Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

“The expropriation of land without compensation is envisaged as one of the measures that we will use to accelerate redistribution of land to black South Africans.”

President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, 21 February 2018 (1)

In world that is fast resolving itself into a sharp confrontation between globalism, and the military tyranny at its core, and a rising tide of nationalism, it is unusual to see a man do the right thing, even when he knows the rest of the world will ignore or revile him for it. But in one quick and generous action, President Putin and Russia appear prepared to do more to protect Christians than any Western leader has done in the past half-century. At the same time, Putin’s plan cannot but help but aid Russia’s agricultural sector.

Putin and his government have offered free homesteads of significant size, for farming or husbandry, to 15,000 white, Christian South African farmers and their families whose lives, culture, wealth, and children are now being murdered by blacks with the unofficial approval of the government of barbarians that now rules South Africa. Putin and Russia will receive no praise from the Marxist Pope of Rome, the irrelevant Archbishop of Canterbury, or any other effete Christian chieftain, nor from any anti-white/anti-Christian European or American political leader.

Indeed, the scourge of the United States, and the world’s racist-in-chief, Barack Obama spoke in South Africa this week and never mentioned the plight of the soon-to-be-murdered Boer farmers and their families. In an enormously long speech, Obama turned night to day by describing the “successes” Mandela and his successors have scored, successes that amount to economic collapse and an open season for hunting white humans. As always, Obama has no trouble whatsoever with the murdering of whites. In gratitude for his silence on the issue, perhaps the rotten Mandela-spawn that now govern South Africa took Obama on a hunt for some white Boers during his visit.

This execrable, Obama-led class of leaders were betting that the white South African farmers would surrender and go to their and their children’s death in a cowardly silence, and that no world leader would focus on the racist eradication of whites that is being condoned by the black butchers who rule South Africa. They won their bet on Western leaders; save for Putin, not one major world leader has tried to focus attention on the blacks-led, government-acquiesced-in murder crusade against white South African farmers. But the Boer farmers and their families will never surrender and die in silence and cowardice, ask the British queen about her forebearers’ prolonged, agonizing, well-merited, and highly lethal experience with Boer farmers.

Since the unfortunate and deadly implementation of the Thatcher-Reagan policy of “constructive engagement” toward South Africa — which always was a plan that would end in the slow-track extermination of whites — and the installment of the talentless government of the ex-terrorist Nelson Mandela, South Africa, under black rule, has declined from being the reliable economic powerhouse of the African continent to being just one more African basket case where poverty grows, economies free fall, anti-white racism spreads, and foreign aid becomes the fuel of domestic tyranny, a fuel that is today powering the murderous racism of South Africa’s ruling blacks

The Pope, EU leaders, multiple U.S. administrations — including, to date, Trump’s –and most of the world’s Christian leaders have not and will not act to try to stop the Black South Africans’ ongoing massacre of white South African farmers. Well, a pox on them, and may they all rot slowly and painfully in hell. Better yet, may they one day be ruled, persecuted, and terminated by black South Africans, whose constitution U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg considers sublime and able to provide governing principles that are far better than the American Constitution. Ginsburg said she particularly likes the human-rights provisions of the South African constitution, you know, those provisions that are now being applied to murder white South African farmers.

Obama and Ginsburg, as always, are champions of globalism, tyranny, and the full destruction of the Western tradition, and, as always, they seek to disguise that fact with endless oral flatulence about human rights, which for them, is the right of non-obedient human beings to be killed by their government or, even better, a world government.

All told, Mr. Putin is the only world leader that has shown the moral courage to at least try to do something for the white South African farmers, and — if it works — that something will be fine because it will benefit Russia, the Boers, and Russian agriculture. Australia, New Zealand, and the United States would do well to follow Putin’s example. (NB: Forget Canada, though, under Trudeau it will be rooting for the black murderers.)

Happily, it will also leave the Boer’s black South African murderers and their governmental abettors in quite a bad fix, as white farmers grow about two-thirds of all the crops in South Africa, an abundance that now suffices domestically and allows exports to several other, often ill-fed African nations. Following is what these murderous morons are intent on wiping out.

South Africa’s 35,000 remaining commercial farmers (down from 60,000 in 1996) are vital to the food security of 54-million South Africans (up from 40-million in 1995). They also contribute 3.9% of the country’s gross domestic product, employ more than 650,000 mostly unskilled people and help to boost exports and hold down the current account deficit. They generally have good relationships with their workers and don’t pay less than the statutory minimum wage. Many have also done all they can to mentor new black farmers and generally help with the process of land reform. (2)

What’s that story about the great danger that lies in killing the goose that lays the golden egg? Guess its either not a popular story in South Africa, or maybe its just that the witless Mandela-ites killed and ate ye olde goose long ago.

Endnotes

1. https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/south-africas-brand-new-president-wants-to-confiscate-land-from-white-farmers-22993/ and http://www.businessinsider.com/south-africa-cyril-ramaphosa-wants-to-confiscate-white-farmers-land-2018-2
2. Quoted at “Ethnic hatred with an SA twist: Evil truths about farm murders — Ed Herbst” (https://www.biznews.com/africa/2017/12/27/ethnic-hatred-sa-farm-murders-herbst/)

The answer to this piece’s questioning title is a simple “nothing.” That title should be, rather, making all commonsensical Americans shriek with laughter.

Why should any American worry about the unending, manic claims that Russia interfered in the 2016 election? This story, after all, has been made up and perpetuated by aspiring traitors like Clapper, Hayden, Tapper, Acosta, Hillary Clinton, Comey, John Podesta, Maddow, McCabe, Brennan, Page, Strzok, Wray, the reporting staffs of the Washington Post and the New York Times, the Council on Foreign Relations, and most of all, by the foreign-born Obama. To believe this crew’s statements about anything at all is to believe that John McCain and Lindsay Graham can open their mouths without lying us into yet another interventionist war.

These are the same persons, you will recall, who lied about not collecting electronic intelligence on all U.S. citizens; who deliberately undermined America by selling 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia, and who then divvied up $150 million in bribes; who used the IRS to persecute conservative organizations; who made up from whole cloth the repeated claim that the Afghan military could defend its country without U.S. troops; who, with premeditation, killed Mr. LaVoy Finicum as part of the USG’s lawless attempt to eradicate the Bundy family, their friends and supporters, and the independent spirit of American ranchers; who have facilitated the invasion of the United States by unwanted, unneeded, illiterate, and criminal immigrants who may yet kill the republic; who have so far — under FBI guidance — effectively built a lying narrative about a single-shooter in the Las Vegas shooting, an attack that was actually conducted by Democratic Party-related operatives and killed and wounded hundreds of Americans; and who have covered-up their certain knowledge that Obama always was patently disqualified to constitutionally serve as president.

In the face of what Jefferson surely would call a “long train” of perfidy, treason, obsessive avarice, and murder by the national government, one must ask why would any commonsensical American fail to see that the Russian-meddling narrative is transparently an attempt by Obama leftovers and the seething, quite mad Neocons to push the United States into a new Cold War war Russia, one that would lead to a hot war, as well as a means of keeping themselves out of the slammer and off the gallows.

Indeed, there is not a loyal American citizen who has a single credible reason to believe any intelligence-based claims made by the Obama administration, or the Obama leftovers in Trump’s administration, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The citizenry’s only fair-minded conclusion is that Obama ordered his intelligence and military lieutenants to stand down on responding to “Russian hacking” in summer, 2016, because no such hacking occurred. Certainly, the two indictments of Russians — written by Obama acolytes led by Rosenstein, Strzok, and old-man, disgrace-to-the-Marines Mueller and his merry band of Trump-hating attorneys — are clearly dreamed-up travesties that would disgrace a first-year law-school student and get him the boot therefrom.

The foregoing is not to say there isn’t foreign meddling in our national elections, but the word that should be used to describe it is “Israeli,” not “Russian.” Now, is it not remarkable that there is never any person of public significance who is willing to discuss the obvious fact that Israel has conducted a half-century campaign not only to meddle in but to ultimately control U.S. national elections?

How to account for this failure to recognize, publicly condemn, attack, and terminate this meddling and its sponsors? What is one to make for, example, of the resolute silence of the 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives on the crying need to investigate Israel’s suborning of the Congress, as well as senior and juniors officials in Department of Defense, DOJ, the CIA, and the FBI.

What one must make of it, of course, is obvious. It seems certain that most of the Congress, and the senior levels of DoD, DoJ, FBI, the State Department, and CIA, receive regular checks or other valuable perks — while serving and in retirement — that are funneled from wealthy Jewish-Americans and their organizations, through plausible cutouts, to ensure their continued behind-the-scenes support for Israel; to keep them from seeking an investigation of the very public and widespread Israeli perfidy; and to make sure all U.S. national election results serve Israel’s interests before America’s.

