Oct 29, 2015

Libertarian & Muslim Groups Urge Private Sponsorship of Syrian Refugees in US

via TMA_SierraHills

Before I give you this latest turn of events reported by the Huffington Post’s Elise Foley*** let me say that we have advocated that if US citizens want to welcome impoverished third worlders that the refugees should be privately sponsored by churches, synagogues or other civic organizations or wealthy individuals—and I mean completely sponsored for a year or two until they found employment and were not a “public charge” (completely self-sufficient with no food stamps, no subsidized housing, no free medical care, no cash assistance).

David Bier (drafted letter to Obama) is director of immigration policy at the Niskanen Center. He is an expert on visa reform, border security, and interior enforcement. From 2013 to 2015, he drafted immigration legislation as senior policy advisor for Congressman Raúl Labrador, a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. Previously, Mr. Bier was an immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.https://niskanencenter.org/about/

The whole concept of immigrants being welcomed into America at one time in our history centered around those who would not be dependent on the US taxpayer for anything—now refugees are dependent on us for virtually every aspect of their lives.
If individual sponsorship was required, the number we admitted to the US would then be determined by the willingness of Americans to shell out their own personal money for their charitable desires.

In other words, the availability of private charity would naturally limit the number of refugees admitted (it goes without saying that security screening would still be of paramount concern).

Private sponsorship on top of the existing Refugee Admissions Program!

This proposal drafted by a Libertarian think tank (!) and supported by a whole host of mostly Muslim organizations is not that—it is NOT complete private sponsorship.

They see this plan to be in addition to the billion dollar federal program that now funds nine contractors which monopolize all refugee resettlement in America.

It is about getting even more Syrian Muslims into the US!

It does not recommend throwing out the system now that revolves around the money-grubbing contractors and thus it must be opposed.

Here is the story at the Huffington Post (be sure to read through and see the excuses a representative from Church World Service gives—clearly not wanting any program that might interfere with the stream of your money to their coffers).

When did these LIBERTARIANS start working with the likes of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America?

WASHINGTON — Some opponents to taking in more Syrian refugees argue it’s simply too expensive. Refugees need significant help with housing, food, transportation, education and more when they get here, and they contend that the United States can’t afford to help more people.

But what if outside groups — community or religious organizations, cities, companies or even individuals — foot the costs instead?

A coalition led by the Syrian American Council plans to send a letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday asking him to consider creating a program for private sponsorship of Syrian refugees, the involved groups told The Huffington Post.

The fact that these calls are coming from Americans could make it more politically viable, said David Bier, director of immigration policy for Niskanen Center, the nonprofit libertarian think tank that helped draft the letter.

“It seems like an idea that’s politically a no-brainer — it’s a lot easier to sell to the American people refugee resettlement if they know, hey, my neighbor is the one who wants these people who were brought over and it’s not just something Washington cooked up,” he said.

Who the hell cares what your neighbor wants, is the neighbor paying all the bills and taking full responsibility (including LEGAL responsibility if the refugee breaks the law)?

Then this…. Ahhhhhhh!

Along with the Syrian American Council, the letter was signed by Syrian American Medical Society, Syria Relief and Development, Arab American Institute, Turkish Heritage Organization, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Islamic Society of North America, Karam Foundation and Watan USA.

Read it all.

***You know what is very funny? I wrote about Elise Foley here in 2013 she was blasting Libertarian Senator Rand Paul who was brave back then (before he was running for President) and she reported this (in snide tones):

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday that the U.S. should be skeptical of accepting refugees, from Iraq in particular, because they take welfare and could plan attacks on American soil.

Endnote: If you missed yesterday’s post about Rep. Raul Labrador and Rep. Paul Ryan, go here. Libertarians want more immigration!

As always, all well said. Of course even if you had a very wealthy group completely sponsoring 'refugees' for a year and security was of no concern, given the higher birthrates and our nutty legal immigration system of being able to chain-in everyone but your second cousin's pet parrot, this would further accelerate the erasing of our Historic American Nation and her people.


On Debt Theft

via The Thinking Housewife

Our indebtedness is like a diet of cheap pizza,
it slowly immiserates
When reading about our $60 trillion national debt or the escalating figures for consumer indebtedness, what is your first reaction? Do you think, “We’ve got to stop spending!” or “Our government is giving our future away to welfare deadbeats and bureaucrats?”

If these are your very first thoughts, let me respectfully suggest that you don’t understand our monetary system.

When you see those mounting figures for indebtedness, the first thing you should think is:

“We are the victims of a colossal swindle. Something is wrong, not with us, and not with welfare recipients, but with the system.”

Indeed over-indebtedness is inherent to our financial system. We can never collectively emerge from what is in effect debt slavery, from cycles of boom and bust, and from the centralized power of high finance which controls public opinion, politics, government and business, we can never emerge from these burdens without significant monetary reform and a new philosophy on the nature of economic life.

But first we have to come to grips with the problem. And there is a major problem. Yes, we deplore Communism and Socialism. But Capitalism as it exists is ruinous too. That’s not because a market economy is bad. That’s not because profit, investment or private ownership are bad. That’s not because Capitalism makes some people rich. These things are good. The problem is two-fold: a monopoly of credit in private, profit-making hands and the inability in the modern economy, which benefits from centuries of labor-saving innovation, for income from labor and savings to match the costs of production. These defects in the system are causing misery in a world that actually can produce enough goods and services to give people, all people, the basic necessities and free them from crushing fear for the future.

Our financial system is out of touch with reality. Our usurious monetary system is strangling family life, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Someday people will, let’s hope, look back on this era as they now look back on the pagan slavery of Ancient Rome. They will wonder how people ever could have put up with such widespread financial oppression, with its attendant social conflict, and how they were ever fooled into thinking they benefited from what the writer E. Michael Jones calls “state-sponsored usury.”

Let me offer some background from a few critics who have stated the problems. I’ll return to the subject in future posts with more from those who have studied these issues and suggest solutions you don’t hear about from our politicians or the mainstream media.

First, most people don’t understand how money is created and circulated. Though Congress is vested by the Constitution with the power to create money, it is actually created by private banks who then loan it out at interest:

Little known fact: All money is debt. All money is loaned into existence. Banks create (90%+ of all) money by making a “Reserve Requirement” deposit with the Federal Reserve. If a bank deposits $1 million with Federal Reserve, with a 10% Reserve Requirement it can loan out $10 million by simply typing it into the computer into an account. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking. Federal Reserve also works as a lender of last resort when the banks that loaned out 10x more than they have deposited, get a ‘run on the bank’ and can’t come up with the money– when more people are pulling it out than they have available. Federal Reserve protects the system that allows lending out what one does not actually have. Federal Reserve is also a private bank, privately owned and not responsible to the Government, or anyone, except possibly its 300 private share holders.

This might sound confusing, but money-creation is not taught in schools, therefore many completely lack the concept of how the system works. [Democracy Info“Federal reserve Money Printing Failure.”]

M. Oliver Heydorn, Ph.D., a philosopher on economics, writes:

Let it be restated for the umpteenth time if need be: banks do not lend their customers’ deposits; they are not intermediaries between savers and borrowers. Instead, they are creators of the deposits which they lend, invest, or otherwise spend into existence. How is this accomplished? Quite simply by an act of the will involving accounting ledgerdemain, the confirmation afforded by legal sanctions, and the regulations demanded by good business practice.[2] In accordance with the principles of double-entry bookkeeping, the creation of credit generates both assets and liabilities on a bank’s books. Credit that is held on deposit in a bank, regardless of its origin via a loan, investment, or bank operating expense, is accounted as a liability, while the loan, securities, or bank property, etc., are regarded as assets.

