• MISSION STATEMENT
  • TERMS
  • PRIVACY
The Occidental Observer
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • SUBSCRIBE TOQ
  • CONTACT USPlease send all letters to the editor, manuscripts, promotional materials, and subscription questions to Editors@TheOccidentalObserver.net.
  • DONATE
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

General

What Makes Biden So Pugnacious?

July 23, 2022/8 Comments/in General/by Pat Buchanan

When Biden left for the day, Corn Pop was waiting for him, with three gang members, and holding a straight razor… Whatever the reality of that event, 60 years ago, Biden has issued, in his 18 months in office, a remarkable number of warnings and threats as to what he would do as commander in chief if challenged, thereby putting his own and his country’s credibility on the line.

That friendly fist bump with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman might not have been such a defining moment — had Biden not first set himself up.

During the 2020 campaign, Biden said that when he encounters the prince, he would treat him like the “pariah” he was for having authorized the murder and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

As for Biden’s depiction of how he confronted MBS behind closed doors, the Saudis dispute his rendition, and many of his own countrymen disbelieve Biden.

Why? Because Joe Biden has a history of painting himself as heroic in personal encounters where few contemporaries recall him that way.

The classic is the story Biden has often told of confronting, as a pool security guard in a Black neighborhood, a gang leader named Corn Pop, whom Biden ordered out of the pool for breaking the rules.

When Biden left for the day, Corn Pop was waiting for him, with three gang members, and holding a straight razor. Biden, holding a six-foot length of chain, he says, faced him down, and Corn Pop backed off.

Whatever the reality of that event, 60 years ago, Biden has issued, in his 18 months in office, a remarkable number of warnings and threats as to what he would do as commander in chief if challenged, thereby putting his own and his country’s credibility on the line.

Asked, before his trip to the Middle East, if he would use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Biden replied, “If that was the last resort, yes.”

During the trip, the U.S. and Israel signed a joint pledge to deny nuclear arms to Iran. We are now committed.

Given that the U.S. has fought in five wars in the Middle East in this century — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen — one would think this country would be wary of committing itself to a new war with one of the largest powers in the region.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin built up forces outside Ukraine and asked repeatedly for assurances that Ukraine would not be brought into NATO, an alliance aimed at Russia, the Biden administration refused.

The February invasion followed, and among Biden’s subsequent threats, his call for the removal of Putin was virtually declared a war aim.

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,” thundered Biden in Poland, a declaration that was hastily walked back by White House staff.

In addition to the weaponry we were shipping to Ukraine — long-range artillery and rockets — Biden announced at the NATO summit in Madrid that the U.S. would be strengthening its military presence in Europe.

The permanent headquarters of the U.S. Army’s V Corps is to be moved to Poland. Two additional F-35 fighter jet squadrons are to be moved to the U.K. More air defense capabilities are to be moved into Germany and Italy. Rotational deployments of U.S. troops to the Baltic region are to be increased. U.S. troops are to be moved into Romania.

U.S. forces in Europe are to be increased from about 60,000 to 100,000, and Biden has vowed that Putin’s invasion “will not end with a Russian defeat of Ukraine in Ukraine.”

But how Biden guarantees that the Russian invasion will be rolled back, if Putin rolls up the Donbas, is unexplained.

Since the Russia-Ukraine war began, Biden has also given Article 5 war guarantees to Sweden and Finland by promising to bring them into NATO.

From the Arctic to the Black Sea and from Iceland to Estonia, there are now 30 European nations we are obligated to defend.

In 2021, Biden indicated that the U.S.-Philippines mutual security treaty dating to the 1950s meant the U.S. would come to Manila’s defense should it attempt to reclaim rocks and reefs in the South China Sea, also claimed and now occupied by Chinese military forces.

The U.S. war guarantees in our treaty with Japan extend to the Senkaku Islands, also claimed by China, according to the Biden White House.

In May, in Tokyo, Biden gave a flat “yes” to a reporter’s question as to whether he is willing to “get involved militarily to defend Taiwan.”

“That’s the commitment we made,” the president said.

Not so. The U.S. scrapped its formal commitment to defend Taiwan in 1979, replacing a treaty of alliance with the Taiwan Relations Act, which obligates the U.S. to help equip Taiwan to defend itself.