There may be a few members of the Congress and the other institutions mentioned who might not be on the take from Israel. Senator Paul and some members of the Freedom Caucus perhaps, but that conclusion is based on nothing more than hoping against hope. It would hardly be surprising to find that all 535 members of Congress are floating about sipping frozen daiquiris in the cesspool of corruption, collusion, and foreign intervention that has been built and kept filled by Jewish-Americans and Israel. And I wonder, also, how many of those 535, as well as members of DoJ, DoD, CIA, and FBI, have been photographed by the Mossad frolicking sexually with children on Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile island resort? Surely, if any on-the-take U.S. official ever wavers in his bribe-funded, unquestioning allegiance to Israel, his or her knowledge that the Mossad has glorious Kodachrome photos and videos of them raping, killing, and otherwise molesting children that will force them back on the pro-Israel straight and narrow.

And, in passing, it also must be assumed that Israel and wealthy Jewish-Americans and their organizations are assisting the long-ago proven efforts of George Soros to destroy the Western tradition, manipulate U.S. elections, and to tear American society apart. Why assume this? Well, what other well-known, flamboyant, easily tracked, pro-Nazi, pro-holocaust, enemy-of-Israel, Jew killer has not been found and tried. or just simply murdered by the Israeli authorities? The first answer: None to date, except Soros. The second answer: Soros — not to mention Epstein — is a prized Israeli asset.

It is far past time to terminate the Democratic/Neocon “Russian-hacking” melodrama and begin to arrest the hundreds of politicians, bureaucrats, and media figures who manufactured it, flogged it ad infinitum, and so merit trial and incarceration. This would benefit and raise the spirit of all people fit to be called Americans. It also would create an opportunity for those citizens to insist that it is past time to investigate and eradicate the intervention in American affairs of Israel, prominent Jewish-Americans, and their host of well-paid human assets in the Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and the media.

Now there is a target that has long proven itself to be more than worthy of merciless annihilation.

As this week’s end, it seems likely that it is quite near time for killing those involved in the multiple and clearly delineated attempts to stage a coup d’état against the legitimately elected Trump government and thereby kill our republic.

• The week saw the alternative media document nearly 300 incidents of violence against loyal U.S. citizens that have been perpetrated by Democrats and the domestic terrorists that the party and its financial supporters keep on their payrolls. The Americans they are abusing and attacking — even those using concealed carry — have so far held their fire and sucked up the pain, trying to give Trump time to forever eliminate their violent tormentors. The well-armed patriot’s patience does not, and must not, last forever.
• The week saw FBI agent Strzok brazenly lie to the Congress, show his own detestation for everyday Americans — it’s their smell, he says — and display facial and other physical quirks that appeared very reminiscent of a demented beaver, a drug addict, or a loyal Democrat.
• The week saw that the FBI, in the person of Strzok, had refused to investigate a foreign address to which 30,000 e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server were delivered. It was made clear that foreign address was not Russian, which surely means that the address was that of the Beijing tyrants who have paid the Democrats to surrender to China U.S. manufacturing industries, intellectual property, and much of its technical military prowess.
• The week saw Strzok describe the sacred FBI practice of briefing the leaders of any U.S. presidential campaign that is threatened by foreign influence/interference. The practice was ignored regarding Trump’s campaign, while the FBI — led by Strzok — assisted the British intelligence service’s (MI6) effort to try to ruin the campaign and then the Trump presidency.
• The week saw, on Friday the 13th, Special Counsel Mueller and his Democratic-apparatchik lawyers indict 12 supposed Russian intelligence officers with a laughable amount of evidence pertaining to their purported involvement in the 2016 election. Mueller’s action is a clear and undeniable effort to ruin President Trump’s coming meeting with Putin. It also ensures the continuation of the drive toward war with Russia that Obama and the EU started in 2013 with their direct and multi-pronged intervention in Ukrainian politics and their subsequent overthrow of the country’s pro-Russian government.
• It is worth noting that Mueller has zero chance of ever getting the Russian GRU officers into court, and that the FBI’s files — as well as those of other components of the intelligence community — are packed with the names of GRU officers. This reality leaves open the likelihood that Mueller’s pro-Hillary posse made up the list by randomly picking names, just as they did with the last list of indicted Russians.
• The week saw FBI’s Strzok make it clear under oath that the so-called “Trump Dossier” was available in the FBI and the Department of Justice in multiple copies, each with differing content. He described, in other words, nothing less than an in-process movie script that showed work of the hands of many notoriously anti-Trump writers, each trying to outdo the other in their lying and treasonous intent.
• This week saw DoJ’s Rod Rosenstein request the country’s 93 U.S. Attorneys to select three “federal prosecutors” for his use in vetting Supreme Court-nominee Brett Cavanaugh. Clearly, Rosenstein intends to use the prosecutors to invent a “crime” — as he did with Mueller’s investigation — that can be used to delay or stop Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, and ruin his reputation and career in either event.
• This week saw Strzok admit that he and his paramour used their personal communication devices for government business and that the FBI allowed them to decide which of the messages thereon dealt with official business and which dealt with their sexual adventures (Good God, let there be no videos of that greasy swamp fest.) This is precisely the same biased-for-Democrats discretion that Strzok and the FBI — including weasel-boys Comey and McCabe — allowed Hillary Clinton and her reptilian coterie, before affording them the opportunity to destroy the remainder by smashing computers and mobile phones.
• This week saw Strzok again demonstrate that the FBI is not corrupt, lawless, and deceitful only at the top, but from top to bottom. Strzok repeatedly emphasized the large number of his colleagues who were involved in the Clinton and Russian investigations, noted that they were of one mind with him, and how they were — as he said he is — honorable, truth-telling, and law-abiding. Since no whistle-blower of any consequence has ever come forward from the FBI’s rank-and-file to disclose and describe to Americans what clearly is the dark, anti-constitutional, and fascist heart of the FBI, it can only be concluded that the entire FBI is in need of rapid and merciless eradication.

Finally, this week saw a significant and quickening advance toward the moment when those millions of well-armed citizens who voted for Trump, and who have been abused or wounded by Democrats, their Antifa-thugs, and their thug-civil servants for exercising their franchise to elect Trump, cannot be, in good conscience, patient for much longer.

Fortunately, they have in hand a long and very precise list of the names and photographs of those who hate and threaten them, their families, their way-of-life, their liberty, their livelihoods and their republic. No self-respecting and determined-to-remain-independent citizenry can let themselves forever be held hostage by thug-civil-servants like Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Page, and Rosenstein; worshipers of tyranny, like the Democratic members of Congress, the Clintons, the FBI, and the Obamas; apparent traitors like Brennan, Hayden, and Clapper; all of the mainstream media; and the tens of thousands of government-admitted-and-protected, violent, criminal, and illegal immigrants.

American patriots have so far, praise God, been remarkably disciplined in not responding to tyranny and violence with violence. For now they must remain so, armed but steady. But the time for such patience is fast slipping away; indeed, that patience is quickly becoming an obviously rank and self-destructive foolishness. If Trump does not act soon to erase the above noted tyranny and tyrants, the armed citizenry must step in and eliminate them.

It is, of course, far better if Trump does so, and I pray and believe he will. That said, the sheer, nay, utter joy and satisfaction to be derived from beholding great piles of dead U.S.-citizen tyrants is not one that will be missed if Trump does not soon do the necessary to save the republic. But if he fails, the citizenry must act to ensure that Hillary’s predictive words are proven correct. “If Trump wins,” she apparently said, “we will all hang.”

As President Trump arrives in Europe, he is readying to encounter a continent in which most nation-states are ruled by parties and leaders who want no part of the West’s historic democratic and republican traditions. For the first time in post-1945 history, an American president has no credible reason to pay even lip-service to the now-clear nonsense that the United States and Europe are a community of democratic societies. Save for nationalist-led governments of Poland, Hungary, and perhaps Italy, the nation-state members of the EU have quietly become tyrannies.

The EU’s leaders and bureaucracies have defied voters from the Arctic Ocean to the tip of Sicily by promoting the invasion of the continent by African and Arab Muslims who hate Christianity — they share this sentiment with EU leaders and bureaucrats — and seek life on the dole; legal preferment for themselves and Islam; practice wide-ranging violence, including the grooming of young girls for individual- and gang-rape; and the legal subordination of native-born Europeans to their will and that of the tyrants who have giddily herded them into the continent.

