Fighting the Juggernaut

“In those dark hours [for the French in World War I], that vision of France as a generous nation, of France as a project, of France promoting universal values, was the exact opposite of the egotism of a people who look after only their interests, because patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism:  nationalism is a betrayal of it.” —    President Macron of France, flatulating on Armistice Day, November 11, 2018

“The beginning of any society is never charming or gentle.” — Franca Bettoia, as Ruth Collins, in The Last Man on Earth, 1964

The Last Man on Earth was a Vincent Price movie made in 1964.  The year before the beginning of the end.  In 1965, all of our restrictive immigration laws were dismantled, in accordance with ushering in a new era of civil rights, and, in many ways, I personally date all subsequent historical events using that milestone.  Even in 1965, as a child, I understood that this was a watershed moment, and one ominous in its implications.

Few others had the same forebodings.  America, people reasoned, was strong, invincible, and confident.  With promises from politicians that the demographics and politics of the U.S. would remain unaltered, our nation’s gates were flung open to the world.

They lied, as the evidence of our own eyes verifies, and, forty years later, I entered the lobby of a local library and encountered an ancient woman diligently yanking down public notices from a bulletin board.  When I asked what she was doing, she smiled, and said, in accented English, “These notices are written in ten different languages, translations paid for with my tax dollars.  If someone had the right to put them up on a public board, I have the same right to pull them down.  Let them learn English, as I did.”  As I pondered the woman’s response, she trundled out the door and down the street, away from the scene of her mischief.

She turned out to be Colette Berger, an immigrant herself, a woman who resided in a house whose roof was visible from my own residence.  In our next encounter, I observed her at the supermarket, hiding Spanish language magazines behind English publications.  Again, the smile of a disobedient child, and a quip:  “If I’d wanted to live in Guatemala, I’d have gone to live there.”

Over time, I learned she’d come from France after World War II as a refugee.  But there was much more to the story, as I learned in pieces over the years.  She’d been born in a village near Reims in Northern France, and during the war she was hired, along with her brother, as a train depot guard, guarding both cargo trains and German troop trains in a freight yard.  She eventually revealed she’d been sufficiently trusted by the Germans to receive passes to travel on both German troop trains and truck convoys.  She’d met a German soldier, had a baby by him, and then placed the baby for adoption when the end of the war culminated in her hasty emigration from Europe.  “They weren’t asking about civilians’ motivations,” she said.  “The Maquis [the French Resistance] were lining people up against the walls and shooting them.”  She’d come to America, lost a young husband to cancer, struggled with poverty, lost a second child to a gulag called foster care, worked hard, bought a house, and survived in her old age by opening an illegal beauty parlor in her basement and an illegal rental cottage in her detached garage.  Throughout our acquaintance, she continued to make veiled references to her activities during the war.

Finally, one day I stated flatly:  “You, Colette, were on the wrong side.”

She did not shrink from the comment.  “Yes,” she readily confessed.  “The Germans’ sins were considerable, but they would have ensured the West’s survival in some recognizable form.  No one else is going to do that now.  I understood from the beginning what the Bolshevists would do to Europe and the world if they won, and they have indeed won.  They have repeatedly forced the West into a trajectory that can only lead to our extinction, a trajectory that has always left us with no other recourse but to fight back.”

It was an Aha moment.   She was not only an ideological renegade, like myself, but someone who was apparently willing to take genuine risks in order to act on her beliefs — risks ranging far beyond pulling down public bulletins.  As I came to know Colette, she indeed turned out to be a one woman army, battling what we both perceived as the forces of darkness: a soupy and toxic Cultural Marxism manifested in the promotion of things like universalism, socialism, deracination, miscegenation, White guilt, social and moral decay, nihilism, multiculturalism, and a tsunami of other assaults on all things traditional.  These things, Colette contended, were merely the incarnations of an effort to destabilize and deconstruct American society.   She rejected without hesitation the notion that America, the world’s last real bastion of freedom, was a nation in which patriotism should be primarily defined as a blind loyalty to democratic principles of government; she scoffed at the belief that loyalty to the American nation-state and culture was a form of bigotry and chauvinism.  “To insist on such a thing,” she said, “is to deny human nature itself.”   Erasing the latter two things, she argued, was a tragic insanity that would almost certainly and inevitably erase American democracy itself.  That goal, she insisted, was our enemies’ ultimate intent.  “They plan nothing short of our destruction.  That is what gives us the right and the duty to resist,” she would say.  We talked for endless hours about the reasons for America’s constant accommodation of the poisons destroying its foundations, and she summed it all up in two sentences:  “Human beings, in general, are herd animals, driven by the need to conform, and White people, in particular, often deal in abstractions.  It will be their epitaph, because the rest of the world deals in realities.”