The “Monopoly of Credit” is therefore the monopoly which private banks, or the private banking system considered as a whole, exercises over the creation and issuance of credit. And, since the vast majority of the money supply at any given point in time exists in the form of bank credit (that figure tallies at over 95% in developed nations), the banks’ ‘credit-monopoly’, is a near total ‘money-monopoly’.

This Monopoly of Credit is really the private usurpation of collective resources. E.S. Holter, whom like Dr. Heydorn, wrote as an advocate of Social Credit economics, about which I will have more to say in the future, said in 1934:

Although by the Constitution the power of issuing money is vested in Congress, most of our money is really created and issued as credit through the banks. As individuals we are wont to think of a bank deposit as representing actual funds placed with a bank for safe- keeping by the depositor. But this is far from being the case. In the main, deposits are created by the loans made by the banks themselves, and even individual deposits as above described are only the redeposit of deposits which originated in loans. “Every bank loan creates a deposit and every repayment of a bank loan destroys money.” When a banker agrees to make a loan of, say, $100,000 to a producer, he writes the figures in the bank’s ledger and from the moment the transaction is completed the producer is in possession of a brand-new deposit upon which he can draw any sum, up, of course, to $100,000. As the borrower draws his checks, this sum is money to him and to the community. And it is new money created by the bank’s action in making the loan. It is an absolute addition to the community’s stock of money, for the new deposit which has been created does not lessen the amount of any existing deposit. The situation is not altered if the loan is made on collateral security, for these securities in the form of stocks, bonds, mortgages, etc., are not drawn upon in any way for the creation of the $100,000. In fact they remain completely unaffected by the new money, and for all the use the bank makes of them, beyond locking them up in its vaults, the producer might have kept them in his desk at home.

What then is the banker’s inducement to create such loans? The answer is, of course, profit, as must necessarily be in the case of all private business institutions. The banker believes that, at the end of a certain stated period, the money that he has loaned the producer will be repaid with a fixed interest. Now, it is interesting to observe, that aside from collateral security, the real basis of such loans is the banker’s belief that the producer will produce some commodity that the consumer will want to consume. In this way the banker expects the producer to be enabled to recover through the sales of his products the money with which to repay his loan. Without the faith in the community’s ability to produce and consume, never a penny of bank credit would be lent. In other words it is upon the strength of the community’s capacity to produce, deliver and consume goods that bank loans are created. Notwithstanding this fact these credits, extended to producers, become not only for the producer but also indirectly for the consumers, debts to the banking system, because the producer in order to repay the bank must recover in prices not only the current cost of producing his article but also all capital or overhead costs. Such procedure is patently absurd—that the banks should charge the community for the use of its own credit, although it is the banks that make the profit out of the use of this credit. [The ABC’s of Social Credit, E.S. Holter]

Indebtedness is perpetual because while banks create the principal for those loans, they do not put the money for the interest on those loans into circulation. It must come from somewhere. It must come from further indebtedness. Furthermore, the costs of production under current accounting methods are always higher than income through wages, salaries and dividends. This allows the private banking monopoly on credit to dominate and ultimately strangle economic life. Interest-bearing loans make up for the shortage of money.

I will close here with another lengthy quote from Dr. Heydorn:

[S]tandard banking practice (involving the cycle of the creation and destruction of credit via loans and their repayment) in combination with standard conventions governing industrial cost-accountancy result in the build-up of costs and hence prices in the industrial system at a faster rate than incomes are simultaneously being distributed to consumers in the form of wages, salaries, and dividends. More specifically, real capital (i.e., factories, machines, equipment, etc.) bear accountancy costs (such as capex and opex charges) that are charged into the flow of prices, but are not distributable as current income to consumers. The prices of goods on sale would be automatically balanced with consumer buying power if the financial system accounted the process of production accurately and always represented increases in prices with a corresponding increase in consumer purchasing power. Unfortunately, it does not do this; it is not self-liquidating.

The only way to fill this gap under the existing financial system is to rely on governments, and/or businesses, and/or consumers to obtain new, additional money from some source.[1] Loans for increased production (AKA economic growth), whether private or public and whether needed or not, increase the rate of flow of incomes to consumers without, in the same period of time, increasing the flow of prices. Since there is a time-lag between investment and the appearance of the resulting production on the market, such activity can temporarily compensate for the deficiency in consumer purchasing power. The other option is to have consumers supplement their incomes directly by contracting consumption loans or making use of overdrafts of various kinds. In all of these cases, the economy’s need for an increase in the money supply can only come by way of the private banks since the prerogative of creating commercially traded bank credit belongs to them.

This puts the private banks in a very enviable and commanding position. Since the banks claim the ownership of the financial credit that they create (this is implicit in the act of lending it), they are ipso facto asserting ownership over the real credit (which they did not create). This, in itself, wouldn’t constitute much of a practical problem if there were no recurring gap between prices and incomes. The existence of the gap renders the implicit claim to ownership a huge problem, however, because it allows the banks to appropriate the factor of production that is primarily responsible for the gap, i.e., society’s real capital, for their own benefit and at the expense of the common citizen. Access to the surplus flow of goods and services that the real capital makes possible can only be granted viaadditional government, corporate, or consumer loans from private banks; and thus, such access will only be granted on terms that will deliver an unjustified host of benefits (increases in wealth, power, and prestige) to the private banks.

In sum, the gap in the price system provides the opportunity for the banks to exercise financial control over society’s surplus production. It allows them to assert themselves as the chief beneficiaries of the real capital. Since they did not create the real capital, this assertion is nothing less than a usurpation. It is this dispossession of the rightful owners of the real capital (the common citizens) that constitutes the greatest evil inherent to the private banks’ ‘monopoly of credit’.

The costs of allowing a self-serving private monopoly to fill the gap are extremely heavy. Instead of enjoying an abundance of needed goods and services alongside increasing leisure from an economic system that is socially equitable, environmentally sustainable, and internationally concordant, we are hounded by the paradoxes of poverty in the midst of plenty and of servility in place of freedom, by the recurring cycle of boom and bust, by continual inflation (both cost-push and demand pull), by economic inefficiency, waste, and sabotage, by forced economic growth, by an ever-increasing mountain of societal debt that is, in the aggregate, unrepayable, by heavy and often increasing taxation, by social conflict, by forced migration, by cultural dislocation, by environmental degradation, and by international economic conflicts leading to military conflicts and war, etc.

Wife of White Man, Brutally Murdered by Former Black Texas A&M Athlete, Commits Suicide

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Summary: Dave and Patti Stevens, married for 25 years, are both now dead. Dave, murdered by a former Texas A&M football player in a "random" slaying, and Patti now dead by apparent suicide.

Stories of a loyal dog sitting by the grave of their former master have always struck me as the noblest reminder of the importance of friendship and how it can transcend even death. 

The grief of losing a loved one, yet finding some comfort in sitting by their final resting place is a powerful reminder of the permanent impression we can leave upon a person, even if the "person" in this equation is a canine.

Conversely, the story of Patti Stevens final days on earth are a reminder of what happens when a population far removed from "Man's Best Friend" is allowed to commit "random... totally random" murder (Dave, her husband of 25 years, was found laying down with a sword in his head and not moving.”).

