Featured Articles

London’s Chinese Embassy: What could possibly go wrong?

/5 Comments/in , /by

The English author John Le Carré is best known for his novels of Cold-War espionage. His most famous character, George Smiley, has the following to say on the subject:

The obsession of the two great economic systems with each other’s identity, intentions, strengths, and weaknesses had produced by the 1970s a state of mutual watchfulness and paranoia that seemed to know no bounds. Each side was ready to pay any sum, take any risk, tell any lie, to gain a seeming intelligence advantage over the other. Neither seemed able to grasp the utter sterility of this situation.

Smiley — a role played onscreen by two equally brilliant English actors, Sir Alec Guinness and Gary Oldman — was obviously considering Russia and the West. In context, Smiley’s description is as masterful a summation of the Cold War as you will find in Le Carré’s fine writing. But, in today’s post-Cold-War world, it seems charmingly antiquated, like seeing someone riding a Penny-Farthing bicycle.

In terms of espionage, the Russian bear is no longer the problem for the West. Enter the dragon. The acceleration in Chinese espionage since the turn of the millennium means that British concerns over clandestine CCP (Chinese Communist Party) intelligence-gathering has gone from treating it as an irrelevance to viewing it with alarm. China has gone from a distraction from what was the main event — Russia — to a major security risk in just 20 years. Putin’s people are doubtless tied up at the moment and have little time to spy on the British. They know Britain is a part of NATO, and they know that NATO is funding Ukraine to keep a “forever war” going. Keir Starmer has already committed to funding Ukraine for the next hundred years. They don’t need to listen in on conversations to see the obvious. And the Cold War is over, or at least the combatants have changed.

Unlike the Cold War, today’s spying game is not played with covert recording devices, anonymous handlers, and mysterious double-agents called Olga. The Chinese gather intelligence via what analysts call “influence operations”. Thus, the first quarter of the new century has seen a marked rise in Chinese student-visa applications to Britain, many more trade missions than the norm, and researchers who don’t seem to be able to get enough of researching the United Kingdom. These new spooks are not to be found translating “book code”, like James Wormold in Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana, with his copy of Lamb’s Tales from Shakespeare, a coded letter, and a bitten pencil. Today’s spies are not to be found sitting in shady cafés waiting for a contact and wondering which of their many passports they will be using that day. Today’s spies are reading for a STEM degree at a fashionable university, manning stalls at trade fairs, and studying in the Reading Room of the British Library. The Chinese are also active in the property market. Americans and Canadians are beginning to get wise to the Chinese love of foreign property portfolios, and the People’s Republic have also been competing with Arabs and Russians to buy up London. One building in particular is of interest.

Royal Mint Court is on the approach road to London’s famous Tower Bridge. It is indeed the site of the old Royal Mint, from a time when printing money was a sign of a healthy economy rather than a diseased one. The Court itself is unprepossessing. I cycled past it on my way to work for a year and didn’t recognize it when I recently saw a photo, but that is because it is opposite the Tower of London, which tends to draw the eye. In 2018, Royal Mint Court was bought by a foreign owner, like so much of London. The new owners were, and still are, The People’s Republic of China. The intention was to build a new embassy there, the old one in Portland Place being too small to accommodate a planned consolidation of all Chinese diplomatic staff in London. There is, however, a problem with the site, not just for the new owners, but for the vendors. The Daily Telegraph, to their immense credit, were the first newspaper to pick up on the story, and they have run with it. If I were the editor, I would be wary of taking on any Chinese interns in the office, just for the moment.

From the Telegraph in January:

China is to build a hidden chamber alongside Britain’s most sensitive communication cables as part of a network of 208 secret rooms beneath its new London super-embassy.

The Telegraph were not alone in their misgivings. The new owners had their own problems with the acquisition, and the purchase was not straightforward. Several applications for planning permission made by the Chinese government had been turned down over security issues. The Director General of MI5 said, in a response to criticism of the super-embassy made by some MPs that “it was not possible to eliminate every threat” from the new building, a strangely asinine thing to say. It is not possible to eliminate every threat from anything. Children choke to death on soft toys designed to comfort them. Any foreign embassy represents a potential risk to any host nation because of diplomatic immunity. Nevertheless, the deal had stalled.

But help was at hand to hurry the Chinese acquisition through at Royal Mint Court, and it came in the shape of a new British government. Two weeks after Keir Starmer took up office as Prime Minister, the application went through, needing only a final set of signatures from the government itself to ratify the deal. This type of final, governmental imprimatur is standard practice if national security is an issue in any commercial deal with a foreign nation, and for obvious reasons. But the final sign-off was made in rather odd circumstances.

As is usual in international diplomacy, Starmer’s recent trip to China was planned months in advance. “Never-Here Keir”, as he has been dubbed, is known for fleeing the country whenever scandal arises, which is currently about every other day. The trip itself, however, was not signed off by the Chinese until eight days before Starmer was due to arrive in Peking. I won’t call it “Beijing” because that is what the media, led as they are by Associated Press, want us to call it. We visit “Paris”, not “Paree”. Well, we don’t anymore, but you take my point. Visa problems for one of Starmer’s people, perhaps? No, although Xi’s people did require a signature, on the dotted line at the bottom of the planning permission for the super-embassy. This was duly signed, and Xi got what he wanted. And what did Keir Starmer come back from China with, in terms of a quid pro quo? Well, holiday extensions. British tourists can now enjoy up to 30 days in China being tailed by CCP agents without needing a visa. So, we’ve got that going for us.

What are the security risks specific to Royal Mint Court? If the Chinese are going to spy on the British, surely they can do it just as well from Portland Place. If they built their new embassy in Chinatown, at the back of Wardour Street and Leicester Square, staff wouldn’t have far to walk for a good noodle-based lunch, leaving them more time for spying. But those areas don’t have the advantage of being in close proximity to high-capacity fiber-optic cables, telecoms infrastructure which carries many terabytes of sensitive information daily to the City of London and Canary Wharf, and the Wapping Telephone Exchange, itself a focal point for the aforementioned financial hubs. These are not just the biggest financial centers in London, they are among the biggest in the world, with a wealth of sensitive commercial information running right by the new Chinese Embassy. It is a big site. The Chinese got 20,000 square meters for their £225 million, and that is without digging down, which the new owners are doing to a depth which is alarming architects and security chiefs alike.

The building work itself is already going deeper than the original planning permission allowed for. There is a complex warren being built beneath Royal Mint Court, but no one seems to know why. Convection coolers have been shipped into the building in bulk, indicating a lot of processing capability that needs to be kept cool. Some of the wilder conspiracy theorists claim these rooms will be dungeons, because the Chinese are not just spying on the native British, but also on Chinese dissidents who are a part of a minor diaspora to the West.

The British government seem almost nonchalant about the new site. Shabana Mahmood, the Muslim British Home Secretary who says that Islam is at the forefront of everything she does, is either colluding with the Chinese or ridiculously naïve for a Home Secretary. From her statement on the planning permission:

There is no suggestion that the operational development permitted by any grant of planning permission would interfere with the cables, nor that a lawful embassy use of the site would give rise to any such interference.

So, that’s okay then. As long as the Chinese have given their word that they won’t tap into cabling which passes directly through property they own, and contains incredibly sensitive financial data, then surely they are to be trusted. We really must move on from those old racist stereotypes of the inscrutable and untrustworthy Chinese. Do we really think they are going to spy on us? We are all friends now. Also, note Mahmood’s use of the phrase “lawful embassy use of the site”. Lawful according to whom? Within any country’s embassy, you are in that country, in terms of being a legal entity. That’s why Julian Assange was effectively in Ecuador for seven years, even though physically the Ecuadorian embassy is situated in London. It’s a bit like architectural transubstantiation. Does Ms. Mahmood imagine that there is a Chinese law forbidding the CCP from spying on their hosts? And it is not just Chinese embassy staff who might be flouting British law behind the smokescreen of diplomatic immunity.

Last year saw the trial of two British men accused of spying for the Chinese. Except it didn’t happen. The trial collapsed at the 11th hour as the British were required to give an official acknowledgement of the fact that China poses a security threat to the UK. This was something a fledgling left-wing government could not afford to do, despite British intelligence having held the line that the Chinese most certainly did pose a grave security threat. When former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case confirmed this, a chorus of dissent led to the decision to scrap the trial. The fairly obvious conclusion is that the British government had stepped in to halt the progress of the case. The Chinese are very sensitive to what is said about them, and “face-saving” is a lot more important in Chinese (and perhaps Asian as a whole) culture than it is in the West, where “getting away with it” is more the fashion.

One curiosity of the Chinese embassy affair, particularly as it was part-brokered by a Muslim Home Secretary, is that there has not been a word of protest from Britain’s powerful Islamic lobby. One might have thought that China’s notorious treatment of their Uighur Muslims would have led to vociferous complaint. But the Muslims who increasingly run things in Britain seem quite content for the Chinese to embed themselves at the heart of the capital of the UK, regardless of whether the CCP keep Muslims in concentration camps back at home to use as slave labor. Xinjiang controls information with ruthless efficiency, but leaked documents, satellite images, and survivor accounts suggest human rights abuses on a scale that would usually lead to a chorus of objection from both Western and Muslim leaders, as well as a blizzard of #IStandWithUighurs infesting social media. But there is silence on all fronts concerning the plight of these unfortunates. In Europe, there is a near-psychotic reaction if a copy of the Koran is damaged. But actual Muslims suffering is of no concern. Muslims often hide behind the ummah, the worldwide collective of the Islamic faith, but they couldn’t care less about the Uighurs any more than rich and influential Jews facilitating mass immigration care about the Jews who are raped and murdered by Muslims across Europe as a direct result of these insurgent policies. Both the Uighurs and the disposable Jews of Europe are collateral.

But back to the new embassy.

Planning applications in Britain, and actual plans for permission to build or adapt, are supposed to be publicly available, not “for your eyes only”. The plans for the Chinese embassy are indeed available, it’s just that they are heavily redacted. It is to the Telegraph’s credit that they have been all over this story, and other stories the deep state would rather they didn’t cover. Their recent allegations that Starmer took on a case, when he was a human-rights lawyer, which led to the 12-year persecution of an army veteran accused of an improper killing in Iraq (Starmer allegedly took on the case pro bono), was close to the level of journalistic integrity which led the Telegraph to expose Parliament in 2009’s expenses scandal. They will make enemies of the Chinese, and that is a brave editorial risk.

It is hardly news that the Chinese are buying into every continent which will take their money, which is every continent. Outside Britain, China is not necessarily building super-embassies in historic buildings, but what they are involved in is worth an inventory. The CCP has invested heavily in Africa, specifically Kenyan and Ethiopian railways, ports such as Djibouti, mines in Zambia, and telecom infrastructure across the dark continent. Asia has seen similar levels of investment, with Chinese money flooding into transport corridors in Pakistan, more port projects in Sri Lanka, energy pipelines in  Central Asia, and the integration of manufacturing across the continent. Where once we laughed in the West at the fact that so many cheap items had “Made in China” stamped on the base, so too the Chinese will soon joke that all their trinkets say “Made in Bangladesh”.

Europe has also seen Chinese port investment and acquisition, such as the historic port of Piraeus in Greece, a vital military and commercial hub since at least the Peloponnesian War. As for Latin America, the Chinese are mining Lithium in Chile and Argentina, taking over energy concerns in Brazil, and once again shoring up infrastructure and telecom concerns across the continent.

Like Donald Trump, the Chinese know the art of the deal. The CCP’s financial arm invests with Confucian wisdom, often tailoring their investments to suit the national temperament. Here in Costa Rica, the capital San José got a brand-new football stadium in 2011. The CCP picked up the $11million tab, and it is an effective sweetener in a country in which, after la pandemia, the football pitches opened for training before the churches re-opened their doors. The only quid pro quo the Chinese required was that the major political parties in Costa Rica recognize China’s claim on Taiwan. Simple, really, like all the best deals. Oceania and North America are well aware of the extent of Chinese acquisition of land, technology partnerships, mining rights, and excursions into the venture capital realm of both continents. Canada is slowly waking up to Chinese influence. Wherever these global financial concerns exist, of course, so too there will be Chinese intelligence. The UK will not be the only country spied on by the Chinese.