Colette’s activism took many forms, and in much of it, I soon joined her.  She manned petition tables, and lobbied for restrictionist immigration legislation, despite the irony of doing so in accented English.  She campaigned for political candidates, gave them money she did not have to spend, spoke her mind with jaw-dropping frankness, wrote letters to newspapers, trolled websites, and engaged in other forms of soft sabotage.  She trolled internet trolls, to locate their battles and fight in them. Once, while working on a job hiring panel, she refused to hand out the racial preference points that she and her colleagues had been instructed to give to non-White job applicants.  She not only withheld the points she’d been asked to give, but went further and subtracted the points she knew her colleagues would obediently bestow. (“Bolshevist social engineering,” she called it).  She boycotted businesses that promoted social decay in the name of progressiveness, and she had six email accounts she used to badger political and cultural luminaries.  She paid for books like Alien Nation, The Death of the West, and Adios, America, and mailed them to prominent people, attempting to reshape social policy.  She was dogged in her determination, and her battle motto was “We fight until we win.”  She never wavered in this resolve, despite a framed Whitaker Chambers quote on her office wall, to the effect that “We must fight simply because it is morally correct for us to fight.  We must fight, even though it is virtually impossible to fight for a people who will not fight for themselves” (my emphasis; it’s a critical point).

“These things are the best I can do,” she said, “because I’m too old and too frightened to put dynamite under bridges.”  Because of the inherent danger in resisting the powers that be, she in fact recommended covert and nonviolent sabotage:  “There can be no full-frontal assaults on the enemy until we have sufficient strength and a chance to win.”

Despite her bravado, there was little evidence any of our activities made any impact.  All of our efforts in sum were mere flailings against a goliath.

Colette regarded both the Democrats and the Republicans with an almost equal contempt, but when a specific act of violence against Republicans occurred in our neighborhood, it spurred her to greater action.  The violence had been incited in the heart of a down-and-out person who had wandered up and down our neighborhood’s commercial strip, where he’d absorbed a steady diet of messages discrediting the Trump administration’s lawful election to power.  Up and down that commercial avenue, trees and lamp poles were festooned with banners, signs, and even hand knitted messages urging the locals to “Resist Trump,” “Fight the Power,” and “Reject Hate.”  Goaded on, the derelict had “rejected hate” by engaging in some very enthusiastic violence.  Rounding up me and a local sympathetic indigent, Andrew, whose loyalty and silence were contracted with a gift of banana bread, we spent one early Sunday morning by riding our bicycles in a swift beeline down the empty avenue, pulling down signs and banners, unravelling the knitted scarfs around tree trunks, and removing fliers.  Colette’s logic was the same as the logic she used when I first encountered her in the library:  “If they have the right to put these messages up on public property, we have the same right to tear them down.”   Afterward, we celebrated gleefully with lumpy servings of her homemade clafoutis, submerged in cream.  “Not a bad operation,” she said, smiling with affection, “for a cowardly crone and two village idiots.”

Whatever she may have thought of herself, Colette was no coward.  On more than one occasion, I saw her on the receiving end of a progressive’s kindliness, which she had a knack for quickly transforming into rage and contempt.  One such encounter at a petition table ended with a wad of spit being deposited on her forehead.   She remained tranquil in such encounters, strengthened by a moral certitude that I have only begun to acquire as America’s situation has become more visibly dire.   It was my honor to have fought in the opening skirmishes of our conflict with a tiny graying French woman, a woman who had fought her way through life, yet also found the strength to fight in the eternal battle against the massive forces of evil now arrayed against us.  Three days before her death, anticipating it, I asked her how I could best honor her life.  From her quick response, it was obvious she had expected the question.  “You can remember me by continuing to fight, “she said.  “Do whatever you can, whenever you can.  Resist — regardless of all of the might and scorn and fury that may oppose you — in every way in which you are capable of resisting.  I will leave this life knowing that I and my village idiots, in just one Sunday morning spent tearing down banners,  were worth ten thousand Marines who understand our fate and do nothing.”