[Patti Stevens, widow of slain White Rock runner, killed self, authorities say, Dallas Morning Star, October 26, 2015]:

The wife of a man who was killed at random while running near White Rock Lake two weeks ago took her own life Sunday, authorities said. 
Patti Stevens, 54, a physical therapist, was found dead of suspected suicide at her home in the 200 block of Brazos Lane in Sunnyvale, said Raul Reyna, a spokesman for the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department. She had shared the home with her husband, Dave, since 2009. 
The couple did not have children. 
Two of Dave’s coworkers called police for a welfare check on Patti after she didn’t answer her phone on Saturday night or Sunday morning, said neighbor Michael Knight, who spoke to the friends. 
The call came in around 2:18 p.m., and sheriff’s deputies arrived six minutes later to find Patti’s body, Reyna said. 
Sheriff’s deputies are investigating and the Dallas County medical examiner’s office said an official cause of death was not available Monday morning. But Knight, the neighbor, said police found her body in the garage and they believed she died of carbon monoxide poisoning. 
Her death came a week after she told The Dallas Morning News about her love for her husband of 25 years, and her overwhelming grief. 
“Dave was the love of my life and I’m lost without him,” she said through tears Oct. 19. “People need to know that this was a wonderful person going out and doing what he loved to do.” 
Patti Stevens said then that she had trouble with sleeping, eating and even thinking clearly after her husband’s death. 
Stevens, 53, ran 10 miles around White Rock Lake every Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning before heading to his electrical engineering job at GE in Plano. 
Police said Thomas Linze Johnson, 21, a mentally ill former Texas A&M football player, randomly picked out Stevens and hacked him to death with a machete around 8 a.m. Oct. 12 on the White Rock Creek Trail. 
Johnson, a high school football star at Skyline High School, is currently in the Dallas County jail in lieu of $500,000 bail. Police said Johnson admitted killing Stevens, who he did not know, and placed a 911 call on a passerby’s cellphone after doing so. 
Police initially had difficulty identifying the slain man and Patti Stevens later said she spent more than a day trying to figure out what happened to her husband. 
She said he came home at the same time every day and when he didn’t arrive that evening or answer phone calls, she went looking for him. She called police after she found his car parked in a parking lot late the night he was killed. 
Patti said during her interview with The News last week that she hadn’t read news accounts of her husband’s slaying and didn’t know the details of his death. She said she was just trying to figure out how to move on without him.
 Dave Stevens body was hacked to death, virtually unrecognizable even to his wife. A sword was left in his head, after a former (beloved by tens of thousands of white Texas A&M alumni, who would do everything to avoid him six days out of week, but everything possible to watch him play on fall Saturday's) college football player selected him at "random... totally random."

On fall Saturday's, white people who implicitly avoid black people for six days of the week, explicitly worship black athletes like Thomas Johnson 

Dave and Patti Stevens were both white people, who created a life together. After Dave was savagely, brutally murdered by a former black Texas A&M football player, Patti would persist for less than a fortnight.

In the end, Thomas Linze Johnson has murdered not one, but two people.

It's my great hope that one day we understand the loyalty showed by dogs to their deceased owners is the exact type of grieving we should have for those white people murdered by a race of people seemingly immune from criticism or judgment in America.

Dave and Patti Stevens are both dead, and it should be painfully obvious neither death was "random... totally random," as police stated in Dallas.

Arthur Topham & The Jews: The Controversy over Freedom of Speech in Canada

via The End of Zion

Two days from the time of this writing, on October 26th, 2015, a trial in B.C. Supreme Court involving the case of Regina v Roy Arthur Topham will commence in the small city of Quesnel, located in the central interior of the province of British Columbia in an area known as the Cariboo.

In essence this isn’t just the trial of Arthur Topham based upon a politically motivated and spurious Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada “Hate Propaganda” charge initiated by one of Canada’s largest Zionist Jew lobby organization, B’nai Brith Canada. It’s far more than that. What will be on trial from October 26th to November 6th is the legal entitlement of all Canadians to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression, both on and off the Internet –  as written in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which states that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication“.

The outcome of the trial will determine whether or not Canada is, in fact, a truly open and free democracy or a nation whose sovereignty and freedom has been compromised by the wilful, premeditated actions of foreign lobbyists inimical to the country as a whole. In other words Freedom of Speech will be on trial.

The charge itself ought to be clearly understood by everyone concerned about their rights and freedoms as Canadians. Thus we see that the charge under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Butler will preside and a jury of twelve men and women will make the final determination of guilty or not guilty.


Basically, to narrow it down to its core intent, I am being charged with willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin based upon the multitude of articles and online books which I have published on my website prior to and since April 28th, 2011 when the complaint was officially laid against me by Canada’s most controversial serial complainant in the history of the human rights industry. Within a month of the first complaint being laid a second individual, an agent working for the League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, also filed an identical charge.

Upon receiving the complaints, the head of the BC Hate Crime Team, former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson located in Surrey, B.C. along with his partner Cst. Normandie Levas, initiated an investigation into the allegations. What was unknown to me at the time was that all three of these individuals knew each other and had known each other in some cases for as long as fifteen years and all three of them were in the “business” of hunting down and attacking individuals and website owners who were being critical of the foreign Zionist state of Israel and/or its ideology known as Zionism.

In fact the two complainants in the Sec. 319(2) complaint were known to be friends and associates as far back as 2007 when one of the same complainants, a Zionist Jew working for B’nai Brith Canada first laid a similar complaint against my person and my website RadicalPress.com using the now repealed Canadian Human Rights Act legislation known as Sec. 13. In other words I have been attacked by this foreign Zionist lobby organization now for the past nine years and have been in a constant battle with them to retain my basic human rights.

The whole of Crown’s case rests upon the key terms “willfully” and “hatred”, which, in the case of the latter term “hatred”, any person of common sense will realize, is a word that, like its opposite, “love”, is imbued with multiple meanings, all of which are based upon subjective emotions of one type or another.

Now there are some serious problems that accompany an allegation which accuses a person of “hating” a whole “identifiable group” such as the “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” based upon not only his own writings but also the written works of dozens of other writers, journalists, video producers, talk show hosts, artists, musicians and so on and these problems will undoubtedly come up during the course of the trial.


Without going into too much further detail surrounding the spurious nature of the charge of promoting “hatred” toward all the Jews of the world (an accusation arising from comments made to me by former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson during the time I was incarcerated after my arrest on May 16th, 2012) I would rather focus on letting readers know a bit about who I really am and what my life has been all about since at least the year 1967 when I first became involved in what is now commonly referred to as “political activism” or “social activism”.

I was twenty years old and in my second year of university at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. in 1967. For those who were too young to remember the Sixties or weren’t born yet, it was a period of history not that different from the world we’re now living in. Wars were rampant then as they are now. Protests and civil rights and civil liberties were still in their nascent stages of development relative to today’s scene but people were demanding their rights in the Sixties just as they still are today. Police brutality and corporate crime and political corruption were as widespread then as they are now and the mainstream media in 1967 was basically just as controlled by the Zionists as it is today. The only fundamental difference really was the sudden and unexpected appearance throughout Western society of what became known as the Hippie Movement. It was that previously unheard of phenomenon that attracted me and countless others and became the focus of my life; one which has never ceased or abated since I first became involved with it.

The watchwords of the Hippie Movement were “Love” and “Peace” and our collective efforts to manifest those two positive, life-enhancing moral qualities throughout the war-torn society of our day were what inspired millions of my generation to work toward a world where violence and war and terror and hatred would end forever to be replaced by the fundamental Christian values and precepts taught by Jesus Christ, values that included learning to love each other and respect each other as well as caring for the Earth Mother that sustained us all. These were my guiding principles throughout my life and remain so to this very day.

With that in mind the accusation of the Zionist lobbyists, when it comes to dealing with their own hatred of anything or anyone who doesn’t support their ideological objectives or the actions of the foreign state of Israel and its parallel objectives, that every critic of their political agenda “hates” all the Jews in the world is utterly preposterous and beyond all comprehension. Having fashioned the term “hatred” into a twisted, Talmudic talisman of loathing and contempt through generations of endless propaganda emanating from their own controlled media and then inserting the word into Canadian jurisprudence via legal subterfuge and political influence, they now feel that they have the judicial wherewithal to attack their perceived enemies and somehow stem the unstoppable tide of political and spiritual awareness that was birthed in the Sixties and then embellished beyond comprehension and control in Nineties with the advent of the World Wide Web.

