General

Britain saved New France from the Cajuns’ fate and Canada built Quebec

/5 Comments/in /by

Benjamin West The Death of General Wolfe

General James Wolfe, saviour of Quebec. (Benjamin West)

“It’s a question of survival for our nation,” said Quebec premier François Legault as he defended the additionally restrictive language legislation of Bill 96. “It may become a question of time before we become a Louisiana.”

Anglos can’t see this and Francos won’t, but the reference should actually acknowledge Quebec’s debt. Had the British not conquered New France, old France would have dumped the little colony onto the Americans along with the rest of its North American baggage. That would have turned embryonic Quebec into something comparable to a Cajun backwater, minus the music and cuisine.

But don’t expect acknowledgement from prominent Quebecois, let alone recognition from Anglo Canada’s historically ignorant, Quebec-deferential establishment.

Indeed General James Wolfe’s 1759 victory began a process that preserved a French-language culture, multiplied its territory exponentially and launched a revolutionary transfer of power that made Quebec a privileged state-within-a-state that treats Canada as a tribute-paying vassal.

The legacy of Wolfe might have been inadvertent, but not that of the first three post-conquest governors. James Murray, Guy Carleton (who served in Wolfe’s army at Quebec and later undertook a second governorship as Lord Dorchester) and Frederick Haldimand “fought to protect the interests and defend the customs of the French Canadians,” wrote Donald Creighton in his classic work Dominion of the North.

This crusade was a great credit to their tender hearts. It was also strong evidence of their class and professional prejudices…. With its fine military history, its tradition of absolute government, its accepted landed gentry, and its docile and respectful peasants, Quebec seemed like a delightful bit of Europe transplanted to the forests of the new continent — a refreshing oasis of the old régime in the howling wilderness of democratic America.

 

A 19th century Cornelius Krieghoff depiction

Abandoned by their mother country, the much romanticized
habitants transformed from peasant farmers to a parasitic ethnic elite.
(Cornelius Krieghoff)

Concessions made since 1763 preserved enough of New World French culture to guarantee its survival. Tolerance of Catholicism and the use of civil courts based on the Custom of Paris maintained those traditions which, along with education, gave French semi-official language status. These practices won confirmation in the 1774 Quebec Act. By Confederation, the 1867 British North America Act made French and English the languages of federal parliament as well as Quebec’s legislature, its government institutions and records, and its courts. French flourished in church, and in church-related institutions and traditions. French-language education eventually expanded at all levels, into virtually every occupational skill, profession and academic discipline. Meanwhile Louisiana French, banished from any official use, especially education, generally sunk to the level of debased rural dialects.

The continent’s French-culture catastrophe wasn’t Britain’s Quebec conquest but America’s Mississippi buy-out. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase gave the U.S. vastly more than the New Orleans port facilities requested by the new republic. Distracted by war and desperate for money, Napoleon’s regime unloaded all its North American possessions, holding onto only a few tiny islands like Saint-Pierre and Michelon, and the recently reinstated slave state of Haiti. Exempted by Wolfe’s conquest was that thin strip of land along the St. Lawrence disparaged by Voltaire as “a few acres of snow.”

Yet that semi-manorial turf, farmed by peasants perpetually scared of native attack, expanded far, far beyond its narrow shoreline.

In 1774, just over a decade after the conquest, Britain redefined Quebec to extend from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Mississippi Valley, including Montreal and what’s now southern Ontario. In 1791, following the loss of its American colonies, Britain divided what was left of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada then, in 1841, united the two into the province of Canada. As pointed out by William F. Shaw and Lionel Albert in Partition: The Price of Quebec’s Independence, Quebec didn’t “enter” Confederation because no province of Quebec existed prior to 1867.

Whether it was part of a province called Quebec, Lower Canada or Canada, the land was by no means necessarily French-speaking. British, Irish and Americans first settled large parts of the St. Lawrence north and south shores, the western Montreal archipelago and Gaspé. Those regions were still mainly English-speaking by 1867, Partition notes.

 

Canadian generosity made Quebec the world’s 18th-largest nation

Thanks to massive land transfers from Canada,
Quebec ranks 18th globally for national territory.
(Image: Shutterstock)

The gargantuan territorial expansion—most of present-day Quebec—came from Rupert’s Land, granted by Britain to Canada in 1869. Canada bestowed Quebec with two huge parcels of the territory in 1898 and 1912, the second largely at the urging of Quebec’s then-mostly English-speaking senior civil service and “asked for by no one outside of a mainly Anglophone circle,” Partition states. Even then Quebec’s government, outside of the English-speaking resources ministries, took little interest in the new turf until 1960, during the rise of Quebec nationalism.

And Quebec nationalism went far beyond protecting a distinct society. In practice it subjugated non-Quebecois Canada politically and economically, also wrecking what was left of Anglo-Canadian culture. The revolutionary power grab began with official Bilingualism and Biculturalism, legislated in the Official Languages Act of 1968 to 1969, ostensibly extending federal use of English and French from Parliament and the courts to Canada’s entire federal bureaucracy and institutions. Further language laws passed in 1978, 1988 and onwards, while generous concessions came from legislatures in Anglo and mostly Anglo provinces. Quebec took the opposite approach, making French its sole official language in 1974 then crafting increasingly restrictive language laws. Legault’s Bill 96 is just the most recent.

 

Anglos built Montreal, Canada sustains it

Not exactly a Cajun backwater, Montreal owes
its prosperity to Anglo Canada. (Photo: iStock)

From the outset of official bilingualism, Quebecois (regardless of national loyalty) gained preference for all federal jobs, from senior ministries to the post office to the military, and with many private sector employers who had to deal with the feds. Senior and mid-level Anglos got replaced or otherwise displaced, while new positions in an enormously expanded federal leviathan prioritized Quebecois.

The social revolution applied to all parts of the country, no matter how small, remote or homogeneously Anglo. Every city, town, village and community gained a cadre of often arrogant Quebecois. Some of them worked for newly planted French-language TV and radio stations, part of a massive expansion of the government’s own media empire, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Beyond Quebec, the French-language CBC audience is generally limited to transplanted Quebecois. Their purpose is to provide French-language government services to other transplanted Quebecois whose purpose is to provide French-language government services.

For all that emphasis on bilingualism, French-language instruction for Anglos faltered. The contrast with bi- and multilingual European countries couldn’t be stronger. Such an abject failure gives the impression of a deliberate plan to prop up the Quebecois elite. Nevertheless when faced with fluently French-speaking Anglos, Quebecois will sometimes say, “It’s not enough to speak French.”

In the guise of bilingualism, Quebecois preference became legally mandatory and enforceable, policed by an official languages commissioner with an almost all-Quebecois staff and wielding the extraordinary powers of an advocate, cop, prosecutor, judge and jury.

