds of years and people have their own costumes, their own kinship attachments and links and they see themselves as a common,
as a group and they don't want outsiders and they do tend to make a lot of decisions by way of Groups and are kind of more tightly together and less individualistic.
I have no problem with that if it's coming from the ground up, if it is just an expression of their historical experience.
Because even in the West, we know that the Nordic Anglo people are the more libertarian and then the Americans, but the Germans less so.
I don't know about even now, the way they have absorbed multiculturalism is in a very collective way.
But they have always been a bit more collective than other people.
And I have no problems with that.
That's their past.
That's what they relate to.
So I think that distinction has to be made naturally based, bottom-up forms of group identity and artificially imposed forms of group or communitarian identity.
Multiculturalism is right from the top.
I mean, when you look at Kim Lika and these people, they say it openly.
He uses the phrase that what we're going to do in Canada will be a march through the institutions, a slow march.
We're going to take over everything, and eventually, before Canadians know it, there'll be a profound transformation of what it means to be a Canadian.
So that's a top-down, and he calls it communitarianism.
He says he's a communitarian liberal.
So, in a sense, I said, I have no problems with the word communitarian, but it has to be traditionally based, it has to come from people that have felt that way for a long time, and it really means something today to them, rather than the way that you're doing an academic, articulating a theory, and then March through the institutions, superimposing that collective on everyone by devious means, through deception, because they use deception all the time.
And hostility. So let's close with this, because if this experiment does not work, then the Europeans, the whites, there's nowhere to go.
There's nowhere to go. I mean, I think that's important to understand.
You know, if you are a Sikh and you want to live in a Sikh country, if you're Hindu or Muslim or Black, you can find countries and go live there.
But there's nothing. If it doesn't work, there's no place to go.
And the number that really, really stuck with me, Dr.
Duchesne, was this.
Canadian population, I guess these numbers are a little out of date now, Canadian population growth between 2001 and 2011, plus 72% for Sikhs, plus 69% for Hindus.
Plus 65% for Muslims, minus 3% for Christians.
It is not hard to figure out where those numbers go over time.
Whites will not survive unless they affirm their ethnic identity, that's my view.
They're gonna have to do it.
They cannot play the game that we are just individuals.
That's a form of unilateral disarmament.
We are going to lose.
There's a point at which, and I take a lot of risks in saying this, that they will have to say, guys, we must affirm our heritage.
We must be proud of it.
And at the same time, not exclude the right of those groups to affirm theirs because you recognize that that is part of human nature.
In a sense, I say we must utilize multiculturalism for our own ends, because multiculturalism in theory recognizes that all groups are attached to their heritage and culture.
So unless whites just break through that barrier of being afraid, of allowing the Marxists to control their brains, you gotta break through that and say, from now on I will always affirm My white identity.
You're not supposed to do that.
Even saying that, right?
It's like, oh my god, that means Nazis.
No, it doesn't mean that because I always emphasize liberal values, minority rights, But that has to be a female.
There's going to be a complete walkover.
We, I mean, we oppose racism, which means that, at least I wouldn't say it won't speak for you, I oppose racism, which means that if there's only one group that can't be proud of its own heritage, that's very racist.
The very concept of white privilege is a racist construct because it's describing to whites a general negative characteristic based upon the color of the skin.
So it is fully in line, of course, with the stated goals of multiculturalism to affirm every group's capacity to celebrate their own heritage.
And if only one group is excluded from that, we take the mask off and see what is underneath.
So I really, really want to thank you for your time.
Please, everyone, let us know what you think of the conversation.
I enjoyed it thoroughly.
I really want to remind people, check out – Dr. Duchesne's book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, and Canada in Decay, Mass Immigration, Diversity, and the Ethnocide of Euro-Canadians.
I hugely appreciate the work that you're doing, obviously, in your classroom and to put all of this information together and the time that you took today.
Thank you so much. I should tell the audience that this book, It's doing very well.
It's a bestseller at Canadian Amazon.
And by the way, they're frequently bought together with your book, the two of them.
Oh, the art of the argument.
Yeah. Your book and mine, they are together there quite a few times I've seen it.
Great. And so if you can put a link to that, and I can send it later to Marco, some links that you can put.
Well, I appreciate that. And you can't spend better time than checking out Dr.
Duchesne's work. I really, really appreciate your time.