The controversy surrounding the Jews throughout history has now reached the point of culmination. Their mission to stop the truth from being revealed. whenever it applies to their own culpable actions, by using the criminal court system to attack the truth revealers is doomed to end in failure just as their efforts to stop the Internet from exposing their heinous acts of terror and murder and destruction perpetrated upon the defenceless Semitic people of Palestine has proven to be unstoppable.

The Age of Orwellian Censorship is coming to an end and it behooves all people of all races, nationalities, ethnicities and colour including the Jews to recognize that no single group of people has the right or the power or the ability to stem the tide of evolutionary consciousness that’s now happening on this planet.

It’s for these basic reasons that I have fought against the Zionist efforts to control our basic human rights over the past nine years. Now we will see if the country is willing to protect its most precious of gift – the freedom to speak one’s mind and express one’s views on whatever issues they deem of value to sustain our God given right to live in peace and happiness without fear and war.

I pray that God will grant us the wisdom to choose freedom over censorship and love over hate.

Trad Youth Hour: Like a Troop of Monkeys Painting the Sistine Chapel

via TradYouth

Harold Covington
Matthew Heimbach has author, radio host and frontman for the Northwest Front Harold Covington, as his guest this week.

HAC explains to MH what brought him to White advocacy and the formation of the Northwest Front.

Both came to the realisation that America is not salvageable and both discuss ways to progress from that realisation.

HAC knows what it was like to see the last of the Whites only signs and the last of the British Empire.

He sees the fond and nostalgic view of America from that time, getting in the way of people doing something about our predicament.

We cannot turn back the clock and restore things to the way they were before.

There are just too many invasive species and we could not remove them all, without the type of massive military force that we will never have.

Facing up to this and working out what to do to ensure the survival of the White race is the task ahead.

HAC is doing his part by trying to form an all-White homeland in North West America.

He sees the turning point as being in 1958, when Eisenhower forced the racial integration of schools at the point of a bayonet.

The time for resisting was then, but the time for regrouping is now.

#WhiteGenocide Stickers Spotted All over Manhattan, NY

via Fight White Genocide

An FWG activist opposing White Genocide has been putting up stickers across Manhattan.

The Camp of the Saints: Where Literature and Life Collide

via Radix

There is something about the sea that makes it a useful metaphor for change—a combination of its constant movement, its exhilarating ozone, its swift mutability, its vastness and mystery. Depending on what shore one stands on, the sea is a road or rampart, highway to freedom or gateway for invaders, origin of life or cause of death—or all of these things at once.

Nineteenth-Dynasty Egyptians fearing another descent by the Sea Peoples, or Lindisfarne monks glimpsing at longships, understandably had less agreeable ideas of Ocean than Portugal’s Henry the Navigator, England’s Walter Raleigh, or all those other swaggering Europeans from the Age of Discovery. But always, to look out to sea is to invite introspection, consider possibilities.

One numinous day in 1972, a forty-something French novelist named Jean Raspail looked out over the Mediterranean from Vallauris, west of Antibes. He was privately-educated and widely-travelled, the winner of the Académie Française’s Jean Walter Prize for empathetic writings about the unlucky native peoples of South America, a traditionalist Catholic acutely aware of his country’s position in the world. He had seen pulsating poverty around the globe, knew the realities of overpopulation and ethnic conflict, and now he had a revelatory vision of his prosperous Provence suddenly so engulfed. “And what if they came?” he asked himself. “And what if they came?”

He records that The Camp of the Saints almost wrote itself, with him starting to write each morning without quite knowing where the story would have taken him by evening. There was certainly no shortage of source-material, now that Situationists and Soixante-huitards were the mainstream, and all of European civilization—under ideological attack. “The Wretched of the Earth” had been co-opted as auxiliaries by Marxists and as potential consumers by capitalists; the colonies were being abandoned; Catholicism was in freefall; and traditions had become trammels. Judging from permitted public discourse, everyone—from bishops, politicians and academics to actresses—was united in embracing an idea of “France” as outmoded and morally reprehensible. France needed to atone, according to this new narrative, for empire and exploitations, to reinvent herself for a post-national age, effectively commit suicide in order to save her soul.

To Raspail, such ideas were risible, as they probably seemed to the majority of the French—but he also knew that they needed to be taken seriously. He saw that darkly comic notions could have revolutionary consequences. So he stitched real-life quotations from contemporary public intellectuals and celebrities into an epic imagining of a million-strong convoy of India’s poorest and most misshapen, setting out inchoately from the mouth of the Hooghly in rust-bucket ships, and across the Indian Ocean towards the Cape of Good Hope, and so around to Europe—a Promised Land of plenty, trailing the stench of latrines. This reverse colonization by the Tier Monde’s least enterprising was the perfect antithesis of the elitist European navigators, the old continent recoiling back in on itself in tiredness and toxic doubt. Old Europe, expansive Europe, Christian Europe, the Camp of the Saints (Revelations, 20:9)—and for that matter easygoing Europe, too—was suddenly a shrinking island in a world of angry water.

In lambent language, Raspail visualizes the multitudinous currents that ebb and flow through his fictive France as “The Last Chance Armada” creeps through preternaturally calm waters en route to disembarkation and destiny. He tells all too believably of moral grandstanding—the mood-mélange of calculation, foolishness, hysteria, and myopia—the excited solidarity that surges through France’s marginal minorities—the ever-shriller rhodomontade about international obligations, human rights and anti-racism - the cowed silence or wry acceptance of the minority of realists. A river of hypocritical canards flows South from studios even as their utterers decamp in the opposite direction—leaving in their rubbish-strewn wake fellow French too poor or old to move, and a tiny number of patriots too attached to their homeland to consider forsaking it even in extremis.

These last-standers hold out on a hilltop, as all of France and Europe fall to what Raspail brilliantly termed “stampeding lambs”—immigrants, who are simultaneously individually inoffensive and cumulatively catastrophic. For a brief spell, the diehards assert their identity as their ancestors had always been prepared to do, patrolling their tiny borders, using hunting rifles to pick off interlopers, revelling in simply being French and in France (although one is an Indian volunteer). This is even though—or because—they guess it is only a matter of days before their own annihilation, which is inevitably ordered by Paris.

The Camp was highly original—Raspail’s realization that immigration was the defining issue of his (and our) age, his clear-eyed examination of intellectual trends then still far from their logical denouements, his uncompromising commitment to la France profonde, and to Christianity—all rendered in strong and sonorous prose. His narrative, howsoever exaggerated for effect, was a distillation and condensation of observable reality. He laid bare the weaponization of words—gentle words like "tolerance," "compassion," "non-discrimination"—and the harsh facts underlying ‘liberal’ contemporaneousness. “I see the UN has decided to abolish the concept of race”, one Camp resistant remarks sardonically. “That means us!”

Acclaimed authors were not expected to have such retrograde attitudes, and mainstream publishers (Laffont in France, Scribner’s in America) were not supposed to publish anything that emanated from the Right Bank. So there was a savage backlash from littérateurs (although Raspail also had intellectual allies), who saw the book as a betrayal by one of their own. Some must also have recognized themselves, or elements of themselves, in the book’s more contemptible characters. Reviewers dutifully assailed it in hyperbolical terms; one typical American article called it “a fascist fantasy...a disgusting book”. The reviewers thus morally purged, and the book (from their point of view) sluiced hygienically down the pissoir, it fell into abeyance, read chiefly by those on the furthest Right fringes of French life.

Yet it never went out of print in France, and every few years showed itself dangerously above the surface, usually in response to some news story paralleling his plot. It has now entered a new half-life, still sometimes ritualistically condemned, but increasingly accepted as a part (albeit a slightly embarrassing part) of the literary landscape. The novel undoubtedly helped create the intellectual space, which has made it possible for Alain Finkielkraut, Michel Onfray, Michel Houellebecq, Renaud Camus, and Éric Zemmour to examine some of the countless dilemmas of immigration, often on prime-time media slots—‘a cathode-ray apocalypse’, according to one terrified old-timer.

