All Episodes
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
42:22
The Death of Canada. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
On this 150th Canadian anniversary, I asked myself the following question.
What is Canada?
It may be because I am from Quebec, but I am unable to provide an answer.
I concluded that Canada is, in essence, legal fiction.
It seems to me to be a country that exists on paper, but lacks any true identifiable culture or people that unmistakingly separates it from the rest of the Western world.
As nationalism is currently gaining strength throughout the world, how will this impact Canada?
Will we leave our country gaining some sort of identity of its own?
Or will it lead to a splintering as regional identities take precedence?
What will be the result of Canada's status as, quote, first post-national state, end quote, as the world goes through what will most likely be a major geopolitical shakeup in the coming decades?
That's from Mark.
Hey Mark, how you doing?
I'm doing well.
Stian, how are you?
I'm well.
Now, Quebec, of course, has had the strongest identity and sense of values, I think, of Canada as a whole, partly, of course, of being a minority in the country.
Would you say that's fair?
I would say that's perfectly fair.
However, in the last probably 15 years, what I can tell you is I felt like This sense of national identity is slowly dying off.
I think the independentist movement was pretty much a generational project, and since the boomers are starting to pretty much die off, the project is dying off with them.
Do you remember the year of the last referendum?
I do, actually.
Yeah, I was fairly young when the last referendum happened, but what I can remember is that there was a lot of acrimony on both sides.
Essentially, the ones that wanted to do their own country were basically accusing the ones who wanted to remain in Canada as being sellouts.
The artists were pretty much all in.
The artistic side was all in on independence.
The business side was obviously fairly partial to remaining in Canada.
And there was, well, it was later revealed to have been a fair amount of dirty tricks being used under the radar by the federal government.
So what I think I remember most vividly is Jacques Parizeau, who was the Parti Québécois, no, the Bloc Québécois chief at that time.
95.
That's it.
Who came out and while fairly drunk, outright stated, Tonight we lost because of money and the ethnic vote.
Yeah, I remember watching that very vividly.
I was in Montreal at the time.
I spent four years living in Montreal and I remember watching it on TV with great ambivalence.
So I'll sort of get to my thoughts in a sec, but please come on.
Well, I think that was a pretty important moment.
A pretty important moment for the independent movement because from that point forward, there was a great pain in trying to be more inclusive and diversity oriented.
And that seemed to have completely killed the entire momentum of the sovereignist movement more than anything else.
Because quite frankly, it was a movement that was pretty much done for white French Canadians And trying to include other people into it only served to dilute it and I think it never came back from that.
And it was really close.
It was.
I think it was less than a percent.
49.42 to 50.58.
49.42 to a yes and yeah, 50.58 to no.
It was, yeah, a margin of less than 60,000 people out of 4.7 million.
0.42 to a yes.
And, um, yeah, 50.58 to, to no.
Uh, it was yeah.
A margin of less than 60,000 people out of, uh, 4.7 million.
That's it.
And frankly, once again, it might be because I'm from Quebec, but I can feel that in the last 15 years, even that sense of identity just started crumbling, uh, Maybe it's because of added diversity and more multiculturalism but I can see that there's a difference.
Come on.
I mean we all say diversity but it means non-whites.
Let's be frank about that.
Nobody says, oh we're bringing a lot of white people from Belgium, that adds to our diversity.
Or we're bringing in a lot of people from Poland.
It always and forever means non-whites.
That's what diversity means.
And I'm not trying to do anything other than be very frank about what the word actually means.
Europe is very diverse.
Look at how women are dressed across Europe versus how women are dressed across the Middle East.
Europe is incredibly diverse.
Different languages, different cultures, different religions, different histories, different dress, different music, different dances, different everything.
Europe is incredibly diverse.
And what does everyone say?
Europe needs diversity.
What does that mean?
It means Europe needs non-whites.
It's all it means.
Diversity means non-whites, in general, displacing whites.
I mean, I just, I don't mean to be shocking if you've not heard this before, but let's be frank about what it means.
Oh, no, I totally agree.
Plus, I actually lived in one of Montreal's most ethnic neighborhoods for quite a while, Ville Saint-Laurent.
And frankly, what I saw was that these people simply were not Canadians.