It was important for me to speak honestly, in the face of her approaching death.  “We did not accomplish all of the things that we needed to accomplish,” I said.

“It does not matter,” she responded.  “We will fight until we win.”

 

24 replies
  1. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    There is one common denominator–the “elephant in the room” that most people are loathe to name, either out of fear of being called “anti-semitic”, racist, or other derogatory term.
    I came of age during the first so-called “civil-rights” movement and saw for myself the underhanded dealings, the demonization of decent, law-abiding whites, and in general, the deterioration of civil society.
    Almost all of the “civil-rights” workers and demonstration “handlers” were of one persuasion–New York based leftist communist jews. They cared not one wit about true “civil rights”, but were there to create hate and discontent among their black charges (who were too stupid or naive to see that they were being used to suborn and destroy legitimate government and society–a favorite communist tactic). These New York-based “carpetbaggers” fomented their hate and discontent, only to become future “civil-rights” attorneys, race-hustlers, and America-hating leftist communists.
    The so-called “non-violent civil-rights demonstrations” were anything but “non-violent”. Robberies, rapes, and other criminal acts were common, but never reported, as even the “mainstream media” was “in on the game” and conveniently turned off their cameras during the acts of violence. You see, even then,”creating crises” was a part of the agenda.
    The “beginning of the end” of America was the use of federal troops against white Americans, which, in itself was a violation of “posse comitatus”–the prohibition on the use of federal troops for domestic “law enforcement” purposes. As most whites were (and still are) law-abiding, they (we) were “steamrollered” by the use of federal troops to crush honest dissent. We never recovered from those unconstitutional actions. It was all downhill from there…

    Reply
    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      The comment section of TOO is content-rich. Very much so. But every once in a while you read a comment that drives the nail home with unendurable sharpness. At least that was my reaction to your comment. It also hit close to home in a way I never really understood until much later.

      I remember when, as a ten year old, I went with my sister, who was 13 years older (still is, in fact) to the McGovern 72 headquarters in the city where we lived.

      The guy who ran the place was Jewish. I didn’t know that at the time. I didn’t know much about anything at that age about Jews and I can honestly say, I never heard a bad word about them from my family (like many people, my negative feelings about them came from years of experience – which is probably why they created the word antisemitism, to protect themselves from what they create).

      I’ll never forget the way he looked at me. Because it was the first time in my life anyone ever looked at me with hate in their eyes. It seemed crazy and irrational. What could I possibly have done? Nothing, of course. It was who I was – the future of the very thing he’s been taught to hate the most. A White man.

      It wasn’t the last time someone looked at me like that. But, everytime it did happen it was either a Jew or someone they had taught to hate Whites, and who, sadly, were dumb enough to believe them, that that was a good thing.

      I’m very grateful for the sense I can make out it all now. Especially since, before I could, it was all so terribly irritating, confusing and unjust. The important thing is, that I didn’t know then, but know now, well, is that I don’t need or want their approval. None of us do.

      Reply
  2. George F. Held
    George F. Held says:

    She did not shrink from the comment. “Yes,” she readily confessed. “The From above: “Germans’ sins were considerable, but they would have ensured the West’s survival in some recognizable form. No one else is going to do that now. I understood from the beginning what the Bolshevists would do to Europe and the world if they won, and they have indeed won. They have repeatedly forced the West into a trajectory that can only lead to our extinction, a trajectory that has always left us with no other recourse but to fight back.”
    From my post #117 at the Unz Reveiw: https://www.unz.com/tsaker/from-2018-to-2019-a-quick-survey-of-a-few-trends/
    “In general, Saker, you write great stuff, but you propagate some illusions with regard to WW2, Russia, Russian culture and the Orthodox religion. If the Nazis had won WW2, Europe today would be in great shape. Thanks to the victory of the Brits, French, Russians and Americans the European people and culture are facing extinction. Russia today is in better shape than Western Europe, but that’s not because the Russian people, culture and religion are superior to their West European counterparts. For the moment just consider yourselves luckier…

    Reply
  3. danaigh
    danaigh says:

    God bless Colette, RIP.