Some early denunciators have sportingly admitted that they had been wrong to condemn The Camp—but it has dogged Raspail’s career nonetheless, and undoubtedly prevented him from being elected to the Académie Française in 2000. Yet even if he was forbidden to join the ranks of “les immortels” (as Academicians are nicknamed), ironically his book is likely to live for longer than most of those produced by present Academy members (except, maybe, Finkielkraut). As the author observed in a September 2015 interview,
“What’s happening today isn’t important, it’s anecdotal, because we are only at the beginning...Politicians have no solution to this problem. It’s like the national debt—we pass it on to our grandchildren.”
When Sea Changes was published in 2012, several commentators pointed out similarities to The Camp—a comparison more flattering to me than Raspail—and similarities could indeed be found, although also major differences. The Camp, which I read when I was nineteen, had unquestionably been an influence on me, helping crystallize pre-existing intuitions. It had proved to my youthful satisfaction something I had always felt (despite always being told I must not)—that immigration really mattered, more than almost any other political question. The book suggested not just that it was reasonable to take an interest, but that it was irresponsible not to do so. Raspail linked ancientness to modernity and aesthetics to demographics, and there was a fey romance in his worldview, so at odds with the boring mainstream (within which every choice seemed to come down to either Leftish vapidity or Rightish philistinism).

The Camp, although so redolent of Gitanes and High Mass at Nȏtre Dame, was in some strange way about me. It suggested that I was part of a cultural continuum that transcended national boundaries, which somehow encompassed Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and Latin; Classicism, Christianity, and humanism; conservatism as well as liberalism. I was in Raspail’s redoubt, even though I was not French, nor Catholic, indeed whether or not I believed in Christianity. When Raspail’s character Professor Calgues peers out from his seventeenth-century house towards the ominous beachhead, he was someone, whose motivations I could comprehend, and on whose side I instinctively aligned.

Ever afterwards, when I heard of some new landmark in loss—more restrictions on free speech in Belgium, liberalization of German citizenship laws, immigrant rapists in Malmo, riots in Bradford, a mosque opening in Granada (the first one since the Reconquista)—they seemed to be of more than local significance. I watched passive-aggressive phalanxes overwhelm one old bastion after another, and wondered when somebody with power would take notice, do something. But like the fifth-century Romans, who were cheering so enthusiastically at the Colosseum that they did not hear Alaric’s attack, twentieth-century Europeans seemed dangerously distracted from their dispossession. I was clearly a bit of a prig, yet I still think I had a point.

Then 9/11 sparked mass interest in immigration for the first time since Enoch Powell. Overnight there were newspaper columns, radio and TV programmes, think-tank reports...and then those dead were fading into memory, and immigration was continuing just as before. Even new bombs in London, Madrid and elsewhere did not slow the flow (cliché notwithstanding, it was never a “tide”, because tides go out again). Politicians, who projected Western power often violently abroad, were fostering weakness at home—even as public concern against mass migration, always considerable, continued to grow. The protesting-too-much, Stakhanovite rhetoric about diversity somehow equalling strength was heard much less often, but the underlying disease (literally dis-ease) remained untreated. If anything, the temperature kept rising, the boils—suppurating.

By now, I had exchanged Deptford for Lincolnshire, and a 1990s flat for an 1840s house across a field from a 1380 church, near a beach on which Viking rings have been found. It was only natural that I should imagine this ghosted frontier as besieged, not now by Danish pirates, but by soft-power cannon-fodder, human shields for an internationalist army. Hesitantly, with frequent halts, and feeling rather inadequate to the task, I started to makes notes for Sea Changes.

It mattered that the unwanted incomers should be comprehensible, sympathetic people doing exactly as I would have done. (I am, after all, an immigrant too.) Ibraham Nassouf had every reason to flee Basra, and every reason to think he would find a home in Britain. Who could not feel sorry for a man doubly betrayed, first, by his own culture, and then, by the West? But it mattered even more that the unwilling recipients should also be comprehensible and sympathetic, because this was the perspective usually absent from media discussions about immigration. The name of Dan Gowt given to my decent, out-of-his-depth farmer had several connotations—Daniel in the lions’ den, the old-fashioned disability of gout, and the old landscape, in which he had long-ago lodged so securely (gowt being an Anglo-Saxon term for a "drain" or "dyke").

I wanted also to dissect the contemporary leftist mentality, which loves to see itself as ‘radical’, yet which is so reminiscent of previous religious outbreaks. So I named my chiliastic, self-regarding journalist John Leyden, in a nod to the especially obnoxious Anabaptist preacher John of Leyden. It just remained to give the too-British-to-be-quite-British name of Albert Norman to my never-quite-serious conservative journalist to have all the principal protagonists, after which, like Raspail, I let the action partly write itself.

Less happens in Sea Changes than in The Camp. The scale is smaller, the tone—more intimate. It is undoubtedly a more ‘English’ book in its slightly untidy, unsystematic approach to even this hugest of events—at times, more like reportage than a novel. Sea Changes is also more plangent—few of The Camp’s calumniators remarked on its essential calmness, Raspail’s belief that the time of the Europeans was over, and this was irresistible, part of a great cosmic cycle, in which sometimes one and sometimes another group rotates to the top. The ending of Sea Changes is much less dramatic, in fact, inconclusive—there could theoretically be a Sea Changes II.

Maybe there will need to be, because despite Raspail’s efforts, the Europe of 2015 is in an even sorrier psychological state than it was in 1972. To take one small but piquant example, Raspail suggests that French radio broadcasts Eine Kleine Nachtmusik as an instinctive response to the Last Chance Armada’s landfall, instead of the previously prevailing pop and trivia. This now sounds wildly romantic—today, the pop and trivia would continue unabated. (That cheering from the Colosseum...)

In retrospect, 1970s can seem like a decade of realism. They were certainly freer years intellectually. Would The Camp find a mainstream publisher now, in any Western country? Maybe, but most publishers, howsoever nominally committed to freedom of expression, when given an obviously controversial and not obviously commercial text, would probably prefer some other publisher to exercise that right. At the least, the text would probably be redacted to reflect today’s neuroses. France, like every European country, has a manically active and, at times, aggressive Left always looking for things to hate, to give them a raison d’être in a universe emptied of meaning—and they are usually acceded to by publishers, universities, institutions, and governments, because it is easier that way. Certainly, I found it impossible to place Sea Changes with any major firm, or even an agent, despite its more-in-sorrow-than-anger decidedly un-apocalyptic tone. Although it sounds immodest, I do not think Sea Changes is any worse than many of the books published by big firms (and I had no problem finding an agent for other books)—so I am compelled to conclude that the problem was the subject-matter.

That subject-matter is every day being added to, as real events catch up with Raspail’s plot-line (once called so unlikely). Europeans of all classes stare in compassion, but also dismay, at the oncoming pulses from Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, and all points East and South, encouraged by a worldly-unwise Roman Cathartic Pontiff and an angst-ridden German Chancellor so desperate to erase her people’s past that she is willing to convulse their present and sell their future. (And these are the conservatives.) The ultra-Left, of course, welcomes the turmoil, full certain that Jerusalem will be built here as soon as Europe falls. Mainstream opinion squats guiltily in the middle, morally obese, dining chiefly on sweets, wallowing in a diabetic kind of delusion. “Britain opens its arms to refugees”, gushed a Times headline—below a photo of a child staring through a rain-streaked Hungarian train window—the editors never seemingly considering that the effect is more like an opening of veins.