Their values for very very different from ours and they didn't really make any kind of effort in assimilating in the sense that they always lived in their little ghettos and their little neighborhoods where they would all congregate with more or less the same ethnic identities and they weren't really interested in going outside.
So from a nation building perspective it's a complete failure because there's no general identity.
Sure, well when a country is starting, particularly the countries in the new world, You are getting the most entrepreneurial and ambitious or desperate, whether those are the same things or not, it's a question for another time, but you're getting the smartest, most ambitious, most desperate people who are all white coming to your country.
And so there's a certain amount of just values.
Like if you have an entrepreneur's conference, then you're going to get a whole bunch of entrepreneurs and they're going to have similar values, i.e.
they like being entrepreneurs, they don't want to work for other people.
And so there was a kind of self-selection that was going on and it was very explicit in America in particular, very explicit.
They said, we only want white people and we're not even sure about those Catholics.
And those Germans, I don't know, like we want Protestant people from England, hopefully, you know, white Protestant people from England.
How America was founded and that's what they wanted and of course you had to be a rich, well at least a decent landowner to participate in government with the basic idea being that how can you vote objectively about property unless you actually have some property, right?
That sort of makes sense, right?
Like I'm told I can't have an opinion on women's birth control because I don't have a vagina and somehow, but somehow people who don't have property can vote objectively about property.
So when you're starting out, you don't really think about your values because everyone's values are the same.
No one's coming from the welfare state.
Why?
No welfare state, right?
Everybody's Christian who comes because, you know, it's the 16th, 17th, 18th century and everyone's Christian to begin with.
It was actually a point of contention at the start of the Confederacy because John A. Macdonald actually refused to give Asian people voting rights explicitly to defend the Canadian identity and The Aryan character of the nation, as he called it.
So that was actually a concern they had way back in the late 19th century.
Sure.
Well, mid 19th century.
A friend of mine came back from Jamaica not too long ago and said he had a long conversation with his Jamaican, a Jamaican guy.
And the Jamaican guy was railing against the Chinese.
You know, the Chinese come, I'm not going to try and do the accent.
I don't know this, I got into Jamaica.
But they, you know, the Chinese, they come to Jamaica and they bought this up and they bought that up and we need to find a way to keep them out.
They're taking over the island.
We've got to stand together, he said to my friend from Canada who was in Jamaica on vacation.
And it's like, That's interesting.
So he can say that we want to keep Jamaican black, we want to keep Jamaica ethnically the same, and Jamaica is like, what, 97% black or whatever, right?
And we've got to keep those Chinese out.
And I've yet to see one single mainstream media outlet, well, first of all, I've yet to see one mainstream media outlet say anything about the incredible decision that CNN made to threaten someone with doxxing for exercising the First Amendment rights.
That is completely baffling.
Have you seen anything about me?
I checked out the Canadian media a little bit here and there and now there's a rather interesting series of pictures about some mom whose son wanted to dress up as a drag queen and she posted pictures of him in full makeup.
Yeah, that's never going to come back to haunt him.
It's like these women have no idea what it's like to be a guy.
So nothing in the Canadian media about this incredible stuff going on with Project Veritas, James O'Keefe and all this stuff going on with the doxing threats and all of that.
I mean, nothing in the Canadian media.
I mean, this is like, it's absolutely totalitarian.
And then they wonder why you need state assistance in order to stay competitive.
Because, you know, actually offering information as an information outlet, that would never be good for their market share.
If you listen to the CBC, you're in a completely different universe from reality.
But yeah, nobody's writing there and saying, I can't believe how racist those Jamaicans are against the Chinese.
I can't believe that these Jamaicans want to keep Jamaica ethnically pure, you know, because see, they're not white, so they can have in-group preference.
They're not white, so they can have pride in their ethnicity and culture.
Because nobody wants a bunch of stuff from Jamaicans.
So, you know, you don't have to hit them with the supremacist label every time they even think about having an in-group preference.
But anyway, so when you start out, you don't need to think about your values because your values are handled by the circumstance of the country, by how difficult it is to get there, by what kind of people want to come there, and by an immigration policy that's fairly specific to and by an immigration policy that's fairly specific to those kind of people.