In Great Britain — the home of many of the political, legal, and philosophical ideas that helped shape the brilliance of America’s Founders — President Trump will meet Tory Prime Minister Theresa May. Mrs. May has locked-up native-born critics of her government’s policies on immigration and is in the midst of defying the majority of voters who approved a referendum that demanded the withdrawal of the UK from the EU’s Brussels-based tyranny. The president, in meeting Mrs. May, will not be meeting a fellow advocate and maintainer of liberty and freedom, but a monster intent on eliminating both in a land that historically was the cradle of American liberty.

Also in the UK, when President Trump meets with Queen Elizabeth II and Mrs. May, he ought to politely but forcefully tell them that the heretofore sacrosanct “U.S.-UK Special Relationship” will be terminated by the United States. The president can preface his remarks by noting that Americans fought and died to help maintain freedom in Europe in two world wars, and afterward paid the freight for Europe’s survival until the USSR collapsed. Since that collapse, the president can add, Britain and Europe have unilaterally disarmed and bred-out — via their media and education systems — any warrior-like character or inclinations in its population. In this light, the president can add, it is ludicrous to think the status quo should continue.

Mr. Trump should then drop the hammer by noting the last straw for the United States was Britain’s direct political, media, and intelligence intervention on the Democrats’ side in the 2016 presidential election, as well as in the Democrats’ post-election efforts to destroy his legitimate presidency. The evidence for this last point is ample, but a document published in Mr. Bill Still’s splendidly patriotic and reliably accurate and biting internet site “The Still Report” cinches the case. The document was written on 17 December 2016 by senior officials at GCHQ — the UK’s NSA — and apparently was approved by UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. It shows that GCHQ had been collecting electronic communications at Trump’s campaign HQs and — with the May government’s approval — had agreed to a request by Obama and Susan Rice to continue that collection after Trump’s victory. I tried to move a copy of that document into this piece but failed. Mr. Sill’s short but important report, which includes the document, can be viewed here:

Finally, when President Trump deals with NATO, he should announce that he has set a date — say 31 December 2018 — for all NATO countries to meet or exceed their defense-spending commitments; only three of the 28 European/Canadian members are now doing so. The president should make it clear that all NATO members must meet the deadline; one country’s failure to meet the commitment sinks the organization. If the latter case occurs, Mr. Trump should explain that the United States will submit the required one-year notice to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and will exit the organization on 31 December 2019.

Since the end of the Soviet Union, moreover, the NATO Alliance has been nothing less than an unconscionable burden on American taxpayers, though a monetary bonanza for U.S. arms makers and their bribed Congressional backers. Save for a few, the performance of NATO countries in Afghanistan and Iraq could only have been worse if they had not shown up for those wars. (NB: That said, the performance of the U.S. military in both places, 17 years on, has been nothing to crow about.)

More recently, the retired and serving general officers of most NATO militaries have been more than happy to sit by without challenging either their political leaders’ joint decision to allow a mass of Islamist fighters to enter the continent under the guise of refugees, or their decision to welcome home European mujahedin who have fought with the Islamic State, and then put those veterans on the dole and afford them preference in finding housing. The situation is such that the Europeans have neither the capability to defend themselves against the much over-hyped threat from Russia, nor the exquisitely clear threat their leaders deliberately have created for Europe’s citizens by welcoming a non-uniformed, murderous, and skilled Islamist army into their midst.

The United States is not and must not feel compelled to save Europe from its own endemic effeminacy, pacifism, multiculturalism, and moral cowardice. Now, Mr. Trump, is the time for the United States to begin to formally abandon NATO, and to resolve to let the European countries meet their well-merited and surely bloody fate all alone.

On 6 July 1775, the Continental Congress published a document, in the name of all Americans, that was called “The Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms.” The document announced an impasse between Britain and most of her North American colonies and explained that British North Americans would no longer tolerate British tyranny and were ready to take up arms against their oppressors. Written by John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson, the document said, in part, that,

We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. — The latter is our choice. — We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. — Honour, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves. (1)

That document speaks to our day as much or more then it did to that of Dickinson and Jefferson.

As Independence Day, 2018, nears, I must admit that I have laid off domestic politics for a while and spent the time trying to understand what is going on in the republic. On the one hand, readers of this space will know that my perception has long been that America was striding toward civil war, and so a heavily armed citizenry was increasingly necessary. On the other hand, I have had an unattractive tendency to retreat from that reality and say no, that can never happen again in the United States. In essence, the reality of what I have seen and heard with my own eyes and ears since the 2016 election was continually questioned by a foolish old man who really did not want to admit with finality that he clearly saw what was approaching.

My cowardly timidity began to end with the shooting in Las Vegas which was explained away with such ludicrous statements that any foolish old man — even me — would be angered by it and at those elitists who thought the citizenry so stupid that it would accept the absurd, always changing stories as truth. My reaction was strengthened when the corrupt from top-to-bottom FBI sent a Comey-friendly, senior officer to keep a lid on the incident’s aftermath and to keep fueling the lie-laden information being dispensed to Americans about a one-man attack that killed and wounded hundreds of their fellow citizens. It is pretty clear that those people were shot by operatives who worked for or with the Democrats precisely because they believed them to have voted for President Trump.

My failings were shredded once for all when Representative Nancy Pelosi identified her — and her party’s and its members — support for the grotesque MS-13 barbarians as “children of God” and worthy of respect as human beings. This, of course, is not surprising as it is pretty clear that Democrats used MS-13 gangsters to murder the DNC’s IT employee Seth Rich. Pelosi’s statement was the end for me, and it left me wondering who the armed citizenry should begin deal with first, any tattoo-faced MS-13 butcher who is seen, or Pelosi and any Democrat who agrees with what she says on almost any topic. My conclusion was that the two groups and most of the media are really just one entity and so all merit the same steady and simultaneous attrition.

Also, helpful for me in making this judgment was the absolutely clear decision by the Democrats that they — and their predatory media — are no longer willing to abide by the election results. Their fantasy that the thief, murderer, and perhaps pedophile, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and so should be president, speaks clearly to the fact that the Democrats not only do not understand the Constitution but that they want to destroy it and the governing system it inaugurated. They only understand and want permanent power and the riches they can steal therewith.

The simple truth is that no sane American would ever allow the Electoral College to be abolished. Even today, such a change in the Constitution would result in the nut-bag Democrats who run New York, California, Illinois, the states of New England, the Pacific Northwest, and a few mid-Atlantic states, together with the illiterate scum of the earth the Democrats have brought en masse into the republic to vote illegally and deepen its bankruptcy, would be a permanent national government. That government would rule arbitrarily to serve its members’ own overriding interests; namely, (a) permanent dictatorial power, (b) pedophilia and other extreme forms of sexual deviancy, and (c) the acquisition of enormous riches.

I have tried to leave the forgoing without nuance because there is no longer any point in using nuance — too often a tool used to be polite and dull truth’s edge — and even less to give any Democrat the benefit of the doubt. The last indulgence all Democrats should be granted is a short-time period — say until 1 August 2018 — to allow the Trump Administration to act against them as mercilessly as is permitted by using the full weight of the law against them and their transgressions. If this period passes, Americans are in the happy position of already being well-armed and in possession of an initial, partial list of miscreants who are in desperate need of attrition.

Where is that list? I have noted below four videos that are very helpful for the purposes of identification just mentioned. Each video discusses a list of 3,000-plus recently unsealed Federal indictments from a total that now exceeds 40,000. The unsealed indictments — less than a tenth of the total — are arranged in an easily searchable Excel spreadsheet. The data displayed is fascinating on its face, but focus most attention to the last column on the right in the second video, which consists of links that can be clicked open to allow the reader to review what surely appears to be a copy of the separate federal indictments that have been issued for each individual listed on the spreadsheet. (NB: The list includes men and women; Democrats; establishment Republicans; U.S. and foreign political, social, and religious leaders; celebrities; and rich private-sector business people in American and around the world.)  Several of the videos are hosted by a rough-and-ready, independent commentator whose language can be a bit salty, but his on-point commentary on the spreadsheet is an invaluable aid in assessing the list and showing the swamp’s massive, republic-killing population.

All told, the information presented in the videos is quite persuasive. Even more persuasive is the complete lack of interest in this matter so far shown by the mainstream media, the pro-Democrat online media, and even some of the so-called pro-Trump new media.

Take a look at the videos and judge for yourselves.

Endnote:

1. “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms, 6 July 1775,” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/arms.asp

The mere sight of President Trump sitting down at the table with North Korea’s Kim Jung Un was startling. I had thought that the only way out of the North Korean nuclear mess was war, one which I would have supported because it would have been the last resort that war always is meant to be.