It is often said that history is written by the victors, and it remains to be seen whether the history of this century will be written in English, Arabic, or the attractive ideograms of Mandarin Chinese. The story of the Chinese super-embassy will be either a footnote in that history, or deserving of a chapter on its own, as the first time a powerful Western country openly invited another super-power to spy on it. Any observer of the current plight of Britain, once the world’s greatest super-power, does suggest a question; what do the Chinese think is worth spying on in the UK? The financial data noted, of course, but proximity to cabling is irrelevant given the advanced state of computer hacking and cracking. There are people out there now who are a long way further down the road than the phreakers and script-kiddies of early-day computer hacking. Then there are the dissident Chinese. There are already concerns in the wake of reports that, as in the US, there are “Chinese police stations” across the nation tasked with monitoring Chinese who have migrated (and effectively defected).

International espionage is still a sort of perpetual-motion machine, and largely a pointless one, as George Smiley pointed out. Countries do it because they always have done, and they always have done because they always have. Like the British stock comic character, the “nosy Parker”, twitching the curtains to see what the neighbors are getting up to, the Chinese are about to have their very own terraced house from which to snoop and spy on the people next door. What they will find out is anyone’s guess — apart from possibly the details of your bank account — and they will know the risks attendant on grappling with MI5, if only via the James Bond franchise. But it is more likely that they would feel uncomfortable if they weren’t spying on their hosts. As George Smiley says in the screenplay to Smiley’s People:

It’s simply a question of whether your Service wants the product. I can’t see that anything else is of very much importance.

The system spies on the system. Eventually, like all technocracy, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Here is a game for any reader in London (although I would rather you imagine it than attempt it). Go and take some photos of Royal Mint Court. Keep doing that, and let me know in the comments how long it takes before the police turn up to feel your collar. They will be there a good deal quicker than they would if your house had been burgled, and you won’t need a fortune cookie to know whose side they will be on.

Postcards from the Empire: The Anti-War Movement is now the Anti-White Movement

/14 Comments/in , /by
On February 15, 2003, millions of people around the world protested against the U.S. invading Iraq. Now in 2026, Washington has apparently successfully decimated any type of large-scale anti-war movement.

Some twenty-three years ago, the United States government was getting ready to invade Iraq, again. The pretext for the second war against Iraq in 12 years was that Saddam Hussein had procured “weapons of mass destruction.”

That of course was a lie, as many suspected at the time and was quickly revealed as a hoax, but the war of aggression still took place, with untold numbers of Iraqis dying along with 4,418 U.S. servicemen killed and over 31,000 wounded, many with hideous injuries from IEDs. Over half a million Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s and early 2000s, but as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright infamously stated during a “60 Minutes” interview: “It was worth it.”

In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion, as the bomb-happy U.S. government moved troops, equipment and ships into place, huge protests were held all over the world. For example, on February 15, 2003, between 6 and 14 million people protested in over 600 cities worldwide against the impending invasion, considered the largest one-day protest in history.

Twenty-three years later the Empire of Lies again is on the verge of slaughtering another Middle Eastern country, one that hasn’t threatened the U.S. mainland and couldn’t damage the country even if it wanted to. The pretext, to the extent one is even given anymore, is that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, a charge made over and over for the past 30 years by Israel’s Prime Minister for Life Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S. intelligence community has debunked Netanyahu’s charge on several occasions, but because it is Netanyahu, virtually all American politicians play along, as of course does the government’s corporate media arm. That’s hardly a surprise, but what’s noticeable is that the anti-war demonstrations that took place in 2003 around the world including in the U.S. are nowhere to be seen in 2026.

Cartoon Hour with Uncle Bennie

The UN is quiet. China and Russia could be stirring up a hornet’s nest of resolutions condemning the U.S., but aren’t. Neither is the “Global South” nor the BRICS alliance. And from millions of people in the streets in Europe and the U.S. in 2003, now it’s crickets.

There is no longer an anti-war movement to speak of. Why? Because smashing Iran is a major objective of Zionism, particularly the Greater Israel agenda.

Israel engaged in genocide in Gaza, and still is, and the “world community” was mostly muted in response when it wasn’t actively cheering it on. There are some notable voices speaking out against Trump’s subservience to Netanyahu, such as Tucker Carlson and a number of other commentators along with the usual sprinkling of patriotic Senators and Congressmen, but it’s far short of enough to prevent what’s coming.

If Congress doesn’t have to authorize war in this case, war against a country of 90 million people with a civilization thousands of years old and which is not a threat to the fatherland, then it’s undeniable that the U.S. President does indeed have unchallengeable dictatorial powers, something to keep in mind when the Democrats regain control of Washington, including the executive branch. The bloodlust coming from the likes of Susan Rice and James Carville are but a taste of what what’s left of America will experience in 2028 given the near total failure of the Trump 2.0 administration following a promising start.

Trump has tucked tail and run from Minnesota instead of engaging the leftist revolutionaries the way he should have. It only emboldens the communists and the elitists who engaged in non-stop lawfare during the Biden Cabal that there will be no accountability and they’ll be free to finish the job once Trump is gone.

The left flips out over a couple of comrades in Minneapolis being killed when they interfered and threatened ICE officers from doing their job. Yet they have no concern for the one hundred thousand-plus “people of color” Gazans murdered to sate Netanyahu’s bloodlust, nor for the untold number of Iranians about to perish if Trump gives the green light for war, and all indications are that he soon will.

The left is concerned about brown-skinned illegal aliens who have committed felonies in the U.S. They believe it is “White supremacy” to make any attempt to deport them. If you want to try to understand the admittedly insane mindset of the left, the key to doing so is that they will always take the anti-White position, or the anti-Christian position, or the anti-traditional values and morality position. They are committed to the complete inversion and destruction of the United States, from all the government institutions, NGOs, foundations, and universities to the street gangs they finance. And they will also always take the pro-Zionist, pro-Israel position, even though Israel is the world’s leading and most dangerous racist country.

Impossible to reconcile? Not to the leftist mindset.

What’s changed since 2003 is that the international left is now focused solely on replacing Whites and Western Civilization, in the U.S., in Europe, and in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and everywhere else Whites still reside. Iranians are mere collateral damage as the U.S. has morphed into an extension of Israel and Israeli barbarism and replacement ideology.

The huge anti-war movement of the past is now the huge anti-White movement of the present, controlled from the top down to street level. As always, what’s left of the fast-shrinking White population is squeezed from the top and the bottom by implacably hostile forces. Total degradation and replacement of Whites is the aim, and only the braindead who haven’t realized the fast-paced changes taking place demographically are still oblivious to what’s taking place at warp speed by any historical measure. Of course there’s always been a large number of naïve, easily deceived Americans and the number has only grown thanks to the development of advertising and the mass media.

Don Wassall is a prominent long-time White advocate.

Stay informed on all the important issues by reading American Freedom News.us, updated daily (americanfreedomnews.us). And support Don Wassall’s Substack.

Belgium: Sovereign European State

/1 Comment/in /by
On the conflict between Belgium and the European Commission over Russian assets 
For more than a year, the international press has been stirring things up, writing commissioned articles, and lobbying heavily for and alongside European politicians, with a particular focus on the use of Russian funds frozen in Western banks at the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022. The total amount of these funds is approximately €320 billion[1], of which €210-230 billion is located in EU countries or their surroundings. There are two categories of countries here: those that have officially declared the amounts they hold, such as Belgium with €185 billion, and those that have not yet declared the exact amount on the grounds that “the money is in private banks” (sic!), France with 20-30 billion euros, England with 20-25 billion pounds, the USA with 5-6 billion dollars, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, and Singapore combined with 20-30 billion euros, and Japan with “several billion”.[2]

Absolute transparency!

Thanks for reading Basile’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The colossal sum has been giving the European Commission (EC) pause for thought for some time now, as to how to use it or, better still, confiscate it.

But this required a strategy worthy of attention, which we will attempt to unravel below!

After bombarding the European Union (EU) population with this topic in the media for over a year, like artillery before a ground invasion, in a bid to achieve uniformity of thoughts, at the end of September 2025, the EC established its imperial strategy. In fact, the strategy was no different from the one used until then, up to a point.

The cannons representing the mass media loyal to the cause, charged with the “holy” mission of crushing the will of the people and annihilating their existential symptoms, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and its powerful arm, Rapid Response Systems (RRS), as censorship mechanisms that were to prevent the dissemination of information that was not to the taste of the Union[3], and the infantry was represented by NGOs generously funded by European programs with public money.[4]

In this case, the victim was to be Belgium, a small country of only 11 million inhabitants, peaceful by definition and also a founding member of the EU.

The balance of power, clearly in favor of the EC, which was supported by the leaders of the 25 member states, except Hungary, made the image suggest a steamroller-compressor passing over a mound of Belgian ants on its messianic path to sow peace and prosperity on the continent.

As in the biblical battle between David and Goliath, the outcome was surprising.

Now, more than a month after the events unfolded, when silence has fallen suspiciously quickly in the international press, it would be interesting to observe what were the most important phases in the unfolding of the event and what are the consequences for the Old Continent and its long-suffering population.

The strategy opted for by the EC, as outlined above, had nothing in common with classical or modern diplomacy. It was rather a mixture of intimidation through the display of force—the “GORILLA” model—misinformation through a flood of information divorced from reality, and psychological pressure. And the operation was carried out by colorful, arrogant actors with little public credibility. Essentially, the complex and “noisy” strategy established by the EC was developed on the basis of a “lack of understanding of the problem,” which clearly led to the development of a “fundamentally flawed” plan (letter from Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever to EC President Ursula Von der Leyen on November 27, 2025).*

In fact, the letter and the words used by the Belgian Prime Minister (PM) revealed diplomatic maneuvers underway and the ferocity of the battle being fought through these channels. The differing visions of a founding member of the EU and the EC were fundamental.

But in order to arrive at this diplomatically worded letter of defection, one must take into account the maneuvers of Belgian diplomacy, which are worthy of being cited as examples in future books on negotiation.

Sometime in mid-2024, as if on cue, after the Belgian PM had consolidated his position, with reference to Russian money in Euroclear — a Belgian financial institution — within his government alliance, the entire Belgian diplomatic corps, which numbers less than 3,000 people (including ushers and drivers)[5] worldwide, sprang into action with remarkable speed, efficiency, and devotion to the Belgian flag and 21st-century human values. The strategies developed, sometimes ad hoc, were followed and synchronised perfectly.

From the inductive negotiation model (concrete observations and experiences on a phenomenon/issue, in order to deduct general principles or rules) to the deductive negotiation model (moving from a general principle to a particular principle), using implacable logic, throwing up smokescreens to ease the pressure on him, everything was synchronized and used to perfection.[6]. As time passed, support, both internally and externally, arrived slowly but surely. Internally, Belgian PM Bart de Wever achieved the extremely rare (and probably unprecedented) feat of aligning all the country’s political parties behind his action (including opposition parties, which would publicly support him).

In foreign policy, new countries aligned themselves with the Belgian cause, including Babis’s Czech Republic and Fico’s Slovakia.

As of September 2025, the deadlock became embarrassing for the EC, so the EC President called on the “heavy cavalry” to join the fray. France, Germany, and Europe’s fugitive, England, with its versatile PM Starmer (who promised domestically before the elections that he would not raise taxes on the British people, but after his election victory, he raised them substantially). Visit after visit to Brussels, London, Paris, Rome and Berlin followed without any notable progress. As a result, major European powers, in cahoots with a vassal international press, will attempt a new communication maneuver. They will present the issue as simplistically as possible to suggest the “stupidity” of the Belgian leader.

In other words, Belgium would demand too many guarantees from the EC that it would not be left alone to pay the Russians at the end of the war. The Belgian Foreign Minister, Maxime Prevot, put it as it really was: “We are certainly not pro-Russian, but the other member states of the European Union cannot demand Belgium’s solidarity and at the same time refuse to offer us the same solidarity.” (rtbf.be – 17.12.2025). The Belgian PM added that the EC was proposing “a fundamentally flawed solution”: “This is money from a country with which we are not at war. It would be like breaking into an embassy, taking out all the furniture, and selling it”. Both statements shed light on an issue that was much more complex than EC officials suggested in the press. In fact, Belgium was drawing attention to a more complex set of problems that could arise without serious and mature management on the part of the EU. This could serve as a precedent for other international actors and could have incalculable consequences in the future for European finances and for world peace and security[7] . Apart from the fact that US President Donald Trump is taking actions around the world without any legal basis, Europe must maintain its position of respect for the existing international order, established at the end of World War II. And Belgium’s position was based precisely on this type of argument.