Again, White House staff sought to walk back Biden’s declaration that we would fight for Taiwan, as U.S. policy since Richard Nixon’s trip to Beijing is that Taiwan “is a part of China.”

We have written dozens of blank checks to nations not only in Europe but also in the Middle East and Asia to come and fight to defend their borders.

Yet, the border most critical to us, the U.S.-Mexican border, is being overrun by a quarter of a million migrants every month, with the worst of them bringing in the fentanyl that killed 100,000 of America’s young last year.

And bellicose Joe has done next to nothing about it.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Pat Buchanan https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Pat Buchanan2022-07-23 08:07:082022-07-23 08:07:08What Makes Biden So Pugnacious?

“Ohio Man” Rapes 10-Year-old

July 21, 2022/16 Comments/in General/by Ann Coulter

“Ohio Man” Rapes 10-Year-old

I, for one, am tickled pink that our ruling class has finally come out against child rape. This is something new. For several decades now, the position of government officials, both political parties, think tanks, the Bush family, district attorneys and the entire media has been: We’re going to foist primitive, peasant cultures on America and then lie to the public about how this is changing our country.

We recently found out about one big way that third-world immigrants are enriching us. Soon after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the media began talking nonstop about a “10-year-old rape victim” who couldn’t get an abortion in Ohio and had to travel to Indiana. The “10-year-old rape victim” was discussed on a loop on MSNBC and even made it into a speech by President Joe Biden.

But then, a bunch of spoilsports started questioning whether “10-year-old rape victim” existed. The attorney general of Ohio said on July 12 he had no evidence of a 10-year-old rape victim, despite the reporting of such a crime being mandatory.

With their backs against the wall, the pro-abortion crowd broke longstanding strictures against mentioning the rapey-ness of our “New Americans” by producing the rapist: Gerson Fuentes, 27, an illegal alien from Guatemala.

Oh, now I see.

The abortion ladies thought they could get away with revealing the child rape victim, while refusing to reveal the child rape perpetrator. When that failed, they wantonly defied the rest of their coalition and told the truth about one of the Democrats’ pets, an illegal immigrant.

Once the pro-abortion crowd identified the rapist, nothing about the story was surprising. It has all the earmarks of an immigrant child rape:

The crime is particularly vile — CHECK!

The raping had been going on for some time — CHECK!

The mother defended her daughter’s rapist — CHECK!

The rapist is shocked that anyone thinks he did anything wrong — CHECK!

Luckily, I am Johnny on the Spot when it comes to immigrant child-rapists, having included nearly 100 such cases in my book Adios, America! — as well as the sensational, flood-the-zone news coverage the U.S. media devote to criminal immigrants. (Sarcasm.)

As far as I know, there’s only one group in the country trying to keep a running tally of immigrant child rapes: North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement (NCFire.info). Here’s NCFire’s list of illegal immigrant child rapists in North Carolina, so far this year:

2022 Monthly Child Rapes by Illegal Aliens:

6. June 2022: 20 illegal aliens arrested for 42 child rape/child sexual assault charges

5. May 2022: 18 illegal aliens arrested for 42 child rape/child sexual assault charges

4. April 2022: 19 illegal aliens arrested for 72 child rape/child sexual assault charges

3. March 2022: 30 illegal aliens arrested for 110 child rape/child sexual assault charges

2. February 2022: 27 illegal aliens arrested for 84 child rape/child sexual assault charges

1. January 2022: 18 illegal aliens arrested for 96 child rape/child sexual assault charges

Again, that’s only in a single state. And only when the immigrant is illegal.

WHY DOESN’T THE PUBLIC KNOW ABOUT THIS?

Unfortunately, our media are too busy reporting on apocryphal gang rapes by the Duke lacrosse team and “frat boys” at the University of Virginia to bother mentioning the epidemic of child rape by immigrants from peasant cultures pouring into our country by the millions.

How far into the stories about UVA and Duke did you have to read to find out that the (falsely) accused rapists were “privileged white men”?

By contrast, whenever the media deign to mention an immigrant rapist, the story will appear in — at most — one local newspaper. Further, both the heinous nature of the crime and the immigration status of the rapist will be hidden. (How about a news report on the Duke lacrosse case, appearing exclusively in the local paper at the bottom of page A-18, titled, “Area Men Arrested.”)