Quebec nationalists flying flags fervently

Legislation, institutions, culture and social conditioning encourage
Quebec nationalism while vilifying any Canadian counterpart.
(Photo: Robert Skinner/La Presse)

Anglo MPs on all parties caved right in, disenfranchising their constituents. The process solidified the Anglo trend toward weak-willed political sell-outs dedicated only to personal advantage. That set up Anglo Canada for its economic pillaging by Quebec, the demographic revolution of mass immigration and the ideological revolution of political correctness. As a largely autonomous state, Quebec has shielded itself from much of the damage inflicted on Anglo Canada by Quebecois prime ministers and their collaborators. Anglo Canada, in contrast, presents an extreme example of Western decline.

As for the pillage, provincial transfer payments use an absurd formula that penalizes mostly Alberta to benefit an often much more prosperous Quebec. Quebec industry benefits from, often depends on, federal favouritism and outright corruption in tenders, procurement, contracts, grants, subsidies and tax breaks. But Quebec’s main economic advantage may well be the existence of all those artificially created French-speaking jobs. Or to put it another way, Quebec’s main industry is parasitic rent-seeking.

This was probably best explained in Peter Brimelow’s 1986 book The Patriot Game: Canada and the Canadian Question Revisited. Pro-Quebec discrimination got further scrutiny in Ron Leitch’s 1988 booklet Official Bilingualism: The Sell-out of English Canada. As an Anglo-Canadian, Leitch, like Partition authors Shaw and Albert, was unusual for recognizing the problem and taking a stand. Brimelow was a Brit on his way to becoming a naturalized American and founder of VDARE.com. Anglo Canada produces few contrary voices, thanks to a culture of conformity combined with either complacency or apathy. That’s both a contributing factor and result of Quebec’s hegemony.

Regardless of Wolfe’s actual intentions, his victory saved French-speaking North America. Subsequent events sure screwed Anglo Canada, though.

Reposted from VancouverZeitgeist.ca with permission.

Latest Symptoms of a Disintegrating Nation

/20 Comments/in /by

Latest Symptoms of a Disintegrating Nation

To love one’s country, Edmund Burke said, one’s country ought to be lovely. It would appear that 1 in 3 Americans, more than 100 million of us, no longer see our country as truly lovely.

In Stephen Vincent Benet’s “The Devil and Daniel Webster,” the tale is told that if you approached Webster’s grave and called out his name, a voice would boom in reply, “Neighbor, how stands the Union?”

“Then you better answer the Union stands as she stood, rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible, or he’s liable to rear right out of the ground.”

Today, it would be untruthful to answer to the soul of Webster that our Union is “rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible.”

For the divisions among us replicate those Webster witnessed in his last years before the War Between the States.

A Gallup survey reports the lowest figure ever recorded, 38%, for that share of our population that proclaims itself to be “extremely proud” to be Americans. Another 27% say they are “very proud.”

But the share of our people who say they are only “moderately proud” or a “little proud” or “not at all proud” to be Americans adds up to a third of the nation.

In the past, those “extremely” or “very proud” to be Americans used to average 80% of the country. Now it is down to 65%.

To love one’s country, Edmund Burke said, one’s country ought to be lovely. It would appear that 1 in 3 Americans, more than 100 million of us, no longer see our country as truly lovely.

While patriotism and pride in U.S. citizenship and in being part of this national community are eroding, other problems are being revealed by public surveys.

In a new AP-NORC poll, 85% of all Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, with 92% of Republicans believing this to be true and 78% of Democrats agreeing.

On July 5, a Monmouth poll reported that President Joe Biden’s approval rating had sunk to 36%, with 59% disapproving of his presidency.

As for our Democratic-led Congress, 15% of all Americans approved of its performance, with 85% disapproving.

Another Gallup survey from July 5 reported that this last year has seen a fall in public confidence in every one of 16 major U.S. institutions.

The institutions in which Americans now place the least confidence are the presidency, newspapers, the criminal justice system, big business, television news and, at rock bottom, Congress. Only 7% of Americans have great confidence or quite a bit of confidence in Capitol Hill.

The institutions that enjoy the greatest measures of confidence — though here, too, the levels are receding like Lake Mead — are small business, the military, the police, the medical system and religious institutions.

That small business is the most trusted of American institutions suggests that Biden’s attack on the alleged greed of gas station owners may not be politically wise.

American institutions that tend to be conservative — small business, the military, cops — are where the American people repose the greatest confidence. Journalistic institutions — newspapers and TV news — both largely liberal, appear to be ones in which the nation reposes the lowest levels of confidence and the greatest deposits of distrust.

Why are Americans so down on their country and disapproving of its direction, and of their president who is leading them?

Surely, the pandemic, which has taken a million lives in 30 months and infects 10 times as many of us today as it did a year ago, with the death toll roughly the same now as then, is a primary cause.

The crisis at the Mexican border where a quarter of a million illegal migrants enter our country, uninvited, every month, with cartel mules ferrying the fentanyl and other narcotics that kill tens of thousands of young Americans every year is surely another.

Then there is the worst inflation in 40 years and the record rise in the price of food and fuel for America’s families.

Also, since the first of the year, there have been an average of 10 “mass shootings” a week, where a criminal gunman wounds or kills four or more victims. Major atrocities like Buffalo, New York; Uvalde, Texas; and Highland Park, Illinois, dominate the news for days.

And each weekend seems to bring a new casualty report of the dead and wounded from Chicago’s streets that reminds us of the early days of Vietnam.

Then there is the poisonous character of American politics.

In the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton famously described half of the supporters of Donald Trump as a “basket of deplorables.”

They are, said Hillary, “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … irredeemable … bigots” all.

Following the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and sending the issue of abortion back to the states for decision, the term “fascist” has been applied by the left to its right-to-life opponents.

Which makes one wonder.

If Republicans capture two or three dozen House seats in this fall’s midterm elections, would that constitute a triumph of American fascism?

And how does the left argue that we should come together and stand on “common ground” with folks such as those Clinton describes?

What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment

/13 Comments/in /by
What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment

Must we really respond to the “musket” argument again?

Apparently so. It’s all the rage among Democrats right now.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (Democrat) and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (Democrat) both think it’s quite brilliant to claim that, if we care what the framers of the Constitution meant, then the Second Amendment applies only to “muskets”!

In The New York Times, a couple of professors (Democrats, but you knew that) asked: “Is a modern AR-15-style rifle relevantly similar to a Colonial musket? In what ways?” They liked their argument so much, the op-ed was titled, “A Supreme Court Head-Scratcher: Is a Colonial Musket ‘Analogous’ to an AR-15?”

[Frantically waving my hand]: Yes, professors, it’s exactly analogous.

The Second Amendment does not refer to “muskets”; it refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” “Bear” means to carry, so any handheld firearm carried by the military can be carried by the people. Just as the musket was once carried by our military, the AR-15 is a handheld arm (technically, the less powerful version of the automatic M-16) carried by our military today. As soon as the U.S. military goes back to muskets, then muskets it is!

But I’m not here to refute idiotic arguments. These guys may as well claim that the First Amendment protects only speech delivered in pamphlets and sermons, but nothing communicated on television, the internet, or with poster boards and Magic Markers.

The Second Amendment is nearly the only prescriptive policy in a document that liberals have been trying to pump their nutty ideas into for 50 years. Unfortunately for them, there’s nothing in the Constitution about a right to dance naked in strip clubs, contraception, marriage or sticking a fork in a baby’s head.