There were three main points that Belgium wanted to bring up:

International law:

– The EC is requesting Belgium’s approval to use frozen Russian sovereign assets worth €185 billion held at Euroclear (Belgium) as collateral for loans worth €90-140 billion to be granted to Ukraine in 2026-2027.

Belgium, on the other hand, feared possible lawsuits brought by Russia under bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or arbitration with its courts as a battleground. No EU compensation could fully protect it from potential claims. At the same time, one of Russia’s top bankers threatened 50 years of litigation if the idea became reality. Moreover, the “scheme” could affect Euroclear’s credibility, discouraging global depositors and eroding confidence in Belgian financial centers if Russia retaliates or if sanctions are lifted. Several countries have already begun withdrawing their money and refraining from making new investments in euros because they believe the same thing could happen to them one day (China, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries). Other countries have expressed their desire to withdraw all their money (Hungary) if the EC’s action is successful. The consequence has also been signaled by the European Central Bank, which “is also among the skeptics, fearing that any measure to confiscate Russian assets would undermine confidence in the euro and damage financial stability”.[8]

– When the conflict ends, the parties involved—Russia and Ukraine—can ask for war reparations or compensation for the damage they caused. However, according to international law, this is possible in three situations.

When the parties directly involved (Russia and Ukraine) agree on the compensation to be paid (a treaty must be signed between the two parties), when the winner forces the loser to sign a treaty under pressure, or when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has a decision in this regard, and the third possibility is through the activation of various compensation mechanisms such as the UN Compensation Commission.[9]

However, none of these three solutions offers a clear legal basis for confiscating Russia’s money for use in compensatory measures at the end of the war.

Financial point of view:

-Under the contractual obligation within the BIT, Euroclear is obliged to pay Russia the money (€200 billion) at the first request if the sanctions are lifted (it should not be forgotten there is already a Trump-Putin deal regarding the use of these frozen funds). But as Euroclear no longer holds this money, because it has been deposited as collateral for the loan to Ukraine, the Belgian state would be obliged to intervene (it holds 20% of the shares). However, Belgium’s operating budget for one year is
€200 billion, which would automatically lead to Belgium’s bankruptcy. In addition, the EC accuses Belgium of earning a high annual interest rate on the money deposited with Euroclear, which exceeds Belgium’s contribution to the war effort.

In response, Belgian officials demonstrated that the country’s contribution to the war effort, calculated on the basis of each country’s GDP, had been paid in full to the last cent, despite Belgium already having an internal budget deficit of €20 billion.

-Belgian businesspeople have invested in Russia and hold assets worth over €18 billion. They have expressed concern about their investments after the media sensationalized the issue and Russia announced legal action to confiscate investments made by Belgian investors. (Other European countries—France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Denmark…—also have investments in Russia. Total investments amount to €215.6 billion).[10]

In this case, too, the EC offers no guarantees against potential losses (see the Raiffeisen Bank case).

In terms of international peace:

Also in his letter to the President of the European Commission on November 27, 2025, Belgian PM Bart De Wever mentioned that “the European Union’s plan to use frozen Russian state assets to finance Ukraine could undermine the chances of a potential peace agreement that would end the war that has been going on for almost four years”.[11]

His statement was essentially based on events that were visible both internationally and on the battlefield:

a) The US stopped funding Ukraine when President Trump took office.

b) More than 60% of the war effort is shouldered by the EU[12] and the high-performance weapons used by the Ukrainian armed forces are bought from the US by the EU and then donated to Ukraine (sic!).

c) The situation on the front lines at the end of 2025 is disastrous for Ukrainian forces, and there is no sign of improvement. They lost more than 4,200 km² of territory in 2025 alone.

d) The number of victims, summed up by both parties, is about 35,000-40,000 deaths/month.[13]

e) The EU population is exhausted by the economic and financial effort made in this war and the economies of the main European countries are stagnating or preparing to enter a recession (France, Germany, Italy, England). The cost of living in Europe has increased by more than 30% in the last 6 years, including the COVID period[14], during which the EU is forced to buy at exorbitant prices, in order to ensure its subsistence, energy from the USA through harmful agreements for its population.

f) Far-right political parties in the EU are slowly but surely climbing in the polls, and 2026 and 2027 are years in which parliamentary and presidential elections (10 countries) will impact the future of the EU.

So in Belgium’s view, European peace and security are threatened from within the system, while inviting the EC and member states to meditate before choosing a solution.[15]

Noting the determination with which Belgium defends its interests, especially as other voices have joined it, the EC is adapting its tactics and threatening to use Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). The TFEU was designed for situations of maximum urgency. Used less and less lately and only when the situation was absolutely necessary (the financial crisis of 2010, the immigrant crisis of 2016, the COVID crisis of 2020-2022, the energy crisis of 2022 and the decision on the immobilization of Russia’s assets of 2025) appeared as a possible solution for the adoption in force of a questionable legal act.

Article 122 of the TFEU states that only EU Member States affected by an economic, financial or natural disaster from outside the Union are covered. Paragraph 1 of Article 122 allows the Council, “in a spirit of solidarity between Member States“, to decide on measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular where there are serious difficulties in the supply of certain products. ​​And paragraph 2 empowers the Council to grant Union financial assistance to a Member State facing serious difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional events. The initiative of the legal act, which would come from the EC, is subject to the approval of the Council which, on the basis of a qualified majority vote, can vote for it or not. ​​And the European Parliament cannot interfere in the process of adopting a legal act issued by the Council.

It is interesting to note the interpretation, at least strange, of Article 122 by the EC.

In this case, the EC explains that the war in Ukraine, started by Russia, has caused a “serious economic impact“ for the EU, triggering “serious supply disruptions, greater uncertainty, higher risk premiums, lower investment and consumption expenditure”. Consequently, the EC considers that it would have the right to use Russia’s money, not to reduce the energy bills of the EU population or to make efficient investments in order to improve the living conditions of its population, but ​to continue arming Ukraine (sic !).

Three things stand out in the logic of the EC’s argument:

Firstly, Article 122 (1) of the TFEU, designed for economic solidarity between Member States or from the EC to a Member State in situations of supply crisis, such as energy shortages, does not apply to foreign policy sanctions or asset freezes against third countries.

Secondly, the EC elites show an extraordinary imagination and cynicism. The poverty of the EU population does not interest them. The bills and costs of our lives are constantly increasing, as money goes to support a corrupt administration in Ukraine in a war lost from the beginning[16]. The appearance of a hybrid ostrich-camel animal on the streets of Brussels I do not think would be as surprising as the arguments made by the EC President, Ms Ursula Von der Layen. It is clear that the EU population is only a pawn on a chess board in which the president condemns several million more people to total poverty and perpetual indebtedness.

Thirdly, the EC and its complicit countries have made it clear that they do not care how many Ukrainians and Russians die from now on.

Belgium’s stance is getting other countries to start realizing the danger the EU is slowly but surely getting into by backing the EC’s proposal. Malta and Bulgaria will also back Belgium’s position.

But even with Germany in favour and France and Italy undecided, the vote was still in favour of the EC. It was Italy led by its charismatic leader G. Meloni who would ultimately decide the dynamics of the vote. The support given by France, after Italy had placed itself in the direction of Belgium, came on a purely economic motivation. If Belgium was going to lay off the 185 billion euros, then France would have to leave the 25 billion euros, money that is in the accounts of French banks, out of its hands. Given that France’s economy is in a phase of stagnation with a deficit of 5.4% and public debt of 115%, well above the limit of the EU treaty established in Maastricht, the decision seems quite natural. Even more so because France has investments made in Russia of over 9 billion euros. In the same logic, G. Meloni who prefers to protect their investments made in Russia (4 billion euros), to continue to keep money to Russia that is in its temporarily frozen accounts and to “enjoy” the assets already seized and traded, following the EC decision, which belonged to Russian businessmen (2.3 billion euros).

This time, “Lorelai’s Song” failed to prevail over Italian-French pragmatism. After lengthy negotiations, 24 member states reached an agreement, allowing Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic to withdraw without exercising veto power through “enhanced cooperation” on December 18, 2025.

The European Council President Antonio Costa announced the agreement, which would cover Ukraine’s needs for 2026-2027 in terms of military (60 billion euros) and budgetary (30 billion euros) support. This money will be borrowed from the global capital market and will be given as a loan to Ukraine. The interest, which amounts to 3 billion euros annually, will be borne by the EU, which will distribute them proportionally to the 24 member countries, except those that opted not to participate, in particular Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic. But according to estimates of the International Monetary Fund, due to the reduction of financial support from the US, Ukraine’s budget deficit in the next two years will approach $160 billion. The figures mentioned by the IMF are much more credible than those suggested by the EU which has the habit of providing an amount at the beginning after which it slowly but surely changes.

A few questions are worth asking.

Where will the EU get this 160 billion euros, in the context in which it has already pumped 200 billion into this war? Will the EU be able to finance the committed part (now 90 billion euros) given that so far only half of the funds promised by the EU on various topics (commitments on climate finance, development aid, humanitarian aid) have been delivered, and with the cost of living constantly increasing in the EU by 10-15% annually? Are the economies and finances of the 24 EU countries so “healthy” that they can afford to borrow money for Ukraine? The answer to these questions offered by the EU’s over-feminised leaders is simple. New loans and bonds will be contracted to fuel the war in Ukraine. In reality, this money will be paid by the EU population. The Draghi report (2024) talks about the need for the EU to invest 750-800 billion annually in the dying European economy or 5% of the EU’S GDP to close the competitiveness gap with the US and China.

Instead, in addition to funding the war in Ukraine (1/4 of its annual budget or €200 billion over four years)[17], the EC promises President Trump to invest $750 billion in the US, with an agreement to be signed to this effect, buys energy from the U.S. at a prohibitive price, sacrifices its European agriculture by introducing absurd savings, and signs agreements with MERCOSUR and India to protect Germany’s automotive and France’s alcohol industries.

Investors have reduced their participation in the EU economy due to the suffocating bureaucratic system and what speaks of “suppleness” and “transparency” because it sounds good, is part of the smoke curtain thrown. Max Weber regarded bureaucracy as the embodiment of “rational-legal authority,” contrasting it with traditional or charismatic power, and essential for modern states and corporations to manage complexity predictably. But he warned of the potential rigidity of the “iron cage” stifling innovation. Yes, the” iron cage “ already choked us.

The only big advantage that the European bureaucracy rests on is that the EU with its 440 million inhabitants are serious consumers. But if the “sheep “no longer have enough money to spend, this obviously decreases consumption. Indeed, consumption in the EU decreased in 2025 compared to 2024, which also decreases the amount of money that goes to the EU budget. It is possible that new taxes and spectacular financial engineering like that which occurred during COVID, or confiscating Russia’s money, can still save the EU budget[18]. How much longer can the EU population endure such damaging financial engineering?i

Consequences:

1. The War will continue without its course taking a different direction. Hundreds of thousands more will die. This crime is perpetuated only with the help and encouragement of leaders from Brussels, Paris, and London. The effort made by U.S. President Trump to stop the bloodshed in this war is hampered by the stubbornness of some “weak” and “decadent” European leaders[19]. At the same time, the situation comforts the American leader both economically (the EU is buying weapons from the USA to continue arming Ukraine, the EU is buying expensive energy from the USA, the EU is increasingly indebted to the global financial market) and geostrategically (the EU is becoming increasingly irrelevant internationally and quasi non-existent militarily). General observation: If the children of those who continue to encourage the continuation of war were on the front line to defend what their parents encourage and support, peace would very soon arrive.

2. The EU is divided, with no political consensus. Each country promotes its own interests. Sometimes heteroclite groups of countries force a decision to be reached. Generally, Germany, France, and Italy are part of this group. More recently, Poland and Spain have also emerged as important players. In this regard, the struggle for the main positions in EU institutions is fierce. Small countries, regarded as vassal states, are counted only to force a decision. After Orban’s Hungary initiated several “attacks” on the strategy and misguided policies initiated by the EC, the Council is thinking of a solution to permanently bury the rights of small and mid-sized countries by moving from a system of unanimous voting to a system of simple majority voting.