But Trump and Pompeo — despite the sabotage efforts of Bolton and Giuliani — took a chance, engaged Kim, and produced a first-ever meeting between the two sides. Trump had the guts to try to undo the first and one of the most bitter fruits of unnecessary U.S. military interventionism, one that occurred because Truman thought himself unbound by the Constitution and went to war on his own authority — of which he had none — and under the abhorrent flag of the United Nations. Though still quite a long shot, if Trump gets the republic out of the Korean snare after 68 years he will have served Americans with the distinction that comes from obeying the Constitution and serving the citizenry. No matter how the initiative works out, Trump gets full marks for trying. And one can only conclude that those who see only see showboating in his meeting the North Korean dictator would have preferred a possible nuclear war.

Prior to flying to Singapore, Trump also served the republic well with his performance at the G-7 meeting in Canada. What could have possibly upset any American about Trump explaining to the European and Canadian fussbudgets that his job is to serve and protect America’s workers and industries is beyond knowing. But upset them he did, along with virtually all of the U.S. media. Those un-journalists mounted their high horses and condemned the President for “offending” those they referred to as our “closest allies” and for risking a “trade war” in the process. Good Lord, do these media folk know anything about these European wretches, our seven-decade-old, all-take and no-give European allies?

Since VE Day in 1945, the Western Europeans have sucked off the fat American tit both economically and militarily. They never paid their own way in NATO, and unilaterally disarmed after the USSR fell. They and the rest of Europe avoided nuclear Armageddon only because U.S. taxpayers paid much of the niggardly foreigners’ share of NATO expenses, and funded the creation and maintenance of a massive American nuclear deterrent that more than matched the Soviet’s and so kept the peace. Had U.S. leaders wisely declined to sign the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, the Red Army would have been marching along the tree-lined boulevards of Paris even more quickly than the Wehrmacht did in 1940. These days, the Russians better hurry if they want to get to Paris, or any other European capital, as Macron, May, Merkel, et. al are making Muslim-driven violence shit-holes of their once splendid cities and cultures, places that no one in his right mind would want to govern.

In Canada, the Europeans switched focus away from NATO, although they still spun lies about the “Russian threat”. That threat, of course, is not to the United States — Russia poses only an easily manageable threat to the republic, and would pose none at all if it not for NATO — but to the Europeans whose armies are decayed, under-gunned, undermanned, and effete. Armies that must now, moreover, accelerate preparations for the coming bloody domestic war they will have to wage against the Islamic barbarians and Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda veterans their civilian masters have and are welcoming into the EU, even providing the fighters with housing and access to the dole.

The six womanish EU and Canadian leaders also whined mightily about the Trump administration’s determination to pry them loose from America’s financial tit — which has little left to give — and then serve first and only U.S. economic interests until it gets the trade imbalanced reduced and creates a fairer trade system. This will cause pain for the Europeans and some Americans, but to maintain the trade status quo with Europe — or China — can only lock the United States into trade deficits that will act as a paralyzing economic handicap for the foreseeable future. Justin Trudeau’s loss of his false eyebrows while denouncing Trump, after the latter was no longer there to respond, speaks directly to the kind of allies Canada and the other six are; that is, Islamophile, unmanly, and utterly worthless.

Finally, the retaking of much of the Islamic State-held territory in Syria is better seen as Russia and the West winning some time rather than winning the war. The Trump administration speaks too easily about the “defeat” of the Islamic State. IS did indeed lose manpower, financial resources, important leaders, and territory — and not a little prestige and bravado. But IS has now returned to its original advantageous milieu; that is, as a veteran and talented guerrilla force, which, though it is being ignored by the Western media, is steadily increasing the number of its attacks, ambushes, car-bombings, and assassinations of Iraqi civilians, police, community leaders, and military personnel. IS’s geographical reach in Iraq also seems to be growing as most major cities or their environs are experiencing IS attacks, though so far of limited size.

In Syria, both Moscow and Damascus are at least six months into what both describe as a “mopping up” campaign against IS remnants. U.S. generals also proclaimed such nonsense during their losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All, in turn, were merely singing the same refrain that Red Army generals chanted for all of the USSR’s ten-year occupation of Afghanistan; indeed, its strains hung in the air even as the Red Army fled Afghanistan in shame, while the much-despised Afghan remnants retook their country.

While Moscow and Damascus speak as if they are out of the Islamist-made woods, they have at best a respite while IS regroups, rearms, and identifies opportunities for beginning the probably lengthy military campaign that they surely believe will lead — if God wills it —to a final victory. They should be prepared for the gradual resumption of an IS-pressed war in Syria, and they should ignore the fatuous but widely believed and well-loved Western conclusions that the morale of the mujahideen is broken; that their state supporters have stopped sending aid; that their dream of a Caliphate is wrecked beyond recall; and that they have been permanently intimidated by Russian and Western firepower.

Now, I would have no problem if the Trump administration and Moscow were simply crowing falsely because they intend to use the victory their spinners are declaring as cover for getting out of the Syria-Iraq theater before the IS recovery is solidly underway. I fear, however, that they actually believe what is being claimed and, if so, their interventionist juices will keep flowing. There is every reason, at least in the councils of state, to acknowledge (a) that the Syria-Iraq respite will not last forever and (b) that if withdrawal is not accomplished while the getting is good, the United States, Russia, and several NATO countries will not only have to eat their words, but will have to remain in the theater to prove their power and resolve by trying to re-defeat the Islamist enemy they never fully defeated in the first place.

For the U.S. government time is short to get its military completely out of Syria and Iraq, and to make clear that the republic is done intervening in Muslim affairs, protecting Arab tyrannies, and defending theocracies, whether Islamic or Jewish, and that it is determined to let the Muslims, Israelis, Shias, and Sunnis settle their animosities among themselves, preferably peacefully but by all-out war if necessary. A clearly stated and an enduringly resolute policy of non-interventionism toward these issues has never been more important to the preservation of U.S. security and the republic itself.

Why is this assertion credible? Because, in part, the U.S. and Western media have not only failed to provide accurate coverage of affairs in Syria and Iraq, but they have all but ignored the steady growth of militant Islamist movements in Afghanistan, India, Kashmir, much of Southeast Asia, and most of Africa. While the unwise have boasted of the war-ending trends in Iraq and Syria, the Islamists of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State have brought the U.S.-NATO installed Afghan government to the brink of destruction. After nearly 17 years of war, Kabul cannot be secured from attack; the strength of the mujahideen in northern Afghanistan and along the Afghan-Central Asia border is growing, a reality that did not occur during the Soviet occupation; and the West, Russia, and the Afghan regime are treating the world to a mindless lie by claiming that the recent “temporary ceasefire” is a sure sign that peace is on the way.

As always, America’s war with Islam is a war of choice. The Islamists, from the start, have not wanted to fight the United States, their goal was and is to destroy the tyrants — Arab and Israeli — who have ruled and abused them and their faith since World War Two. They attacked and fought the United States because they saw reality as it was: the U.S. government and most of its European allies providing relentless and decades-long support and protection to Arab tyrants, as well as unfailing support and protection for Israel. Without this U.S. support, the Islamists would have focused on local issues, and would not have gone looking for trouble with the U.S. military.

The Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations refused to recognize this reality. Instead, they intervened more frequently, and took advantage of neither America’s geographical remoteness nor the fact that no genuine U.S. national-security interest would be at risk if the above-noted support and protection were ended. A cessation of the U.S. government’s unnecessary interventionism in the Arab world before the 9/11 raid, would have isolated the war to that region, and its costs in blood and treasure would have fallen to those who long-ago earned and now merit them richly, the Arabs and the Israelis.

Today, it is even more important for the national government to exploit our lack of genuine security interests in the Arab world and America’s geographical remoteness. As noted, what has occurred in Syria and Iraq is a pause, not a victory. At the same time, the “peace movement” in Afghanistan is a charade. Even if it produces a so-called coalition regime involving Ghani’s regime and the Taliban, it will only exist until the last of U.S. and NATO forces evacuate the country. After that, Ghani and his cohort will be eliminated by the Taliban, and another war will begin between the Taliban and the Islamic State and its growing size, strength and territorial control. In addition,

• By all evidence, militant Islamism remains an armed and vibrant movement that is growing with speed in most of Arab and Black Africa; in recent weeks, the media have reported the reinvigorated presence of IS in Libya and Central Africa, and Islamist attacks in parts of heretofore peaceful Mozambique.
• In Southeast Asia, militant Islamism is growing in Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and to a more limited extent in southern Thailand. In addition, the media report that the regional governments are bracing for the return of foreign fighters from the Middle East, and that the Philippine Islamists are attracting foreign fighters from other countries in the Pacific.
• China also is doing its level best to spread the Islamists’ war. While most of the the international media has been oblivious, Beijing is making the Uighur Muslim-dominated Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region into a huge concentration camp for Muslims in which they have the choice to accept the eradication of Islam, die, or resist with whatever arms they can secure. This situation, of course, poses no direct thereat to U.S. security, but it seems well on the way toward becoming a cause célèbre in the Sunni Muslim world, one which will bring support from Sunni regimes and wealthy individual Muslims just as did the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Chinese attempt to strangle Islam — and when needed Muslims — in Xinjiang is likely, overtime, to produce a considerable swell of well-funded and properly armed Islamist militancy in South, South East, and East Asia. Moreover, China’s quiet support for the Burmese regime’s and the country’s Buddhist firebrands’ campaign to annihilate Burma’s Rohingya Muslims will strengthen the Islamists’ anti-China fervor that was started in Xinjiang ,and is now being stoked by Beijing’s clearly jihad-causing efforts to build the One Belt, One Road network of highways, rail lines, harbors, and their attendant facilities through the heart of Muslim central and southern Asia.