Who wants to come and work on a farm in the middle of Saskatchewan or not even work on a farm, come to a wilderness in the middle of Saskatchewan, carve out 40 acres with their bare hands and, you know, half a blunt axe.
I mean, it's horrendous, right?
Anyone who's, you know, I've done, because I was, you know, gold panner and prospector and claims taker and all of that up north after high school for quite a while.
If you've not worked in the wilderness, you just don't understand what kind of people come to a new land.
So this Canadian values were formed by the people who came here, by the environment, by the kind of people who came here, by the ethnicity, by the religion, by the culture, and by the necessity for hard work.
And when I came to Canada first, 1977 we couldn't afford to fly to Toronto.
We flew from London to New York and then we took a bus up to Toronto.
And I actually lived in Whitby for the first couple of months.
I was put in grade eight and I came to Toronto, I was put back in grade six.
Big mess.
Anyway, but when I first came to Canada, I remember being both impressed and alarmed at how earthy and tough minded Canadians were.
You know, Canadians got this reputation of being nice.
But They're only nice because everyone's ferocious in Canada.
Like you step out of line and they're pretty pissed off.
You don't work, you don't, you know, like the Amish, you don't show up to help people build the barn.
You're never going to get invited anywhere for the next 20 years, right?
So I remember being enormously You know, impressed at the earthiness and the somewhat ferocity and the manliness.
Canadian men back in the day, this is before the true rot of the seventies had set in and certainly before all of the, you know, I don't know, fairly metrosexual infection of the eighties kicked in.
Well, we can call it what it is.
That was before Trudeau's father.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, certainly before the ferret-faced Marxist got into power for so long.
That was kind of different.
And yeah, he definitely effected things up quite a bit.
But man, like and it had its plus side and its minus side, right?
And I remember very clearly, very clearly the first day I went to school in Toronto.
You know, I had the accent, you know, and I've always had a bit of a fruity accent because I went to boarding school for a while and I don't have
Tommy Robinson's accent and and that's a whole other story about class and accent and all of that in in England but so I had you know the fruity English bastard accent and all of that but I was you know witty and charismatic and and you know I guess fairly good-looking as a kid and and all of that so I was able to get along fairly well with people and I only had one sort of very brief bullying incident but I remember first
day I was in a Canadian school, a Toronto school at Whitby.
The boys were like, Hey, new guy, come on outside.
And I'm like, Oh, what fun!
You know, it was winter and 1977 was an incredible winter in Canada.
Like, I thought this was just Canadian winter, but it was an extraordinary winter for snow in Canada.
Like, it snowed every day.
You know, it's the kind of thing, like, you go to the mall and, like, you can't see half the sky because they've plowed so much of the snow from the mall parking lot into these Himalayan series that are unbelievably fun when you're an 11-year-old in snow pants.
I remember they said, come on out, new kid!
And I go on out and I was like, what are we going to play?
Like, we're going to punch the girls in the groin.
And I'm like, what?
What?
What?
And come on!
And, you know, I ran and I couldn't.
I mean, I just I never could.
Right.
But it was like, yeah, they would they would grab the girls and the girls would be laughing and they would try and punch the girls in the groin.
And this was the game.
And I'm like, I guess I'm not in boarding school.
In boarding school we were segregated by gender, right?
So we barely got to see the girls at all.
But I just remember thinking like, wow, I am not in Kansas anymore.
This is a pretty rough and tough environment.
And, you know, we would go to winter camps and there would be like, the kids would be like, I can't wait to go camping in winter.
And it's like, and there was a choice.
Like you could go or you could not go.
And I still have no, I ended up camping a lot.
inadvertently, so to speak, when I was doing the aforementioned gold panning and all that.
But I remember being like, Hey, new guy!
I wasn't a new guy then.
Hey, Steph, why don't we go?
Let's all go camping.
It's January.
It's like I would rather chew my own legs off, you know, with a nail file.
And so I stayed back with all the kids who had allergies and asthma.
You know, we played cards and it was great.
But I remember at this place, this is my first introduction to giant tubing, you know, where Oh yeah, that's the best.
You know, you jump on this giant tube, and I always seem to have the worst luck in the world.
Like every time I go camping, I end up with a tree up my ass.
Like a tree, you know, the root just sticks up, so I can't get a comfortable spot.