In this new framework the bureaucratic system will be strictly made only by the large EU member countries.

3. EU member countries will have major difficulties in delivering the 90 billion euros promised to Ukraine. The difficulty comes not from contracting the loan, but from the fact that the EU will have to contract other loans for its internal development and if the IMF forecast is correct, contracting new loans up to the 160 billion needed to continue the war by the end of 2027. In these circumstances a deadlock situation at the end of 2026 is very likely. More recently, new smokescreens have been created by the Western media and are served up to us daily. Given the current situation, Russia is facing significant economic challenges and will likely seek peace soon. In contrast, the statistics say that if the EU recorded an economic growth of 0.9% in 2024 and 1.4% in 2025, Russia had 4.3% in 2024 and 1% in 2025, under conditions of war.[20] The smokescreens put up by the international media are just to calm down the European psyche that the Russians are close to exhaustion so that one more small effort on our part (such as an extra tax) would be enough to defeat them or convince them to come to the negotiating table in a submissive manner.

4. The insatiability of the administrations of the American Democrats Clinton, Obama (who received the Nobel Peace Prize and introduced the “legacy of endless war”)[21], and Biden led to the creation of this explosive situation in Ukraine that can lead humanity to the brink of extinction. Obviously, the emergence of leaders in the EU without experience, elected more on principles of proportionality or corruption (Eva Kaili, Ursula Von Der Layen, Holohei, Mogherini…) helped to sacrifice Ukraine. The Ukrainian and Russian populations are the only ones paying this huge price.

Ukraine, a country extremely rich in terms of agriculture, minerals and human resources, at the confluence of EU interests with Russia and divided into zones of influence between them, had every chance to become an very prosperous country by developing itself, drawing advantages from both sides. In addition, it would help the EU to maintain a high international level in terms of economic development, scientific research, education and medical care, and standard of living.

But because of their thirst for power and desire to keep expanding its territory (check out Central and Eastern Europe), the EU and the US, who knew how to stir up the Ukrainians’ egos, created the humanitarian disaster that Ukraine and Russia are currently facing.[22]

5. Against this backdrop of Western ethical and moral decadence, China may well become the world’s premier power. And Russia supports it in categorical terms. In March 2023, Xi Jinping, on the occasion of his visit to Moscow, told his “friend” Vladimir Putin on leaving, “meetings and agreements of this kind take place every few hundred years”.[23]. America managed to distance Germany from Russia. But at what cost? Russia has found a more reliable and honest partner, complementary to its economic and strategic interests. China is the world’s largest creditor nation today (U.S. Treasuries benefit from $775 billion of the $3 trillion scattered around the world). Where is the EU, the victim of its own alienated strategists?

6. In the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine ,the latter says it wants to keep 800,000 soldiers under Arms, a security guarantee indispensable to its existence. Given that Ukraine will lose at least a quarter of its territory, the richest in minerals, and will be indebted to the financial market for at least another 10 generations, the EU is in a situation of economic stagnation (not to mention economic regression), the US has stopped providing aid to Ukraine, at least during the Trump administration, so who will provide the money needed for rearmament? Because those who will finance such an adventure are already thinking and foreseeing a Third World War.

7. The lesson offered by Belgium must be multiplied. Small countries, but with respect for the European moral and ethical values accumulated for millennia, must continue to exist and make their point known. Europe cannot be infinitely ruled by incompetence, nepotism and corruption. We need capable people, who we have, and who should lead us!

Bravo Belgium !!!

[1] The estimates are based on the lack of information that the international media has accustomed us to; europarl.europa, nytimes, kyivindependent, brusselstimes, euronews, reuters, epthinktank, politico. In these cases, the DSA does not apply… for obvious reasons.

[2] This fund of €310-320 billion does not include the amounts confiscated from Russian businessmen who held assets or money in Western banks. Their assets have been sold and the money has already been spent by the countries that confiscated it (France, England, Spain, etc.). A “blacklist” that is constantly updated based on simple complaints has been circulating for several years at the EC. The BBC wrote on December 26, 2025, that there was “a collective loss—of Russian billionaires—of $263 billion.”

[3] DSA was successfully used in the referendum held in Moldova in October 2024 and in the coup d’état in Romania in December 2024.

[4] https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAHTMLNews/NEWS-SR-2025-11/en/body.html

5 European institutions have 60,000 employees. Of these, 32,871 work for the EC, 8,000 for the EP, 3,500 for the Council, and the rest for the ECJ, EEAS, and others. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/772909/EPRS_BRI(2025)772909_EN.pdf

6 news.futunn.com-21.10.2025

[7] Look at the case of Kosovo, which went from being a province belonging to Serbia, UN Resolution 1244/1999, to becoming an independent state in 2008 under pressure and diplomatic maneuvering by the EU in collusion with the US. At the time, Russia warned that this would set a precedent that could disrupt all agreements established after 1945. In 2014, Russia used the same set of arguments to annex Crimea.

[8] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-west-uses-russias-frozen-reserves-help-ukraine-2025-03-05/

[9] Primo, as long as EU countries are not directly involved in war with Russia, they have no right to be signatories to an agreement referring to possible compensation.

Secondo, Russia is a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice by virtue of its UN membership, because all UN member states are automatically parties to the ICJ Statute under Article 93 of the UN Charter. However, this does not mean Russia accepts the Court’s jurisdiction in all disputes: like other states, it must still consent in each case (for example, through a compromissory clause in a treaty, a special agreement, or a declaration under Article 36), which is why jurisdiction is contested in cases such as Ukraine v. Russia.

Terzo, a possible UN compensation commission could raise money primarily from international donors at the international conferences it organises. The UN can only contribute a very small amount to this budget. Firstly, because its operating budget does not allow it (5.4 billion dollars for 2025-2026) and secondly, because only 61 countries have paid their annual contribution. Among the countries that have not yet paid their contribution to the UN are the USA, Russia, and China.

[10] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/russia_en

[11] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/belgium-pm-says-using-frozen-russian-assets-could-derail-ukraine-peace-deal-2025-11-28/

[12] https://www.statista.com/topics/12919/european-union-aid-to-ukraine/

[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/27/us/politics/russia-ukraine-casualties.html , https://www.businessinsider.com/massive-russian-losses-ukraine-pushing-it-to-breaking-point-nato-2026-1

[14] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Consumer_prices_-_inflation (estimate made by EUROSTAT, European Institution)

[15] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7n95wzl9lo

[16] https://medium.com/@basile-neacsa/a-circumstantial-analysis-the-west-vs-russia-f9ffaaf25c22)

[17] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-solidarity-ukraine/

[18] https://epthinktank.eu/2024/09/17/eu-budget-2025/

[19] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/10/trump-criticism-of-european-leaders-as-weak-comes-at- the-worst-time.html

[20] https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/109572/, https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/114502/ , https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w/2-30012025-ap, https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-annual-growth-rate

[21] https://time.com/4317122/president-obamas-war-legacy/

[22] https://substack.com/home/post/p-167468832

[23] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-welcome-xi-moscow-under-shadow-ukraine-war-2023-03-20/

Race Is Real

/13 Comments/in , , /by

Science and common sense have long since disproved most of the dogmas of the dominant culture of Semitic correctness. But the will for power being stronger than reason and reality, the Jews and their non-Jewish allies persist in promoting their false ideas without any concern for the consequences.

Take race for example, how many times have you heard that races do not exist, that race is a social construct, a category of the mind, that every person, regardless of colour, is the same as every other person, that we are all one in Christ Jesus? So, let’s be colour-blind and for the sake of egalitarianism let’s join hands and sing along with Michael Jackson: “It don’t matter if you’re black or white!”

So don’t be surprised if we see mixed-race couples everywhere, race-mixing encouraged by deceitful propaganda works!

In the United States, since the 1950s, approval of interracial marriages has risen from 5% to 80% (Gallup, 2007). Their percentage has tripled in thirty years (Pew Research Institute, 2012). It’s even worse in England, where nearly half of English people born African-Caribbean would have a partner from a different ethnic group (Bland, 2005), and where mixed-race children under the age of ten would outnumber black children by two to one (The Economist, February 10, 2014). According to geneticist Steve Jones, “we are seeing miscegenation leading to considerable genetic change in London,” where “almost half of the population is not of European origin.”[1]

If everyone is the same under the skin, why bother? Let’s mix, let’s get married. Long live the mixture of colours! It was United Colours of Benetton, remember, one of the first to promote this idea. There was also Jewish director Stanley Kramer’s movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner… starring the charming Sidney Poitier, whom every parent would want as a son-in-law. More recently, there was the Jewish producer Romain Rojtman’s movie Serial (Bad) Weddings (Qu’est-ce qu’on a fait au Bon Dieu? What Have We Done to the Good God?) a hilarious film that makes you want to give your daughter’s hand in marriage to the first Chinese man you see.[2]

Always ahead of his time, in 2014, Jewish globalist Jacques Attali, the advisor to several French presidents, saw emerging, beyond the chaos that the mixture of races could sow “the promise of a planetary miscegenation, of an Earth hospitable to all travellers of life.”[3]

Well, I am sorry to disappoint these dangerous dreamers such as J. Attali and Catholic intellectual Dr. E. Michael Jones, but things have changed a lot since Jewish leftist and pseudoscientist Franz Boas first pushed the idea in the 1920s that race is merely a category of the mind or a social construct not found in nature, and that behaviour is strictly shaped by environment. “In political terms,” writes Sam Francis in his article, Franz Boas—Liberal Icon, Scientific Fraud, “if human beings have few or no ‘fixed characters’ and are shaped by the social environment, then what we know as modern liberalism is in business. So is communism, aka Christianity without a God, which also assumes that human beings can be transformed by manipulating the social environment.”[4]

Then there was the enormous influence of Noam Chomsky’s theory of language which claimed, according to Canadian professor Dr. Ricardo Duchesne, “that the general principles underlying the structure of particular languages across the world, the rules which determine the form of their grammar, in such languages as English, Turkish, Yoruba, or Chinese, are indistinguishable in their degree of sophistication.” Chomsky’s goal, notes Dr. Duchesne, “was to offer a theory of language consistent with the ideological claim that all humans are genetically equal, in order to encourage the integration of non-White races in the West and make Whites feel there was nothing special about their cultural achievements, by reducing all languages down to their lowest common denominator.[5]”

Truth be told, no geneticist or anthropologist worthy of the name would dare say today that races do not exist, that we are all equal, and that behaviour is mostly shaped by the environment. As Wiktor Stoczkowski, director of studies at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and researcher in social anthropology at the Collège de France, says:

Until the beginning of the 2000s, population genetics, which was then in vogue, seemed to demonstrate that human races do not exist. The situation changed at the beginning of the 21st century, with the invention of new methods for exploring the human genome.[6]

Thus, if we are equal before God and the law, we are not at all equal before disease and medicine. As a consequence of inbreeding (endogamy), the Jewish race, for example, is plagued by some 40 typically Jewish diseases such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher, Muco-lipidosis IV, and Niemann-Pick; the prevalence of breast and ovarian cancer is moreover particularly “racist” in this population.[7] Prostate cancer is “racist” in that it strikes Blacks three times more often than other races. Similarly, the cholesterol drug rosuvastatin is “racist” against Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans, and Filipinos because these races, which are part of the Asian sub-species, formerly known as the “yellow race,” react very badly to this drug. Finally, BiDil, a drug for heart failure, is also “racist” because it is the first drug to be reserved for only one category of human beings that of Blacks. Blacks themselves have been the first to call for race-specific studies and clinical trials, as reactions to drugs vary from one subspecies to another, and even from one race to another.[8]

The reason that disease and drugs act differently on different human races is because races exist and are genetically different. This is not an invention of racists who want to introduce discrimination between men, but a scientifically demonstrated reality. And this biological difference is not limited to drugs and diseases.