Few of our many self-appointed gatekeepers (who are also our gaolers) ever seem to ask themselves, “What happens next?” Of course, genuine refugees ought always to be assisted—as they would (presumably) help us if our situations were reversed. Few Europeans would object to costed and conditional schemes to assist those really in need, with refugees returned as soon as it is safe for them. Many Europeans would also accept that some of their governments bear much responsibility for the catastrophes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. But we also know that many of the new arrivals are economic opportunists, who know their human rights (and maybe even Islamist infiltrators), that those, who come, will stay, and their families will join them—and that behind this vanguard, whole new hosts shuffle on from all horizons.

How many will there be? Where will they live? How will we pay for them? What mental baggage do they bring? How will they adjust to us—or will we be told yet again to adjust to them? How will their being here affect the idea we have of ourselves, and our communal identities? Will there even be an “us” several decades hence? A Jesuit priest, who had spent most of his life in Africa and Asia, noted he had been “called home” to Italy to oversee arrivals—but if this continues, how much longer will he have a “home”? Will our children and grandchildren be better or worse off living in a continent even more divided than now, and more likely to be majority Muslim? Fifty years hence, what will be the state of the fought-for freedoms of the Left, or Christianity, stable states, and free economies of the Right—innovations and inheritances alike engulfed in a sea of perpetual Otherness?

It is possible to find inadvertently comic touches even in the midst of compulsory métissage, as we watch the tergiversations of politicians straddling contradictory demands, unwilling either to “embrace” or to be “left behind”: the Finnish Prime Minister, who so crassly offered to put up refugees in one of his houses; Sinn Féin’s wolfishly-grinning Gerry Adams toting a sign saying “Refugees welcome”; the English bishop, who demanded 30,000 more refugees, yet declined to offer any house-room in his mansion; that the Royal Naval flagship picking up Mediterranean migrants was H.M.S. Bulwark (rather than, say, Sponge); the German open-borders activist, who understandably felt “very sad” after being stabbed by clients.

To the sardonically-inclined, the present spectacle is, at times, reminiscent of religious ecstasies—mass swoonings, passionate and ostentatious self-flagellations (too passionate, too ostentatious to be true), votive offerings, and even icons, in the shape of little, drowned, doll-like Aylan Kurdi, lying so rigidly to attention at the margin of the Aegean. There is vast emotion out there in the hinterland—but how deep does it go? How many truly feel for people they do not know? Already, there are panicky pull-backs by mainstream—politicians suddenly seeing what they have allowed, upswings for non-mainstream parties representing old Europe, surging demonstrations, hostels burned...and these are just the immediate effects.

Then there are the absorbing psychological puzzles, like Chancellor Merkel—rectory-reared like so many of the worst (and best), privately haunted by the idea of Europe dying, yet pursuing policies guaranteed to expedite this, somehow believing that economic prudence, strong institutions, and family life can be achieved without social solidarity. The outwardly stolid operator would seem to be a little girl inside, aghast at the nature of the world, seeking inner absolution by changing everyone and everything else. Her ignoble example filters all the way down to the likes of the Hessian provincial politician, who told a restive audience of his own people that if they did not like the idea of 400 immigrants being deposited in their little town, they should be the ones to leave.

Unsatisfied with this, Merkel is offering Turkish EU membership as a bribe for helping halt the Syrian tsunami—all too ably assisted by foreign equivalents like David Cameron and the European Commission’s suitably-named Jean-Claude Juncker. To offer European membership to a developing nation with a burgeoning population, dominated by an historically antithetical faith, unstable and corrupt, riven by terrorism and bordering Syria, Iraq, and Iran is a stroke of geopolitical genius that might be disbelieved if suggested by a satirical novelist, just as Raspail’s forecasts were ridiculed by so many of his contemporaries.

Human beings notoriously tend towards short-term thinking, but we can sometimes make serious attempts to avert looming catastrophes, as seen in relation to climate change. Why can we not similarly exert ourselves to protect unique national cultures, irreplaceable efflorescences of the human spirit? Must our continent of cathedrals and charters be overcome, drowned as surely and sadly as the Kurdish boy? Must all that is excellent and European be agglomerated down in the name of a spurious equality?

Or maybe there is still a way to break free from merciless logic through some blend of activisms that can remind us of who and what we were, and could be again. Maybe we can turn our alleged end into a brave beginning. History is fluid, we have resources, and there is scope for practical idealism. We, who have inherited this most enviable of civilizations, need to believe that and look for a future—because the alternative is unspeakable.

25 Tweets from #BringBackThePatriarchy That Show the Tide Is Turning

via Return of Kings

When I first started writing for Return of Kings less than a year ago, I thought that we were in for a long, hard battle against the corrosive forces of modern society: feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, and the social justice warriors that make it all possible. The indoctrination is so entrenched in every level of society that I believed it would take a lifetime to knock it out.

I still think the battle is going to be a difficult one, but some amazing things have been happening on Twitter recently that make me feel that the battle will not be as long as I had initially thought. The latest example of this phenomenon is the #BringBackThePatriarchy hashtag.


The hashtag started trending on Twitter on October 25th. The earliest tweets emphasize how important fatherhood is to children: . . . Read more

The Franco-French & European Civil Wars

via Counter-Currents

Translator’s Note: The following is the epilogue to Dominique Venner’s Histoire de la Collaboration (Paris: Gérard Watelet/Pygmalion, 2000), 522-26. The title is editorial.

[. . .] Throughout this book, I have sought to place the years of the Occupation and the variegated phenomenon of Collaboration in the wider context of the time, that of the French disaster of 1940 in which future “collaborators” played no part, and that wider still of the great European trauma born of the carnage of the First World War and of the revolutions it birthed: Bolshevism in Russia, Fascism in Italy, and National Socialism in Germany.

More than any other European nation, France was struck to the heart and bled by the catastrophe of 1914-18. Dr. Destouches – Céline in literature – had predicted that a new war would entail the biological extinction of the French, the annihilation of the “livestock,” as he said in his provocative language. Born of this fear, pacifism was however powerless to prevent a new conflict which was felt coming since the Stalinist turning point of 1935 [in which France and the Soviet Union signed a pact to encircle Germany]. Failing that, it was the yeast of the future Collaboration.

Under the pretext of protecting Poland and without helping her in any way, French leaders in 1939 chose the worst possible moment to throw their country into the mad adventure of war against a Germany at the top of her form. England did not take the same risks, sheltered as she was by her insularity and the power of her fleet and air force. We know the result. In six weeks from the spring of 1940, the country went without transition from an orgy of boastful speeches to a sudden, shameful, and crushing defeat. Before the panic of the discredited politicians, under the shock of defeat and misfortune, what could the French do? They could have hung those responsible, hunted them down in the streets. No doubt they were too despondent for such violence. They were also turned away from this by the recourse to the old Marshal, whose human and glorious past answered to everything. There was therefore no bloody épuration, nor manhunts as in 1944, only political and professional exclusions defined by law. Detestable in their principles and their effects, they were accepted by the best jurists and answered the expectations of a wounded people. Shortly before her death in London in 1943, the young philosopher Simone Weil gave credit to this people in its misfortune:

One must say, because it is true, that after the disaster France’s first reaction was to be repulsed by her own past, her recent past. This was not an effect of Vichy’s propaganda. On the contrary this is what initially gave the National Revolution an appearance of success. And this was a legitimate and healthy reaction. The sole aspect of the disaster which could be seen as a good, was the possibility of violently rejecting a past of which [defeat] had been the conclusion.[1]

The composite system, put in place at Vichy during the summer of 1940, in total improvisation, had only a narrow and conditional freedom. It remained subject to the war, to the defeat, to penury, and to the occupation of three fifths of the metropolitan territory by a brutal victor, engaged in a fight to the death. Judging Vichy’s acts by the standards of peacetime and of a society of abundance is obviously an absurdity.