And there's always one damn mosquito.
You get all the mosquitoes.
It's like the whole night you can't sleep.
But in this one, so for those who don't know, it's these giant tractor tires.
You inflate them, like way over-inflate them.
Everybody piles on.
You go thundering down the side of a mountain, and you end up crashing into a parking lot.
It's great fun.
But there's always one, like there's that little Two sticks out where you fill up the air.
And I always remember that would always go into my ribs or my butt or something like that.
And I'd be going down like, oh, one more bump, but I'm going to end up with a sword wound.
But, um, so there were, there was, there was tough enough and Canadians very, very strong on freedom of speech.
That's not going on right now, right?
There's been sort of the one, two Middle East punch to freedom of speech in Canada.
I mean, the Jews got mad because there were apparently Holocaust deniers and they passed laws about that.
That's been used as a thin edge of the wedge to continue to erode free speech in Canada.
But it was very strong when I was younger.
I never had any sense that there were things that you couldn't talk about, never really had any of that sort of issue.
So it does, you know, when everyone's similar and everyone's coming for the same reasons and so on, then you don't need to worry about the values of your, you know, of your country.
Like, if you're on a hockey team, everyone's going to be of different levels of ability, but you don't worry whether anyone likes hockey or doesn't.
Like, they're all on the team, you assume, because they like hockey.
And it's the same thing with a country.
But then when you start to, you get a welfare state, then you immediately start to get multiculturalism, as people want to come and get the welfare state, and other reasons as well.
And the first generation of immigrants from non-European cultures, a lot of them come for the values and for the freedom, but there's that regression to the mean and now there's the Internet.
The Internet has made immigration a lot more complicated than it used to be.
Like a friend of mine, when I was a kid, his parents were Italian.
And there were no Italian television stations.
I don't think there was even an Italian radio station, maybe just some real local one in the sort of out of the back of a van.
But and you had to wait like two weeks to get an Italian newspaper.
And so because there was no internet, you really did get detached from your host culture.
And if you wanted to follow the news, you had to learn English.
And if you wanted to follow, you know, politics, then you had to follow the news and you had to then you would get kind of Canadian values through that mechanism.
But now that there's the Internet, I mean, why do you think that the migrants and the people who go to Europe go so insane if their laptops don't work or their tablets don't work or if the Wi-Fi is down or whatever?
Because now you can bring pretty much your whole culture with you.
You can get all the news, you can get all the stuff in your own language because there's the Internet now and also because long-distance phone calls are basically free through the Internet, through Skype and stuff.
There is the welfare state and all of that, the refugee money that flows to these people, but because of the internet, the opportunities for integration and the motives for integration are virtually non-existent.
And this is why, you know, all of this diversity, you know, as a value was proposed long before the internet came along.
And you could at least make the case that to survive, if you were smart to survive in your host country, you'd learn the values, you'd learn the language, and you'd get along with the host culture.
But now with the internet people bring, it's not just the fragmentation and the balkanization within each community, it's the fact that they have all of the access to culture and language and everything news and everything in their own language.
Okay, so what's really the point of attempting to adapt?
I mean, the motive has virtually ceased to exist.
So that, I think, has made things.
Canada didn't need to think about values for a long time.
They were just naturally part of the whole Canadian experiment.
And now, by the time the issue is coming up, the answer generally seems to be Canada has no values in particular.
Because, you know, whatever values you have are going to offend someone.
And so we have this boring end of civilization tolerance and apathy and diversity stuff, which is nothing but appeasement.
Yeah, plus earlier in the discussion, you mentioned something that I found was pretty poignant to the Canadian experiment, if we can call it that.
It was that countries are a result of their circumstances.
And I feel like the basis for Canada's obsession with multiculturalism goes back to the fact that when it just started out, When it was still Upper and Lower Canada, it was basically two cultures forced to cohabit together.
And from their point on, multiculturalism was just always a part of the Canadian experiment.
It just now grew to basically cancerous proportions.
Well, of course, there was the great collapse of religious faith in the 60s in Quebec.
And you probably know way more about this than I do.
I'll just touch on it briefly and let you take it from there, just for those who don't know.