    It seems that those who have lived under the boot heel will be the first to recognize such in all disguises, they are red-pilled by reality and can’t be fooled.

    Reply
    • Jacobite
      Jacobite says:

      At least she was smart enough to know the difference between the bootheel that would smash Europe’s enemies and the one that would smash Europe.

      Reply
  4. Richard McCulloch
    Richard McCulloch says:

    A true descendant of Joan of Arc. Colette leading the people, for any living Delacroix. Simply and powerfully inspirational.

    Reply
  5. Joe Six Pack
    Joe Six Pack says:

    The Armistice in WW1 was signed in Nov 11, 1918; but the Treaty of Versailles was not signed until seven months later. The Germans had endured a food blockade for years, living on 1300 calories a day. They mistakenly thought this was the end, this Armistice, but the food blockade continued for another seven months until Germany signed the Guilt clause rather than starve her children.

    Something that is rarely discussed is the starvation blockade of Germany at the end of WW1 and its effects on the young kids who would become the Wehrmacht and SS in WW2.
    The 5 year olds in 1918 and 10 and 15 year olds had direct experience with “The World does not care about us” They had endured starvation rations for years and they thought this was the end but it was not. Thus they were inured to any ideas of mercy, a mercy that the world had not shown to them. So they would show no mercy to the world in 1940-45.

    On p.162 of the book, ‘The Politics of Hunger’ by C.Paul Vincent

    “In 1971 Loewenberg, a historian, published an article in which he proposed that a generational relationship existed between the period encompassing world War 1(including the months immediately following the armistice) and the rise and ultimate triumph of National Socialism. Loewenberg observed that the adults who became politically effective after 1929 were the children and youth socialized and conditioned by war and postwar experiences….Loewenberg’s assertion that prolonged and extreme hunger and privation had a deleterious psychological impact on the German children of world War 1 is amply supported by the evidence of tying inadequate development to subnormal brain development. Whether one espouses the psychological argument that childhood deprivation fostered irrational behavior in adulthood or the physiological assertion that widespread malnutrition in childhood led to an impaired ability to think rationally in adulthood the conclusion remain the same: the victimized youth of 1915-20 were to become the most radical adherents of National Socialism.

    Reply
    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Loewenberg is a super-liberal history professor at Berkeley, California whose father left Hamburg, Germany for Shanghai, China when Hitler took over in 1933, when Peter was born. Four years later they went to California.
      His father was a psychiatrist, his mother had been a “socialist activist in the Weimar Republic.” Jews? Loewenberg is into psychoanalysis and wrote a book about “The Psychohistorical Approach” to history.
      What you are doing is presenting the National Socialist generation as mentally and morally impaired. This says a lot about you.

      Reply
  6. Archie Bunker
    Archie Bunker says:

    I am going to make the assumption that “Colette” is a rhetorical device (as opposed to a real person) that you are using to make your point. But your point is well taken.

    She was on the wrong side for one reason and one reason alone: her side lost. By every other metric, she was on the only side that was actively fighting against the coming darkness. Alas, we live in the shadow of that war and under the pall of that darkness to this day.

    Godspeed, Colette.

    Reply
  7. Tom
    Tom says:

    She hit the nail on the head with: “Human beings, in general, are herd animals, driven by the need to conform, and White people, in particular, often deal in abstractions. It will be their epitaph, because the rest of the world deals in realities.”

    Westerners do fall for empty formalisms in spite of Kant. They imagine that their specific, discrete content as a people violates the nature of moral universalisms – an entirely false proposition. Tagging western societies as racial and ethnic blank slates has been a remarkable achievement of the Left, in spite of the tragic nature of that achievement. But even more remarkable has it been in convincing westerners to go along with their own self-dispossession and self-suicide project. When a people refuses to add their own content and attributes to their societies, then other peoples will do it in their stead. You can even see this happening today on TV.