Despite an aversion of principle to “Pétainism,” [academic] historical research has on this point been sharply at odds with the obsessions of the media. Little by little, it discovered and recognized that the Vichy regime and Collaboration were much more complex phenomena than had been said.[2]

Like the Resistance, Collaboration was born at Vichy.[3] It was the result of a foreign policy choice mad by Marshal Pétain and Pierre Laval in the autumn of 1940. It was hoped that France would be allowed to escape asphyxiation and the consequences of her defeat, by working to take a place in a Europe which would long be under German leadership. The Montoire meeting [between Hitler and Pétain] and then the chief of State’s radio message gave credence the word, giving it a resonance which Pétain had certainly not either imagined or wished. Safeguarding the future and wishing to keep the French people at a distance from the war, the Marshal opposed to the end his boldest ministers, notably Benoist-Méchin [who advocated joining the war with the Axis], with an absolute refusal of waging war against the former Anglo-Saxon allies.

By chance, the idea of a “collaboration” resonated personally with the young and ambitious Reich ambassador, Otto Abetz. This Rhenish francophile, of a pacifist and social-democratic tradition, by his personal preference, instinctively approved Hitler’s directives prescribing him to obstruct any [French] national awakening.

His first interlocutors, mandated by Laval, were journalists of the left. Abetz and Laval’s pacifist and socialistic affinities constituted the initial cement for an ideological collaboration in polar opposition to Pétain’s purely Machiavellian idea of it.

Machiavellian thought had an even more confirmed discipline in the person of General de Gaulle. From various accounts, we know that at least during the first two years, the leader of Free France hesitated several times on the legitimacy of his choice, notably in the autumn of 1941, as his reported by his chief of defense staff, the future General Billotte:

During the Soviet debacle of 1941 and before Pearl Harbor, De Gaulle often asked himself around me on the soundness of the action he had undertaken. He told me: “If the Germans win, it is Pétain, Laval, and Déat who will have been right, and I will have undermined France.”[4]

The statement is doubly interesting. It suggested that in 1941 one could in good conscience make a choice for France other than that of London and Moscow. In addition, De Gaulle implicitly brushed aside any moral criteria, basing himself only on the political imperative. It goes without saying that to be an ally of Stalin and his criminal system was not more defensible morally than to be that of Hitler.

Among the parliamentarians, the machine men, activists, or journalists, the first to express enthusiasm for Collaboration were, in their overwhelming majority, from the socialist, radical [centrist], and pacifist Left. Marcel Déat was its dominant figure. He was surrounded [. . .] by a large number of socialist and trade-unionist MPs, but also by intellectuals who, like him, had once belong to the Comité de vigilance antifasciste.[5] It is a fact that one found, at least until 1943, many more socialists gravitating around Vichy or Collaboration than around the Resistance.

In contrast, the former Communist Jacques Doriot and his comrade at the [Parti Populaire Français] were long reserved towards the Germans. Their mistrust only dissipated after the breaking of the German-Soviet pact and the beginning of the war in the east on June 22, 1941. We know that Doriot welcomed this day “like the captain who, after a stormy night, hails the dawn.” He immediately lança the idea of the LVF. By a political calculation, he himself donned the steel help and went to fight in Russia, all the while looking after the affairs of his party.

We will never say enough the extent to which the war changed meaning on June 22, 1941. By comparison, the landing in North Africa of November 8, 1942, though a critical event, did not have the same effects. From the USSR’s entry into the war, the underground Communist Party, which until then had been attentiste and hostile to England’s “imperialist war,” discovered it had a tricolor soul and completed engaged itself in the Resistance, modifying the latter’s content. On the other side, among many who saw communism as the threat of a new barbarism, still remembering the 7,000 priests, clergymen, and nuns murdered by the reds during the Spanish Civil War, there was a strong temptation to be spellbound by the anti-Bolshevik “crusade,” even if it meant allying with the devil himself. Neither Cardinal Baudrillart, nor Robert Brasillach, nor Philippe Henriot, nor Joseph Darnand, all previously hostile to Germany, would have engaged themselves as they did without the intense psychological pressure of the war in the east against Bolshevism.

The Reich’s propaganda sought to transfigure the German soldiers on the eastern front into valiant knights and crusaders.[6] After the disaster of Stalingrad, their stature only grew in proportion with their defeats and the unbelievable battles fought in the Russian winter, sometimes outnumbered ten-to-one. The admiration felt by some Frenchmen for the desperate courage of the German fighters slowly turned into a sentimental Germanophilia, which had deserted France in 1870. Of this new sentiment, we find numerous traces, right up to the last speech made by President François Mitterrand as head of state, in Berlin, on the fiftieth anniversary of the German surrender of May 8, 1945. Despite all the other painful memories, he had not forgotten the tenacity of these soldiers and of the German people up to the final days of the war: “I have not come to celebrate the victory for which I rejoiced for my country in 1945. I have not come to emphasize the defeat because I know what there was of strong in the German people, its virtue, its courage . . . And the uniform and even the idea which inhabited these soldiers is of little importance to me. They were brave. They accepted to lose their lives. For a bad cause, but they loved their fatherland . . .”

What the president said, many French veterans of the two wars could have said as well. In them, by unexpected pathways, the idea of European reconciliation had blossomed.

Despite the horrors and uncertainties of the moment, this idea acquired a force with some which it had never had in the past. We saw French nationalists raised in the hatred of the “Boche” forgetting their chauvinism and building friendship with the German people. Despite Hitler, enclosed in his pan-Germanism and his violence, we also saw the same emerge among some Germans who were not all Ernst Jünger.[7] Must we lament or rejoice if, in this way, as in the proverb, that evil had brought about good?[8]

We know that General de Gaulle himself, in time, made his choice. “The important thing,” he told Alain Peyrefitte on June 27, 1962 on the French and the Germans, “is that these two peoples, in their depths, exorcise the demons of their past; that they understand now that they must be united forever . . . The French and the Germans must become brothers . . . The Germans have only really been our enemies after 1870. That means only three wars and three quarters of a century [of conflict] between the Germans and the Gaullists, who have known so many wars and so many centuries.”[9]

Of course, the war which ended in 1945 had not only opposed Germans and Gaulish, all the while even bringing them together on occasion. For the German historian Ernst Nolte, it had been a “European civil war,” provoked by the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. This is not false, even though other important factors were at play, as we have seen through the French example. This book has shown that in France the years 1943-44 were also the theater of a civil war. When time will have erased the deformations of passion, that is no doubt what history will remember. In its ferocity and in its effects, this Franco-French war, which pitted against each other so many men who were in no way mediocre, could be compared with the great tragedies of the past, that which tore Athens apart in the age of the “Thirty” or that which struck Rome in the age of Sulla. That the civil war of the French coincided with the decline of a nation which had once been one of the brightest of the Occident, contributes to conferring to it a tragic dimension which has never ceased to obsess me.

1. Simone Weil, L’Enracinement (Paris: Folio Gallimard, 1949), 249.
2. One can cite for example the nuanced analysis of the current historiography in the article by René Rémond in Le Monde of October 5, 1994. The president of the National Foundation for Political Science was answering a controversy launched in the same newspaper, on September 21, 1994, by the Israeli academic Zeev Sternhell.
3. [. . .] [T]his statement is not a paradox, but a reality proved by the sequence of events and recognized by General de Gaulle himself in his Mémoires de Guerre. [Venner is referring to a certain spirit of revanche and to various measures against the German occupier taken or tolerated by Vichy officials. – GD]
4. Pierre Billotte, Le temps des armes (Plon, 1972).
5. An antifascist group of intellectuals operating between 1934 and 1936, splitting apart due to differences on the issue of war or peace with the Third Reich. – GD
6. The following passages also appear in a slightly shortened form in Dominique Venner, Le Siècle de 1914 (Paris: Pygmalion, 2006), 397-98. – GD http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/09/nationalism-and-europeanism/
7. That is, pro-French sentiment among Germans less well-known than Ernst Jünger. – GD
8. “[L]e diable portait la pierre,” an archaic proverb literally meaning “the devil carried the stone.” – GD
9. Alain Peyrefitte, C’était de Gaulle, volume 1 (Éditions de Fallois/Fayard, 1994).