As Robert Plomin, the world’s leading expert in behavioural genetics, has shown, heredity also plays a major role in behaviour, intelligence, and cognitive abilities in general. Differences in DNA can even be used today to predict a person’s psychological traits, its chances of success in school and in life. More importantly, Plomin has shown that nothing changes the genetic predispositions we inherit.[9], [10]  If you have no musical talent, no education will make you a Mozart. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are wrong: man is not a blank slate at birth on which one can write whatever one wants, provided that the social circumstances are appropriate.[11] Not just anyone can be an engineer… nature is much stronger than we are![12]

On the subject of racial differences, here is what the honourable Canadian scientist J. Philippe Rushton says:

For the past twenty years, I have studied the three major races of Orientals (East Asians, Mongoloids), Whites (Europeans, Caucasoid), and Blacks (Africans, Negroids). What I’ve found is that in brain size, intelligence, sexual behaviour, fertility, personality, maturation, life span, crime and family stability, Asians fall at one end of the spectrum, blacks fall at the other end, and whites fall in between. Asians are slower to mature, less fertile, and less sexually active, have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the opposite end in each of these areas. Whites fall in the middle, often close to Asians. I’ve shown that this three-way pattern is true over time and across nations, which means that we can’t ignore it.[13]

The truth is that not all races and individuals are interchangeable. There are indeed more competent races and individuals within races who are more intelligent than others, more docile or more genetically inclined to violence and crime.[14], [15], [16], [17] This is obvious to most serious researchers and people who deal with racial reality on the ground, so why deny it?

Even Jewish scientists, who are usually on the frontline defending racial denial and egalitarianism, are forced to admit, albeit reluctantly,[18] that racial reality and inequality can no longer be denied. Dr. David Reich, for example, Professor of Genetics and Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard Medical School, one of the most foremost scientists studying ancient DNA, says the following:

I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average differences among “races.” Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing techniques have been made over the last two decades. […] I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. […] It will be impossible — indeed anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences. [19]

Since inequality is a law of nature written into our genes, you are not going to make it go away by miscegenation, affirmative action, and dumbing down educational outcomes. Instead, you are going to undermine the most intelligent and most deserving, and by doing so, weaken society, make it less competitive and impoverish it in every way.[20]

Here is what a group of authors specializing in this field has to say about this:

It appears that the advocates of the essential determination of ability by environment or “culture alone” are above all ideologues locked into their false ideas, indifferent to the repeated lessons of experience, always ready to implement policies that are fraught with all sorts of frustrations for the races concerned (in the United States, above all, Whites and Blacks); policies that inevitably result in a catastrophic mix of loosely controlled welfare chaos, dystopian effects for the population as a whole, and totalitarianism through invasive state intervention, as if to obliterate all traces of what a free and orderly society is.[21]

In Brazil, for example, one of the world’s most racially mixed countries, violence, recidivist crime, and poverty, are the norm. In fact, the most racially mixed countries are among the most chaotic in the world. Why on earth would we want to emulate them? Instead, let’s emulate the most racially homogeneous countries like China, Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia, countries with the highest security and average standard of living in the world. There is no country in the world where miscegenation has reduced inequality, communitarianism or xenophobia the littlest bit.[22]

The public ignores these facts, which are supported by renowned scientists such as Henry Garrett, Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Richard J. Herrnstein, and Ricardo Duchesne because they are obscured by the ruling globalist authorities, the media and other social agents that have been duped into thinking that races don’t exist. According to journalist John Derbyshire:

The core ideology of our Ruling Class, which citizens contradict at the peril of losing their livelihood, is Race Denialism. Statistical differences in outcomes by race cannot possibly be biological in origin. The only reasons for those differences you may discuss in public are social: poverty, oppression, lack of self-esteem. And in fact, all of those reasons have a single root cause: “systemic racism” on the part of whites towards other races.

Of course, there are at least two problems with this Race Denialism.

Problem one: Half a century of efforts, including massive favouritism towards blacks, expenditures of trillions, and the election of a black president, have made only a slight dent in the differences of outcome.

Problem 2: East and South Asians, who are now richer and more successful on average than whites.

You might therefore think that the evidence against Race Denialism is now so glaringly obvious as to force denialists to some reconsideration—some doubts as to the soundness of their theory.

That, however, would be to underestimate the fanaticism of the Race Denialists.[23]

Root of the Race Denial Fanaticism

There are people, including certain elites, who are genuinely convinced that races don’t exist. This idea has been massively promoted in every cultural institution of society for ages. Like kindhearted John Lennon, they imagine a peaceful future world where love will reign supreme; a world without races, borders, religions, or injustice; a world where all violence will have disappeared and where “all creatures will be reconciled”; a world “where the wolf will live with the sheep, the tiger will rest with the kid; the calf, the young lion, and the ram will live together and a young child will lead them.”

And then there are those who know very well that race is real. They promote race denial in order to make White people accept whole heartily replacement immigration, multicultu-ralism, and race mixing. Their goal is also the Garden of Eden but for completely different reasons outlined by Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder and President for 49 years of the Pan-European Union, the forerunner of the European Union.[24]

The ultimate goal of bringing to Europe and White countries in general, millions of Muslims, Africans, Indians, and Asians, is the forced coordination of all the countries of the world. This will be achieved by mixing the races in order to create a light brown race.

The result will be a population with an average IQ of about 90, a population too stupid to understand anything, but smart enough to work. White countries will never again be competitive in the fight for survival. A culture that is thousands of years old will be destroyed. The “irrational” people who will fight against this mixing of races, and who will resist the global world order, will simply be eliminated in the name of human rights like the Jacobins did in France and the Bolsheviks in Russia.[25]

One Last Thing to Wrap Up the Question of Race!

Liberal pro-pit bull advocate, Anne-Marie Goldwater — who was obviously raised with the fake Boasian idea that races are a social construct — makes several errors in the following citation:

We use derogatory words to identify a certain subgroup of dogs (pit bulls) which does not form a “race.” Like blacks, Latinos, Arabs… these aren’t races. Just like there is only one race, the race of human beings, there is only one “race” of dogs, it’s called dog: Canis lupus familiaris.[26]

First error: The dog is in fact a domesticated subspecies of the wolf, itself divided into more than 450 breeds or variants, i.e., races in humans, easily identified by their morphology (phenotype) and able to predictably produce offspring true to type. No one has ever seen a couple of registered pit bulls such as the American Staffordshire Terrier produce a litter of poodles.

Second error: Breeds in dogs, just like races in humans, are an inescapable reality, and this reality is not limited to appearances, but also concerns behaviour.[27], [28], [29], [30], [31]

Third error: Miss Goldwater wrongly assumes that if dogs are breed blind, humans are also race-blind. Contrary to dogs and all domesticated species, humans were in fact naturally selected to recognize those of their race, i.e., breed in animals. So, if you mix a bunch of people from different races, in a city, room, jail, or in a high school cafeteria, for instance, unless they are forced not to do so for ideological reasons, they will eventually live and mingle with those that are genetically similar to them (theory of genetic similarity by Philippe Rushton: people are naturally attracted by people who have similar genes, likes attract likes).

This is not at all the case for dogs in dog parks, for instance, or any other domestic animal. These are Frankenstein animals fabricated by man as opposed to natural selection, they were not selected to recognize their own breed. But wild animals will mingle according to their breed. There are dozens of breeds of ducks, for example, they are all ducks first, but if several breeds find themselves together on a lake for example, they divide naturally into their respective breeds because of natural selection. They evolved in different ecological niches and have developed by selection certain physical characteristics that other ducks of the same breed, for survival reasons, will recognize such as diet, flight patterns, colour of the feathers, wings or head, size of beak, body size, type of call, etc.

The same for humans, as Jean Raspail says in The Camp of the Saints, the phenomenal book in which he predicted, way ahead of his time, the present replacement immigration:

Man has never loved the whole of humanity in one block, all races, religions, and cultures as one, but only those that he recognizes as belonging to his own kind, those of his group, no matter how vast it is. For the rest, he forces himself to love everyone and he has been forced to do so, and in the end, when the evil has been done, there will be nothing left of him.[32]

[1] Laurent Obertone, La France interdite : La Vérité sur l’immigration, Ring, 2018, p. 368.

[2] Hervé Ryssen, Satan in Hollywood, Bitchute, 2016.

[3] Cited by laurent Obertone, work cited, p. 372.

[4] Sam Francis, “Franz EEA – Liberal Icon, Scientific Fraud,” VDare, October 14, 2002.

[5] Personal communication from Dr. Duchesne taken from Noam Chomsky, Language and Politics, Black Rose Books, 1988. Apparently, Chomsky’s academic career was completely astroturfed by the media and Jewish nepotism.

[6] Wiktor Stozkowski, L’antiracisme doit-il craindre la notion de race ? Maison des sciences de l’homme (MSH) Alpes, YouTube, October 17, 2018.

[7] Jon Entine, “DNA Links Prove Jews Are a ‘Race,’ Says Genetics Expert”, American Enterprise Institute, May 7, 2012.

[8] Wiktor Stoczkowski, article cited.

[9] Robert Plomin, John Defries, Gerald McClearn and Michael Rutter, Des gènes au comportement : Introduction à la génétique comportementale, adaptation et traduction de la 3e édition américaine par Patricia Arecchi, Université De Boeck, 1999.

[10] Robert Plomin, Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are, Allen Lane, 2018.

[11] Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Na-ture, Penguin, 2003.

[12] Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature, Harvard University Press, 2004.

[13] J. Philippe Rushton, Race, évolution et comportement, Institut de recherche Charles Darwin, 2015.

[14] Helmuth Nyborg, The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur N. Jensen, Elsevier, 2003.

[15] Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class, Twelve, 2020.

[16] Arthur Kemp, The War Against Whites: The Racial Psychology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West, Ostara Publications, 2020.

[17] Robert J. Sternberg (editor), The Nature of Human Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, 2018.

[18] Jared Taylor, article cited : “I bet you didn’t think there was anything to mock about ancient DNA, but the main author of the study is a study himself: a study in absurd efforts to make the science of race and genetics conform to egalitarian fantasy. But, so far as I can tell, he is a very good scientist, and even if he’s afraid of where his data lead, I’m not. Science is always on our side.”

[19] David Reich, PhD, Who We Are and How We Got There. Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past, Pantheon, 2018. See also by the same author: “How genetics is changing our understanding of ‘Race,’ The New York Times, March 28, 2018.

Citation taken from Jared Taylor, article cited.

[20] Laurent Obertone, « Les conséquences d’une baisse nationale du QI (chapter 6)”, La France interdite : La Vérité sur l’immigration, Ring, 2018, p. 351 à 374.

[21] Collectif, QI et races : Le Cauchemar des multiculturalistes devant le réel, avec un texte d’Henry Garrett et une présentation des recherches d’Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, de Richard J. Herrnstein, de Charles Murray, de Richard Lynn, de Tatu Vanhanen and other authors, Akribea, 2019.

[22] Laurent Obertone, Work Cited, p. 370.

[23] John Derbyshire, “Race Denial Fanatics vs. Law Enforcement, Academic Reality,” The Unz Review, December 12, 2020.

[24] Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, Practical Idealism, Paneuropa Publishing, 1925.

[25] Kerry R. Bolton, The Tyranny of Human Rights. From Jacobinism to the United Nations, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2022.

[26] Thomas Gerbet (September 21, 2016). L’avocate Anne-France Goldwater défend les pitbulls à Longueuil. Radio Canada (site consulted November 12, 2016).

[27] Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature, Harvard University Press, 2004.

[28] Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate. The Modern Denial of Human Nature, Penguin Books, 2002.

[29] Steven Pinker, Fear of Race Realism and the Denial of Human Differences, Conference on YouTube.com, 2012.

[30] Robert Plomin, Blueprint. How DNA makes us who we are, Allen Lane (Penguin), 2018.

[31] Charles Murray, Human diversity. The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class, Hachette Book Group, 2020.

[32] Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints (translated by Norman Shapiro), 1975. A free copy is available on the Internet Archive.

Will Hate Speech Laws Claim a New Victim in Brazil?

/14 Comments/in , /by

In early February 2026, as newly released documents detailed Jeffrey Epstein’s network of influence, Brazilian sociologist Jessé Souza posted an Instagram video making explosive claims. Epstein, he said, was “the most perfect product of Jewish Zionism” and “was not only funded by the Jewish lobby.” The pedophilia network “only existed to later serve as blackmail to Israel regarding billionaire politicians, especially Americans, to have support for Israel’s murderous practices.” He claimed the “Jewish Holocaust was pimped out by Zionism, with the help of Hollywood and all the world media, dominated by the Jewish lobby.”

Within hours, the video was deleted. Within days, a criminal complaint had been filed under Brazil’s strict hate speech laws. Within weeks, Souza faced potential imprisonment.