Now is the time for the Trump administration to announce with a flourish that because of both the Islamic State’s enormous loss of territory in Iraq and Syria, and the budding peace process in Afghanistan the U.S. government recognizes that its task has been completed and that all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from, and all economic aid to those nation-states and the non-state forces in each, will be terminated by 31 December 2018. Such a statement has a modicum of truth — IS lost the territory and the Afghan ceasefire has made always-wrong diplomats giddy with what they deem the approach of peace — but its main goal would be to get the republic out of three theaters of war that will stay such for decades to come. By defusing the Islamists’ motivation to attack U.S. interests — thereby allowing the focused application of resources against their main enemies, Arab tyrants and Israel — and exploiting the republic’s great gift of geographical remoteness from Islamist forces, the Trump administration can concentrate on getting America’s bacon out of the growing Islamist fire in Africa, and the nascent one that is, with China’s indispensable if brain-dead help, beginning to catch hold in Asia.

Americans are still paying the ungodly and unnecessary price, in terms of the lives and money, that have been expended in their governing elite’s interventionist political meddling, military invasions, and hectoring cultural incursions in the Islamic world. These wounds demand a cauterization that would end the republic’s bleeding, and then a strict application of non-interventionism that will prevent them being reopened.

I have kept quiet about former-CIA Director John Brennan’s ongoing, near-hysterical tirades against President Trump and the Republicans for two reasons. First, I thought that the critical response was pretty strong and coming from commentators whose words command a large audience. Second, I had my say in this space when Brennan was nominated to the post of CIA Director.

On 1 June 2018, however, I read Brennan’s OpEd in the New York Times. It is an egregious piece of propaganda and faux nostalgia. It also infused with the author’s overweening — and thoroughly baseless — sense of self-righteousness and personal heroism. Two items in the article particularly caught my eye. The first was Brennan’s claim that he is a “non-partisan,” which is true only in the sense of his own willingness to do anything for anybody who will improve his official position and, so, his financial position. The second was his claim that in the Oval Office of four past presidents he had heard the presidents “dismiss the political concerns of their advisers, saying, “I don’t care about my politics, it’s the right thing to do.’” (1)

The latter statement rings hilariously and viciously false to anyone who worked in the Clinton administration to prepare operations for the CIA to capture or the U.S. military to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton, I happen to know, had ten chances in 1998-1999 to try to end the bin Laden problem and refused each opportunity when it was presented to him.

I never understood why Clinton refused every anti-UBL operational opportunity. Did he honestly believe that Americans would damn him if some Afghan and Arab civilians were killed in an attack on bin Laden that was meant to defend them and the republic, an explanation that he gave to an Australian audience on 10 September 2011?

But now, in the swirl of events that will, pray God, culminate in the annihilation of the republic’s bipartisan governing elite, I wonder if there was more to it than simply Clinton’s personal hubris and moral cowardice, and if that more could be money, Arab money.

The main commonality in the decision-making about whether to conduct an attack on bin Laden in the 1998-1999 period was that the decision was made by a small, closed group of people: Clinton, Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, DCI George Tenet, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger — who later stole probably UBL-pertinent documents from the National Archive — and, on each occasion, John Brennan. Brennan was in close and frequent contact with Tenet from his then-senior post on the Arabian Peninsula. There are, for example, messages to the White House from him, and the then-U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, pleading that an operation to capture bin Laden in Qandahar, scheduled for May-June, 1998, be canceled because the Saudi leaders had pledged to end the bin Laden problem. This and other such episodes are noted in the 2013 piece appended below.

Based on this commonality, and the fact that these men were protecting what the Saudi king and his advisers had determined to the kingdom’s interests, could it be that another factor influenced the bin-Laden-protecting decisions of Clinton, Tenet, Clarke, Berger, and Brennan. It is well-known, after all, that the Saudis and their fellow Gulf Arab monarchs amply reward foreigners who forfeit their own nation’s interests and protect theirs’. We also know that Brennan resolutely defended the Saudis’ refusal to assist in anti-UBL operations — even sending a message to CIA HQs telling the UBL unit to lay off asking for Saudi help because the requests “offended” them — and was never once directed by Clinton, Tenet, Berger, or Clarke to knock-off his sycophant approach to the Saudis and push them hard to assist in preventing bin Laden from killing more Americans. (2)

Could these men have been acting in this manner because they knew what side of their bread the Gulf tyrants were buttering? I do not know, but I do wonder, and there may be a clue. In February-March, 1999, Clinton was presented with numerous, high-quality chances to kill bin Laden — using U.S. military assets — when he was visiting a hunting camp in Afghanistan’s southern desert. The camp belonged to and was inhabited by a group of UAE princes, who heartily welcomed bin Laden to their accommodations with some regularity. Each attack opportunity was sent to the White House, and each was turned down or responded to with silence. Eventually, the camp was closed and bin Laden disappeared from the scene.

Not long afterwards, a memo written by Richard Clarke found its way to CIA. In it was a checklist of items that he had recently discussed — apparently via telephone — with the Crown Prince of the UAE. In one of the items, Clarke noted that he had, with Clinton’s permission, warned the UAE leader that U.S. intelligence knew about the princes’ desert hunting camp and also knew that bin Laden was in the area He added that it might be best for the princes not be in the area. The camp closed almost immediately after the conversation that Clarke memorialized. Shortly afterward, CIA’s Counterterrorism Center learned that the UAE Crown Prince was about to purchase more than $8 billion worth of the export model of a U.S. fighter-plane, I think the F-16.

Coincidence? Who knows, though I am not a believer in coincidences. But there may be a way to ferret out the truth. There is a brilliant and startlingly industrious gentleman named Charles Ortel who is now minutely investigating the finances of the Clinton Presidential Library and the Clinton Foundation and its various sub-organizations. There also are reports that FBI officers in Little Rock, Arkansas, are pursuing the same targets. Perhaps one or the other will find some a record of a transaction involving those institutions that is pertinent to the coincidence of the UAE’s $8 billion-plus purchase of F-16s and the decisions of Clinton, Clarke, Berger, Tenet, and Brennan to ignore the chance to kill bin Laden for what they apparently thought was the unworthy goal of saving American lives.

Beyond pure avarice, apparent criminality, and worship for Obama, could it be that the mere possibility of finding a document showing Arabs rewarding their favorite Americans is fueling John Brennan’s stuck-pig like, holier-than-thou squealing? It is, I think, worth finding out.

Endnotes

1. New York Times, 1 June 2018
2. I am not suggesting that these five men knew that the al-Qaeda attacks on the USS Cole (October, 2000) and then the 9/11 raid were coming. From my own experience, I doubt it, but there still are many smart people working to resolve this issue. I am asserting, however, that these five men refused to take any of the ten CIA-provided chances to kill bin Laden, and, in doing so, they could not have done anything more important to protect bin Laden in his Afghan lairs because they knew only the CIA was able to provide such capture/kill-opportunities.

See also:

Events during the past several weeks have left, at least with me, a growing sense that the need for armed rebellion in the United States and the UK is edging closer. The bipartisan political establishments in the United States and in Britain have left their citizenries in a brutal jungle where either the law is not enforced, or new laws are passed to limit fundamental rights — especially free speech — and/or to discriminate against the native-born in favor of preferred minorities or violent Muslim refugees and immigrants. Each native-born citizen is now approaching a break-point where the choice will come down to either passively obeying and truckling to his elite-run government’s discriminatory, humiliating, and increasingly lethal diktats, or to rebel and seek to destroy the central government that is now focused on destroying him, his family, and his nation and its history.