But on the right to bear arms, our Delphic framers were nearly Tolstoyian with their explosion of words: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (An earlier draft of the amendment specifically defined “militia” as “composed of the body of the people,” but was rejected as redundant.)

In the boldest affirmation of their worldview, the framers announced our natural, God-given right to self-defense — against the government, against criminals, and against assailants the government can’t or won’t stop. Free people prepared to defend themselves are the nucleus of the republic. It’s the most beautiful thing in the whole Constitution. Here, at last, the Founding Fathers told us something specific they want us to do: Teach the boys to shoot. 

The “right to bear muskets” crowd — protected by taxpayer-supported armed guards, or cordoned off from the public by phalanxes of security officers in the lobby of, for example, NBC’s television studios in Rockefeller Center, before they return to their homes in crime-free, lily-White neighborhoods — tell us to focus on the freakishly rare mass shooting.

The highest estimates of mass shootings — including by gang warfare, drive-bys, drug wars and domestic murder-suicides — put the number of deaths at under 400 per year, or approximately the same number of Americans who drown in swimming pools every year. Four hundred, out of more than 20,000 murders annually.

Which is why, despite the media’s best effort to terrify suburban moms about weirdos shooting at crowds, nearly half of Americans prefer self-reliance to the government taking away our guns and promising to protect us.

In 2020, the Year of Our Floyd, gun sales went through the roof. The previous high for gun sales was in 2016, with about 16 million guns sold. But in 2020, as BLM tore through our cities, Americans bought 22.8 million guns. The following year saw the second-highest record for gun sales, at 19.9 million purchases.

By now, 44% of Americans report living in a gun-owning household. Thirty-two percent say they personally own a gun.

As much as I’d like to institutionalize the crazies — for their sake, as well as ours — the risks from bad faith actors at present are too high. With anti-gun zealots on the rampage and the U.S. attorney general siccing the FBI on parents who complain at local school board meetings, the most likely result would be marijuana-crazed schizophrenics continuing about their days unmolested, while gun owners get locked up.

In any event, it appears that the lunatics aren’t heavily armed, anyway. Here’s a demographic breakdown of gun ownership in 2022, according to Gallup:

Republicans 50%

Democrats 18%

**             **             **

Conservatives 45% (Oddly, Gallup calls them “self-identified conservatives,” as if Gallup would never use this cruel epithet without consent of the accused.)

Liberals 15%

**             **             **

Men 45%

Women 19%

**             **             **

Southerners 40%

Eastern residents 21%

Gallup left out one category. The subgroup most likely to own a whole buttload of guns, but not admit it: gang members and other recidivist felons protected by George Gascon and other Soros D.A.s.

Being a rational people, Americans are more worried about those guys than the random rifle-bearing psycho in a woman’s dress.

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

APRESENTAÇÃO

/in , /by

Os leitores da seção de língua portuguesa já conhecem as traduções de Chauke Stephan Filho. Este nosso colaborador traduziu vários artigos de alguns dos nossos articulistas de The Occidental Observer.

 

Temos o prazer da anunciar que, a partir de agora, Chauke contribuirá conosco também como articulista.

Chauke é dissidente político do regime vigente no Brasil, dominado pelas corporações judiciárias. Escrevendo de forma politicamente incorreta, não demorou para que fosse denunciado (anonimamente), investigado e indiciado por “ameaçar as instituições democráticas”.

Um tipo estranho de democracia existe no Brasil. Lá, a toga dos juízes serve de mordaça para silenciar os cidadãos de consciência  “criminosa”. E o “crime” consiste na recusa do pensamento único, em desacato à tutela judiciária imposta ao país.

Os editores de The Occidental Observer oferecemos à lusofonia os textos de Chauke Stephan Filho censurados no Brasil. Os artigos podem custar ao seu autor 25 anos de cadeia, conforme demanda no processo contra ele o Ministério Público Federal do Brasil, uma das tais “instituições democráticas”.

 Nós garantiremos a Chauke Stephan Filho a liberdade de expressão que lhe é negada na pátria dele mesmo. 

Atenção, agora: óculos de proteção e máscaras respiratórias devem ser usadas no ato da leitura, porque o texto exala o ácido de seu sarcasmo, tão forte que pode agredir os olhos e pulmões dos leitores. 

Chauke considera “modesto” o seu artigo, mas essa é mais uma ironia dele. 

Os defensores judeus da democracia contra a racista Lúcia Helena Issa

Chauke Stephan Filho *

 

O Estado Democrático de Direito tem grandes amigos e grandes inimigos. Os grandes amigos são os judeus e os grandes inimigos são os mesmos que têm os judeus por inimigos. Ambos os partidos batem-se em luta encarniçada. O combate corresponde àquele das falanges do Arcanjo de Deus contra as hostes do Grande Satã. Cada cidadão tem no ativista da militância sionista o anjo da guarda de seus direitos. Desses custódios espera-se a proteção contra a ação dos violadores da solidariedade social, expectativa que nunca se frustra, porque os judeus sabem que o preço da liberdade é a eterna vigilância e, esse preço, eles pagam. Não obstante a justa repressão exercida sobre os dissidentes da democracia, tais energúmenos recusam a socialização de suas consciências no sentido de fazê-las mais inclusivas, mais compatíveis com as regras do bem viver na comunhão das alteridades. Eles recusam a igualdade, rejeitam a convivência com aqueles a quem se julgam superiores, querem um Estado só deles, como se estivessem sozinhos nesta pátria comum de toda a Humanidade, que é a Terra. São egoístas, não cedem o seu território, não abrem mão de sua identidade, de sua cultura, de sua unidade excludente baseada em todo tipo de preconceito, ignorando que muito mais valor teriam a ganhar com a riqueza da diversidade. Então, em vez de se acalentarem junto a outros membros da grande família humana no morno seio da sociedade aberta, eles tentam cravar nele o seu punhal. Essa pesada carga de erros morais mazela a alma de Lúcia Helena Issa.

 