How Trump Has Connected with the Heartland


The Main Stream Media and Beltway Right are touting polls showing Ben Carson is now leading Donald Trump in the critical state of Iowa [Poll: Ben Carson leads Donald Trump by double digits in Iowa, by Tal Kopan, CNN, October 26, 2015], ignoring his astonishing lead in both New Hampshire and South Carolina and the latest CBS poll saying he is actually even in the Hawkeye State. [Trump and Carson tied in Iowa, poll shows, by Lydia Wheeler, The Hill, October 25, 2015]. But Trump is just beginning his attack on Carson for his weakness on immigration, and my own observations suggest this New Yorker’s connection with the Heartland is very real.

I attended his recent rally in Oklahoma City. It’s clear Trump understands what the Republican Establishment doesn’t—the GOP only wins if disaffected white voters who might stay home actually turn out to vote. Trump is winning over those people who couldn’t bring themselves to support Mitt Romney in 2012.

Perhaps significantly, it was my son David and my (Mexican) wife who really wanted to go to the rally. My son even got to exchange greetings with The Donald!

As befits a superstar, Trump didn’t appear until an hour after the rally began, as more and more people kept arriving. The location for the rally was cramped, creating the sense of an overflowing crowd. And Trump’s give-and-take rapid-fire speaking style helped create a bond of intimacy between himself and his supporters. Here’s the full video:

For example, when Obama was booed, Trump quipped “Oh, don’t worry, he’s only gonna be there for a short period now.” (After 21 minute mark)

The crowd itself was mostly white Middle America types—but then, that’s what most Oklahomans are. But there were some black folks there, and interestingly, Trump is drawing north of 20% of black voters in hypothetical matchups with Democratic candidates [Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #22490, September 4, 2015]. That’s stratospheric for a Republican.

Before Trump spoke, there was a public prayer, another indication of how Trump is appealing to evangelicals.

What was truly striking was Trump’s remarkable rapport with ordinary Americans. Here was a New York City billionaire appealing to several thousand Okies. And yet everyone had something in common—love of country and disgust with our current bipartisan leadership.

Trump’s speech displayed an interesting combination of style and substance, both appealing to Middle America. Unlike any other candidates, Trump hammered away on trade deals. He also gave a nod to the locally important oil and gas industry. He seemed less likely to intervene in Middle Eastern countries than any GOP candidate except Rand Paul.

But this substantive approach was coupled with Trump’s emotional appeal to voters.

He mocked John Kerry’s bicycle injury and promised not to participate in bicycle races during his presidency.

He said of Hillary and Jeb Bush: “they’re all interchangeable”.

He also took a shot at the political class’s concern trolling:
Tone – you know tone – remember when Bush said to me I don’t like his tone, he’s too tough, his tone isn’t good. They’re cutting off Christians’ heads—ISIS is cutting off heads. They’re dunking them and drowning them in cages.
And Bush says to me, and Hillary Clinton says ‘I don’t like Donald Trump’s tone’. We need tough tone, we need it.
Trump took on the Main Stream Media, challenging the cameras to pan the crowd. This effectively created a sense of “us and them.” And Trump displayed real showmanship. A special surprise guest was Willie Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame, a Trump supporter. The final song was the 1984 Twisted Sister hit “We’re Not Gonna take It”. (Interestingly, Twisted Sister’s Dee Snider gave Trump permission to use the song. [Dee Snider on Why Donald Trump Can Use ‘We’re Not Gonna Take It’, By Zach Schonfeld, Newsweek, September 8, 2015] In contrast, Snider refused permission to VP candidate Paul Ryan to use it in 2012).

Yet after years of disappointments from other candidates, immigration patriots are right to be suspicious of Trump. Does he believe his rhetoric?

Judging from the rally, yes. He repeats these themes over and over again, showing that these issues are constantly on his mind.

For example, regarding Mexico, Trump said: “I love Mexico, but we gotta build a wall on the border.”

Exactly. I love Mexico too, and my wife is Mexican (take that, Jeb Bush!). But our current porous border is a major humanitarian disaster zone. Good fences make good neighbors.

Trump has a habit of revisiting a theme several times in a speech. Later he referred to the wall again: “We need a border, we need a wall.” And later still “We’re gonna shore up our borders”.

Trump also visited the anchor baby fiasco a couple of times in his speech. The first (13 minutes) was this vivid description:
A woman is pregnant, she’s nine months, she’s getting ready to have a baby.
They bring her over to the border. They walk right past our patrols, which by the way, our Border Patrols are great people, but they’re not allowed to do the job, I have, they’re friends of mine, they stand there like this, they can’t do anything, people walking right in front of them, walking right into the country, so they’re standing there, they’re getting ready to have a baby, they go across the border, they have the baby in the United States, and we have to pay for that baby for 85 years, ok? Give me a break, give me a break. [Boos from audience]. So everybody said, oh you can’t do anything, you need a Constitutional amendment, every state has to approve…..
At this point, the Trumpian stream-of-consciousness took him from how the pundits said you can’t do anything about anchor babies to a discussion of how the pundits predicted he wouldn’t run, wouldn’t get far, etc. And then he went on to other things.
But, not to worry, much later in the speech (41 minutes) he returned to the anchor baby topic:
I was telling you about the anchor babies, look, I was with, I was actually in New Hampshire, and one of the people standing up there tonight [motions to cameras] said to me “Why do you use the term anchor babies?” I said “What term would you use?” and he gave me an eight-word definition: “the children of undocumented workers who happen to be in the United States, blah, blah.” I said no thanks, I’m gonna go anchor babies, but think of this, think of this, just think of this, I turned out to be right. I was telling you, we don’t have to support [anchor babies], the law is on our side, nobody knew that, all we need is a simple amendment in Congress, and we might not even need that. Let me tell you, we’re about the only country, there are very few [countries that do it] and people come from Asia, and people come from Mexico, and from all over South America, Latin America, and they come into the United States, and they have the baby, we take care of that baby 85 years, but it’s not gonna happen anymore, not gonna happen anymore, not gonna happen [raises voice], so here’s what we’re gonna do, here’s what we’re gonna do, we’re gonna be so smart, we’re gonna be so tough…
Interestingly, Trump also obliquely referred to the white turnout issue (after 38 minutes). You’ll recognize several VDARE.com themes:
And remember this, remember this about the election, cuz ultimately it’s very important we get somebody that’s gonna win this time. We’ve energized the base, with Romney there was no energy. If the people that sat home and didn’t vote, for whatever reason they just didn’t have the feeling for Romney. Who knows why I don’t know, good-looking guy but nothing else works. He had the look, he had nothing else, ok. But they didn’t, they weren’t energized and millions and millions of people stayed home.
‘Cause people say, we have to get the Hispanic vote, we have to get this…
The truth is that if the people that are here tonight – with this, I mean this is probably the biggest rally they’ve ever had here, would you say this is a record, I think so—
So if the people that are here tonight—and it’s all over the country like this—No matter where I go, it’s all over the country—
If the people that are here tonight are energized and actually go out and vote, you’re gonna win, you’re gonna win, and we’re gonna get a good slice of the Hispanics.
My conclusion: There is something real happening here. Whatever his initial motivations, Trump has started a movement and is connecting with the dispossessed masses of Middle America. After years of following politics, it’s easy to be cynical. But having seen Trump work the crowds in person, it’s hard not to be caught up in the excitement.