I think Quebec was like insanely religious and I say this as a new friend of Christianity but I mean it was seriously religious and like within the space of five years like women went from having like 12 babies to like one and there are at least there was when I lived in in Montreal there were like there were subway stations named for known virulent Catholic anti-Semites and nobody had any particular issue with that but there was this the quiet revolution where
religious faith, like within the space of half a decade.
I mean, you know better.
It just vanished completely.
And then what happened was there was, in my opinion, there was this giant value vacuum and inrushed socialism.
And then because there was a succession of Quebecois politicians who were very prominent, socialism, which rushed into communism, sometimes rushed into the vacuum left by the fall of faith and Catholicism, that then spread through Canadian politics to make it become more socialistic and in Canada in the 1960s you of course had socialized medicine, the foundation of the modern welfare state and all of the kind of stuff that went on which was resisted by the church.
The church of course resisted the welfare state because it weakened the family and took away the negative consequences for out-of-wedlock births and so on.
And so yeah, religious faith ends.
Communism and socialism rushes in to Canada through the gaping hole of religious faith, through which poor leftist politicians are coming out of Quebec.
And of course as we talked about with Ezra Levant recently, I mean Pierre Trudeau, the current prime minister's quote father, he was an out and out Marxist in his youth.
Because he was responsible for getting the Constitution back from, or the Bill of Rights back from the British, and had a huge influence on how it went.
Things just got a lot softer and goopier, and by the time you have to start defining all of your rights and all of that, rather than having it be a part of the culture, that's the time when they first start to die, I think.
Yeah.
I can definitely talk a little bit more about the death of the Catholic Church here in Quebec.
Yes, listen, and take your time.
I mean, I find this fascinating stuff, so don't feel like any rush at all.
I do love history, but I'm not the best person in the world about Canadian history, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
But basically, for most of the 40s and 50s, especially the 50s, the provincial politics of the province were dominated by a party called Union Nationale, the National Union, who was owned by Maurice Desplessis.
He had basically an obvious alliance with the clergy, with the Catholic clergy that was local in Quebec.
To the point where the clergy would always tell the churchgoers, well, remember, heaven is blue and hell is red.
And the National Union's color was blue and the Liberal Party's color was red.
So it was very obvious what was going on.
And they did abuse a little bit their position in society, especially in regards to some of the schools.
There was a lot of school scandals.
Wait, sorry, do you mean the clergy here?
Yes, the clergy here.
Du Plessis, for his part, there was a lot of talk that he abused his position, but then again, we get that information from the very leftist local media, and at the same time, the abuse that they're always saying that he went too far was in fighting communism, such as L'Edouard Skadena.
This is the same stuff you hear about Salvatore Allende.
That's it, and it was always anti-union and everything like that, and of course, the left is very pro-union.
And what happened is that I think in 59 or 60, Duplessis died.
And at that point, the National Union was basically a one-man party.
So when he died, his entire party crumbled and the Liberal Party took over from the vacuum.
And when that happened, the Catholic Church lost a lot of power because they had invested a lot of their influence into the political games of the National Union.
Which is one of the reasons I think religion should stay so far away from politics because once you start getting embroiled into the temporal powers, of course at one point you're going to be on the wrong side and then I mean, you're just going to get fucked by the whole situation.
Well, but the counterpoint would be that once religious values leave politics, you get this leftist blasé multiculturalism, which often leads to the death of society.
So I agree, state and church, state and religion should be, but when politics is uninformed by religious values, it tends to collapse into materialism and greed and a lack of respect for cultural values of any kind.
I agree.
I was talking about that to one of my friends.
She's from Algeria and I'm trying to explain to her the kind of cultural malaise that's going on here.
And I was explaining to her, sure.
She told me, well, you guys don't practice any kind of religion anymore.
And I said, sure, but our entire society's culture is based on those religious values.
And if you take away the foundation, the whole structure crumbles.
And to get back to Quebec's history.
Essentially, what happened at that moment is that the union movement and the nationalist movement, the nationalist movement used to be very pushed, very propelled by the Union Nationale, by the National Union and S'Plessy.
He was the one, for instance, who came up with Quebec's flag.
He was very in-your-face with the federal government.
He was pretty much the one who, in a certain way, supercharged Quebec's pride in nationalism.
Just for those who don't know.