Mas, felizmente, nossos paladinos são fortes… e ricos. Suas fortalezas situam-se em muitas partes do mundo. As principais ficam na city londrina, em Wall Street, Francforte, Amesterdão e Bruxelas. Entretanto, em nenhum outro lugar do mundo mais se faz necessária sua presença civilizadora do que entre os bárbaros do Levante. Sim, porque justamente ali está um dos maiores focos da violência irradiada para o mundo. Único Estado democrático do Oriente Médio, Israel sofre o cerco dos inimigos da democracia, entre os quais os mais sanhudos e perigosos são os terroristas palestinos, religiosamente extremistas. A causa desses radicais tem seguidores no mundo todo. São terroristas que nem sempre não usam o fuzil, mas falam e escrevem para agredir judeus e outras minorias. Contra os seus ataques racistas, a democracia é para o judeu um escudo. Por isso cada Estado democrático encontra no judeu um aliado, um voluntário sempre disposto a combater o terrorismo verbal, como em Israel ele combate o terrorismo propriamente dito. No Brasil, eminentes personalidades judias cumprem o dever cidadão de censurar expressões odientas de góis insubmissos à ordem democrática, principalmente quando inspirados nos inimigos antissemitas de Israel. Assim é estimulada e complementada a ação repressiva estatal pela ação social judaica contra os inimigos da raça eleita e contra os inimigos do sionismo, ou seja, contra os inimigos do pacífico e progressista Estado Judeu, cujo armipotente Exército só mata em legítima defesa. De vez em quando, inevitavelmente, ocorrem danos colaterais na população civil antissemita, ferimentos, mutilações e mortes de palestinos não diretamente envolvidos na continuação do Holocausto. Quando isso acontece, os judeus choram… deploram as perdas palestinas ainda mais do que os próprios palestinos. A raiz de tão benigno comportamento é profunda, permeando a própria sexualidade judaica — o sexo, explicava Freud, é o motor de tudo. Nas linhas das Forças de Defesa de Israel, estão militares de todos os gêneros, de todos os tipos e subtipos havidos e por haver das orientações sexuais, cobrindo e ampliando cada vez mais todo o já largo espectro do legebetário (LGBTQI…). Livre e maravilhosa expressão da diversidade libidinal jamais poderia ser aceita num país islâmico, nem sequer em muitos países do próprio Ocidente. Israel está na vanguarda armada, cultural e política do Ocidente. O Estado sionista é uma das grandes sentinelas do Estado Democrático de Direito. O judeu encarna o espírito da liberdade. E luta contra os seus inimigos; contra, por exemplo, a sua inimiga Lúcia Helena Issa, que a seguir será apresentada com desprazer.

 

Com efeito, não bastou que fosse imposta a censura moderadora do Partido da Justiça com sede no Poder Judiciário. Também a ação corretiva das grandes empresas que tão sabiamente controlam as maiores redes sociais não foi suficiente para evitar excessos discursivos. Os grupos midiáticos nacionais tampouco mostram-se sempre capazes de garantir os limites da liberdade de expressão, que os odiadores insensatos de todos os extremos insistem em violar, não obstante a ação coibitiva de jornalistas como aqueles da Folha de São Paulo. Felizmente, contamos com numeroso conjunto de equilibrados censores judeus engajados na luta pelo uso sem abuso da liberdade de expressão. Atuando com autoridade política e moral por meio de muitas organizações influentes e articuladas, eles denunciam toda manifestação preconceituosa, todo conteúdo tóxico das consciências. Com isso nossos irmãos judeus prestam valioso serviço, que se compara à ação dos pais em relação aos filhos. Enquanto no seio de cada família os pais censuram suas crianças, no seio da sociedade os judeus censuram os adultos, cujos erros são muito mais graves e perigosos que os de crianças, como fácil é imaginar. Os censores de Sião reduzem quantitativamente a participação no debate público. Por outro lado, o embate dialógico ganha em qualidade, com mais civilidade, racionalidade, respeito à alteridade, ao direito, à ciência. Eis como o conflito entre as ideias não se transforma na guerra entre os homens.

 

Alguém já ouviu falar de alguma campanha de italianos, árabes ou japoneses contra o exercício irresponsável do direito à livre manifestação de pensamento ou opinião no Brasil? Só os judeus se prestam a isso! Só eles policiam os discursos à caça de manifestantes antidemocráticos. Só eles colaboram na tarefa de vigiar as consciências, de tutelar o pensamento político. Eis por que terão para sempre a gratidão de tantos. O conceito de discurso de ódio é criação deles e se destina a servir de defesa contra o desvirtuamento da liberdade de expressão, que não se pode transformar em liberdade de agressão. O discurso de ódio é todo discurso que os judeus odeiam. E ninguém como eles têm o direito ao ódio, pois do ódio foram as maiores vítimas. Os judeus odeiam o ódio. Eles estão entre os maiores amantes da paz, da diversidade, da inclusão, do ecumenismo, da imigração, de um mundo sem fronteiras, sem racismo, sem preconceitos, nazistas, fascistas, homofóbicos, odiadores em geral. Os filhos de Sião não só atacam os discursos de ódio, eles praticam o amor. Onde quer que se estabelecem, amam e são amados, principalmente na Palestina, onde transformaram desertos em jardins, prova de que, além de amar os homens de outras raças, amam também nossa Mãe Gaia. Povo abençoado! Povo eleito do Todo-poderoso. Povo tão justo, tão benévolo, quem poderia criticar? Criticar judeus só pode ser atitude de nazistas daquele pior tipo cinematográfico. O antissionismo não é questão social ou política, é caso de polícia. Felizmente, estando bem colocados nos aparelhos judiciário, acadêmico e midiático, os sionitas, sionistas ou não, formam e informam aqueles que no Ministério Público, na Polícia Federal e na própria sociedade civil irão combater quaisquer manifestações de antissemitismo.

 

A negação do Holocausto deve estar tipificada no código penal com grave crime. A memória de seis milhões de judeus que viraram cinza e sabão não pode ser espezinhada, não se pode fazer da dor do povo judeu o objeto de escárnio dos seus inimigos. Estes, à paz do sionismo, respondem com o ódio antijudeu. Quem nega o Holocausto quer vê-lo perpetrado uma segunda vez. A negação do Holocausto atende, no plano ideológico, ao mesmo fim que tinha Sadam com as suas armas de destruição de massa, felizmente denunciadas ao mundo por Jorge Bush. Ora, crimes ideológicos podem terminar em genocídio. Então, o que Bush fez pelo Iraque, Israel deve fazer pelo mundo. O Iraque recebeu de Bush e, por meio deste, dos próprios judeus, a democracia e a liberdade que hoje fazem do Iraque um país pacífico e próspero. Da mesma forma, para ali onde, em qualquer lugar do mundo, esteja armada a bomba da negação do Holocausto, Israel deve levar a sua paz. Sejam os filhos de Israel, nacionais ou estrangeiros em qualquer país, agentes da paz judaica, a ser imposta pelos aparatos repressivos e ideológicos dos Estados, usados como ferramenta. Silenciar as vozes do ódio é essencial para a democracia.

 