    Reply
    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Instead of admonishing the author and uttering self-evident platitudes, why don’t you provide proof that this account was fictionalized ?

      Reply
  8. Leonardo
    Leonardo says:

    Thank you for this. Very touching, very beautiful, also agonising.

    Thank you Colette, may you laugh with the spirits of your loved ones and ancestors!

    Reply
  9. royAlbrecht
    royAlbrecht says:

    After spending several days following the unrestrained idiocy spewing out of the mouths of the Democrats,
    in part as tool to be used in my hedge fund management techniques and in part for my political writings,
    it seems that I have seen what is happening in American politics happen before…,
    only in Canadian politics.

    The Democratic Party is spewing so much crap that it seems to be self-destructing before our very eyes.
    In much the same way the Canadian Liberal Party self-destructed during the run up to the second term election of Steven Harper’s Conservative Party.
    In his first term, Harper was leading a minority government and as a consequence could not implement the Jewish agenda as effectively as if they had an outright majority.
    Since ALL six or so federal political parties in Canada are controlled by Jews who want to destroy the country…,
    from different directions depending on which party one is looking at…,
    the need for a consensus as to which direction the country was to be ((destroyed))) from resulted in much less destruction being accomplished.

    A similar situation is taking place in America just now only within a framework of a Republic-cum-Jew-ligarchy rather than an erstwhile Constitutional (((Monarchy)))-cum-Jew-minion.

    If things continue as they are, would it be possible for Trump to increase his majority in the House in 2020, and then add a 2/3 Senate majority while stacking the judiciary with a majority of his own picks?

    Absolute power (((corrupts))) absolutely.

    After the people handed Trump total power of all three branches, would the Jews be more effectively able to do whatever they liked with respect to foreign, monetary, and domestic policy initiatives than the way things stand now?

    I would like to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but since his inner circle reads much like an employment roster at a MOSSAD hate-fest, should one not proceed with caution when granting him absolute power?

    Reply
  10. Ronald Blake
    Ronald Blake says:

    It occurred to me while reading of Mme Berger’s quick escape from the vengeance of the heroic “non-collaborationists” how eagerly the French have engaged in the organized slaughter of their own countrymen, i.e. Revoluton, 1848, post WWII.

    Reply
  11. Ole C G Olesen
    Ole C G Olesen says:

    Once you met a remarkable old french woman where You lived
    Discussing the plight of western society and man
    She said to You

    “We must fight simply because it is morally correct for us to fight. We must fight, even though it is virtually impossible to fight for a people who will not fight for themselves”

    And thereafter ..for a time . You became her co – resistance fighter .
    Upon the imminent Death of this remarkable old women
    You asked in which way You could honour her
    She replied :

    “You can remember me by continuing to fight, “

    “Do whatever you can, whenever you can. Resist — regardless of all of the might and scorn and fury that may oppose you — in every way in which you are capable of resisting…”

    “We did not accomplish all of the things that we needed to accomplish,” You answered

    “It does not matter,” she responded. “We will fight until we win.”

    Thank You very much ! …. Yes … You do .. and so we will !

    Because we must !

    Reply
  12. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    I wax sentimental for a moment. I remember years ago when blogging came in to its own. I would carefully craft my thoughts to post because as I was duped in to believing, We the Goyish FINALLY had the ability to fight back. Now I’m super cynical as with all Western Endeavors it means absolutely nothing. It’s shouting in a thunderstorm. It means nothing, changes nothing and the Joo and its Goy Judas Goat lackeys remaining firmly in control of everything. The masses sleep and remain controlled by Fascist Corporations run by jooz.

    Reply
  13. MOB
    MOB says:

    In response to Joe Six Pack’s Politics of Hunger reference, it’s certainly easy to see why a Jewish psychologist/political historian from a family of socialist activists who fled Germany when Hitler came to power would relish linking “irrational” National Socialism adherence with “subnormal brain development. It’s not as easy to see why the author chose to quote this Peter Loewenberg,

    Ralph Raico offered an alternative explanation for the passion of NS adherents in his review of C.P. Vincent’s book. It can be read here:
    http://www.culture-clash.net/pages/war/war_articles/I1hunger.html

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.