Daughters of the American Revolution has nothing on the purelin idea, like the pure wool.
Are you one of the original settlers?
Can you trace your lineage back?
I mean, that used to be very, very important in Quebec.
Yes, to the point where there's a lot of open scorn to French people here.
We even just call them des estistes français, just like fucking French.
Because, you know, they're French, but not the good kind.
You see the type of thing.
So when this nationalism was all of a sudden found rebellious, without being attached to the Union Nationale, what happened was that it was essentially taken over by Marxists, to the point where the FLQ, which is the Front Libération du Québec, a terrorist organization that used bombings to push forward the cause of Quebec's independence.
They kidnapped politicians and then killed one, right?
Yes, they kidnapped Pierre Laporte, who was a liberal a liberal politician, and they killed him.
And when they released their manifesto to the media, it explicitly called for the creation of a Quebec Marxist Leninist state.
Are you saying that there are leftist groups out there who might attempt to achieve their political objectives through violence?
Let us make a big X in history, because that's never going to happen again.
Of course, I mean, when would that ever happen in the past or in the future?
And yeah, basically, what happened is that the now For the moment, the nationalist movement is very, very still lefty.
The main party attached to sovereignty, the Partis Québécois, here in the province, is pretty explicitly in bed with the major public unions.
And because of that, that's actually one of the things that probed me asking my question to you.
Because something I noticed is that nationalism is going forward everywhere in the world.
When it's actually going backwards in Quebec, people are less and less nationalistic about the Quebec nation.
Sorry to interrupt, but I wonder if people like the FLQ and those groups, if they wanted more separatism within Quebec because Canada stood in the way of their Marxist paradise, you know, like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Constitution that was repatriated and so on, that it's easier to achieve your Marxist paradise if you're not weighed down by sort of federal statutes and law.
That is possible.
If I remember correctly, the FLQ was most active in the 70s.
I'm a little bit fuzzy about the date when Trudeau went to get back the Quebec Constitution.
Was that in the mid 80s?
mid 80s or no that was they started negotiations in november of 81 and the constitution uh act was 1982 that's it uh The FLQ's worst period was in the, I think, the mid-70s.
There was something called the October Crisis, during which the FLQ's activity had increased to such a point, when they kidnapped the politicians, that Trudeau actually called the War Measure Law.
Les lois des mesures de guerre.
Just watch me, he said, right?
Yes, exactly.
Because, you know, once again, when a leftist wants something to happen, what is he going to do?
Grab a gun.
But you can't have guns.
Well, no, Canada's not too bad for gun ownership.
But the repatriation of the Constitution had something to do with, this is what Trudeau said, had something to do with the referendum in 1980.
And so he's like, okay, we're going to repatriate the Constitution and bring it back and so on, I guess to strengthen federalism and all that.
And there's a lot of machinations that came out of this that were quite gripping at the time.
I remember following them quite closely at the time.
That's it.
Ever since then, all that I've seen is that Quebec nationalism has started to be, ever since the last failed referendum, Quebec nationalism started going on a downward spiral.
And that's something that's a little bit interesting to me because you can see nationalism on the rise everywhere except here.
And what I notice is that it's right-wing nationalism that's on the rise everywhere in the world.
Whereas in Quebec, nationalism is nowadays pretty much associated to leftism.
Well, yeah, but I mean, the left, the hard left, they're not motivated by love of the poor, they're motivated by hatred of the rich.
And in Western countries, the rich tend to be white males for a variety of reasons we've gone into in the show before.
And so, you know, they institute Communism to destroy the successful, to destroy the rich, to destroy the able, to destroy the intelligent and the ambitious and the successful.
I mean it's just Nietzschean low rent resentment of smarter and better people.
And so the original goal of the left, of course, was to destroy The successful people through direct control in communism when that fell apart in the 60s they turned to immigration as the methodology they were going to use to troll Christians and harm the dominant group in their society.
And that's very true.
I can see it in Quebec.
There's a lot of immigration and it's not the same place anymore.
Not at all.
I remember when I was a child I lived in a suburb of Montreal, fairly on the North Shore, and when I was a child, we would routinely have those kinds of like small street festivals where it was just like all of our street, we were on a closed up street, and we'd just all get together, we'd rent festival equipment, tents and everything, and we'd just have like a little cookout, a little barbecue.