O poder censório não pode ser monopólio do Estado, não deve estar concentrado nos aparelhos do Estado. Grupos mais influentes da sociedade civil devem dispor de poder para censurar. A atuação censora de organizações judaicas representa avanço nesse sentido. Não é a letra da lei que lhes confere essa prerrogativa, é o seu espírito. Por que as maiores vítimas do racismo não poderiam combater racistas? E por que não o fariam por quaisquer meios necessários? Por que não poderiam as vítimas de um Holocausto que nunca termina censurar racistas? Eles podem e devem exercer a censura, porque deles é a boa causa, os bons ideais, o bom comportamento que se espera de cidadãos exemplares do Estado Democrático de Direito. Devem censurar, sim, e o fizeram recentemente, quando uma tal de Lúcia Helena Issa, racista antissemita e relacionista do terrorismo palestino, mentirosa e desequilibrada, proferiu blasfêmias contra o Sagrado Povo Judeu. Em seu assaque, dizia que judeus traficavam mulheres polonesas para prostituí-las em São Paulo e alhures, há 120 anos, e que o fariam ainda hoje. Essa mesma caluniadora, que se apresenta como jornalista, embora mal saiba escrever, vomitou ainda que o Estado Judeu fura os olhos de jornalistas palestinos e queima criancinhas palestinas vivas. Evidentemente um discurso desses não pode ter audiência pública entre cidadãos ordeiros e pacíficos do Estado Democrático de Direito. Que membro da OAB aceitaria uma coisa dessas? Que ministro do STF, em sã consciência, toleraria tal disparate? Que cidadão de bem? A manifestação explícita de racismo teve lugar no canal do Brasil 247, durante “entrevista” transmitida pela TV 247 no dia 20JAN2022. O que se passou, então? Judeus determinaram a imediata remoção do vídeo ao diretor do Brasil 247, Sr. Leonardo Attuch, que obedeceu e bloqueou o acesso do público ao arquivo escandaloso. O grupo Judeus pela Democracia, o primeiro a exigir a censura, reclamou, e com toda a razão, que a ordem de cancelamento passada a Leonardo Attuch foi cumprida “com certo atraso”. Não pode! Isso não pode acontecer. Nenhuma hesitação deve existir da parte daqueles que combatem o racismo, principalmente o racismo antissemita, mesmo porque são os judeus são os ideólogos e generais da guerra contra a discriminação racial.

 

A mídia impressa e televisiva goza de muita credibilidade, que não se pode perder com a participação de gente como a mal-amada Lúcia Helena Issa. A inocente útil do terror palestino também vomitou que tem orgulho de seu sangue árabe, o que por si só é manifestação do racismo branco. Felizmente essa mulher já terá sido denunciada pelo Ministério Público, e os advogados dos direitos humanos, sempre muito atentos na guarda da boa consciência necessária à palavra pública, haverão de extrair polpudos honorários dela, como de toda a gente que não pensa antes de falar. Os vocalistas do ódio devem tomar muito cuidado: quando a cabeça não pensa, o corpo sofre. E quem ligaria importância ao sofrimento de quem faz sofrer? Vidas racistas não importam! Figuras escrotas como Lúcia Helena Issa não podem falar. O discurso dela, o seu mau exemplo, não há de ter imitadores. A mídia deve educar, informar e formar para a inclusão, o multiculturalismo, a diversidade. Estas causas justificam a censura. A mídia é espaço para William Bonner, para o Min. Luís Roberto Barroso, para Anita e imitadores de foca, que divertem, que falam de coisas amenas, que pregam a solidariedade social, a igualdade, o respeito às máscaras, às vacinas, ao sionismo. Lúcia Helena Issa deve ser calada por uma questão de respeito à alteridade. O mundo é de todos, mas Israel é dos judeus. E, em qualquer lugar do mundo, o judeu exige e merece respeito. A censura é uma das formas de cobrar respeito. Outra forma é a das armas, empregada quando a primeira falha. De ambas os judeus sabem se servir muito bem. A racista Lúcia Helena Issa deve escolher de que forma prefere ser cobrada. Liberdade e paciência têm limites.

 

Os judeus figuram com brilhantismo inigualável entre os fundadores da Civilização Ocidental. Apesar disso, ou por isso mesmo, têm muitos inimigos. O ressentimento, a inveja, a consciência da própria inferioridade alimentam o ódio aos judeus. Estes, embora de origem superior, não fazem da superioridade o seu destino político, cultural, social. Antes, buscam a igualdade na diversidade, sobretudo no mundo ocidental. Neste se produziu o racismo por erros históricos que exigem reparação. Os judeus estão entre os que mais cobram essa dívida, principalmente da Alemanha, a qual se transforma num outro país, livrando-se do feio estigma de seu passado, quando nela havia muitos alemães, quando era muito branca, homogênea e racista. A nobreza do judeu, filho dileto de Jeová, machuca a antissemita Lúcia Helena Issa na sua vileza. Ela e as más companhias com que anda são de aspecto desagradável e comportamento agressivo. Os antissemitas têm a cabeça cheia de preconceitos, ideias antigas, antidemocráticas. Mentalidades desse tipo exigem reforma, devem ser modeladas no sentido de sua adequação à nova normalidade, ao recomeço numa nova ordem mundial muito mais livre, sem territórios, sem raça, sem sexo, sem nações, sem Estados, sem divisionismo, sem formas particulares de solidariedade social, sem exclusivismos, separatismos, sem Deus, mas cheio de imigrantes de diferentes culturas. Cada um será apenas cada um. E acima de cada um, apenas o céu de John Lennon, além da elite ilustrada, naturalmente rica, naturalmente poderosa, que sabe o que é melhor para todos e que pode ser judia e sionista — por que não? No mundo da novíssima aliança de Gaia, a nossa Mãe-Terra, divindade que o próprio Papa abraça, a gente maldosa, gente que ameaça a democracia, que se opõe aos direitos humanos, que não aceita mudar o gênero de crianças e vai a igrejas para tomar parte na celebração racista das missas, não terá vez.

 

O antissemitismo e a sua máscara chamada de antissionismo, o racismo em geral e outras formas de discriminação são crimes de consciência a cujos perpetradores deve ser dada justiça e escarmento. Como não poderia deixar de ser, a paz e a nova ordem social contam com aguerridos defensores no nosso Excelso Pretório. Ministros como Alexandre de Moraes e os circuncisos Luiz Fux e Luís Roberto Barroso tratam de silenciar as vozes dissonantes do consenso democrático. Outras instituições somam-se ao esforço para perpetuar as pirâmides judiciárias do Estado Democrático de Direito. Além dos editores sociais, somam-se ao Poder Moderador como duas de suas mais importantes agências a Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil e o Ministério Público. Destarte, a sociedade encaminha-se à situação ideal na qual cada um será vigia e denunciante da fala do outro, mesmo quando o outro for parte, mas não parcela, da própria família. A comunidade judaica pode ficar tranquila, porque grandes aliados e amigos abraçam-na para protegê-la de toda Lúcia Helena Issa que ousar elevar a voz contra tão proeminente grei.

 

Os circuncisos são reis coroados pela própria inteligência e pela vitória na guerra justa. Esses reis bem podem fazer, a qualquer de seus súditos ou inimigos, a pergunta que em outro contexto fizera outro rei: por que não se cala? Resta saber se Lúcia Helena Issa vai calar a boca ou vai continuar a cometer o crime de falar o que pensa.

_____________________

 

* Chauke Stephan Filho é natural da Capital de Mato Grosso (Cuiabá), Estado do Centro-Oeste do Brasil, onde nasceu em 1960. Graduou-se em Sociologia e Política pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC/RJ); em Português e Literatura pela Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT); e pós-graduou-se em Educação pela Universidade de Cuiabá (Unic). Antes professor universitário de Sociologia Geral e dirigente sindical, dedica-se ao estudo teórico dos conflitos étnicos como servidor concursado da Prefeitura de Cuiabá, onde também serve como revisor.

 

ABORT THE MISSION! ABORT!

/6 Comments/in /by
ABORT THE MISSION! ABORT!

I gather from the recent hysteria that the Supreme Court has just ordered all 72 million American women of childbearing age to get pregnant and carry the baby to term.