The Confederação Israelita do Brasil, Brazil’s umbrella Jewish organization, issued a statement calling it “regrettable that Prof. Souza uses his academic standing as a platform to spread hatred against Jews.”

Souza’s apology satisfied no one. According to CNN Brasil, he maintained that “Epstein is a product of Zionism as a racist and murderous ideology.” He acknowledged erring by failing to distinguish between the “Zionist lobby” and the “Jewish lobby,” and said he had “several non-Zionist Jewish friends.” In his statement to CNN Brasil, he claimed he “did not accuse individuals or collectivities, but a ‘structure of power.'” He also criticized “two years of absolute silence in the face of the genocide of the Palestinian people.”

On February 11, 2026, state deputy Guto Zacarias and Renato Battista filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, arguing Souza’s remarks violated Article 20 of Law 7,716 of 1989, which criminalizes inciting discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. The penalty is one to three years imprisonment plus a fine.

Hate speech laws are often associated with Europe, but such laws have made their ways to the tropics over the past century. Brazil’s hate speech framework emerged from a 1950 incident when African American dancer Katherine Dunham was refused rooms at São Paulo’s Hotel Esplanada because she was Black. The incident gained wide media attention. Congressman Afonso Arinos de Melo Franco proposed Law 1,390 of 1951, making racial discrimination in public places, education, and employment a contravenção penal (misdemeanor) punishable by fines and short jail terms.

The law was largely symbolic. Brazil’s Black movement denounced it for decades as ineffective. No one was ever convicted. In 1979, the Movimento Negro Unificado held a symbolic burial of the Act to protest its futility. The critical transformation came during Brazil’s re-democratization. The National Constituent Assembly of 1987 to 1988 brought together social movements suppressed during military dictatorship. The Brazilian Black movement drove anti racism provisions into the new Constitution.

Carlos Alberto Caó, a Black lawyer, journalist, and federal deputy imprisoned under military dictatorship, was the single most important legislator. A Democratic Labour Party member and student movement veteran, Caó successfully inserted Article 5, Section XLII into the 1988 Constitution, declaring racism a non bailable crime with no statute of limitations, an extraordinarily severe classification in Brazilian law.

Following ratification, Caó proposed Law 7,716 of January 5, 1989, the Lei Caó, criminalizing preventing or hindering access to employment, commercial establishments, education, restaurants, transportation, housing, or armed forces based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. Penalties ranged from one to five years imprisonment.

The framework expanded multiple times. In 1997, Senator Paulo Paim, a Black steelworker turned politician, authored Law 9,459, broadening scope to explicitly cover religion and national origin alongside race, introducing the crime of racial disparagement. The law also criminalized manufacturing, selling, or displaying Nazi symbols including swastikas for purposes of promoting Nazism, with penalties of two to five years imprisonment.

The connection to Holocaust revisionism crystallized through Siegfried Ellwanger, a Brazilian of German descent who founded Editora Revisão and published Holocaust revisionist books from Porto Alegre. His most notorious work was “Holocausto: Judeu ou Alemão?” published in 1987.

The Movimento Popular Antirracista, a coalition uniting Jewish, Black, and human rights movements, filed criminal denunciations. The CONIB, along with the Federação Israelita do Estado de São Paulo and Federação Israelita do Rio Grande do Sul, filed complaints and supported prosecution under the Caó Law.

The Supreme Court upheld Ellwanger’s conviction in September 2003 by an 8 to 3 vote, ruling that antisemitism constitutes racism under Brazilian law. The Court declared that “the division of human beings into races results from a process of merely political social content” and that Ellwanger’s Holocaust revisionism constituted the crime of practicing racism. This became one of the most important free speech and hate crime rulings in Brazilian legal history. The Ellwanger precedent established that Jewish identity is a racial category for criminal law purposes. This is the legal foundation on which the complaint against Souza rests.

The Black-Jewish alliance that prosecuted Ellwanger emerged in late 1992, when both communities formed an unprecedented coalition against racial hatred, described as the first time in Brazilian history that Blacks and Jews united politically around a common struggle. In November 2022, Jewish representatives participated in São Paulo’s March of Black Consciousness under the banner “Jews Against Racism,” declaring that “Blacks and Jews are the many stories rich in discrimination processes and our tradition impels us to resist the fight against racism.”

The legacy of this alliance appears in unexpected forms. Guto Zacarias, who filed the complaint, is a 27-year-old state legislator from São Paulo, the youngest ever elected in 2022. His great grandfather was José Benedito Correia Leite, a historic Black activist. Despite his Black heritage, Zacarias has established a pattern of acting as legal advocate for Jewish organizations, particularly CONIB. In January 2024, when former Workers’ Party president José Genoíno suggested boycotting “certain Jewish companies,” Zacarias promptly filed a criminal complaint for racism.

Zacarias did not act alone. He was joined by Renato Battista, the national coordinator of the Movimento Brasil Livre and one of MBL’s most prominent political operatives. Like Zacarias, Battista has cultivated a visible pro-Israel persona. On October 7, 2025, the second anniversary of the Hamas attack, Battista posted a photo of himself at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. “Just as this Wall has withstood centuries of wars and destruction, Israel and its people remain standing, reminding the world that faith is stronger than terror,” he wrote. An earlier post from January 2025 showed him at the same site “giving thanks for having arrived this far.”

This pro-Israel activism by Brazilian right-wing figures mirrors the institutional posture of CONIB itself. CONIB was founded May 30, 1948, weeks after Israel’s independence. It gathers 14 state Jewish federations and explicitly identifies as pro-Israel and Zionist. Following October 7, 2023, CONIB documented a 961% increase in antisemitic reports.

CONIB has pushed for adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which Rio de Janeiro adopted in November 2023. The definition controversially includes examples relating to Israel criticism, such as claiming Israel’s existence is “a racist endeavor” or comparing Israeli policy to Nazism. When President Lula compared Gaza to the Holocaust in February 2024, CONIB condemned it as “a perverse distortion of reality,” triggering a major diplomatic crisis.

Far from being confined to the Euro-American space, the long arm of Judah now imperils tropical realms like Brazil. It’s part of organized Jewry’s global campaign to bend every Gentile—be they leftist radicals, right-wing stalwarts, Whites, Blacks, or other racial pairings—to its inexorable will. Souza’s fate illuminates the pivot: Jewish machinations spare no ally on the Left who dares challenge the Sanhedrin’s power. Only when Gentiles shatter the polarization vortex engineered by Jewish machinations can the authentic struggle—Jew vs. Gentile—unfold, correcting the multitude of errors committed during the 20th century and restoring ethnic hierarchies to their rightful order.

1923 – The Birth of the Jewish Scout Movement in France

/3 Comments/in /by

At the beginning

The movement was founded in 1923 by Robert Gamzon, known as Castor. At the age of 17, he had the opportunity to observe a Protestant scout camp and was inspired to offer similar activities to his fellow believers.

Robert Gamzon, founder of the EEIF

The logo of the EEIF (éclaireurs et éclaireuses israélites de France = Jewish Boys and Girl Scouts of France). Note that in France, “Scouts de France” means Christian, thus the choice by the Jews of the word “éclaireurs” like in “éclaireurs de France” the non-denominational scout movement.

On May 26, 1923, the Bluets patrol made its Scout Promise in the Versailles synagogue. Robert Gamzon obtained the support of several prominent figures in the community, including the writer, poet, and essayist Edmond Fleg, an inspiration, advisor to the Movement, Chief Fleg, and president of the EEIF (Éclaireurs et Éclaireuses Israélites de France = Jewish Boys and Girls Scouts of France). Together, they set up the movement and its governing bodies, and advocated for an original vision: Pluralism and the Common Minimum, education of boys and girls.

Fleg proclaims, “Let us seek what unites us and leave in the shadows what separates us.” He advocates, defends, and campaigns for pluralism and establishes the Common Minimum, a concept that facilitates “pluralism” and highlights the Movement’s capacity for openness and inclusivity.

What “Diversity and Inclusivness” really mean is further explained by the EEIF website:

  • Chief Fleg dreamed of a youth movement where observant and non-observant Jews, Sephardic and Ashkenazi, Orthodox and Liberal, could come together to exchange ideas, share experiences, and pass on their knowledge. It was, in fact, on the condition that the EIF (Éclaireurs Israélites de France) welcome the Jewish population in all its diversity that he agreed to become President of the EIF.

Upon assuming the presidency of the EIF, he declared:

  • “All Jewish children, regardless of their family or Jewish upbringing, must be able to be E.I.
  • No segregation is acceptable. Our motto must be: accept any young Jew who identifies as such, in whatever capacity.”

Thus, Robert Gamzon would later write, “I was happy to see a man of Fleg’s caliber think like me that scouting could be a unique opportunity to bring together all the tendencies of Jewish youth in France.”

So, as you can see, absolutely nothing French there, except that the somewhat ominous Jewish Scout Promise was made in Versailles. In France, the scout association is (or was) a Christian-only movement. But even in 1911, a non-denominational movement existed that was open to every child: Les Éclaireurs de France; Jewish girls and boys could fit in.

But they didn’t; why so and how was the creation of a Jew-only scout association in France made possible and successful?

First thing first, you need enough children: Eugène de Rothschild will see to it (see below).

Second, you need to hush up the French: Bernard Lecache (LICA) and the Marchandeau decree will take care of that (see below).

But let’s start with the Fleg’s statement which the current site of EEiF is not keen to recall.

1 – The Edmond Fleg Founding Declaration

In the year 1938, the Jew Edmond FLEG wrote:

  • …Today, the tragedy of Israel is no longer in its disintegration, it is in its very rebirth: we feel that we are Jewish, we want to become so again, but to whom do we turn and how do we do it?
  • Cultivating the history and literature of Israel? That’s not within everyone’s reach, and books don’t nourish the hearts of men of action. Turning to Zionism? A noble ideal! But to contribute half-heartedly and from afar to the rebirth of Palestine, wouldn’t that be to settle for Judaism by proxy? To observe the Sabbath and the holidays? To resurrect the rites of the ancestors? Is this possible within a family that is often indifferent and in a social group with no connection to the past? One cannot be Jewish alone: it requires many. To rebuild Judaism, one must rebuild Jewish life, one must act, one must come together and command respect.
  • This task, which current circumstances surround with difficulties, seems to be something that Scouting is not only capable of undertaking, but of accomplishing victoriously. I believe I will offend no one by observing, not without melancholy, that there is very little to hope for from our worn-out generations.
  • But from adolescence and childhood, anything is possible.
  • Jewish scouting offers this first, invaluable advantage: the creation of a vibrant Jewish community. Simply by bringing them together, Judaism, which for these children was often little more than a memory, spontaneously becomes a reality again.
  • We see them spontaneously, almost unconsciously, discovering ways of thinking and feeling that are more natural to them than to others. From their gathering, a common soul emerges, and this soul is the very sum of the instincts of our race that lay dormant within us.
  • So here we are preparing something analogous to the lost emotions of family worship: we are giving back to these children what is essentially lacking in our generations without a past: the treasure of memories accumulated in the very blood of the ancestors.
  • Then this rediscovered Judaism takes on a more conscious form, and among the badges that mark the stages of a Jewish scout’s life, the Hebrew or Jewish history badge is among the most valued.
  • Therefore, the work of our scouts cannot be encouraged enough.
  • Preserving blood and race, we can hear it loud and clear, we agree 100%, but then, what about scouting in order to defend the race and Jewish blood in France? And Fleg specifies, to defend it victoriously, against whom? The French?

2 – 1938 / 1939The Rothschild Convoys of Jewish Child

We quote here in full from Jean VELLAVE in an anti-Semitic magazine published in April 1944:

We must give here a memorable example of how the Jews, in 1938-1939, were able to fully exploit the right of asylum that Republican France granted them so generously.

Eugène de Rothschild’s last diabolical invention to protect the Jewish race was to systematically round up all Jewish children from the various states of Central Europe and bring these children to France by special convoys.

The first train, unable to obtain the requested visas from the French Consulate, detoured through Holland and Belgium, but nevertheless arrived in Paris. It is worth noting, in this regard, that Jews at that time very readily separated from their children, although this separation was not a matter of emergency.