Of the many troubling events of the last fortnight, four seem particularly likely to move rebellion closer:

Trump’s travel ban and judicial tyranny

In response to an appeal against a lower court’s unconstitutional blocking of the implementation of the president’s travel ban, the appellate judges voted 10 to 3 to sustain the lower court’s illegal and republic-endangering decision. As in all of the court decisions pertaining to the ban, the judges ignored the law and the Constitution, and instead chose to behave as mind-readers. This meant that they applied their partisan hatred of Trump rather than the law, and allied themselves with their personal political ideology and worthless foreigners to block clearly lawful measures needed to protect Americans, as well as the republic that was created by the Constitution and which these tyrannical jurists are sworn to defend. Having lifetime tenure, these judges leave the citizenry with only one way to negate their political partisanship, lawlessness, and preference for foreigners over U.S. citizens.

Manchester and the madness of disarming

Nearly a hundred of what the Islamic State called “Crusader casualties” occurred in a Libyan Muslim’s suicide attack on young girls attending a concert by one of America’s elite-but-sluttish entertainers, a young woman who told the media soon after the attack that she wished all her fans “would f…ing die.” Swinging into action after the bombing, the Manchester government, Britain’s Tory government, and the British police and media moved quickly to silence any person who dared be critical of Muslims. This persecution extended to a female radio broadcaster who simply and truthfully asked if was not far past time for British men to stand up and defend their wives, sisters, and daughters against the Muslim slime — those two words are mine not hers — that Britain’s political elite has allowed to overrun the United Kingdom. The post-attack behavior of both governments and the West’s mainstream media — including America’s media — eloquently speaks the truth; namely, that native, white Britons, Germans, Americans, etc. exist only to work and pay for Muslim refugees who will never assimilate, but will merrily kill native citizens or hide those who do. After two decades in which the use of the ballot box has been unable to halt the inflow of Muslim murderers, the British people — and soon the American people — are left with only one way to negate the lawlessness of their elite. Sadly, Britons have let themselves be disarmed by their own government. Perhaps it is time for Britons to recall the words of one of their greatest republican patriots, a man who also was a hero to America’s Founders. “[O]ur ancestors were willing,” John Milton wrote, “to put anything into the king’s power rather than their arms and the garrisons of their towns; conceiving that that would be as if they went about to hand over their liberty to the unrestrained cruelty of their kings.” The consistent “unrestrained cruelty” of post-Thatcher UK governments in ruining British society with unlimited Muslim immigration, and by forcibly imposed multiculturalism and diversity have left the citizenry unable to resist their nation’s destruction because it long ago accepted the madness Milton described as a decision that “the power of the sword must belong to the king alone.” Now, the unarmed British citizenry finds that it must acquiesce in whatever “unjust laws the king would have ordered imposed on them.” [1] Americans, praise God, still believe in and abide by Milton’s words.

Seth Rich and his fellow corpses

Rich was the victim of a political assassination in Washington, DC, in July, 2016. Rich had worked as an IT Manager for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and he increasingly looks like the source that leaked the Podesta e-mails to Julian Assange. While Rich’s assassin has not been identified, the DNC’s fingerprints appear to be all over the assassination. Someone, for example, stopped the DC police investigation into Rich’s death. As a result, the owner and patrons of the last bar he was in before being killed were not interviewed, and the film from multiple closed-circuit, security video-cameras in the area of the assassination were not collected and examined by the police. In addition, another young man was killed after serving legal papers to the DNC, and a Democratic congresswoman, the former head of the DNC, was taped threatening the chief of the Capitol Police with “consequences” if he did not return a computer from her office that appears to part of a so far undefined criminal investigation. Soon after this threat of “consequences,” a Federal prosecutor was found dead from a head wound on a beach in the congresswoman’s home district in Florida, which happens to be the district in which she and the DNC are being sued for manipulating the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential primary elections to ensure no other candidate could defeat Hillary Clinton. In addition, the dead prosecutor’s body was found not far from the home of the judge that is overseeing the DNC lawsuit. These incidents, and law-enforcement’s studied and probably corrupt disinterest in finding Rich’s killers, appears to leave the citizenry with just one way to negate their lawlessness and provide at least a rough kind of justice for the deceased.

Erasing history to placate swine

In the past two weeks, the New Orleans’ city government removed the statues of four leaders of the Southern Confederacy — including Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee — to satisfy the hate-filled, baying of herds of uneducated millennial shitbirds. If this is the correct manner in which Americans are to treat their nation’s history, it is more than likely that city councils across the nation long ago would have been petitioned to remove the statues of any Black who fomented civil violence; those of any hero of sexual perversion or abortion, and, most of all, any honoring American Indians for their unparalleled craftsmanship in scalping men and women, kidnapping children, smashing babies’ heads against trees and rocks, and, their specialties, burning captives at the stake or burying them in ant hills, but only deep enough to ensure they were alive while being consumed.

But since no nation can proceed in this history-erasing manner and survive, let us hold our petitioning pens and take a look at General Lee’s enormous contributions to the republic, while never forgetting that he fought for — and nearly achieved — the Confederacy’s secession from it. During the U.S.-Mexican War, Lee repeatedly undertook life-risking reconnaissance operations for General Winfield Scott’s army, and without fail found the positions of Mexican forces and sketched routes by which they could be most effectively approached and attacked by the smaller American army. After that war, Scott described Lee as the best soldier he had ever served with; indeed, Scott and Lincoln offered Lee the command of the Union armies on the eve of the rebellion. Later, after the Civil War, Lee, while serving as the president of what is now Washington and Lee University, acted in a manner that reverberated loudly and tellingly across the society of the postwar south, when he walked up to the altar and knelt alongside a Black man to take communion, this when no one else in the congregation would do so.

But what all Americans should most remember and treasure about Robert E. Lee is what he did to ensure that the United States had a chance to survive and reconcile after the civil war. On the morning of 9 April 1865, near a small Virginia town called Appomattox, Confederate Brigadier Edward Porter Alexander sought to dissuade Lee from surrendering the Army of Northern Virginia to Grant. In this conversation, Alexander pleaded with Lee not to surrender the army to Grant, but rather to send his troops to their home states and have them continue the fight there in the fashion of guerrillas and partisans. Lee responded in the following manner.

[A]s Christian men, Gen. Alexander, you and I have no right to think for one moment of our personal feelings or affairs. We must consider only the effect which our action will have upon the country at large.

Suppose I should take your suggestion & order the army to disperse & and make their way to their homes. The men would have no rations & would be under no discipline. They are already demoralized by four years of war. They would have to plunder and rob to procure subsistence. The country would be full of lawless bands in every part, & a state of society would ensue from which it would take the country years to recover. Then the enemy’s cavalry would pursue in the hopes of catching the principal officers, & wherever they went there would be fresh rapine & destruction.

And as for myself, while you young men might afford to go to bushwhacking, the only proper and dignified course for me would be to surrender myself & take the consequences of my actions.

But it is still in the early spring, & if the men can be quietly & quickly returned to their homes there is time to plant crops & begin to repair the ravages of war. That is what I must now try to bring about. I expect to meet General Grant at ten this morning in the rear of the army and to surrender this army to him. [2]

Thus, Lee made a decision that likely saved the Union from a guerrilla war that might have dragged on for years, caused untold numbers of human deaths and much more property destruction, and certainly would have made national reconciliation a very distant and perhaps unattainable goal. In his memoirs, Alexander also recalls his immediate reaction to Lee’s republic-mending decision.

Then I thought I had never half known before what a big heart & brain our general had. I was so ashamed of having proposed to him such a foolish and wild cat scheme as my suggestion had been that I felt like begging him to forget that he had ever heard it. … It seemed now an inestimable privilege to serve under him to the very last moment & that no scene in the life of the Army of Northern Virginia would be more honorable than the one which was now to close its record. [3]

Watching the crane removing Lee’s statue in New Orleans, it seemed clear that the New Orleans city council that ordered its removal, the crane operator and crew that undertook the task, the media covering the process, and the rabid uneducated fools, and their Democratic enablers, who demanded the action, knew little or nothing about General Lee, the wars in which he fought, or the debt all Americans owe him. Particularly reprehensible was the ignorant rabble that expressed such hatred for Lee, and through him for all of the contemporary South, the republic’s history, and the honored Civil War dead on both sides. These people blithely lit yet another fuse that will earn them — when the patience of Americans runs out — the fury of their fellow countrymen, whom they take such great joy in wickedly and recklessly abusing.

In a post-bellum song called “I’m a Good Old Rebel,” a Confederate soldier laments that “300,000 Yankees lay dead in Southern dust. We got 300,000 before they conquered us. They died of Southern fever, and Southern steel and shot. I wish it was 3 million instead of what we got.” If necessary, and God willing, that rebel may yet get his wish.

Endnotes

1. John Milton, “Defence of the People of England,” 1651
2. Gary W. Gallagher, (Ed.). Fighting for the Confederacy. The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1989, pp. 532-533
3. Ibid., p.533

Mr. President:

Half-measures surely are one of the most vicious forms of self-destruction. As you said this week, Obama’s deal with Iran was rotten and far too costly to the United States. You were right to kill it.

