In this episode of Week-End Warrior, Lana and Henrik of Red Ice TV discuss the latest film form Dinesh D’Souza, Death of a Nation. To make things brief, D’Souza tries to sell us the idea that the Democrats were the real Nazis and fascists and that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery, etc. Although this thesis has certain merits, I agree with Lana and Henrik that Dinesh D’Souza twists reality in order to propagandize against the Democrat Party and that is wrong. There were partisans of slavery and of nazism in both parties. But I want to cover another aspect of D’Souza’s view of things that they don’t talk about (not directly). It is the question of White supremacy. Dinesh D’Souza covered the subject of White supremacy in an interview given to Frank Gaffney on the air of Secure Freedom Radio (the audio files are below). During the interview, he explains to Gaffney that fascism and Nazism were left-wing ideologies and that is an argument that can be made if we look at their doctrine. He says that the Left put the blame on the Right for the crimes of Nazism and fascism and that is true. Right-wingers don’t commit mass murder and try to reduce the rights of the citizens. But he fails to see that, in that regard, the so-called White supremacy is a concept that was invented by the same Left to try to portray patriots in a bad light. During the interview, he makes references to figures of the Alt-Right like Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer and says that they are wrong, etc, etc. People in the patriotic and/or nationalist movement are not ‘White supremacists’. They are activists or advocates for the white race. That means that they want the best conditions for the white race, to thrive, to be prosperous, to grow, etc, and there is nothing ‘supremacist’ about that. And that is done not at the expense of others. Every race and ethnic group has the right to be free and live in an environment favorable to its development. Dinesh D’Souza falls into the trap of calling ‘supremacist’ good men and women who simply want to protect us from harm and avoid the catastrophe of totalitarianism. Dinesh D’Souza is trying to have it both ways. He wants the public to believe that those who call right-wingers ‘fascists’ and ‘nazis’ are wrong when they do that, but on the other hand, that they are right when they call certain right-wingers ‘white supremacists’. According to Dinesh D’Souza those so-called ‘White supremacists’ are not really right-wingers. The truth is that they are really right-wingers but they are not White supremacists. They are trying to protect us.
To visit the page of the show on SFR: Interview with Dinesh D’Souza on Death of a Nation
It pains me a great deal having to write this article but it is my duty as a responsible citizen to do so, so bear with me. Things are not going well with the Trump Administration. The policies put in place by President Trump are importantly different from those advertised by Candidate Trump and it doesn’t bode well for the future. What we saw in Charlottesville a few weeks ago when the supposed ‘white supremacist’ rally, called Unite The Right, happened was a real circus, a theater of smoke and mirrors to deceive the many. The media lied about it in a way for me that was unprecedented. I knew the media was lying but they surpassed anything I was expecting. Even Fox News, a supposedly right-wing network, lied up to their cheeks. The female host who was describing the events going on live was absolutely horrible, calling rallygoers racists and nazis. She was so completely over the top, unprofessional and dishonest that you were wondering if she was not making a pitch to be hired by some other network. I had to check the station identification logo to be sure.
To set the record straight, here is what happened at Charlottesville, from the facts and witnesses accounts that I could gather. Right-wingers of a variety of school of thought and political philosophy gathered in that town to protest the removal of Confederate monuments, the statue of Robert E. Lee among many. It was also an occasion to meet other right-wingers, to network and create bonds. A lawfull permit was given to the organizers and the police was informed of every detail. Everything was looking good. Rallygoers start to assemble in the morning and the atmosphere was peaceful. The police was monitoring and securing the event. Then the antifa showed up and increased their numbers rapidly. Some of them were armed with clubs and other weapons. Then for some reasons not explained the rally was declared unlawful, the State of Emergency was declared and things deteriorated rapidly. The police, at the request of local authorities clearly not in sync with the ideas and values of rallygoers, pushed Unite the Right participants toward the antifa thugs making them easy targets for injuries of all sorts. What is important to precise here, again according to people who were there such as Richard Spencer and others, is that the perimeter had been set in a way that made rallygoers trapped and had nowhere to go to escape the antifa. So violence broke out between the two groups. That’s a chance that right-wingers brought shields to defend themselves. Then, there was also the incident with the car but we don’t even know if it was intentional. We don’t know the circumstances.
The media portrayed the whole event as a nazi and KKK event while it was nothing of the sort. There might have been a few people with nazi flags but that doesn’t make all rallygoers nazis. Effectively, if your neighbour puts a Bolivian flag on his balcony that doesn’t make the whole neighbourhood Bolivian. You also have to remind yourself that sometimes people in the New Right or the Alt-Right for exemple use nazi paraphernelia as a means of provocation, not because they are real nazis. I agree with Richard Spencer when he says that the Charlottesville rally was a total set up. Everything was ready, the police, local authorities, the media, to be able to present the event as a nazi rally.