In 2013, an illegal alien from Guatemala, German Rolando Vicente-Sapon, was convicted of kidnapping his 16-year-old cousin, transporting her to the U.S. (also illegally), and holding her as his sex slave for years.

Only one newspaper in the country reported the story: the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Quiz: Was the headline —

“Illegal Alien sentenced for Incest, Child Rape, Kidnapping and Sex Slavery,” OR

“Man Guilty in Case of Human Smuggling”?

I think you know the answer.

There’s no question that the national media would never have breathed a word about the Fuentes case — but for the doubters. So a big shoutout to the feminists for putting abortion-on-demand above open borders. If only politicians cared as much about our country as pro-choicers do about abortion.

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ann Coulter https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ann Coulter2022-07-21 00:36:212022-07-20 14:42:48“Ohio Man” Rapes 10-Year-old

Is a US-Russia War Becoming Inevitable?

July 15, 2022/8 Comments/in General/by Pat Buchanan
Is a US-Russia War Becoming Inevitable?

If Putin makes a military move into Finland, the U.S. will go to war against the world’s largest nation with an arsenal of between 4,500 and 6,000 battlefield and strategic nuclear weapons. … To go to war with the Soviet Union over the preservation of Finnish territory would have been seen as madness during the Cold War.

At the NATO summit in Madrid, Finland was invited to join the alliance. What does this mean for Finland?

If Russian President Vladimir Putin breaches the 830-mile Finnish border, the United States will rise to Helsinki’s defense and fight Russia on Finland’s side.

What does Finland’s membership in NATO mean for America?

If Putin makes a military move into Finland, the U.S. will go to war against the world’s largest nation with an arsenal of between 4,500 and 6,000 battlefield and strategic nuclear weapons.

No Cold War president would have dreamed of making such a commitment — to risk the survival of our nation to defend territory of a country thousands of miles away that has never been a U.S. vital interest.

To go to war with the Soviet Union over the preservation of Finnish territory would have been seen as madness during the Cold War.

Recall: Harry Truman refused to use force to break Joseph Stalin’s blockade of Berlin. Dwight Eisenhower refused to send U.S. troops to save the Hungarian freedom fighters being run down by Soviet tanks in Budapest in 1956.

Lyndon B. Johnson did nothing to assist the Czech patriots crushed by Warsaw Pact armies in 1968. When Lech Walesa’s Solidarity was smashed on Moscow’s order in Poland in 1981, Ronald Reagan made brave statements and sent Xerox machines.

While the U.S. issued annual declarations of support during the Cold War for the “captive nations” of Central and Eastern Europe, the liberation of these nations from Soviet control was never deemed so vital to the West as to justify a war with the USSR.

Indeed, in the 40 years of the Cold War, NATO, which had begun in 1949 with 12 member nations, added only four more — Greece, Turkey, Spain and West Germany.

Yet, with the invitation to Sweden and Finland to join as the 31st and 32nd nations to receive an Article 5 war guarantee, NATO will have doubled its membership since what was thought — certainly by the Russians — to have been the end of the Cold War.

All the nations once part of Moscow’s Warsaw Pact — East Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria — are now members of a U.S.-led NATO — directed against Russia.

Three former republics of the USSR — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania — are now also members of NATO, a military alliance formed to corral and contain the nation to which they had belonged during the Cold War.

Lithuania, with 2% of Russia’s population, has just declared a partial blockade of goods moving across its territory to Kaliningrad, Russia’s enclave on the Baltic Sea.

To Putin’s protest, Vilnius has reminded Moscow that Lithuania is a member of NATO.

It is a dictum of geostrategic politics that a great power ought never cede to a lesser power the ability to draw it into a great war.

In 1914, the Kaiser’s Germany gave its Austrian ally a “blank check” to punish Serbia for its role in the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne. Vienna cashed the Kaiser’s check and attacked Serbia, and the Great War of 1914–1918 was on.

In March 1939, Neville Chamberlain issued a war guarantee to Poland. If Germany attacked Poland, Britain would fight on Poland’s side.

Fortified with this war guarantee from the British Empire, the Poles stonewalled Hitler, refusing to talk to Berlin over German claims to the city of Danzig, taken from her at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

On Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler attacked and Britain declared war, a war that lasted six years and mortally wounded the British Empire.