The deal, moreover, was unconstitutional. Obama, as a person who was temporarily the U.S. president, concluded an agreement with Iran and several other parties. He treated it as if it was a binding and constitutionally concluded treaty. It was not. The deal was between Barack Obama and the other parties, and he knew — or should have known — that it would remain valid after he was gone only as long as his successor pretended it was a treaty and binding. Obama’s agreement was an execrable mix of cynicism and probably venality on his part, as well as that of John Kerry. After all, there was plenty of cold, hard cash on those pallets for all involved.

Those two points would have been a full measure, as well as logically and constitutionally sufficient to get the United States out from under the senseless and demeaning burden of always being ready-to-pounce militarily on Iran, a country that Israel and its well-bribed congressional and U.S. media lackeys hate and fear, but one that poses no threat to the United States, unless you are dumb enough to believe that the “Death to America” chants and burning of U.S. flags –common actions on the campuses of U.S. universities — are anything more than old, tiresome, and now meaningless actions, no matter how many Iranians use them in Iran’s parliament or the regime-staged marches in Tehran. Given that both are also trademarks of the Democratic Party, you might have usefully compared the authoritarian and brutal mullahs to Democrat leaders and their paramilitary terrorists in Antifa, BLM, BAM, and other groups, yet to be heard from.

A more melodious melding of the three foregoing paragraphs would have made your announcement briefer, irrefutably valid in terms of the Constitution, commonsense, and genuine U.S. national security interests. Best of all, it would have been a clear sign that the United States was leaving the Iran problem to those who hate and fear it; namely, the region’s Sunni states, Israel, and the charlatans now posing as EU leaders, each of whom wields a decrepit military and is facing escalating domestic social strife. Iran is their problem not — so long as our nuclear forces are potent and capable of quick, precise application — America’s.

With those points made, the clear takeaway from your statement, Mr. President, would have been that a proper definition of an American First foreign policy is one in which there is no room for the United States waging war against scheming Shia Muslim foreigners on behalf of other scheming foreigners in Europe and Israel, Sunni Muslims, the American Jewish community, and the suborned, probably dual-passported Congress, the latter group intending a war that will only cost Iranian lives and U.S. blood and treasure.

But no, being a smart, fair-minded, and tough American-First president, ready to do his best for Americans and their interests, was not enough for you. Indeed, on balance, you may have made matters a bit worse for the United States. You withdrew from the lousy accord, but then you let it appear that you did so on the orders of Netanyahu, who militarily attacked Iranian assets just as soon as you finished speaking. Then you declared that economic sanctions would be re-imposed on Iran in 90 days. As always, sanctions are quiet acts of war that bring conflict closer, and hurt the inhabitants of the country on which they are imposed, but not the Iranian elite nor their long-term strategic ambitions. The sanctions, Mr. President, keep the United States securely locked in the unstoppable downward drift of the war-of-all-against-all in the Near East, the place that you have so often and so correctly identified as a morass that has unnecessarily devoured tens of thousands of the lives and limbs of U.S. military personnel and over seven trillion taxpayer dollars.

And while some pundits and experts have said your decision to scrap the Iraq deal also was meant to send a message to the North Koreans that they better toe the peace line, the two situations are apples and oranges. North Korea was and is isolated, economically broken, and friendless, save for wishy washy China. Kim Jong Un saw that no cavalry was going to come over the hill and that your nuclear button was far more formidable than his. It seems unlikely that his decision needed reinforcement. Iran, on the other hand, is not isolated — even with sanctions — as China, Russia, and, at least implicitly, the EU have already taken the side of Iran against the United States.

Perhaps most worrying, the words you spoke near your statement’s end are an exact repetition of the bipartisan American governing elite’s demented belief that the United States must the “leader of the free world” and an “exceptional” country that is duty bound to bring democracy to all of the world. These words are particular favorites of the Neocons and the Israel-Firsters, as well as your adviser John Bolton, a senior member of both of those anti-American organizations. They use the words as a blind to hide their love of war, their utter loyalty to Israel, and their complete lack of concern about the welfare of Americans and their republic.

Face facts, Mr. President, most Americans have no intention of standing side-by-side with the Iranians or any other people if it means war, dead soldier-children, and massive and wasteful expenditures of their taxes. Face the even more important fact, Mr. President, that you currently hold the presidency of this decaying republic, and you have done much to rehabilitate the luster and dignity of that office and to begin rebuilding some small feeling of affection between the citizenry and their national government.

But, Sir, neither you nor any other president can find in the Constitution any authority to spend American lives and taxes for the interests of other nations or individuals, to spread democracy and secularism abroad, or to intervene in other peoples’ affairs simply because their political circumstances, forms of government, or economic circumstances are not to the U.S. governing elite’s liking.

The roles of being the leader of the free world and that of being the American president are in no way compatible; indeed, the former role makes the president the patsy and bankroller of anti-Americans at home and abroad and thereby negates the aspects of the latter that are the most important to Americans, ensuring low taxes, jobs, rehabilitated infrastructure, a family oriented culture, limited government, border control, and peace. The steady, perhaps irreversible physical and spiritual disintegration of our republic and Union began in 1945 with the creation of the UN and the anointing of America’s Ivy League-educated governing elite as the leaders of the free world.

This deliberately destructive process continues today, Mr. President. It is your preeminent constitutional responsibility to destroy those who are its facilitators, Sir, and there is not a lot of time left to preserve the republic and the Union. With respect, Sir, get your butt in gear, get cracking, and eradicate the elite-induced cancer that is killing the republic.

It is never within man’s abilities to be perfect. That said, French President Emmanuel Macron came fairly close to perfection in his description of the world he envisions and wants to be imposed on the United States. It is a vision that, undoubtedly, will nauseate, infuriate, and worry those Americans who believe — as President Trump’s claims to — in an “America First,” non-interventionist foreign policy.

What is wrong with Macron? Macron demonstrated that he is either supremely arrogant and believes his vision — more properly the EU’s vision — is brilliant, unquestionably right, supremely moral, and cannot be challenged, or his intelligence services have utterly failed to provide him the data necessary to understand that Trump was not elected to conduct a steady-as-she-goes foreign policy. In his arrogance or ignorance, Macron reminded the pro-Trump citizenry of the hell that awaits them, their money, their republic, and their children’s lives if the Macron-voiced-vision of the internationalists’ “21st-century world order” carries the day. Only a moron, it seems to me, would be uninformed about how much contemporary Americans hate a politician peddling the creation of a new “world order” of any type.

Several passages from Macron’s speech¹ merit comment:

“In recent years, our nations have suffered wrenching losses simply because of our values and our taste for freedom. Because these values are the very ones those terrorists precisely hate. … That is why we stand together in Syria and in the Sahel today, to fight together against these terrorist groups who seek to destroy everything for which we stand.”

This is the key falsehood for Western and U.S. leaders: The Islamists have nothing to with Islam, and simply hate Western values and freedom. This lie has blocked from view, for most in the West, the fact that the Islamists are waging war against the West because it routinely and mindlessly intervenes militarily in the Muslim world and so has earned a religious-powered response and opposition. (NB: If the Islamists fight has anything to with the West’s values, it is with the utter lack of values in the debauched and ever-more licentious West.) Macron praises U.S. military forces in Syria and the Sahel, the former long a sphere of influence for France, and, the latter, the source of most of the uranium used in France’s large nuclear energy industry. Macon simply wants American kids and money doing France’s fighting.

“This is an urgent reminder indeed. Because now, going beyond our bilateral ties, beyond our very special relationship, Europe and the United States must face together the global challenges of this century. And we cannot take for granted our transatlantic history and bonds. At the core, our Western values themselves are at risk.”

Macron and his EU partners have long rejected what he calls “Western values,” which traditionally have included natural rights, Christianity, rule of law, equality before the law, civil liberties, and nationalism. A short review of the manner in which EU countries are governed today will show, for example, that most EU regimes deny natural rights, damn and seek to eradicate Christianity, use laws to protect illegal non-citizens who rape, murder, kidnap, and knife native-born citizens, and treat the idea of nationalism as even worse than the idea of the right-to-life, and we all know the sheer joy they take in murdering the unborn.

“But we bear another responsibility inherited from our collective history. Today, the international community needs to step up our game and build the 21st-century world order, based on the perennial principles we established together after World War II.”