Subsequently, the French Consulate in Vienna received formal instructions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was obligated to issue group visas to groups of Jewish children emigrating. This occurred in late 1938 and early 1939. Several convoys of children were thus sent to Paris.

The Jew GRUMBACH, a specialist in naturalizations at the Foreign Affairs Commission, took it upon himself to make them, in a very short time, into authentic little Frenchmen, subsequently Frenchifying their names in order to confound any searches that might be undertaken.

Thus, in Paris at the end of May 1939, everyone was astonished to see veritable regiments of scouts, elegantly and comfortably dressed, in the metro and on the streets. These were Mr. de Rothschild’s scouts. Salute, young Frenchmen!

These children not only had a uniform that distinguished them from Lord Baden-Powell’s classic scouts, but above all, a different face, a different silhouette, a different expression, bearing all the physical and moral stigmas of their race and the vices of the ghetto. Good recruits, in short!

Yet this was the gift that Mr. Eugène de Rothschild had decided to give to France, aided in his task by the Jewish doctors of the maternity wards who, through abortive or other maneuvers, mutilated French mothers, turned our cradles into coffins, and deprived our women of the sacred power to procreate.

Under these circumstances, wasn’t it necessary to repopulate the country? That was the main objective. Its direct consequence was to encourage Jewish emigration in general. The child had been granted the right to reside in France; could anyone be so inhumane as to prevent his mother, his father, and his poor old grandparents from joining him? [American readers will recognize the Family Unification rule set up by their own Jews].

At that time, clandestine visa agencies were making enormous fortunes. Visas refused by consulates were fabricated by them, but while other countries carried out strict border controls, the Freemason Chautemps, Prince of the Royal Secret, gave unofficial orders that no trouble would befall those who could not produce official documents but responded to a prearranged Masonic sign. One Jew, the entire Jewish community—that was the plan! [Camille Chautemps, many times President of the Council of Ministers = Prime Minister, specially in the year 1938 – by the way, he spent the end of his life in the USA, and died in Washington. A very good French indeed…]

3 – 1938 / May 3, 1939 – Lecache / Marchandeau Decree-Law on hate speech

To prevent an outcry from the French people confronted with this downright organised invasion of their country, the French Jews and Freemassons came up with a solution that was as simple as it was radical: prohibit the use of the word “Jew” in the press.

On January 24, 1939, LICA President Bernard Lecache submitted a bill to Justice Minister Paul Marchandeau, appointed on November 1, 1938. He drafted the decree-law concerning the press with the aim of limiting the racist and anti-Semitic discourse of the far right.

This is probably the very first hate-speech law in the world; it provides for prosecution “when defamation or insult, committed against a group of people belonging, by their origin, to a particular race or religion, has had the aim of inciting hatred between citizens or inhabitants.”

The only difference with modern laws of the same kind is that one had to have actually suffered personal harm; consequently, associations could not file a complaint.

To be precise, there is another difference: only the press is targeted by this law, not individuals: the decree-law amends articles 32, 33, and 60 of the 1881 law on freedom of the press by enshrining in French law the prohibition of racial or religious attacks against a group of people and no longer solely against an individual.

Since the law was demanded by Bernard Lecache, a Jew of Ukrainian descent and founder of LICA (International League Against Anti-Semitism), it is very clear that the “group of people” to which the law refers is none other than the chosen tribe.

Lecache also headed a newspaper called “Droit de Vivre” (Right to Live). A right to live, it would appear, that was not granted to everyone; here’s what he declared at a LICA public meeting:

This is the progress of this anti-Semitism about which a minister of the Republic told me: let it grow; when it is big, we will clean it up with machine guns!

In other words, the French must wage wars on behalf of the Jews.

As for Paul Marchandeau, he was the usual shabbat-goy-Freemason.

The decree was repealed by the Vichy regime on August 27, 1940. The government granted amnesty for all acts committed prior to the repeal decree.

A temporary victory for the nationalists, the decree was reinstated in September 1944, following the Liberation.

The Real European Crisis: Population

/33 Comments/in /by

Eighty-three years ago, Joseph Goebbels published an essay entitled Die Krise Europas—“The European Crisis.” Like most of his essays, it was insightful and prescient. It dealt, of course, with the crisis of the moment: namely, a war turning against Germany, a resurgent Judeo-Bolshevism, and the vital role of the Jewish Question in that war. Today, Europe faces a related but different crisis; my objective here is to shed some light on this situation, and perhaps to point a way forward.

Along this line, it is fashionable these days to speak of “the death of Europe,” but this is generally loose and hyperbolic talk, often unsubstantiated by actual data.  Europe is not dying, but it is ill, and potentially at risk of a permanent change in its social and political orientation, away from traditional European values and structure, and more toward globalist, consumerist, ‘Americanized’ values and structure. This would be a great shame, and thinking people everywhere ought to do what they can to avoid such an outcome.

Europe faces a number of serious problems at the moment, including the war in Ukraine, a shaky NATO, deindustrialization, and a potential fall in the euro. But the problem I want to address here is with population. This in turn has two aspects: (1) overall declines, and (2) declining share of White and rising share of non-White. Let me take the second aspect first.

Regarding racial population statistics, the first problem we encounter is that most European governments refuse to track numbers by race and ethnicity, which in itself is highly suspicious; one must ask, why don’t they want us to know? They can try to take the moral highroad and claim that demographics are race-neutral, or some such assertion, but this is nonsense. Governmental authorities are clearly trying to hide the reality from their citizens, for reasons that cannot be good.

Thus, we are generally forced to use proxy statistics, such as religion or language, to estimate non-European populations. The most serious problem for Europe arises from their North African or Middle Eastern populations, nearly all of whom are Muslim, and fortunately we have numbers for that. According to conventional statistics, there are about 4 million Muslims in the UK (about 6% of the total), 7 million in France (10%), and 6 million in Germany (7%).  These are the largest such populations. Smaller countries have, of course, fewer, but they still constitute a significant fraction of the total; Austria has about 800,000 Muslims (8%) and Sweden about 1 million (10%), with countries like Belgium (7.5%), Switzerland (6%), and Italy (5%) not far behind. (By contrast, the US has about 5 million Muslims, or about 1%.)

The other challenge comes from Black populations. France today has by far the largest Black population in Europe, at around 3.8 million (6%); they are followed by the UK (2.5 million, or 4%), Italy (1.2 million, or 2%), Spain (1 million, or 2%), and Germany (1.3 million, or 1.5%). (Again for reference, the US has about 50 million Blacks, or 14%.)

Combining just these two minority groups, we see that France is in deep trouble, with a total of 10.8 million people (16%), followed by the UK with 6.5 million (10%) and Germany (7.3 million, or 8.5%). But it’s worse than this; it turns out that these two groups only account for about half of the non-White populations; therefore, the actual non-White populations (numbers and percentages) are roughly double these figures.

A lot of numbers here, but the good news is that, despite millions of non-Whites, European White populations still hold solid majorities. On the down side, the trends are negative, as Whites tend to have very low, sub-replacement birth rates, whereas the non-Whites are both immigrating and reproducing at higher levels. The rates are such that, within four or five decades, Whites are at risk of becoming minority populations—i.e. less than 50%—in their own countries.

For example, in June of last year, a report issued by British researcher Matt Goodwin analyzed three population subgroups in the UK: White British, Other White, and Non-White. He shows the non-White population rising from a current level of 19.7% (about double the 10% “Black + Muslim” figure I cited above), rising to 40% by 2060 and 50% by 2078—at which point Whites in the UK will be a minority. (The report made headlines because the ‘White Briton’ category falls below 50% even sooner, in 2063.)

We can expect similar trends to occur in the rest of Europe—a bit faster or a bit slower, depending on current percentage of non-Whites and specific fertility rates. So, for example, France is currently around 32% non-White, and would be expected to go ‘White-minority’ by about 2060. Germany, currently about 17% non-White, would not fall to White-minority status until around 2085—if, that is, all current trends continue.

By reference, the US is currently projected to go ‘White-minority’ in 2045, just 20 years from now. So, if there are any impending “deaths” in the White nations of the world, the USA will be the first to go down. France has maybe 15 more years than America, the UK maybe 30 more years, and Germany perhaps 40 more. Any looming ‘European crisis’ is overshadowed by the much more imminent ‘American crisis.’ This could be good news for Europe, if they are able to watch what happens here in the USA and figure out how to avoid it.

Obviously, I take it as bad news indeed when historically White nations threaten to go White-minority. Under the best, most optimistic scenarios, when this happens, the nature of these societies will rapidly change, quickly diverging from how they were when White-dominant. And they will, of necessity, rapidly manifest the values of their non-White majorities. In short, they will come more to resemble the non-White cultures and nations—cultures which are, by and large, less prosperous, less safe, less healthy, and less productive. Some would call this “worse,” others merely “different”; I leave that to the reader’s assessment.

The Larger Population Question

This, then, is what might be called ‘the Minority Question.’ This whole issue presses up against a larger question, namely that of overall falling populations in Europe. This is a hugely important matter, but one that typically is either (a) completely ignored, or (b) treated with a shallow superficiality. When it does come up, it is usually in terms of some alleged global extermination plot or some kind of devious genocide plan, such as by the ‘vax.’ About the only helpful analysis centers on the Great Replacement issue; more on this below.

For very understandable reasons, it is almost impossible to get straight talk on population. Neither right nor left, liberal nor conservative, religious nor secular factions seem able to give the hard facts of the matter and to consider rational solutions. So, let me offer here some straight talk on population:

By almost any measure, the world is vastly overpopulated. The current global population is approaching 8.2 billion, and it is heading rapidly toward 10 billion by the 2050s. According to latest estimates, the figure will peak at around 10.3 billion by 2085.

The problem is that we, and the Earth, evolved under conditions of much lower, and much less-dense, human numbers. Humans have existed on this planet for around 3 million years, and for literally 99.9% of that time, there were less than 100 million people on Earth—or for those numerically-challenged readers, less than 0.1 billion. And that’s an upper limit; for many millennia, it was much less, even under 1 million at times.

Humanity did not cross the 100-million mark for the first time until about 1000 BC. But then we underwent rapid, exponential increases, hitting 1 billion around the year 1800; and now, within a couple decades, we will be at 10 billion: 100 times the evolutionary norm. Neither we nor the planet evolved to handle that mass of Homo sapiens. On an evolutionary time scale, this is not normal; it cannot be sustained in the long run. It will inevitably lead to disaster. I realize that some people think otherwise; but if they want to make that claim, they have the burden of proof. They must prove that we and the planet can survive with historically unprecedented numbers of people. Good luck with that.

Compounding the problem is that a large percentage of our numbers—perhaps 2 billion people (and growing)—consume resources at high relative rates, pushing total human consumption far beyond that which is sustainable for the planet. Non-renewable resources (like oil) are rapidly diminishing and becoming harder to reach, and renewable resources are consumed faster than they can be replenished. As a result, global ecosystems are in rapid decline. The data are well-known and indisputable, and I won’t recount the numbers here. But when the global ecosystem declines, the human race won’t be far behind—that I can guarantee.

Furthermore, for all members of the planetary ecosystem to flourish, they need space: lots of space, lots of land, unaffected by humans in any significant way. In other words, we need to set aside large amounts of land as functional wilderness. Unfortunately, existing wilderness is also in rapid decline. At present, we are using, altering, or polluting virtually all the ice-free land on Earth.[1]

Under current conditions, it is impossible to avoid catastrophic losses to non-human nature, and eventually to ourselves. Therefore, there is increasing recognition among scientists and ecologists that perhaps half of the Earth’s land area needs to be set aside, unused and uncontaminated, as a functional wilderness.[2] Simply to survive in the long run, humans need to learn to live on roughly half of the Earth; and within that half, to live within the sustainable biocapacity of the land—the ability for nature to supply resources and absorb wastes on a continuous, long-term basis. (If this sounds “far right,” “far left,” or “fascist” to you, then you need to rethink your definitions; this is all just common sense combined with elementary science.)

The end result, though, is rather shocking for most. When all the numbers are analyzed, it boils down to a sustainable global population of around 2 billion people.[3] This is a 75% reduction from current figures. Somehow, and in some way, we need to rid ourselves of 6 billion people—not immediately, not overnight, but within (say) the current century. If we do not, there is a very good chance that Nature herself will step in and drive us down ruthlessly—perhaps to zero.[4] If we have any pretense to being a rational species, we would do well to limit our numbers, and soon.