And Poland? At Yalta in 1945, Winston Churchill agreed that a Soviet-occupied Poland should remain in Stalin’s custody.

Putin is a Russian nationalist who regards the breakup of the USSR as the greatest calamity of the 20th century, but he is not alone responsible for the wretched relations between our countries.

We Americans have played a leading role in what is shaping up as a Second Cold War, more dangerous than the first.

Over the last quarter-century, after Russia dissolved the Warsaw Pact and let the USSR break apart into 15 nations, we pushed NATO, created to corral and contain Russia, into Central and Eastern Europe.

In 2008, neocons goaded Georgia into attacking South Ossetia, provoking Russian intervention and the rout of the Georgian army.

In 2014, neocons goaded Ukrainians into overthrowing the elected pro-Russian regime in Kyiv. When they succeeded, Putin seized Crimea and Sevastopol, for centuries the home base of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

In 2022, Moscow asked the U.S. to pledge not to bring Ukraine into NATO. We refused. And Putin attacked. If Russians believe their country has been pushed against a wall by the West, can we blame them?

Americans appear dismissive of dark Russian warnings that rather than accept defeat in Ukraine, the humiliation of their nation, and their encirclement and isolation, they will resort to tactical nuclear weapons.

Is it really wisdom to dismiss these warnings as “saber-rattling”?

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Pat Buchanan https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Pat Buchanan2022-07-15 07:47:482022-07-15 07:47:48Is a US-Russia War Becoming Inevitable?

Breaking: Trump Was Listening to People as Crazy as Democrats!

July 14, 2022/8 Comments/in General/by Ann Coulter
BREAKING: TRUMP WAS LISTENING TO PEOPLE AS CRAZY AS DEMOCRATS!

Jan. 6 hearings, Day 900: Nothing new.

Apparently, White House counsel Pat Cipillone — whom we’ve been hearing was the Rosetta stone to the whole case against Trump — didn’t back up the sainted White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

Among the shocking claims Hutchinson made two weeks ago was this alleged exchange between her boss, chief of staff Mark Meadows, and Cipollone:

Cipollone: “The rioters have gotten into the Capitol, Mark. We need to go see the president now.”

Meadows: “He doesn’t want to do anything”

Cipollone: “Something needs to be done, or somebody is going to die and this is going to be on your effing hands. They’re literally calling for the VP to be effing hung.”

Meadows: “You heard him, Pat, he thinks Mike deserves it.”

Cipollone: “Effing crazy.”

CIPOLLONE MUST TESTIFY! CIPOLLONE MUST TESTIFY!

Well, Cipollone testified last Friday, and the big revelation is: He thought Trump should accept the results of the election.

Yeah, so did everyone else within five miles of the White House — except Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn and the former Overstock.com CEO, Patrick Byrne.

Yes, it’s embarrassing that Trump had a Dec. 18 meeting with these nuts, during which he announced he was going to make Powell “special counsel” to investigate election theft.

Name a day of the Trump presidency that he didn’t say something stupid. Name a day since the election that you didn’t know Trump was listening to Powell, Flynn and the Overstock guy.

I don’t know where liberals get off rolling their eyes at Powell’s wacky theories about the election. As I understand it, she claims voting machines were rigged by Iran, China and maybe Hugo Chavez, among other totally believable, not-at-all-crazy claims.

Hey, anybody remember the Diebold voting machine conspiracy theory?

According to serious, prominent, respected Democrats, the Diebold company rigged Ohio’s voting machines in 2004 to flip votes from Kerry to Bush. Without Ohio, Bush would have lost the election.

Among the places the Diebold conspiracy theory was strenuously argued were:

An 8,000-word article by Michael Shnayerson in the April 2004 issue of Vanity Fair;

A 2,800-word article by Christopher Hitchens in the March 2005 Vanity Fair;

An “expose” by Bobby Kennedy Jr. in the June 15, 2006, Rolling Stone magazine.

The gist of it, to the extent any conspiracy theory can be boiled down to a “gist,” is that the CEO of Diebold, which provided some of Ohio’s voting machines, was a Bush supporter. Also, one of the computer software engineers who tested the software “had given $25,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2000.”

The Diebold conspiracy theory was so idiotic, it was debunked in Salon magazine, of all places. And that’s a publication with articles about anal sex and pollution on Mars.