But as time went on, things like that just stopped happening.
Well, we know statistically that multiculturalism and diversity kills community.
I've observed that firsthand.
And frankly, we didn't even get that much diversity back when I started to first experience that.
And it just nowadays, even in the suburbs, you can see that there's far less white people.
And the kind of like Quebec nation as a concept, I feel is slowly dying.
It's reached a point where the local party in power in the province, the Liberal Party, they're plagued by constant corruption scandals.
And when I mean corruption, I mean outright ties to the mafia, that kind of stuff.
I've read some of the stuff, like there's journalists, was it in Montreal and other places, journalists who are just like constantly uncovering mob ties.
Yeah.
And it's huge amounts, particularly with public construction, which has always been kind of a feeding ground for organized crime.
I mean, it's shocking stuff.
Oh yeah, it's insane.
And despite all of that, the other parties are completely unable to dislodge them because the biggest other party is attached to the sovereignty movement.
So you can see that there's a real complete... People just aren't buying that kind of movement anymore.
Well, I mean, the ethnic vote is, you know, they want to have their own neighborhoods where they can be among their own ethnicity, their own culture, but they don't want whites to have that right.
I mean, that's sort of fairly inevitable where to the point where they're just willing to, and this is why one of the reasons why multiculturalism doesn't work is that you get groups in and they start voting according to their group interest rather than the good of the country as a whole.
And so of course you're not going to get, you're going to get groups come in from particularly third world countries.
They're going to vote for the left and And the left then dangles more and further immigration in, like I was talking with Faith Goldie recently, she was pointing out 300,000 immigrants a year into Canada, and three quarters of them are non-whites.
And so of course they're going to vote for, I mean, are they going to vote to stop immigration, those groups?
No, because they want their friends, their family and more people to come in and, and they want their own particular, I mean, people have this idea like, like human groups just somehow live in harmony together.
I think they can if there's no state.
Separation of state and ethnicity is as essential as separation of church and state.
But the sum total of human history is Endless warfare between competing groups.
Two subspecies don't inhabit the same geographical area for long.
One will always displace the other.
And this idea, it's a complete naive reading of history.
It's like basing your biology on children's books where the fuzzy animals all hug each other.
It's not how it works in nature.
And it sure as hell isn't how it works between human groups.
They compete.
They have in-group preferences.
This is basically how evolution works, is in-group preferences for genetic proximity.
And there's conflict, and there's win-lose, and there's not examples of successful long-term cooperation between groups.
Simply repeating diversity as a strength like some sort of brain-deadening mantra is not going to change the basic reality of a tribal species.
And again, I think it all could work fairly well.
But when you have the state, like as you know, when the state had the power to control religion, then everybody tried to control the state to impose their religion.
When the state has the power to control demographics through the welfare states, through immigration policy and so on, then each group is going to try and control the state's capacity to enhance and grow their own group.
And it's, you know, anybody who thinks otherwise is naive or tasseled.
Yeah, the diversity is our greatest strength.
Canard is something I never actually got because I know history pretty well.
And when you look at various nations, there's...
that went all in on multiculturalism back in the day.
Let's say, the Roman Empire.
As it became more diverse, it became weaker.
Or let's look at the Ottoman Empire, a massive empire unable to defeat Austria, despite having huge technological and numerical advantages.
But they were very diverse, whereas Austria were one united people.
So you can see that this entire thing of diversity is a strength.
If it's a strength, how come was the Ottoman Empire, once again, Which was richer and frankly more advanced for quite a while.
Why didn't it just steamroll over Europe?
Why didn't it keep becoming more and more advanced in Europe comparatively?
The phrase diversity of strength is just an intelligence test.
That's all it is.
And it's depressing how many people fail it.
Because if something is true, you don't have to keep repeating it.
You know, I don't start off every show with, yep, still bald!
I mean, if something's true, you don't have to keep repeating it over.
Repetition is for things that aren't true.
You know, you don't, I hope two and two is still four today, I better check, I better repeat, I better chant that to myself in the mirror, you know?
Like that old Stuart Smalley character from, I think it was Saturday Night Live, you know, I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, people just like me.
You have to repeat that to yourself in the mirror every morning because no one likes you.