This is big news, if true. I’m not at all surprised that every female journalist, activist and politician is threatening to burn down the Supreme Court over its decision last Friday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

On the other hand, even accepting the abortion cult’s belief that members of the weaker sex are incapable of either keeping their knees together or mastering birth control, I still only count about 100,000 women who won’t have easy access to abortion without Roe v. Wade.

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, 930,160 abortions are performed in the U.S. every year. The lion’s share of those abortions occur in states that Biden won. Sixty-eight percent of all abortions are performed in blue states and 32% in red states, according to the CDC.

Far from restricting abortion, the blue states have begun wildly expanding abortion rights in response to Dobbs — to the extent that that’s humanly possible. (Yes, it’s a beating heart, a helpless human being made in God’s image, but I’m not all that grieved about abortions in blue states.)

That means, straight out of the chute, we’re down to only 297,651 abortions per year that are even at risk of being banned after Dobbs.

Flash to thousands of screeching harridans, whose only risk of pregnancy would be if a zoologist inseminated them in a lab, holding signs that say, “GET OUT OF MY UTERUS!”

Also according to Guttmacher, 54% of all abortions already are “medication abortions,” i.e. accomplished with pills given within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Good luck trying to ban that: The combined power of federal law enforcement — the FBI, the DEA, Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. military — plus state law enforcement can’t even keep fentanyl out of the country.

So now, we’re down to — at most — 136,919 abortions a year that could theoretically be banned post-Dobbs.

In fact, it will be significantly fewer than that, because a lot of the red state “bans” will still permit abortion in the first trimester. Guess how many abortions take place in the first trimester? Ninety-two percent, according to the CDC. Forty-three percent occur in the first six weeks of pregnancy.

We’ve apparently already won an awful lot of “hearts and minds” on abortion – and I’m happy to explain that term to any pro-abortionists who can’t define “beating heart.”

I didn’t even mention that every abortion ban includes an exception to protect the life or (serious) health of the mother (i.e., NOT I’ll be really depressed if I can’t get this abortion). Always have, and always will. That gives the abortionist a fair bit of wiggle room.

This is the terrifying future that led thousands of abortion hobbyists to rush into the streets last week and scream at us about their uteruses. (Uteri?). All because up to 100,000 ladies won’t be able to get drive-through abortions if they have unprotected sex with men they don’t want to have children with, and they didn’t notice that they live in Louisiana.

Maybe their unaborted kids will be better at math.

The loons have also introduced a new phrase into the abortion debate (already elevated by such precise terminology as “choice”): “Abortion care.” See, if I’d been at the meeting where it was announced, OK, everybody! We’re going to start calling it “abortion care,” I’d have said, “I’m sorry, that’s too preposterous.”

Consistent with liberal psyches, the attack on the Supreme Court last week was completely schizophrenic —

Thursday: HOW DARE YOU TAKE AWAY STATES’ RIGHTS ON GUNS!

Friday: HOW DARE YOU GIVE US STATES’ RIGHTS ON ABORTION!

[ANSWER: One’s in the Constitution, and one isn’t.]

The Dobbs decision also allowed the left to imitate Joe Sobran’s joke version of a New York Times headline: Earthquake Destroys New York; Women and Minorities Hit Hardest.

In one breath, abortion enthusiasts tell us women of color will be hit hardest by the court ruling allowing states to ban abortion. That’s true in a sense: According to the latest figures from the C.D.C, in 2019, 33% percent of women seeking abortions were White, 38% Black and 21% Hispanic. Per capita, that’s a lot more Black and Latino babies being aborted than White babies.

But then in the next breath, they say opposition to abortion is rooted in White supremacy! Yes, that’s a big rallying cry at the white supremacist rallies: DON’T KILL BLACK BABIES!

As I noted after the freakout over the leaked abortion opinion a couple of months ago, no matter what people think of abortion, unleashing these shrews on the public is not helping Democrats.

Democratic consultants’ midterm strategy: More shrews!

Oh, wait — the Democrats agree with me. After allowing the ladies a three-day struggle session over the weekend, on Monday, the Jan. 6 committee suddenly announced an immediate return to the hearings. It was an emergency! They had a surprise witness. This could not wait.

MAJOR UPDATE FROM BOMBSHELL WITNESS AT TUESDAY’S HEARINGS: Trump is still a douchebag.

In three days, we went from It’s a Christian cult on the Supreme Court! My Body, My Choice! This is like slavery! to … What abortion decision? Let’s talk about Trump!

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

Aleksandr Dugin on the Alien, Substantially Jewish Elite in the U.S. and Its War Against Traditional American Individualism

/80 Comments/in , /by

A translated version of an article by Aleksandr Dugin has appeared on KATEHON, an anti-globalist, pro-Russian website. (When I tried to post a link to the article on Twitter, they said that “the link has been identified by Twitter and its partners as harmful” and they blocked it.) Dugin’s article indicates that he has a solid grasp of politics in the U.S., and for the first time that I am aware of, he points to Jewish influence. Since Dugin is reputedly close to Vladimir Putin (“Putin’s brain” and of course, a “fascist,” as the neoliberal Washington Post phrased it) and because he has supported the Ukrainian war, it indicates that the Russian political establishment understands the upheaval going on in the United States.

Excerpts from Alexander Dugin: “The United States Court Against the Ideology of Progress.”

The fact is that there is not just one American state, but two countries and two nations with this name and this is becoming more and more evident. It is not even a question of Republicans and Democrats, whose conflict is becoming increasingly bitter. It is the fact that there is a deeper division in American society.

Half of the US population is an advocate of pragmatism. This means that for them there is only one yardstick: it works or it doesn’t work, it works/it doesn’t work. That is all. And no dogma either about the subject or the object. Everyone can see himself as whatever he wants, including Elvis Presley or Father Christmas, and if it works, no one dares to object. It is the same with the outside world: there are no inviolable laws, do what you want with the outside world, but if it responds harshly, that is your problem. There are no entities, only interactions. This is the basis of Native American identity, it is the way Americans themselves have traditionally understood liberalism: as freedom to think what you want, to believe what you want, and to behave as you want. Of course, if it comes to conflict, the freedom of one is limited by the freedom of the other, but without trying you cannot know where the fine line is. Try it, maybe it will work.

That is how American society has been up to a certain point. Here, banning abortion, allowing abortion, sex change, punishing sex change, gay parades or neo-Nazi parades were all possible, nothing was turned away at the door, the decision could be anything, and the courts, relying on a multitude of unpredictable criteria, precedents and considerations, were the last resort to decide, in problematic cases, what worked/didn’t work. This is the mysterious side of the Americans, completely misunderstood by Europeans, and also the key to their success: they have no boundaries, which means they go where they want until someone stops them, and that is exactly what works.

Dugin is describing traditional American political values based on individualism and personal freedom. But traditional American political values have been in conflict with the values of a new, substantially Jewish elite with strong authoritarian tendencies.