Both Bushes, both Clintons, Obama, Blair, Scowcroft, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Biden, Cameron, and Merkel could not have said it better. What Macron is calling for is the continuation of the post-1945 U.S.-Western campaign to wage interventionist wars designed to remake the world in the West’s savagely secular, anti-democratic, and minority-rule image. The EU elite does not have the resources to do this on its own and wants American manpower and money to fuel the worldwide project. Macron seems to think his speech’s loathsome flattery of the United States will be enough to keep the U.S. interventionist elite onboard in supporting the EU’s goal of a world government. Sadly, Macron may be correct.

“Together with our international allies and partners, we are facing inequalities created by globalization; threats to the planet, our common good; attacks on democracies through the rise of illiberalism; and the destabilization of our international community by new powers and criminal states. All these risks aggrieve our citizens. Both in the United States and in Europe we are living in a time of anger and fear, because of these current global threats.” But these feelings do not build anything. You can play with fears and anger for a time. But they do not construct anything. Anger only freezes and weakens us. And, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt said during his first inaugural speech, ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’”

This is deliberately misleading. U.S. and EU citizens are primarily aggrieved not by world affairs or the greed-driven climate-change myth. They are aggrieved, angry, and fearful because their governments are attacking their civil rights; flooding their lands with unwanted, often violent immigrants who are favored legally, socially, and economically; waging endless and always losing foreign interventionist wars; crippling the current and future generations with unpayable debt; and destroying their cultures, histories, and traditions. Macron and his EU colleagues ought to worry that their peoples’ grievances, anger, and fear will soon be acted on violently by massacring their respective and execution-deserving governing elite.

“Therefore, let me say we have two possible ways ahead. We can choose isolationism, withdrawal, and nationalism. This is an option. It can be tempting to us as a temporary remedy to our fears. But closing the door to the world will not stop the evolution of the world. It will not douse, but inflame, the fears of our citizens. We have to keep our eyes wide open to the new risks, right in front of us. I am convinced that if we decide to open our eyes wider, we will be stronger. We will overcome the dangers. We will not let the rampaging work of extreme nationalism shake a world full of hopes for greater prosperity. It is a critical moment. If we do not act with urgency as a global community, I am convinced that the international institutions, including the United Nations and NATO, will no longer be able to exercise their mandate and stabilizing influence. We would then inevitably and severely undermine the liberal order we built after World War II.”

What can be said about this nonsense? No one in the United States is proposing anything that can remotely be termed isolationism. Macron uses it as an easy strawman to knock down, as well as a slur against Trump and most Americans. Macron’s stated fears of seeing the end of “the liberal order we built after World War II” surely must be a sign of his early-onset dementia. The so-called “liberal post-war era,” and its sadly prolonged existence by George H.W. Bush and posse of his one-worlders, may have helped the Europeans, but it has cost America dearly. The post-war liberal order’s yield primarily was wasteful, constant, and unnecessary wars; enormous amounts of foreign aid paid to gangsters dictators and their Swiss bank accounts; high numbers of U.S. military casualties; repeated surrenders of U.S. sovereignty and independence; and proliferating international organizations that deliberately undermined the United States economically and politically, and consistently maligned it rhetorically. For the United States, the sooner the world order that Macron and his EU colleagues adore is demolished, the sooner the American people will thrive, rebuild their country, and — as it should be — let others fend for themselves.

“Therefore, distinguished members of Congress, let us push them aside, write our own history and birth the future we want. We have to shape our common answers to the global threats that we are facing. The only option then is to strengthen our cooperation. We can build the 21st-century world order, based on a new breed of multilateralism. Based on a more effective, accountable, and results-oriented multilateralism. A strong multilateralism.”

Here, Macron is simply calling for more of the same, more failure, wasted resources, and lost wars. The post-war period’s sole success was the fact that the United States maintained a nuclear-deterrent force too strong for the Soviet Union to challenge without committing national suicide, and vice-versa. The end of the Cold War with the defeat of the USSR was not a triumph delivered by the championship of Western values, but by the military and economic power of the United States, and, of course, the arrival of Ronald Reagan in the White House in the nick of time to make that power stick.

“This [see the foregoing quote] requires more than ever the United States’ involvement, as your role was decisive for creating and safeguarding today’s free world. The United States invented this multilateralism. You are the one now who has to help to preserve and reinvent it.”

Pure, self-interested flattery from the manipulating Frenchman. The smartest Frenchman — Alexis de Tocqueville — was singularly unimpressed with the quality of the U.S. congressmen he met, and not much more by the senators. He found them badly educated, avaricious, and easy to manipulate. Being that is still the case, Macron took a page from Democracy in America and laid it on thick, and, before he left the chamber, he knew his ruse had succeeded as he won a three-minute standing ovation. From the 1830s to 2018, some things in the Congress seem never to change.

“This strong multilateralism will not outshine our national cultures and national identities. It is exactly the other way around. A strong multilateralism will allow our cultures and identities to be respected, to be protected and to flourish freely together. Why? Because precisely our own culture is based, on both sides of the Atlantic, on this unique taste for freedom, on this unique attachment to liberty and peace. This strong multilateralism is the unique option compatible with our nations, our cultures, our identities. With the US President, with the support of every 535 members of this joint session, representing the whole American nation, we can actively contribute together to building the 21st-century world order, for our people.”

This is such a ridiculous assertion that a single question makes a mockery of it. If Macron’s statement “strong multilateralism will not outshine our national cultures and national identities. It is exactly the other way around” is true, why are Macron, most of his EU peers, and the U.S. Democratic party working to destroy their respective nation’s history, nationalism, identity, traditional ethnic make-up, and traditional culture? Macron is a two-bit, lying bastard who, with his elite colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic, intend nothing less than the destruction of the nation-state and their dictatorship over the detritus of once splendid nations and peoples.

“We are experiencing the positive impact of our current economic globalization, with innovation, with job creation. We see, however, the abuses of globalized capitalism, and digital disruptions, which jeopardize the stability of our economies and democracies. I believe facing these challenges requires the opposite of massive deregulation and extreme nationalism. I believe we can build the right answers to legitimate concerns regarding trade imbalances, excesses, and overcapacities, by negotiating through the World Trade Organization and building cooperative solutions. We wrote these rules; we should follow them.”

Macron directly attacks Trump and his supporters by setting up two more ludicrous strawmen to knock down. There has been no “massive deregulation and extreme nationalism” in the United States, indeed, God willing, Trump has barely begun such measures but they are already succeeding. Macron’s own words have proven that he, like Obama, the Clintons, and other Western elitists, are never the advocates of “change” that will help Western nations and their citizens. The only change these people ever demand is found in measures that will expand their own power and wealth, strengthen international organizations, cause wars, and continue the dissolution of nation-states. Americans are done with being the reliable patsies who fill the money trough out of which Europeans and Third Worlders have gluttonously drunk for nearly seventy years.

“Some people think that securing current industries — and their jobs — is more urgent than transforming our economies to meet the global challenge of climate change. I hear these concerns, but we must find a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy. Because what is the meaning of our life, really, if we work and live destroying the planet while sacrificing the future of our children? What is the meaning of our life if our decision, our conscious decision, is to reduce the opportunities for our children and grandchildren?”

Macron cannot stand that the fact that the “some people” he refers to are absolutely and eternally correct regarding the climate-change fraud. Atheists like Macron and much of the U.S. and European governing elites have adopted climate-change as a secular religion that is more fanatic and less fact-based than the one the Islamists hold. Macron, et. al., have ordered their governmental environmental agencies to manufacture false data to support the climate-change argument, and have used generous grants to universities and scientific publications to keep the world’s lying climate scientists on board. And please, Macron, have the common decency not to speak of the children that you and your lust to kill when unborn, at birth, and — as this week in Britain — after they are born.

“To protect our democracies, we have to fight against the ever-growing virus of fake news, which exposes our people to irrational fear and imaginary risks. And let me attribute the fair copyright for this expression “fake news,” especially here. Without reason, without truth, there is no real democracy — because democracy is about true choices and rational decisions. The corruption of information is an attempt to corrode the very spirit of our democracies.”

Macron’s reference to “fake news” is meant to indicate, and ultimately ban, the conservative and populist alternative media, those outlets that were key in electing Trump and re-embedding “America First” in the minds of Americans. Macron and his like on both sides of the Atlantic are the people who are — with the enthusiastic assistance of the BBC, Deutsche Welle, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. — the authoritarian masters of “fake news.” Macron’s brazen call for destroying the alternative media outlets that have relentlessly detailed their corruption, authoritarianism, power-hunger, greed, and — in some — depravity is no surprise. After all, those media outlets are paving a smooth road for Macron and all Trans-Atlantic globalists to trod on their way to the gallows they so richly merit.

Source:

1. All the passages quoted above were taken from the transcript of Macron’s speech found at Transcription du discours du Président de la République, Emmanuel Macron, devant le congrès des États-Unis d’Amérique