I mean, they like the guy even less now that he's become a...
I'm a politician from hell, but, so this, you know, diversity is strength, gotta repeat it, gotta repeat it, gotta, why do you have to repeat it?
You know, you don't, you don't, you don't see politicians going up to the podium every day and say, Google is a valuable company, Amazon makes money, you know, things that are true that, you know, whatever, you know, books can help you be smarter, typing is a useful skill.
Things that are true, more or less, you don't need to constantly repeat them.
We still have currency.
That's good.
So it is funny.
Smart people know that people repeat stuff because they don't believe it and it's not true.
It's the old proverb that a big lie repeated often enough, people start to believe it.
Well yes, but unfortunately if something isn't true, reality is constantly denying it, right?
You have to go to college or you'll never get a good job!
No, that's not true.
In fact, going to college will probably prevent you from getting a good job because you won't be able to negotiate because you'll be too full of student debt.
So, I think that it's just an intelligence.
People who are desperate to believe stuff that's not true constantly need to go back to the well of repetition, right?
Like, you know, your body runs out of water, so you got to go drink some more water.
And, you know, reality keeps denying your lies, so you have to keep going back for reinforcement.
And so, whatever people just repeat over and over and over again, I mean, it's not true.
It's not true.
The world still is fear this morning.
To repeat, diversity is a strength.
The world still is fear.
Stars are bright.
Night is dark.
Stars are bright.
Clouds are high and the ground is low.
You don't need to repeat two stuff.
Well, sometimes you do need to repeat the earth is round thing.
I mean, I heard your interview with the flat earther.
Sometimes you need to repeat it, it seems.
Well, yes, but that's another kind of intelligence test now, isn't it?
That's very true.
And there's, you know, estimates that since the 19th century we've lost two standard deviations of IQ points in the West.
There is five to six IQ point drop in France for obvious reasons over the last decade or two.
It's repeated because it's not true and smart people know that and dumb people have to keep going back to the well to keep being told stuff that isn't true.
Speaking of France and diversity, I actually know someone who is French, lives in France, and his brother explicitly joined the army so that He would be better situated to help his family during the upcoming civil war, not if there is a civil war, when it will happen.
So you can see that the people's view on the ground is very, very grim.
Yeah, not grim enough to try and come up with a political solution.
Yeah, well, that would involve them actually doing something constructive rather than just writing as soon as you try to cut benefits.
Well, this is the thing, right?
This is the thing that nobody's had any luck talking to the boomers about cutting their benefits and therefore everything else falls from there.
I mean, I don't blame the migrants.
I don't blame the immigrants.
I mean, this is exactly what I would do if I was in that situation.
The problem is with the boomers who sold their soul and freedoms for state power and going to the boomers and saying, sorry, we can't afford any of these benefits.
I mean, look what the hell's going on.
Illinois these days it's just one step above junk bond status and then they can't, they haven't passed a budget in two years.
Why?
Because nobody's able to talk to people and say there's no money, we can't pay your benefits because people will go mental, the boomers will go mental if you get between them and their government, jeez, and everything else falls from that because if we could find a way to restrain government spending and control and diminish the welfare state and all of that then That would be a whole different matter.
But it's all a shadow cast by the fact that the boomers won't have any kind of rational conversation about that free stuff because they become weak, entitled and greedy people as a whole.
And it's wretched what they've done to the young.
Trust me, I fully agree with you there.
And one of the things that keeps me warm at night is the scenario that's every day coming to be a little bit more plausible.
That before they die, there's going to be a huge collapse in what government programs can provide, and at the same time, as a result, there will be a huge collapse in asset prices.
So that after having made their bed this entire time, now they're just stuck in it.
They couldn't get away with that situation.
Besides, maybe if their kids help, but then again, rumors.
There'll be other groups in society that will step up and say, we'll pay.
Just vote for me.
Oh, Christ, I hope not.
Well, you know, that's an opportunity.
These kinds of collapses, it can go either way.
All right, I've got to move on to the next caller, but thanks very much for the call, and it was a great pleasure to chat with Connect History.
Hey, look!
There's your Ken Connagers!
So, I appreciate that, and feel free to call back any time.
All right.
Thanks for the fun.
Export Selection