But in the American elite, which is made up of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, at some point a critically large number of non-Americans have accumulated. They are predominantly Europeans, often from Russia. Many are ethnically Jewish but imbued with European or Russian-Soviet principles and cultural codes. They brought a different culture and philosophy to the United States. They did not understand or accept American pragmatism at all, seeing it only as a backdrop for their own advancement. That is, they took advantage of American opportunities, but did not intend to adopt a libertarian logic unrelated to any hint of totalitarianism. In reality, it was these alien elites who hijacked the old American democracy. It was they who took the helm of globalist structures and gradually seized power in the United States.

This is exactly what we have emphasized at TOO. There are people with a variety of backgrounds that make up our new elite, but there is a substantial Jewish core with “alien” values, and in general, this elite speaks with one voice and dissent on important issues is not tolerated. This new elite largely emigrated to the United States in late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and the Marxist commitments of many of them were an important aspect of the enactment of the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution. In subsequent decades Jews became the backbone (p. 68ff) of the American Old Left and New Left. Indeed,  as noted in my review of Amy Weingarten’s Jewish Organizations’ Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy, “a major problem that the organized Jewish community was forced to confront—a problem stemming from the long involvement of the mainstream Jewish community in communism and the far left, at least until the end of World War II, and among a substantial number of Jews even after this period. … Weingarten points to a “hard core of Jews” (p. 6) who continued to support the Communist Party into the 1950s and continued to have a “decisive role” in shaping the policies of the American Communist Party (CPUSA) (p. 9). These leftist Jews were welcomed into the Jewish organizations during the early post-war, particularly the American Jewish Congress, the largest American Jewish organization, but they were gradually made unwelcome due to the anti-communist fervor of the period.

Notice that Dugin emphasizes that the new alien elite has exploited American individualism to advance these alien values—they “took advantage of American opportunities, but did not intend to adopt a libertarian logic unrelated to any hint of totalitarianism.” When they achieved power, they rejected the libertarian ethos in favor of top-down, centralized, authoritarian control that is antithetical to traditional American political culture.

This is precisely the thesis of my 2019 book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future where I document the rise of the substantially Jewish elite (Ch. 6; see also here) and describe how this new elite is shaping attitudes via domination of the media, the educational system, and political culture. Rejecting the libertarian framework, the new elite favors censoring ideas that conflict with these messages (Ch. 8), and it has established a two-tier justice system in which dissidents from the established orthodoxy are treated far more harshly than those favored by the new elite. In Chapter 9 I argue that traditional Western individualism is under dire threat from this assault. I would add that our new elite is not only alien to traditional Western values, it is also a hostile elite—hostile to the traditional people and culture of America, and that their desired multicultural future in which Whites would be a much-hated minority is very dangerous for Whites.

And I agree entirely that Jews “took advantage of American opportunities.” Because of their intelligence, their ethnic networking, and their long experience as merchants and in  financial matters, Jews  have certainly shown that they are quite successful in an individualist economic system (capitalism) and they have taken advantage of the relatively low ethnocentrism that is an integral aspect of individualism. As I noted in Chapter 8 of Individualism,

as emphasized throughout this book, White people tend to be more individualistic than other peoples, implying that they are less likely than other peoples to make invidious distinctions between ingroups and outgroups and they are more likely to be open to strangers and people who don’t look like them. Because Whites are low in ethnocentrism and high in conscientiousness, controlling ethnocentrism is easier for them. Their subcortical mechanisms responsible for ethnocentrism are weaker to start with and hence easier to control [via messages from the media and educational system enabled by top-down inhibitory control over the modular processing typical of the lower brain].

As a result,  this new elite encountered only minimal resistance from the old American elite which was under intense pressure during the 1950s and capitulated entirely in the 1960s and 70s—the era that resulted in Roe v. Wade (1973), civil rights legislation, affirmative action, replacement-level non-White immigration, etc.

Critically relevant is that Dugin notes parallels of the new elite with Bolshevik attitudes of authoritarian control, including “destruction” of those seen as having the wrong attitudes: “If you are not a progressive, you are a Nazi and “must be destroyed.”

These elites, often left-liberal, sometimes openly Trotskyist, have brought with them a position that is deeply alien to the American spirit: the belief in linear progress [as in Marxism]. …

However, the emigrants from the Old World brought with them very different attitudes. For them, progress was a dogma. All history was seen as continuous improvement, as a continuous process of emancipation, improvement, development and accumulation of knowledge [presumably a reference to Marxism]. Progress was a philosophy and a religion. In the name of progress, which included a continuous increase in individual freedoms, technical development and the abolition of traditions and taboos, everything was possible and necessary, and it no longer mattered whether it worked or not. What mattered was progress.

This, however, represented a completely new interpretation of liberalism for the American tradition. The old liberalism argued: no one can ever impose anything on me. The new liberalism responded: a culture of abolition, shaming, total elimination of old habits, sex change, freedom to dispose of the human foetus (pro-choice), equal rights for women and races is not just a possibility, it is a necessity. The old liberalism said: be what you want, as long as it works. The new one replied: you have no right not to be a liberal. If you are not a progressive, you are a Nazi and must be destroyed. Everything must be sacrificed in the name of freedom, LGBT+, transgender and artificial intelligence.

We often hear the phrase “on the right side of history” from progressives, the idea being that history is going in only one direction and change in that direction is inevitable. At this time, being on the right side of history means believing that you believe in a future in which White “racism” is abolished and all peoples will live together in peace and harmony, ethnic conflicts will be abolished, and all groups—freed from the scourge of White racism—will have the same average level of income and achievement. Such a utopian view flies in the face of the long history of ethnic/racial conflict and the reality of biologically based race differences. But believing it is progressive dogma and, as Dugin would say, “If you are not a progressive, you are a Nazi and must be destroyed.”

Dugin is quite aware of the opposition of our hostile elite to Donald Trump:

The conflict between the two societies — the old libertarian, pragmatic one and the new neoliberal, progressive one — has steadily escalated over the past decades and culminated in the Trump presidency. Trump has embodied one America and his globalist democratic opponents the other. The civil war of philosophies has reached a critical point.

As I have written before, Trump made many mistakes and often fumbled the ball on  his appointments (although the pool of mainstream Republicans from which he chose was completely corrupt, and he saddled himself with Jared and Ivanka as central players). However, his campaign pronouncements were clearly anti-globalist—opposing immigration (not just illegal), building the wall, wanting better relations with Russia, removing U.S. troops from the Middle East, complaining about the effects of immigration (“Paris isn’t Paris any more”), etc. These pronouncements engendered an unprecedented uproar from our hostile elite (now being reenacted as a result of the recent SCOTUS rulings—blamed on Trump because of his choices in SCOTUS nominations) and the Washington bureaucracy—the deep state (including the FBI). Media articles during the 2016 campaign were replete with messages that Trump was the reincarnation of Hitler, etc. This hostility continued throughout Trump’s presidency resulting in the prolonged Mueller investigation (based on the Russia collusion hoax) and two impeachments by the Democrat-controlled House (with the help of some Republicans). For the entire four years, there was an atmosphere of crisis surrounding Trump’s presidency, and this has continued now with the January 6 Committee hearings (which are mainly aimed at preventing Trump from running again).