But then who was the target of such an extensive operation? Obviously the Alt-Right movement first, which is gaining momentum and in strength rapidly. I think that those who planned this ‘coup’ against the movement wanted to be able to tie in the stain of nazism to the Alt-Right to be able, in turn, to get to President Trump. You see, the media and the Left have been trying unsuccessfully for months to portray Trump as somebody who ‘collude with Russia’. They have been repeating this story over and over again but it doesn’t stick. It is obvious that they have decided to change tactics: If the Russia label doesn’t work maybe the nazi label will. That’s what it was all about. Members of the Alt-Right movement, largely represented at this rally in Charlottesville, were instrumental in providing support to Candidate Trump to assure his victory on November 8. They made the difference, so to speak. So they were targeted to be smeared as nazis in Charlottesville, by the Left and other nefarious forces, to be able to smear Trump himself in a second step as a nazi and discredit him.
Then you have Trump’s response to the events. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure that Trump gets it the way he should. Or maybe he gets it but his entourage don’t let him think besides what Washington expects. In the very dangerous world in which we live, the puck is going very fast. So, in order to survive and win, you have to think fast and act fast. In the aftermath of the rally in Charlottesville, Trump provided a response that was rubber-stamped by the swamp, so to speak. He talked about ‘bigotry, hatred, racism, etc. Then, a few days later, going off script, he provided a much better response when he denounced ‘violence on both sides’. But again that’s not what happened.
It is obvious that Charlottesville was a set up, a very clever, meticulous, articulate information warfare and propaganda operation designed to break Trump’s Presidency. All the signs are there showing that a soft ‘coup’ is under way to overthrow the President and marginalize his supporters. Within the Administration, those who support his agenda and policies are being pushed aside, fired or dismissed. The ousting of Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka are sending the signal that the Trump Presidency will not be about what Candidate Trump made campaign on. Also, those who support or used to support President Trump are being kicked out of social media, they see their videos on Youtube being demonetized, censored, they see their access cut from payments services, etc, in other terms they are being targeted for their political ideas. In that regard, everybody can notice that there seems to be more censorship going on since Trump took office than there was during Obama’s Presidency. Obama transfered the control of the internet to ICANN, the organism that delivers names and numbers for websites. Technically, while that is still a matter of interpretation by legal experts and lawyers, that transfert took off the protection offered by the First Amendment on speech, since now it is no longer the government that is in control of the internet but a non-profit organization.
President Trump could have easily denounced that transfer and proposed to cancel it, bringing it back under the government’s control. Why hasn’t he done that? President Trump said a few times that he would defend ‘religious liberty’. Well…there’s just one problem. Religious liberty and freedom of speech are not compatible. If you look at history, you will notice that very often religions were imposed on populations by force, sometimes by the sword. So religions spread throughout the world thanks to their ability to suppress the freedom of speech of those they wanted to convert. As far as I know, all religions of any importance did it. And today, we have to face the problem of Muslims trying to impose shariah law on non-Muslims. To let the Muslims deliver their propaganda in order for them to impose shariah on us is not ‘liberty’. It is folly and submission. When President Trump made his trip to Saudi Arabia to meet with the leaders of the Muslim and Arab nations, he was received and treated as a king. Personally, I am not sure I like it. Islam is a supremacist religion that tolerates nothing and no one outside its realm. When Muslims don’t like somebody, usually, that’s a good sign, a sign that that person is not submitting to shariah and is actually defending our values and freedoms. In that regard, you could say that Muslims are divided on Trump. Some of them like him, others don’t. Recently, Muslim activitst Linda Sarsour proposed the idea that resisting Trump was a form of jihad. Was the whole circus of Charlottesville part of that jihad?
I would like to finish with this broader question: How far are we willing to go in the West to accommodate the Muslim world before getting destroyed? I suggest that you listen to these two witnesses accounts, those of Richard Spencer and James Allsup.
Soixante-dix ans de recul historique permettent de mieux juger cette période de l’histoire de France. Aussi, cela permet de mieux comprendre ce qui se passe aujourd’hui. En effet, il peut être tentant pour des gens désirant obtenir le pouvoir ou désirant le garder, d’utiliser des mercenaires étrangers — comme des islamistes par exemple ou différents indésirables qui peuvent débarquer dans nos pays via l’immigration ou le statut de réfugié — pour faire l’épuration de la population à une époque où les plus hautes sphères du pouvoir sont ébranlées et remises en question. Utiliser des mercenaires étrangers, cela permet aussi d’utiliser la « déniabilité plausible » et de blâmer quelqu’un autre pour l’échec de ses propres politiques économiques et sociales. Une capsule vidéo à méditer longuement.