Yet and still, during the official count of the 2004 Electoral College vote, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, objected to the reading of Ohio’s votes, requiring both houses to return to their respective chambers and debate the Ohio results for two hours before returning to finish the tally.

Thirty-one Democrats in the House objected to the counting of Ohio’s votes; one member of the Senate objected. (Guess who?)

There was even a book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? by Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss. (Spoiler alert: You’re damn right it was stolen!) Their proof was that the exit polls showed Kerry ahead, so to hell with actual results on Election Day.

The real cheating in the 2020 election — and every other election in recent memory — wasn’t that Iran, China or Chavez were manipulating our voting machines. It wasn’t the ballot harvesting allegedly exposed in Dinesh D’Souza’s movie, 2,000 Mules. It was what liberals were doing right in front of our faces.

Democrats have what are known as “unmotivated voters.” As such, they need battalions of “Get Out the Vote” activists to track down the bored and the lazy. (Yes, the same marginalized people whom liberals claim are having their lifelong dreams of voting dashed by GOP “voter suppression” schemes can’t be bothered to get out of bed on Election Day.)

Over the years, Democrats have lured their voters to the polls with a free ride, a box lunch and walking-around money — even a gurney, if that’s what it takes. Volunteers give the voters detailed, childlike instructions on exactly how to fill out their ballots. Luckily, unionized government workers have plenty of time on their hands to “organize” voters.

Without these sorts of military-style operations, the day after the election, Democrats will find out half their voters overslept and forgot to vote.

Consequently, COVID was like manna from heaven for the left. It provided the perfect excuse to demand even more time for volunteers to round up the uninterested. No-excuse absentee ballots, mail-in ballots, drop boxes, months of early voting — all of it: Advantage Democrats.

Until Republicans stop being pushovers and shut down all mail-in balloting, all early voting, all drop boxes, and pass a federal law requiring ONE DAY, a NATIONAL HOLIDAY, to vote (which is fully within Congress’ constitutional authority), Democrats have a gigantic, unfair advantage. That’s not cheating. It’s being smarter than Mitch McConnell.

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ann Coulter https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ann Coulter2022-07-14 10:29:102022-07-14 10:29:10Breaking: Trump Was Listening to People as Crazy as Democrats!

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

July 11, 2022/5 Comments/in General/by Greg Klein

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.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Greg Klein https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Greg Klein2022-07-11 07:32:352022-07-11 07:32:35Britain saved New France from the Cajuns’ fate and Canada built Quebec

Latest Symptoms of a Disintegrating Nation

July 9, 2022/20 Comments/in General/by Pat Buchanan

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?

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Pat Buchanan https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Pat Buchanan2022-07-09 07:42:422022-07-09 07:42:42Latest Symptoms of a Disintegrating Nation

What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment

July 7, 2022/13 Comments/in General/by Ann Coulter
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

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ann Coulter https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ann Coulter2022-07-07 07:32:522022-07-07 07:32:52What Liberals Get Wrong About the Second Amendment
Page 206 of 256«‹204205206207208›»
RSS Feed Logo RSS Feed Logo Subscribeto RSS Feed

Kevin MacDonald on Mark Collett’s show reviewing Culture of Critique

James Edwards at the Counter-Currents Conference, Atlanta, 2022

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

Subscribe to get our latest posts in your inbox twice a week.

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish

Blogroll

  • American Free Press
  • American Freedom Party
  • American Mercury
  • American Renaissance
  • Arktos Publishing
  • Candour Magazine
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • Chronicles Magazine
  • Council of European Canadians
  • Counter-Currents
  • Curiales—Dutch nationalist-conservative website
  • Denmark's Freedom Council
  • Diversity Chronicle
  • Folktrove: Digital Library of the Third Way
  • Human Biodiversity Bibliography
  • Institute for Historical Review
  • Mondoweiss
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Paul Craig Roberts
  • Project Nova Europea
  • Red Ice
  • Richard Lynn
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Sobran's
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Political Cesspool
  • The Raven's Call: A Reactionary Perspective
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Unz Review
  • VDare
  • XYZ: Australian Nationalist Site
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Separation and Its Discontents
A People That Shall Dwell Alone
© 2025 The Occidental Observer - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • Link to X
  • Link to Dribbble
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only