How, exactly, that can happen, I leave to another time. Suffice to say here that there is a wide range of options, from benign and voluntary to coercive and compulsory, and a “clever animal” like ourselves can certainly devise an effective, fair, humane, and just plan. The other matter is who, exactly, ought to be reduced. As a member of and advocate for the White race, I would obviously like to see my kin’s share increase globally; but again, that topic will have to wait for another time. Let me just say here that there is a case to reduce everyone, all groups, from current levels.

Case Study Italy

With this little background in place, let me turn now to the poster-child for European population problems: Italy. I will look at two representative media articles, but let me first recall a bit of personal experience in this matter.

In the past few years, I have been fortunate to spend some time in northern Italy. In many ways, it is still a great country: the people, food, scenery, and history are fantastic, and I certainly had nothing but positive experiences. And yet it was hard to avoid the feeling that something was amiss. Other Europeans (non-Italians) who I spoke with and who, in the past, had spent time in Italy themselves, confirmed this; they said things like, “The country just isn’t the same.” Of course, Italians have all the usual problems, like inflation, corrupt government, unemployment, rising housing costs, and so on. But clearly something more is going on there, and it’s not good.

When pressed for details, my friends all mentioned one key factor: immigration. Immigrants have changed the character of the nation—and not for the better. Certain parts of Milan, Verona, and other northern cities are best avoided at night. Petty crime and gang violence has increased. In my experience, Blacks and Muslims were visible, at least in small numbers, almost everywhere I went, and this would not have been the case even a couple decades ago. Again, it is hard to get reliable numbers, but Italy apparently has some 1.2 million Blacks (2%) and about 3.5 million Muslims (5%)—though these are surely underestimates. And as before, this implies a total non-White population of at least (2 x 7% =) 14% overall. And it is increasing by the day.

The media regularly reports on Italy and its “population crisis”—usually meaning, its population decline. But our liberal media also typically turn such reports into political commentary propaganda pieces. Two news articles are of interest, both from the UK. The first, from the far-left Guardian, dating to late 2023, is “The battle for births: How the far right are exploiting Italy’s ‘demographic winter’.”

Italy, we read, is undergoing a “slow-motion crisis,” a “demographic winter,” in the decline of its population. Currently at about 60 million, Italians were “shocked” to learn that they had lost 179,000 people in 2022, or about 0.3%. With a fertility rate of 1.24—well below replacement level of 2.1—the nation is projected to drop to 48 million by 2070, a decline of about 20% over the next 45 years or so. The ever-vigilant Elon Musk tweeted at the time that “Italy is disappearing.”

This situation is painted by Guardian journalist Tobias Jones in vague but ominous tones: average age will creep up (true), and the pension system will get overloaded, thus requiring “either huge tax hikes or drastic pension cuts” (probably true). Schools will have to close, as the number of children drops (right). And…the “far right” will exploit this tragic situation—more on that below.

Let’s pause a moment and put this, once again, in historical perspective. For most of the past 2,000 years, including during the Roman Empire, the Italian peninsula held less than 10 million people. It rose to about 13 million in 1300, at the start of the famed Italian Renaissance, which of course was one of the peak periods in human cultural history. The Black Death knocked that down by a few million, but they crept back up to similar levels by the 1600s. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution in 1700, Italy, like the rest of Europe, began a rapid increase; the nation rose to 20 million by 1800, 35 million by 1900, and 55 million in 2000. Italy experienced a “demographic summer,” but this didn’t help it much in either World Wars One or Two. They did, however, have a lot of people.

Now compare this with an evolutionary, ecological analysis. If Italy were to rationally tackle its share of the present global overpopulation crisis, it would, first, demarcate about half of its land area as present or future wilderness; second, it would work to live sustainably on the other half. Using current estimates of the region’s biocapacity,[5] this yields a target population of about (yikes) 15 million. It sounds catastrophically low; and yet, amazingly, this ‘ecological optimum’ population is just about the same as that in which Italy attained her peak of social and cultural prosperity in the 1300s. Or perhaps it’s not such a coincidence; perhaps nature and humanity are “happiest” and can flourish best only at certain optimum levels—levels much lower than we see today. This, at least, is the implication.

From this perspective, Italy’s looming decline from 60 million to 48 million is not only not a “crisis,” it is a blessing. If that nation could then lose another 30 million people over, say, the subsequent 50 years, it would be in a near ideal state—in balance with its environment and in a condition ripe for a new cultural renaissance.

The “Far Right” Threatens

But of course, neither the Right nor the Left see it that way. Present-day scaremongers worry about some planned mass extinctions of national populations or cartoonishly-evil depopulation schemes. But this is not only unfounded, it is prima facie ridiculous. No national leader in world history, to my knowledge, no matter how perverse or evil, ever wanted to deliberately wipe out his own population.[6] Every leader and every government understand that more people are better: more taxpayers, more soldiers, more producers, more consumers, more national wealth, more “weight” on the global stage.

But as the Guardian piece informs us, a much graver problem looms: “far right” leader Giorgia Meloni is making political hay from this “population crisis.” Admittedly, Meloni is happy to tell the nation that it is a crisis—thus ignoring both history and modern ecological analysis. But the writer Jones is more worried about Meloni’s advocacy of the “conspiracy theory” of “the great replacement.” Some years back, Meloni apparently repeated some “antisemitic trope” about Jewish financier George Soros and his advocacy of enforced immigration, by which native White Europeans would be replaced by non-White Africans and Middle Easterners—which indeed is happening, as I argued above.[7] (In good, corrupt political style, Meloni has apparently done nothing to actually stem the flow of immigrants.)

But never mind her; our leftist Guardian has a solution. First, since childrearing is expensive and living costs are rising all around, we need to get more young women into the workplace. “In countries where there is greater gender equality in labor, fertility rates are higher,” says one expert. Jones cites Germany and Sweden, both of which have more working women and higher fertility, though still well below the stability-figure of 2.1. The moral for young women: Don’t choose between job and family—get a job, have a couple kids, and ship them off to daycare. And not to worry, you can always see them on weekends.

The second aspect is more problematic. Jones quotes leftwing demographer Linda Sabbadini: “We need immigrants,” she says. “Only with more migrants of working age will the population grow immediately.” And their added productivity will keep the pension system flush with cash. Unwisely citing the case of Germany, Sabbadini says that “Merkel had the same problem…and welcomed a million Syrians.” Right—and Germany may never recover.

The overall message: More foreigners in Italy are “inevitable.” And more young women need to get out there and work, thus magically inducing them to have more children. It is a pathetic message indeed. Also telling is what is left out: no history, no ecological factors, no racial discussion at all. The “inevitable foreigners” can come from anywhere—impoverished Africa, impoverished Asia, war-torn Middle East—and everything will be just fine. This is the message.

A more recent article came from the BBC last summer: “Italy looks for answers to decline in number of babies.” As with the first piece, it begins with a small village that is “dying,” from which the journalist extrapolates to a “deepening demographic crisis” in Italy. The fertility rate is now down to 1.18, they say, and Meloni’s “right-wing government has been unable to stop the slide.” The article quotes a young Italian woman with an infant under age one; the mother “needs to return to work” and finding affordable childcare “is very tough.” The piece then looks at a small manufacturer, Irinox, which had to create an on-site infant daycare to retain young mothers. Italy needs to provide full-day, year-round, free infant care, we are told, before Italian women will leap into motherhood.

But wait, there is another “solution”: increased immigration. For our small business, Irinox, we read that fully 40% of its workers come “from abroad”—citing “Mongolia to Burkina Faso.” Irinox CEO Katia da Ros argues that “Italy will need more foreign workers to drive its economy.” “The future will be like that,” she blithely says.

The article finishes by looking at some rural schools that are closing for lack of children. Inadvertently, a bit of revealing truth slips out, as a local schoolmaster admits: “this area [Veneto] has been transformed because many people from abroad came here [in recent years]”—read: “many non-Whites moved in to serve as cheap labor, and the towns went to hell.” The schoolmaster continues: “Some people then decided to go to other schools where the migration index was less high.” Read: “White flight away from poor, dangerous, non-White neighborhoods caused many schools to close.” So, now we see why at least some of the Italian schools are closing: too many non-White immigrants, and the native Italians are voting with their feet. Somehow, I am not surprised.

Toward a Real Solution

Our liberal, leftist media have a clear message for Italy, and indeed for the West: Non-White foreigners are needed, they are good for your economy and society, and they are inevitable, so get used to it. And if you don’t like that idea, then the “demographic crisis” of population decline will destroy your country. This is absolute nonsense, on multiple grounds, as I have tried to show.

How about a real solution? (A) Recognize that actual population decline is good and necessary, because virtually every European (and Western) nation has outstripped its carrying capacity. Virtually every nation needs a lot fewer people and a lot more wilderness, if it is to prosper in the future.

(B) Non-White immigrants do much more harm than good, on several levels: they are generally less educated, less intelligent, poorer, sicker, and less law-abiding; they bring with them different values and different belief systems that are incompatible with traditional Western society—in other words, they are unassimilable and their presence will lead to societies divided by race and religion.[8] For their good and ours, they need to stay put.

(C) The US and Europe need to actively plan to slowly and careful reduce national populations while at the same time restoring their traditional demographics. Success on both counts would set the stage for a century-long boom in culture, economy, and social development.

Above I looked at Europe in some detail, but let me close with the U.S.. Currently at 330 million, America is, like virtually all Western nations, living far beyond that which is sustainable. We are rapidly destroying our national ecosystem, depleting natural resources, obliterating native wildlife, and thus setting the stage for ecological catastrophe. We need a plan to put around 1 billion acres into protected wilderness status (about half of the nation), and to live sustainably on the other half. This demands a national population reduction from 330 million to around 150 million—more than a 50% decrease.

If 150 million seems extreme, I would remind readers that this was precisely the US population in the year 1950. There are many Americans alive today who remember a population of 150 million. And I would guess, fondly so. Seriously—who would argue that the US was not in better shape in the year 1950 than in 2026?

As an indigenous White European nation, the United States could start by encouraging the emigration of our large non-White population, which would take us a very long way toward our goal. At present, we have about 62 million Latinos, 40 million Blacks, 20 million Asians, and at least 20 million mixed race or other ethnicities (including Jews). This comes to around 140 million people, ready to return home. If all opted to leave, that in itself brings us down to 190 million—and not far from our goal.

Imagine, if you will, a different America in the year 2100:  A nation with vast open spaces, diverse and thriving wildlife, clear-running waters everywhere, and vibrant and healthy soil. A nation of 150 million Whites with little ethnic or racial diversity and hence no racial strife. A unified nation—a United States—with common origins, common values, and common goals, working together for the collective welfare. It need not be simply a vision; it can be a reality.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former professor of philosophy from the University of Michigan, Dearborn. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including The Jesus Hoax (2nd ed., 2024), The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2015), and Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017).

[1] As of 1995, about 43% of Earth’s surface area had experienced human-induced degradation. Ellis and Ramankutty (2008) concluded that more than 75% of Earth’s ice-free land area could no longer be considered wild. Of Earth’s ice-free land area, 83% is likely directly influenced by human beings. Our pollutants affect plant and animal physiology worldwide [i.e. on 100% of the land]. (“Land transformation by humans”)

[2] This is the “Half Earth” initiative; it has been active since at least the early 1990s.

[3] Similar estimates, of a sustainable global population of some 2 billion people, are defended by Gretchen Daily et al. (1994). “Optimum Human Population Size.” Population and Environment 15(6):469–475; and David Pimentel et al. (2010). “Will Limited Land, Water, and Energy Control Human Population Numbers in the Future?” Human Ecology 38:599–611.

[4] Gaia-advocate James Lovelock argued that humanity would be lucky to have 1 billion people in the year 2100. Australian biologist Frank Fenner wrote that it was already too late, and that we would be extinct by 2100.

[5] Probably the best biocapacity estimates, for every nation, come from The Global Footprint Network.

[6] Such depopulation claims attributed to either Klaus Schwab or the WEF are unfounded; see here.

[7] I note here that Jews are included among the non-White.

[8] This is not intended as a defense of Christianity or “Christian values.” But it is an acknowledgement that such things have been a traditional aspect of Western civilization for some two millennia.