Dugin repeats his emphasis on the totalitarian and violent tendencies of the new elite:

New America … insists that freedom requires violence against those who do not understand it well enough. Which means that freedom must have a normative interpretation and it is up to the neo-liberals themselves to determine how and to whom they use it and how they interpret it. The old liberalism is libertarian. The new is blatantly totalitarian. The Supreme Court is now overturning the totalitarian dictatorial strategy of the neo-liberal globalist elites, who act — a bit like the Bolsheviks in Russia — in the name of the future.

Yes, but I’d say it’s more than “a bit like the Bolsheviks.” Moreover, it’s tempting to think that Dugin is here linking Bolshevik-type authoritarian attitudes to the Jewish overrepresentation in the new American elite, given that he noted the obvious role of Jews in the new globalist elite dominating America, and his likely awareness of the well known outsized Jewish role in the murderous, intensely authoritarian early decades of the USSR with its utopian promises of creating the New Soviet Man. This very large role of Jews in the early decades of the USSR has also been noted by Putin and is presumably common knowledge among Russian intellectuals.

And the almost desperate old Americans, pragmatists and libertarians rejoice [at overturning Roe v. Wade]: the freedom to do what you want, not what the progressives and technocrats say, to go in any direction, not just where the globalists are forcibly sending us, has triumphed again, and Missouri’s brave attorney general has already shown what can be done. Bravo! It is a pragmatic revolution, an American-style conservative revolution.
Of course, all the globalist progressive crap is about to go down the drain. The old America has in a way counter-attacked the new America. “If the kingdom of law is divided in itself, it will surely become desolate”. Matthew 12:25 Better sooner than later…

“Better sooner than later.” I couldn’t agree more. While the White population still has political and demographic clout.

Dugin’s comments on the alien American elite and his strong support for the Ukrainian war make clear the dominant Russian perspective on this conflict. They see it correctly as a conflict between Russian sovereignty and neoliberal globalist elites based in the West that are aiming for a unipolar world with themselves dominating a subservient, relatively powerless Russia. It is the world dreamed of in the 1990s during the Yeltsin administration and abruptly snuffed out by the rise of Putin. Neoconservatives have targeted Russia ever since.

Make no mistake. It is critical for Russia to win this war. But it’s quite clear that the neoconservatives (Blinken, Nuland, Sherman) dominating the Biden administration’s foreign policy also see this as a critically important struggle, and they have continued to increase the U.S. commitment—willing to fight to the last Ukrainian. And, I suspect that ultimately they will be willing to use U.S. troops in the conflict to prevent a Russian victory.

They’ve Learned Nothing and Forgotten Nothing

/12 Comments/in /by
They’ve Learned Nothing and Forgotten Nothing

Bill Barr, two-time attorney general and one of approximately 2.5 members of the Trump administration to leave with his reputation intact, has also written one of only two books about that administration worth reading, “One Damn Thing After Another.” I’ve read ’em all. At least partially. Most did not merit more than a quick skim.

[For those interested, the other book about the Trump administration worth reading is Michael Wolfe’s “Fire and Fury,” but judging by its sales, you probably already have this book.]

I’ve been a fan of Barr’s since long before he worked for Trump, and was thrilled when he became Trump’s A.G. But when I got to Barr’s description of Trump’s appeal — which went on for pages and pages! — I wanted to throw the book out the window.

You can probably guess where I’m headed.

By Barr’s lights, none of Trump’s positives involved … immigration.

They will not learn. No matter what we do, no matter how many times Americans tell pollsters they want less immigration, no matter how loudly we beg Washington to halt the endless flow of the Third World into our country, the ruling class refuses to listen.

If electing a cretinous flimflam artist to the presidency solely on the strength of his promise to be a hard-ass on immigration didn’t wake them up, nothing ever will.

The first clue about the absolute thickheadedness of anyone living within 100 miles of our nation’s capital was this deeply concerning line from Barr’s book:

“I had long planned on supporting Jeb Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.”

Next, Barr turns to the political landscape that allowed such a preposterous creature as Trump to sail to victory. “The source of the problem, as I saw it,” he writes, “was the growing strength in the Democratic Party of a Far Left progressive ideology that aimed to tear down and remake American society.” Trump, Barr writes, was merely the result of “our embittered politics,” a bitterness “engendered not by Trump but by the increasing militance of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.”

Yeah, OK, fine. He gets two points for accurately describing how loathsome Democrats have become. How about the elected Republicans we send to Washington to represent us? It’s you guys we really hate. If it were only progressive Democrats voters detested, why NOT Jeb-exclamation point? Why not John “My Father Was a Postman” Kasich?

No one imagines that Democrats give a crap about the country. It’s Republicans who run for office, pretending to agree with the voters on immigration — then get into office and sell out to the Chamber of Commerce.

Oh, you wanted a wall? Yes, absolutely, but first we have to pass these tax cuts, lavish billions of dollars on some foreign country and push through another Wall Street bailout.

For 50 years, in poll after poll, a majority of Americans have said they want LESS immigration. Even the Cheap Labor Lobby at the Cato Institute produced a poll last year showing that 81% of Americans want less immigration than we have today. Sixty-one percent of respondents want to cut immigration by at least half. Ten percent of Americans want zero immigration.

Unfortunately, everything Trump was ever going to accomplish was accomplished at 2:50 a.m. on election night 2016, when he announced his victory over Hillary Clinton. (Everything other than turning judicial selection over to the Federalist Society.) At that moment, the densest Republican had to realize that restricting immigration is so popular that even a lout like Trump could win the presidency on it.

After 2016, how could any sentient mammal begin a sentence, as Barr does, “But the main reason Trump won the nomination — and later the general election — was …,” and not end it with: “IMMIGRATION!”? (I’ll accept a range of substitutes — the wall, illegals, Dreamers, “Press 1 for English,” wages lost to cheap labor immigrants, Kate Steinle, the 9/11 attack — did the media forget to tell you that was done by immigrants? — the drug epidemic, etc., etc.)

Not Barr. He reels off the standard RNC suicide pact, prattling about the “economy,” “military power,” “pro-life” and school choice.

Yes, Trump won in 2016 because of school choice.

You could “Ctrl + F: immigration” through Barr’s entire book and get nary a hit, other than general references to “the Immigration and Naturalization Service” — and this:

Before one of the 2016 presidential debates, Barr is careful to note that he contacted a friend on the candidate’s team to suggest that Trump say, “we welcome legal immigrants, and … Latin Americans who come here legally — people with a strong work ethic and family values — contribute enormously to the country.”

And that’s how Jeb-exclamation point won the nomination and the general election!

Just this week, Republican Sen. John Cornyn was spotted on the Senate floor, seeming to propose amnesty, collegially telling a Democrat, “First guns, now it’s immigration.”

In Cornyn’s defense, he is massively stupid.

But Barr? He’s a smart man. And yet he picked up nothing from the Shock-the-World 2016 election of Donald Trump — except tax cuts and a strong military?

Referring to the monumental arrogance of the Bourbon kings, blithely assuming they could revert to the very behavior that had led to the explosion of the French Revolution in the first place, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand is supposed to have said, “They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.”

The French nobility’s got nothing on the Republican Party.