Elizabeth Gould et Paul Fitzgerald sont des chercheurs et journalistes de haut niveau, comme il ne s’en fait plus. Leurs recherches et leur travail de terrain leur ont permis de mettre en lumière l’histoire réelle de la guerre en Afghanistan, au-delà de la propagande officielle. Entre autres éléments à prêter attention, le rôle joué par les conseillers politiques Zbigniew Brzeziński et Henry Kissinger dans la création de la politique étrangère américaine pour l’Afghanistan et le Moyen-Orient en général est à regarder de près. Aussi, la question du Syndrome de Stress Post-Traumatique, brièvement abordée durant cette entrevue accordée à l’animateur Dave Emory, me semble capitale. En effet, c’est un phénomène nouveau qui illustre de façon étonnante la déconnexion existant entre les politiques décidées par nos élites et le ressenti et l’expérience des populations et des soldats qui les subissent.
Le philosophe exprime ici une grande vérité sur les tactiques de la gauche pour discréditer tous ceux qui ne pas de façon politiquement correcte. En gros, ça consiste à les traiter de « fascistes » et de « nazis ». Cela a comme effet de les neutraliser socialement. Ceux qui osent parler du réel et des faits sont systématiquement ciblés par cette gauche politique qui s’abreuve à des fables, des fictions et des fantasmes plutôt qu’à la réalité.
L’entrevue date de la fin de l’année 2012 mais elle est toujours d’actualité. Jovanovic s’est trompé sur l’issue de la dernière élection générale, alors qu’il voyait le parti de l’Aube Dorée l’emporter. Comme nous le savons, c’est le parti Syriza qui a gagné les dernières élections. Mais ce n’est pas bien grave, ce qui compte, c’est la substance de l’analyse. Le journaliste économique fait ici le bilan d’un voyage en Grèce qu’il a effectué récemment et il témoigne comment celui-ci lui a donné le sens de la réalité des choses. Les travailleurs grecs ont vu leur salaire être coupés de 30%, ce qui, dans les faits, se traduit aussi par une baisse de la puissance économique du pays dans les mêmes proportions. Les conséquences sont catastrophiques alors que le chômage atteint des proportions record, que les entreprises peinent à faire leur frais et que les fleurons locaux de l’économie sont rachetés depuis l’étranger. Jovanovic lance aussi l’avertissement que ce qui se passe en Grèce aujourd’hui va se passer dans d’autres pays européens très bientôt, y compris la France, puisque ce sont les mêmes indicateurs qui sont au rouge. Les mesures d’austérité aggravent la crise qu’elles sont sensées régler. Pour lui, la Grèce est un laboratoire permettant à l’élite financière européenne et mondiale de voir les réactions de l’effondrement total d’une société européenne. Les États-Unis surveillent la situation de près puisque la construction européenne et l’euro servent leurs intérêts économiques et politiques. Parmi les principaux conseils qu’il donne pour se protéger de la crise mondiale qui s’annonce, avec l’effondrement des systèmes bancaire et monétaire, il y a, évidemment, le fait de ne pas laisser d’argent dans les banques et de plutôt acheter de l’or ou de l’argent. Plusieurs autres sujets sont abordés. À voir.
Excellent entretient de G. Edward Griffin en compagnie d’Alex Jones. J’aime bien l’image empruntée par Griffin. Des pirates ont pris le contrôle du bateau (de la civilisation) mais les passagers l’ignorent. Le collectivisme, que certains appellent fascisme, communisme ou socialisme, nous amène fatalement vers la tyrannie. Griffin fait part de ses réflexions sur comment organiser une résistance efficace pour empêcher la réalisation complète de celle-ci. Deux forces qui s’affrontent sont en montée, la tyrannie et la résistance.
Afin de rééquilibrer le discours médiatique unidirectionnel que l’on entend ces jours-ci concernant les événements politiques en Ukraine, je vous offre quelques articles de Dave Emory. L’animateur radio et blogueur demeure celui le plus susceptible de bien exprimer les forces en présence dans ce pays. Certains observateurs politiques de la droite américaine ont fait observer que la Russie aurait adopté des tactiques dignes de la Guerre froide durant les dernières années. Bien que je ne remette pas en question cette hypothèse, il m’apparaît important de contre-balancer ce discours en présentant de façon honnête le milieu des manifestants pro-Union Européenne. Ces manifestants ne constituent pas un groupe homogène, on peut l’imaginer. On y retrouve probablement de tout, des gens voulant plus de démocratie, moins de corruption, plus de liberté, plus d’immigration, etc. Mais il y a aussi les autres, ceux qui ont détourné ces protestations à leur avantage et qui sont décrits ici dans les articles qui suivent: