The latest in Fake News – and there is a heap of it – says that a DNA test has proven Elizabeth Warren’s Native American ancestry. If one reads past the headline, however, the article goes on to say that her DNA findings “suggest” Native American ancestry – a suggestion is not a convincing proof, so Trump owes her nothing. And the speculation is rather weak, bottoming out at a possible 1/512 gene share. Besides, the timing of the announcement, just before the November elections, must also be considered suspect.
I am not persuaded that all DNA test results are on the up-and-up. In today’s PC world, when government funding drives much research, and drives politically correct research in particular, DNA ancestry test results must be looked at with skepticism. Apparently, it is standard fare to include speculative results, alongside the hard data. Thus, many of solid European descent are led to believe that they have African, Asian, or other Third World ancestry, even though there is no conclusive proof. And vice versa, all those of African or Asian descent would be made to believe that they have Scandinavian, or other European origins. The latest rage in DNA testing even pushes Neanderthal ancestry. The chance of any modern human having Neanderthal ancestry seems remote, if we give serious consideration to Danny Vendramini’s theory that Neanderthals were incompatible with homo sapiens and even saw them as a food source, and moreover, that both groups were committed to completely annihilating each other, in a contest that homo sapiens narrowly won. But modern DNA science appears to be part of the decades-long effort to advance the Out-of-Africa Theory of Evolution, the notion that all mankind is descended from black Africans, who migrated out of East Africa about 100,000 years ago. Prior to this, most anthropologists accepted the concept of multi-polar human evolution. However, this hypothesis, while not disproven, was forcibly stamped out in the Soviet Union, and later exiled from academia in the West. Vladimir Avdeyev, a Russian researcher, discusses this in detail in his work, RACIOLOGY, a book which treats the topic of the development of racial studies over the centuries and millennia.
But it would seem that modern geneticists are as eager to push the Out of Africa Theory, as Classical World scholars and elites, and later the Church, were eager to push the Earth-Centered Theory of the Universe. And just as those who opposed the Earth-Centered Theory risked suffering the wrath of the Classical World Establishment, so too, do modern scientists who challenge the Out of Africa Theory, risk the wrath of the Western Elite. The question is, shall knowledge again suffer for 1,500 years, as a PC Elite-Science alliance combines to commit academic fraud, or will rational thought prevail before then?
Mr. Cloutier is the author of THREE KINGS: AXIS ROYAL ARMIES ON THE RUSSIAN FRONT 1941. He is also the translator of RACIOLOGY.
В КОНГРЕССЕ, 4 ИЮЛЯ, 1776
Eдинодушная Декларация тринадцати объединенных Государств Америки
Когда в ходе человеческих событий становится необходимым, для однoгo народa расторгать политические связи, которые связали их с другим, и занимать среди держав Земли, отдельное и равное положение, на которoe Законы Природы и Бога Природы дают ему право, приличнoe уважение к мнениям человечества требует, чтобы они указали причины, побуждающиe их к разделению.
Мы считаем эти истины самоочевидными, что все люди созданы равными, что они наделены своим Создателем определенными неотъемлемыми правами, что среди них есть Жизнь, Свобода и стремление к Счастью. – что Для обеспечения этих прав, правительствa учреждаются среди народов, извлекая свои справедливые полномочия с согласия управляемых, – что когда же, любая форма правления становится губительной для этих целей, это Право Народа изменять или отменять его, и создать новое Правительство, закладывая свои основы на таких принципах и организуя его власть в такой форме, как им кажется, скорее всего, осуществлять их Безопасность и Счастье. Благоразумие, действительно, будет диктовать, что правительства, давно установленные, не должны изменять для легких и временных причин; и, соответственно, весь опыт показал что человечество более склонно страдать, пока зол терпимо, чем выравниваться, путем отмены формы, к которым они привыкли. Но когда длинная цепь злоупотреблений и узурпаций, неизменно преследуя один и тот же Oбъект, проявляет умысeл, чтобы понижать их под абсолютным деспотизмом, это их право, это их долг, отбросить такое правительство и предоставить новые гвардии для их будущей безопасности, – такова терпеливое страдание этих колоний; и такова теперь необходимость, которая принуждает их изменить их прежние Системы правления. История нынешнего короля Великобритании – это история непрерывных оскорблений и узурпаций, все, имеющие в прямом объекте установление абсолютной тирании над этими государствами. Чтобы доказать это, пусть факты будут представлены беспристрастному миру.
Он отказывался от своего согласия на законы, наиболее полезный и необходимый для общественного блага.
Он запретил своим губернаторам принимать законы немедленной и неотложной важности, если они не были приостановлены в их действии до получения его согласия; и когда они были так приостановлены, он полностью пренебрегал заниматься ими.
Он отказывался принять другие законы для благоустройство больших районов людей, если эти люди не покидают их право представительства в законодательном органе, что является неоценимым для них правом и ужасным лишь для тиранов.
Он созывал законодательные собрания в местах необычных, неудобных и отдаленных от хранилища их публичных записей, с единственной целью утомлять их в соответствии с его мерами.
Он неоднократно распускал Представительные палаты за то, что они c мужественной твердостью противились его вторжениям в права народа.
Он отказался в течение долгого времени после таких роспусков, вызывать другие быть избранными, посредством чего законодательные державы, не поддающийся истреблению, вернулись к широкому народу для их осуществления; государство остающееся в то же время, подверженное всем опасностям вторжения извне, и волнения внутри.
Он старался препятствовать заселению этих государств; для этой цели препятствует Законам о натурализации иностранцев; отказываясь принять другие, чтобы поощрять их миграцию сюда; и повышал условия новых ассигнований земель.
Он мешал Отправлению Правосудия, отказываясь от своего Согласия на Законы о создании судебных властей.
Он сделал судей зависимыми лишь от своей Воли для пребывания в их должностях, а также суммы и выплаты их зарплат.
Он учреждал множество новых должностней и отправил сюда рои чиновников, чтобы преследовать наших людей и изъедать их состояние.
Он содержал среди нас в мирные времена, постоянные армии без согласия наших законодательных органов.
Он повлиял на то, чтобы сделать Военные и помимо и выше Гражданской власти.
Он объединился с другими, чтобы подвергнуть нас юрисдикции, чуждой нашей конституции, и непризнанной нашими законами; давая свое согласие на их акты мнимого законодательства:
Для расквартирования крупных вооруженных сил среди нас:
Для защиты их, путем инсценированного судебного процесса от наказания за любые Убийства, которые они должны были совершать на Жителях этих Государств:
Для пресечения нашей Торговли со всеми частями мира:
Для обложение нас Налогами без нашего согласия:
Для лишения нас во многих случаях, пользы суда присяжнымы:
Для перевозки нас за морем, для суда за мнимые преступления:
Для упразднении свободной системы английских законов в соседней провинции, установление в ней произвольного правительства и расширение еe границ, с тем чтобы сделать ee в одно и тоже время примером и подходящим инструментом для введения такой же абсолютной власти в этих колониях
Для отнятия наши Хартий, уничтожения наших наиболее нами ценимых законов и коренного изменения Форм наших правительств:
Для приостановления наших собственных законодательных собраний и объявления о том, что они вложили в себя полномочия издавать законы для нас во всех случаях.
Он отрекся от правительства здесь, объявив нас из своей защиты и ведения войны против нас.
Он разграбил наши моря, разорял наши берега, сжигал наши города и уничтожал жизни нашего народа.
Oн в настоящее время перевозит крупные армии иноземных наёмников, чтобы довершить дела смерти, разорения и тирании, уже начатые в условиях жестокости и вероломствa, едва аналогично в самые варварские времена и совершенно недостойных главы цивилизованной нации.
Он принуждал наших сограждан, захваченных пленниками в открытом море, чтобы нести оружие против своей страны, стать палачами своих друзей и братьев или пасть сами их руками.
Он вызвал рабские мятежа среди нас и старался навести обитателей наших границ, беспощадных индийских дикарей, чье известное правило ведения войны – это уничтожение без различия всех возрастов, полa и условий.
На каждом этапе этих угнетений мы подали прошение об исправлении в самых скромных выражениях: на наши повторные петиции ответили только неоднократные оскорбления. Князь, характер которого, таким образом, отмечен каждым действием, который может определить Тирана, не может быть правителем свободных людей.
Ни были мы невнимательный к нашим британским собратьям. Мы время от времени предупреждали их о попытках их законодательного органа распространить на нас не оправданную юрисдикцию. Мы напомнили им об обстоятельствах нашей эмиграции и заселение здесь. Мы обращались к их врождённой справедливости и великодушию, и мы заклинали их связями нашего общего родствa, чтобы отрекаться от этих узурпаций, что неизбежно прервало бы наши связи и дружбу. Они тоже были глухи к голосу справедливости и единокровности. Поэтому мы должны примириться с необходимостью, которая заявляeт наше Разделение и cчитать их, как мы считаем остальное человечество, Врагaми в войне, в мире друзьями.
Поэтому мы, Представители объединенных Государств Америки, в Генеральном конгрессе, собрались, обратившись к Верховному Судье мира за праведностью наших намерений, делаем во имя и по авторитету добрых людей этих колоний, торжественно публиковать и заявлять, что эти объединенные Kолонии по праву и должны быть Cвободными и Hезависимыми Государствами, что они освобожденные от всей верности английской короне и что всякая политическая связь между ними и государством Великобритании и фактический и должны быть полностью расторжены; и что как Cвободные и Hезависимые Государства, у них есть полная сила, чтобы вести войну, заключать мир, заключать альянсы, устанавливать торговлю и делать все другие действия и вещи, которые могут по праву делать Hезависимые Государства. – И для поддержки этой Декларации, с твердым доверием к защите Божественного Провидения, мы взаимно обвязываемся друг другу наши Жизни, наши судьбы и нашу священную честь.
Джосия Бартлетт, Уильям Уиппл, Мэтью Торнтон
Джон Хэнкок, Сэмюэл Адамс, Джон Адамс, Роберт Пайн, Элбридж Джерри
Стивен Хопкинс, Уильям Эллери
Роджер Шерман, Сэмюэл Хантингтон, Уильям Уильямс, Оливер Уолкотт
Уильям Флойд, Филипп Ливингстон, Фрэнсис Льюис, Льюис Моррис
Ричард Стоктон, Джон Уизерспун, Фрэнсис Хопкинсон, Джон Харт, Абрахам Кларк
Роберт Моррис, Бенджамин Раш, Бенджамин Франклин, Джон Мортон, Джордж Климер, Джеймс Смит, Джордж Тейлор, Джеймс Уилсон, Джордж Росс
Цезарь Родни, Джордж Рид, Томас МкКин
Сэмюэль Чейз, Уильям Пака, Томас Стоун, Чарльз Кэрролл из Карролтона
Джордж Уайт, Ричард Генри Ли, Томас Джефферсон, Бенджамин Харрисон, Томас Нельсон-младший, Фрэнсис Лайтфут Ли, Картер Брэкстон
Уильям Хупер, Джозеф Хьюс, Джон Пенн
Эдвард Рутледж, Томас Хейворд-младший, Томас Линч-младший, Артур Миддлтон
Буттон Гвиннетт, Лаймен Холл, Джордж Уолтон
I wrote a revised Russian translation of the Declaration of Independence, after having read several versions and commentary. A number of English versions of the Declaration appeared after the 4th of July, so it is understandable if some translations differ from the official document – therefore allow me to note that I worked from a copy of the official version of the Declaration, which is stored in the National Archives.
Interestingly, the translation rendered by Communist scholars was among the most faithful to the original. However, all versions contain word selections that risk a less complete understanding of the document and the history that followed. Therefore, I changed several words in hope of attaining greater accuracy. I will discuss some of these words below.
The word relinquish in “relinquish the right of Representation”: some Russian translators rendered it as “отказался” [otkazalsya], which means to renounce or give up; this is technically correct, but according to Dr. Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (1756), relinquish meant first and foremost “to forsake, to abandon” – these words have far more emotional strength and better communicate how dear the right of representation was to the Colonists. Therefore, in this context I used the term “покидать” [pokidat’] – to abandon to express the word relinquish in Russian.
The word swarms in “swarms of Officers”: according to Dr. Johnson, a “swarm” was “a great body or number of bees”. Rather than label numerous tax collectors a “crowd”, which would already be unpleasant, author Thomas Jefferson likened the officers to a cloud of insects, such as locusts or wasps, which bring economic ruin or pain. Thus rather than толпы – [tolpy] crowds, I chose рои – [roi] swarms.
The phrase domestic insurrections: it appears that all Russian translators consider the word “domestic” to mean “internal”, and so they employ the words внутренние восстания – [vnutrennie vosstaniya] internal rebellions. However, the phrase “domestic insurrections” in this instance meant “slave rebellions”, “domestic” being a polite word for the term “slave”. I did not find a polite Russian noun that corresponded to “slave”, so I made use of the word рабские [rabskie]. Bосстания did not seem the best choice for insurrection, since the word could have an honorific connotation in the Soviet era, for example, “Площадь Восстания”, or Revolt Square. I have observed however, that the word мятеж – myatezh, which also means revolt or insurrection, is used in Soviet/Russian historiography to refer to the Nationalist revolt of the Spanish Civil War; since they were considered the “bad guys”, it seems appropriate to use myatezh in the Russian-language Declaration, since slave rebellions are being referred to in the negative, and thus it is rendered рабские мятежа – [rabskie myatezha] slave revolts.
The word united in “united Colonies” and “united States”: I examined the phrases and considered them against the historical background of the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, as well as Russian usage.
Regarding the phrase united Colonies: how “united” were the Colonies? Confederate Military History (1899), edited by General Clement A. Evans of Georgia, provides an answer. Let us look to Volume 1, in the section titled “Legal Justification of the South in Secession”, written by J.L.M. Curry, L.L.D., who describes the condition of the Colonies, as they were on 4 July 1776:
“There was neither alliance nor confederacy between the colonies…The [Continental] Congresses of 1774, 1775, and 1776 were occasional and not permanent bodies, claimed no sovereign authority, and had no true governmental powers…The Declaration of Independence…was an act of Congress declaring absolution of the colonies from the crown and government of Great Britain and that they were “free and independent states”. The Congress which made this declaration was appointed by the Colonies in their separate and distinct capacity. They voted on its adoption in their separate character, each giving one vote by all its representatives who acted in strict obedience to specific instructions from their respective colonies, and the members signed the Declaration in that way. The [delegates] had authority to act in the name of their own colony and not of any other, and were representatives only of the Colony which appointed them…The sole object [of the Declaration was to announce] and justify the separation from, and the independence of [the Colonies from], the British Crown. The colonies being distinct and separate communities, with sovereignty vested in the British crown, when the tie which bound them to that sovereignty was severed, upon each colony respectively was devolved that sovereignty and each emerged from provincial dependence into an independent and sovereign State…The Declaration of Independence is not a form of government, not an enumeration of popular rights, not a compact between states, but was recognized in its fullest demands, when in 1782, Great Britain acknowledged New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, Georgia and the other colonies to be “free, sovereign, and independent States”.
Thus the Colonies were in voluntary association with each other. In this regard, I considered the Russian term “united”, as it is used in “United Nations”, to refer to an association of sovereign nations. For this reason, I rendered “united Colonies” as объединенные Kолонии – [obedinyonnye Kolonii] united Colonies.
Regarding the phrase united States: how “united” were the States? As J.L.M. Curry further explains: “Stress is laid on the revolutionary government and on the Declaration of Independence, by those who are anxious to establish the theory of a national or consolidated government, reducing the States to mere dependencies of a central power. As has been shown, the contention…is without legal or historical foundation; the temporary government [the Continental Congress], largely for war purposes, was superseded by the Articles of Confederation, which because of the reluctance of the states to delegate their powers, did not become obligatory until 1781, as [unanimous] ratification by all the States was a condition precedent to their having any binding force. These articles, in explicit terms, incapable of misinterpretation, declare that “each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.” There can be no mistake here as to the reservation of entire freedom, entire independence, entire sovereignty. These were retained without qualification and limitation, and the use of the word “retains” is the clearest assertion that these unsurrendered prerogatives were possessed [during the Continental Congresses].”
According to Article III of the Articles of Confederation, the Confederation is described as a “league of friendship”, it is important to note that according to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, a league is “An agreement or treaty between states.” Thus, having a status like a treaty, any State was free to withdraw from it, anytime the Articles no longer served their purpose, or became injurious to the interests of a signatory State, and Congress had no power to prevent it.
According to Article IV, there was no treason against the “united states”, but rather against individual states. The person accused of Treason was not tried by the “united states in congress” assembled, but by the courts of the State wherein the offense took place.
Article VI provided that with the approval of 9 of the 13 “united states in congress assembled”, a state could individually send or receive an embassy from any King, prince, or foreign state; could enter individually into an alliance or treaty with any King, prince, or foreign state; could enter into a treaty, confederation, or alliance with another American state. States could individually maintain navies and armed forces for self-defense.
Under Article IX, each State had the right to strike its own coin; Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont exercised this right.
All of the above again indicate a voluntary association of states. With the States retaining so many attributes of sovereignty, in any work concerning the Articles of Confederation, in defining “united states in congress assembled” for a reader of the Russian language, I would again use the word объединенные [obyedinennye] for “united”. Let us also note that in the English-language version, the word “united” appears in all lower-case letters, when it precedes both the word “Colonies”, and the word “States”. That is because in both cases the word “united” is simply an adjective and not part of a proper title; for this reason, the Russian equivalent объединенные also appears in lower-case letters, in those instances.
A final consideration was finding a suitable Russian term for “States”, as it is used in the Declaration. All Russian-language versions of the Declaration that I have read use the word Штаты – [Shaty], a cognate of the English word “States”. While it may be convenient in English that the word “State” may describe a nation, a constituent republic of a federation, or unit of government, it is a disadvantage for anyone trying to explain the degrees of sovereignty involved, when applying the term to different cases. Fortunately, the Russian language can assist in making those distinctions.
In my estimation, the Russian word государство – [gosudarstvo] most closely corresponds with the meaning and intent of the word “State”, as it appears in the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. For the reasons described above, I render it as объединенные Государствa Америки [obyedinennye Gosudarstva Ameriki] united States of America.
It is not until 1789, when the U.S. Constitution came into effect, that the Russian term Штат ~ [Shtat] state becomes an appropriate Russian equivalent. Having ceded some of the vital aspects of their sovereignty – such as the power to mint coins – to the United States, the several States became more than associates: they were now statutorily joined, and so we may use the Russian term cоединенные ~ [soyedinyonnye] for united, thus yielding the expression Соединенные Штаты Америки – [Soedinennye Shaty Ameriki] for United States of America, from the year 1789 to the present. We can render the different titles in the following ways:
united States of America – объединенныe Государствa Америки (1776-1781)
United States of America – Oбъединенныe Государствa Америки (1781-1789)
United States of America – Соединенные Штаты Америки (1789 – present)
As for the document that started it all – the Declaration of Independence – we can see that the actions of the several States were influenced by the spirit of the words “Free and Independent States”, for nearly 100 years. The several States considered themselves co-equals of the Federal Government, and acted accordingly:
In 1798, Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions to nullify President Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts, which had made it illegal to criticize the government, even without a declared state of war being in effect.
During the War of 1812, the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts refused to give President Madison control of their state militias.
The New York State Militia refused to invade Canada. Militia could not legally be ordered to invade another country, they could only be used to repel invasions. Knowing this, the militia refused orders to cross the border and could not be prosecuted for it.
In the 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Scott v. Sandford, that being a slave, Dredd Scott was property and not entitled to any rights. The legislatures of Ohio, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania sought ways to nullify the Court’s decision; and the High Courts of Ohio, New York and Maine would not recognize the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision as valid.
During the War Between the States, Kentucky declared neutrality, though it was short-lived.
Concerning secession, it is important to note that in 1789, while the several States ceded a portion of their sovereignty to the agency of the United States, the States entered into the Union as though entering a compact, and a number of states reserved the right to secede from the Union and re-assume the complete sovereign powers they had previously enjoyed, that is, to become “free and independent states” once more, should the Union prove harmful to their individual interests. And this right of secession was widely recognized. U.S. District Attorney William Rawle, author of “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America”, a textbook which was used for courses at Harvard University and West Point Military Academy, wrote in Chapter XXXII “Of the Permanence of the Union”: “The states…may withdraw wholly from the Union”. William Rawle’s writing guided the thinking of many Americans, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who often cited “A View of the Constitution” in his own written work, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833); it influenced as well many Southerners, who, serving in the U.S. Army, resigned their commissions to fight for their native states in the Confederacy. Story wrote: “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.” As early as 1814, at the Hartford Convention, the New England states had considered seceding from the Union.
Unusually, secession was an expressed right in the Constitution of the USSR. It was not so in the U.S. Constitution, though, as discussed above, it was considered a matter of common knowledge. In the end, secession depends on sufficient force: where it succeeded in the case of the USSR in 1991, and in the case of Crimea in 2014, it failed in the case of the Confederate States in 1865.
Nevertheless, the rights or reserved powers of the states continue to be subject of discussion. There are Texans, for example, who believe that the Lone Star State should become an independent republic once more, and the present regime in California (which sided with the Union in 1861) has been taking measures to separate from the United States.
As we can see, to this day the Declaration has been a subject of debate. Argument will continue, but one thing may be said with absolute certainty about the Declaration of Independence: it was unanimous.
Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books.
 http://chnm.gmu.edu/declaration/russian1/one.html, http://chnm.gmu.edu/declaration/russian2/one.html, https://ushistory.ru/istochniki/teksty-k-seminaram/779-declaration-of-independence-na-anglijskom-i-na-russkom-jazykah, S.F. Udartseva, Deklaratsiya Nezavisimosti – Inauguratsionnie Rechi, trans. S.A. Nurgazievoy and V.V. Markova (Almaty: Zheti Zhargy, 2004) 29-34.
 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Barnes and Nobles Books, 1994)
 J.L.M. Curry “Legal Justification of the South in Secession,” in Clement A. Evans, ed., Confederate Military History (Atlanta: Confederate Publishing Company, 1899) V.1: 8-
 J.L.M. Curry “Legal Justification of the South in Secession,” in Clement A. Evans, ed., Confederate Military History (Atlanta: Confederate Publishing Company, 1899) V.1:, 11. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015070227528;view=1up;seq=41
 John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia (Kansas City: Vernon Law Book Co., 1914) V.2: 1887.
 Yielding the expression “объединенные государства в конгрессе собрались”.
 An attribute of the sovereignty that was retained by the several States, in relation to the United States, was the power of state legislatures, until passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, to appoint Senators to the U.S. Senate. The Senators acted as the ambassadors of the several states to the United States. We may observe that following adoption of this Amendment, the United States quite often became embroiled in international conflicts and military adventures; U.S. Senators, no longer accountable to the penny-wise State legislatures that once appointed them, now only needed to satisfy the greed of the national banks and corporations which provided most of their campaign donations, in order to secure nominations for public office.
 Yet though they ceded their independence to the United States, they retained a portion of their sovereignty, with respect to the national government and each other. As explained in Bouvier’s Dictionary of the Law, V.3, page 3121:
“The several states comprising the United States are sovereign and independent in all things not surrendered to the national government by the constitution, and are considered, on general principles, by each other as foreign states: yet their mutual relations are rather those of domestic independence than of foreign alienation.”
 R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History from 3500 B.C. to the present (New York: Harper and Row, 1986) 797.
 https://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/sto-303/ – Concerning secession, see Chapter 3.
 https://www.wnd.com/2017/02/california-the-reconstruction-state/ While Texans may be conscientious “states rights” enthusiasts, the clique in California has no legitimacy outside of Mexico. For my part, I believe in the adage: “United we stand, divided we fall.”
- The swiftness with which injustice was meted out to Tommy Robinson is stunning. No, more than that: it is terrifying.
- Without having access to his own lawyer, Robinson was summarily tried and sentenced to 13 months behind bars. He was then transported to Hull Prison.
- Meanwhile, the judge who sentenced Robinson also ordered British media not to report on his case. Newspapers that had already posted reports of his arrest quickly took them down. All this happened on the same day.
- In Britain, rapists enjoy the right to a full and fair trial, the right to the legal representation of their choice, the right to have sufficient time to prepare their cases, and the right to go home on bail between sessions of their trial. No such rights were offered, however, to Tommy Robinson.
-A PLAN GREEN SCENARIO FOR THE LIBERATION OF GERMANY-
by Patrick Cloutier
Background: In 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel triggered a flood of over 2 million, male Muslim migrants into Germany and Europe. They travelled a route through the Balkans, into Germany and beyond. Europe has since been engulfed by a wave of rape and crime. This contingency plan proposes that the migrants be expelled, via the route they entered Europe.
Below: Proposed Migrant Route out of Germany
“REFORGER-SOBIESKI” – The Operation:
The title of the operation reminds us: 1) of the Cold War-era REFORGER (Return of Forces to Germany) military exercises, which highlighted the airlifting of US military reinforcements; and 2) Polish King Jan Sobieski III, who drove the Turks from the gates of Vienna in 1683. Thus we acknowledge that the liberation of Germany and Europe may not be practicable, without US and Polish participation.
OBJECTIVE: Expel all Muslim and African migrants, and their families, from Germany. Migrants shall exit Germany and Europe, via the 2015-2016 main route of entry.
THE POLITICAL SETTING:
This scenario assumes that Germany has descended into utter chaos, as a result of the Merkel Regime’s maladministration and unwillingness to confront the threat that 2 million male Muslim migrants pose to the historic European population. Due to election fraud, police-state internet controls, propaganda and censorship, opposition parties are unable to gain enough strength to force her Christian Democratic Union party from power. While police resources are directed against persons who hold dissident or nationalist opinions, law enforcement is prevented from protecting the historic German population from any crimes the migrants may commit. Chancellor Merkel’s continuing destruction of her countrymen and Europe suggests madness. Representatives of the German Military have secretly approached certain NATO and neutral nations, to seek international intervention.
In confidential meetings, US and European representatives have concluded that Chancellor Merkel has violated provisions of the NATO Treaty, namely: a) the Preamble, by which the Allied nations each pledge to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage, and civilization” of the historic peoples of Europe; b) Article 2, by which member-states are required to promote “conditions of stability and well-being” within the Alliance; and c) Article 8, by which member-states are prohibited from entering “into any international engagement in conflict with the Treaty.” European Union migrant policy, as it is a preface to replacement of the historic nations of Europe with Muslim, African, and Asian peoples, conflicts with the NATO Alliance’s purpose of safeguarding and perpetuating the European peoples.
As the forces supporting the Merkel regime represent “combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the course of ordinary judicial proceedings”, several NATO and neutral states have resolved to use military force to restore stability and popular integrity to Germany. Nations participating in stability and integrity operations include: the United States, Poland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia. The German Military and Bereitschaftspolizei have prepared for Allied reinforcements and police participation (grand total of 243,000 federal, state, and local police). The governments of France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom, showing domestic favor to migrant violence, have not been consulted on this operation and the plans are communicated outside usual NATO channels. Russian friendliness is secured with U.S. recognition of Crimean accession to the Russian Federation.
While the headquarters of the various national militaries involved have drawn up plans for intervention, the Operation is not preceded by any build-up of forces; rather forces shall march from their barracks to staging areas or objectives, in order to preserve the advantage of surprise against the Merkel regime.
BELOW: AT START FORCES FOR OPERATION “REFORGER-SOBIESKI”
The Allied and Associated Coalition forces shall direct and guide migrants and refugees to and along a departure corridor out of Germany. The United States shall have supreme command, and shall command stability and integrity operations between the North and Baltic seas and the Austrian-Slovenian frontier. Italian Armed Forces shall assume command and control of repatriation operations and the refugee column, from the Austro-Slovenian frontier, to the Turkish frontier in Europe. Italian-led operations shall be discussed in a subsequent document.
The Allied strategy may be characterized as a plunger and cylinder. Various Allied units shall form the walls of a cylinder, while several German and Allied units shall form the plunger, which shall push down, expelling the migrants from Germany.
The Allied and International Coalition shall direct migrants toward the departure corridor, which shall have as start points Berlin, Hamburg, Köln, and Frankfurt. Migrants shall be thence guided toward Munich (München). Migrants shall then proceed via the München-Vienna-Zagreb-Belgrade-Skopje-Thessalonika-Istanbul corridor. From Istanbul they shall be repatriated to their home countries. An alternate corridor from the vicinity of Belgrade shall be Belgrade-Sofiya-Edirne-Istanbul. If Turkish President Erdogan, who facilitated the migrant invasion of Europe, will not cooperate, then the Plan Green Partition of Turkey Scenario may be partially or fully implemented. Greece’s eastern frontier shall be extended to the Sea of Marmara, and Muslim inhabitants between the Maritsa River and Sea of Marmara shall be resettled in Asia.
To facilitate command and control among Allied and Associated forces, several corps commands shall be established, among them a US Corps, a German Corps, and a Polish Corps. Under this scenario, a “Sonderkorps Befehl”, or extemporized Special Corps Command is created to coordinate Swiss, German, and Austrian units operating in Baden-Württemburg and western Bavaria. The Sonderkorps Befehl is under command of the Swiss, who in turn are subordinate to the US Corps. Austrian units south of the Austrian border are not subordinate to the Sonderkorps Befehl; Austrian units securing the German border towns of Obersdorf, Schwangau, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Mittenwald, Berchtesgaden, Burghausen, and Passau are not subordinate to the Sonderkorps Befehl.
PHASE 1: MUSTER AND INITIAL ADVANCE TO OBJECTIVES.
SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS.
D-Day and H-Hour: D-Day and H-Hour to be determined. In this scenario, H-Hour is set for 0200. German muster is H-Hour minus 1 hour; Continental European muster is H-Hour minus 1 hour; Continental US muster is H-Hour minus 10 hours. US muster shall be camouflaged as response to tensions with a non-European nation. US forces designated for airlift from CONUS shall be in the air at H-Hour minus 8 hours.
Martial Law shall be declared in Germany, simultaneous to the start of operations.
Special Forces from member-states of the multi-national coalition shall have tip-of-the-spear roles in “Reforger-Sobieski”. They shall act as both prod and facilitator in the ongoing operation. In close cooperation with federal, state, and local police, they shall act on intelligence received from the military and law enforcement, concerning the identity and location of Muslim jihadists and radical clerics, who may attempt to organize resistance to the expulsion of Muslim and African migrants from Germany and the Continent. Special Forces shall neutralize these threats, in cooperation with police, or at their discretion, by means of lethal force. Special Forces shall thus achieve the goal of decapitating radical Muslim and jihadist leadership, either by means of capture or physical elimination. Deprived of leadership, migrants should demonstrate compliance with orders from coalition forces.
SF units shall conduct psychological operations against migrants.
SF personnel shall also facilitate the direction of travel of migrant columns.
SF personnel, in cooperation with German law enforcement, shall ensure that migrants do not stray from the departure corridor, either to the right, or to the left.
Special Forces units may be deployed to areas where there is no significant Allied military or police presence, or for the purpose of maintaining communications links between major Allied units.
Among the Special Forces that shall participate in Operation “Reforger-Sobieski” are:
Slovakian 5th SF Regiment (1 x company)
US 3rd, 7th, and 20th Special Forces Groups (3 x regiments, for total of 12 battalions)
The US 3rd Special Forces Group shall stage in Bremenhaven and thence deploy for operations on the Berlin-Magdeburg-Erfurt axis.
The US 7th Special Forces Group shall stage in the Ramstein-Kaiserslautern area and thence deploy in the Coburg-Karlsruhe-München triangle.
The US 20th Special Forces Group shall stage in the Ramstein-Kaiserslautern area and thence deploy and operate in the Köln-Bonn-Mainz gap, in conjunction with Netherlands forces.
Separate US Special Forces battalions may be detached for independent operations.
German Special Forces shall have the task of apprehending and detaining former Chancellor Merkel and members of her regime, if they have not already been captured; neutralizing jihadist leadership; and conducting psychological operations against migrants.
Danish Special Forces (about 400 strong) shall precede the Danish 1st Division into Germany, with missions to neutralize militant Muslim clerics and jihadists, and facilitate the exit of Muslim and African migrants from Germany. Danish SF shall precede Danish 1st Brigade into the city of Kiel, and later, in Phase 2, into cities of Neustadt and Lubeck.
U.S. AND EUROPEAN NATIONAL MAIN FORCES:
The mission of Dutch forces shall be to prevent the influx of Muslim and African migrants from Germany into the Netherlands, secure the German towns in their operational zone, in cooperation with Bereitschaftspolizei and local police forces, and direct migrant traffic toward departure corridors, for exit from their operational zone, Germany and Europe.
The Dutch 43rd Mechanized Brigade shall muster and depart from the vicinity of Havelte, in an easterly direction toward the German border, with the objectives of securing Emden, Oldenburg, and Bremen.
The Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade shall muster, mount onto trucks, and depart the vicinity of Schaarsbergen; it shall advance in an easterly direction toward the city of Münster and secure the roads into and out of that region.
The Dutch 13th Light Brigade shall muster and depart the vicinity of Oirschot, toward the German border in the direction of Aachen. The 13th Light Brigade shall cross the border, secure Aachen and the approaches to Aachen, and close the German border with Belgium, to prevent the flight of fugitive German officials, and forestall any French or Belgian attempts to frustrate the objectives of Operation “Reforger-Sobieski”.
The Netherlands Marine Regiment shall muster in Doorn and Rotterdam; it shall then cross the frontier with Germany, in the direction of Düsseldorf.
The mission of Danish forces shall be to prevent the influx of Muslim and African migrants from Germany into Denmark, secure the German towns in their operational zone in cooperation with Bereitschaftspolizei and other police forces, and direct migrant traffic toward departure corridors for exit from their operational zone, Germany and Europe.
The Danish 1st Brigade shall muster and depart the vicinity of Haderslev, in the direction of the German border; the Danish 2nd Brigade shall muster and depart the vicinity of Slagelse, in a westerly and thence southerly direction, toward the German border. The Danish 1st Brigade shall march across the German border on an axis Flensburg-Schleswig, diverging into two columns, via Routes 7 and 76, to the line of the Kiel Canal; the Danish 2nd Brigade shall march across the German border from the vicinity of Tønder, on an axis Süderlügum-Hattstedt-Südermarsch. The Brigade shall then divide into 2 columns, one marching on an axis Südermarsch-Tönning, the other marching on an axis Südermarsch-Friedrichstadt-Erfde. The 1st Column/Danish 2nd Brigade shall then proceed to the line of the Kiel Canal, via Routes 5 and 23; the 2nd Column/Danish 2nd Brigade shall proceed to the line of the Kiel Canal via Route 202 East. The Danish 2nd Brigade shall, in cooperation with local German police forces, secure the line of the Kiel Canal, between Brunsbüttel and Rendsburg (inclusive). The Danish 1st Brigade shall secure the line of the Kiel Canal between Rendsburg (exclusive) and the city of Kiel (inclusive).
The mission of Polish forces shall be to prevent the influx of Muslim and African migrants from Germany into Poland, secure the German towns in their operational zone, in cooperation with Bereitschaftspolizei and local police forces, and direct migrant traffic to departure corridors for exit from their operational zone, Germany and Europe.
The Polish 12th Mechanized Division shall muster and depart from the vicinity of Szczeciń, in the direction of the German border, and subsequently Berlin and Neubrandenburg.
The Polish 16th Mechanized Division shall muster and depart the vicinity of Elbląg, and its subordinate casernes, in the direction of Szczeciń, where it will prepare for deployment as a second-echelon force.
The Polish 17th Mechanized Regiment shall muster and depart from the vicinity of Międzyrzecz, in the direction of the German border and Frankfurt-an-der-Oder.
The Polish 11th Armored Division shall muster and depart from the vicinity of Żagań, in the direction of the German border, and subsequently Cottbus and Dresden.
The mission of Czech forces shall be to prevent the influx of Muslim and African migrants from Germany, into the Czech Republic; secure the German towns in their operational zone, in cooperation with local police forces; and to direct migrant traffic toward departure corridors for exit from their operational zone, Germany and Europe.
The Czech 4th Mechanized Brigade shall muster and depart from the vicinity of Žatec, and proceed to the German border, and subsequently, Chemnitz and Zwickau. The Czech 7th Mechanized Brigade shall muster and depart the vicinity of Hranice, in the direction of Žatec, and prepare for deployment as a second-echelon force.
The mission of German forces shall be to direct migrants from German towns to departure corridors for exit from Germany and Europe; secure departure corridors of said migrants and conduct them from town to town along the route of departure, in coordination with Bereitschaftspolizei (federal and Länder) and local police forces, until said migrants have departed Germany and Europe.
Until main force German and Allied units arrive, the Bereitschaftspolizei and local police will be the first line of defense in many German towns and states. Their duties shall be to maintain order, neutralize Muslim jihadist/radical cleric leadership, direct Muslim and African migrants to departure corridors, and preclude Antifa violence. As German and Allied units advance and regain control of German territory, the mission of Bereitschaftspolizei units shall be to ensure the public safety and to ensure that no migrant has been left behind.
German Main Forces:
German main force units begin operations in an extended order.
German main force units are listed below:
1st Panzer Division, composed of the 21st and 9th Panzer Brigades, and the 41st Panzergrenadier Brigade.
10th Panzer Division, composed of the 37th Panzergrenadier Brigade, the 12th Panzer Brigade, the 23rd Mountain Brigade, and the Franco-German Brigade.
1st Fallschirmjäger Brigade.
As operations progress, it is desirable that the dispersed brigades and subunits of the German 1st and 10th Panzer Divisions reassemble with their parent units, in order to simplify command and supply.
The US 2nd Cavalry Regiment shall begin operations attached to the 10th Panzer Division.
The German 41st Panzergrenadier Brigade shall muster and depart in a southerly direction, from the vicinity of Neubrandenburg, en route to Berlin, with the mission of preventing the escape of the Merkel Administration and subsequently taking it into custody.
The German 37th Panzer-Grenadier Brigade shall muster in the vicinity of Frankenberg Saxony; it shall depart in a northerly direction, en route to Berlin, with the missions of securing the capital, preventing the escape of the Merkel Regime and taking it into custody.
The US 2nd Cavalry Regiment shall muster in the vicinity of Vilseck, Germany. It shall be attached to the German 10th Panzer Division in the initial stages of Phase 1 of “Reforger-Sobieski”.
The 1st Squadron/2nd Cavalry Regiment shall depart Vilseck, en route to the town of Hof; the 1st Squadron shall secure the town of Hof and the junction of Route 9 and Route 2.
The 2nd Squadron/2nd Cavalry Regiment shall depart Vilseck, en route to the city of Bayreuth.
The 2nd Squadron shall secure Bayreuth and the minor highway intersections with Route 9, just to the north of the city, securing the migrant departure corridor in that region.
The 3rd Squadron/2nd Cavalry Regiment shall secure Route E51 between Bayreuth and Nürnberg, preparing that road as a migrant departure corridor.
The 4th Squadron/2nd Cavalry Regiment shall remain on alert in reserve.
The German 12th Panzer Brigade shall secure route E56 between Nürnberg and Regensburg as a refugee route of return.
As the German 41st and 37th Panzer-Grenadier Brigades are moving toward Berlin, first-echelon Polish forces (Polish 12th Mechanized and 11th Armored Divisions, and 17th Mechanized Regiment) shall secure Neubrandenburg and the eastern and southeastern approaches to Berlin.
The German 23rd Mountain Brigade shall secure the city of München and the region surrounding it.
The German battalions of the Franco-German Brigade shall muster and depart the vicinity of Freiburg, and advance in the directions of Karlsruhe and Stuttgart, with the objective of herding migrant traffic to Route 8, and securing the territory south of that highway.
The German 26th Fallschirmjäger Regiment/1st Fallschirmjäger Brigade shall muster in the Saarland region. It shall secure the border towns of Trier and Saarbrücken. If practicable, the Regiment shall send a battalion to secure the town of Koblenz.
The German 31st Fallschirmjäger Regiment/1st Fallschirmjäger Brigade shall be attached to the 1st Panzer Division.
The mission of Austrian forces shall be to conduct Muslim and African migrants from Germany, in cooperation with Bereitschaftspolizei and NATO forces, along the corridor of departure, and to prevent the digression of the said migrants, or any one of them, from the departure corridor. Austrian forces shall conduct the refugee columns to the Slovenian border. Between Austria’s borders with Germany and Slovenia, NATO vanguard and rear guard forces shall reinforce Austrian Army units in their mission to conduct refugee columns through Austria and into Slovenia. At the Austrian border with Slovenia, control of repatriation and stability operations through the Balkans shall be relayed to the Italian Army.
The Austrian 6th Brigade shall cross the German-Austrian frontier in the vicinity of Bregenz and Garmisch-Partenkirchen, in order to secure those border areas; its battalions shall then advance in the direction of Ulm-Neu Ulm and München, with the objective of herding migrant traffic to Route 8/Route E52.
Austrian active-duty regiments and battalions shall secure the border crossings with Germany; Austrian reservist battalions shall be called up, to bring regiments and brigades up to strength.
The Austrian 4th Heavy Mechanized Brigade shall secure the city of Salzburg, its suburbs, and the approaches to and from the region, with assistance from local police. The 4th Heavy Mechanized Brigade shall be highly visible to the refugee column.
The Austrian 3rd Brigade shall cross the German border and secure the town of Passau, in cooperation with local police.
As reservist battalions come into line, they shall deploy to either side of the migrant departure corridor, and prevent the defection of refugees, or any one of them, from the departure corridor.
The Hungarian 25th Mechanized Brigade shall muster in the vicinity of Tata and prepare for deployment along the Austrian, Slovenian, and Croatian frontiers, with a view to crossing the frontier in cooperation with national forces, in order to assist in preparations for refugee traffic control and any necessary security operations.
The Hungarian 5th Light Brigade shall muster in the vicinity of Debrecen and prepare to depart in the direction of Berlin (the German capital city), for deployment as a second-echelon force; as “Reforger-Sobieski” develops, the 5th Light Brigade shall be on alert for deployment to either Germany or the Balkans, to assist local national forces.
The Hungarian 34th Special Forces Battalion shall muster in the vicinity of Szolnok; it shall depart Szolnok and deploy to staging area in Międzyrzecz, Poland for operations southwest of Berlin, on the Berlin-Magdeburg-Erfurt axis.
The Hungarian 88th Airborne Battalion shall muster in the vicinity of Szolnok; it shall be on alert for deployment to the Balkans, for operations along the migrant departure corridor, under Italian command; if necessary, it shall be subordinated to the Polish Corps for operations in Germany.
The Hungarian River Flotilla shall muster in Budapest and carry out patrols along the Danube River, to prevent unauthorized Muslim migrant traffic on the waterway and its tributaries. Muslim migrant traffic is authorized along the prescribed departure corridor.
Slovakian Forces: The Slovakian 5th Special Forces Regiment shall muster and deploy for operations on the Magdeburg-Erfurt axis.
UK Forces in Germany are not initial participants in Operation “Reforger-Sobieski”, due to London’s institutionalized policy of repression against Britons, Christians, and Europeans in general. German police are posted outside British bases and British commanders are ordered to sequester their forces, until such time that their government authorizes intervention in support of “Reforger-Sobieski”.
Though the United States shall have overall command of Operation “Reforger-Sobieski”, a number of US units shall be attached to German Army and Bereitschaftspolizei formations.
The mission of US forces shall be to direct migrants from German towns to departure corridors, for exit from Germany and Europe; secure departure corridors and conduct migrants from town to town along the route of departure, in cooperation with Bereitschaftspolizei and local police, until said migrants have departed Germany and Europe.
US forces that shall be mobilized for “Reforger-Sobieski” are as follows:
US 2nd Cavalry Regiment (attached to German 10th Panzer Division)
US 18th Military Police Brigade (constituent units attached to US and German formations)
Several American formations shall be airlifted to Germany, according to a timetable that shall allow for their participation in “Reforger-Sobieski”, immediately beginning H-Hour, D-Day. American formations that shall be airlifted are listed as follows:
US 82nd Airborne Division (from CONUS)
US 101st Airborne Division (from CONUS)
US 75th Ranger Regiment (from CONUS)
US 173rd Airborne Brigade (from Italy, if required)
US 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force (from CONUS to Bremerhaven; equipment to be sea-lifted from Norway to Bremen).
US forces that shall be sea-lifted to Europe are listed below.
US 2nd Marine Division (from CONUS).
The US 2nd Marine Division shall be directed to Italy, where it shall reinforce Italian and allied units managing the Departure Corridor through the Balkans; it may be deployed against the Turkish Armed Forces, if necessary.
US Deployment and Advance to Initial Objectives:
US 18th MP Brigade. The units of the 18th MP Brigade, being dispersed throughout southern Germany and northern Italy, shall be directly subordinate to US units when located in proximity to US forces, or shall be attached to Germany military or Bereitschaftspolizei formations. US Military Police companies shall secure US bases of operation; detached MP units shall assist German Army, German Police, or coalition Special Forces in their missions for the duration of “Reforger-Sobieski”, or until they are reassigned to US units.
The US 82nd Airborne Division, 101st Airborne Division, and 75th Ranger Regiment shall deploy to Ramstein Airbase. US units shall depart Ramstein Airbase and proceed to secure cities and towns of Rheinland-Pfalz, Hessen, and Baden-Württemburg.
The US 82nd Airborne Division shall secure German cities and towns in a sector Wiesbaden-Mainz-Ramstein-Pirmasens-Zweibrücken-Trier; the approximate boundary line between the US 82nd Airborne Div and US 75th Ranger Rgt shall be Route 63 Mainz-Kaiserslautern.
The US 75th Ranger Regiment shall secure German cities and towns in a sector Darmstadt-Mannheim-Kaiserslautern. The approximate boundary line between the US 75th Ranger Rgt and the US 101st Airborne Div shall be Route 37 Kaiserslautern-Mannheim.
The US 101st Airborne Division shall secure German cities and towns in a sector Heidelberg-Karlsruhe-Pirmasens (excl)-Kaiserslautern (excl)-Ludwigshafen.
The US 173rd Airborne Brigade shall be on alert for possible deployment as reinforcement to “Reforger-Sobieski”; if not required as reinforcement, it shall prepare to support Italian-led operations in the Balkans.
The US 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade shall be airlifted to the port city of Bremenhaven, which it shall secure and hold until the arrival of its heavy equipment by sea from Norway.
Switzerland is not an original party to planning of Operation “Reforger-Sobieski”, but immediately the operation starts, Swiss armed forces are mobilized as a precaution against Muslim commotions in their own state. The Allies and Zurich are in contact with one another from the very first minutes of Operation “Reforger-Sobieski”; the Swiss government offers to make forces available to the Allies, for the duration of “Reforger-Sobieski”.
The Swiss 4th Mechanized Brigade and 11th Mechanized Brigade are swiftly brought up to full strength and within hours cross the border into Baden-Württemburg.
Battalions of the Swiss 4th Mechanized shall advance from Basel to Freiburg, and thence to Baden-Baden, with a German battalion of the Franco-German Brigade; Battalions of the Swiss 11th Mechanized shall cross the border into Singen and proceed as far as Stuttgart, accompanied by a German battalion of the Franco-German Brigade; Swiss reserves shall be mobilized and placed on alert for advances into Baden-Württemburg, Bavaria, and western Austria to assist in security and refugee departure operations, if requested. In addition to security duties and operating with German battalions, Swiss Army battalions shall support the German Bereitschaftspolizei in its security operations.
BELOW: OPERATION “REFORGER-SOBIESKI” ~ PHASE 2 START LINES
BELOW: PHASE 3 ~ CONSOLIDATION OF GERMAN TERRITORY, NATIONAL UNITS
 Danish and Dutch willingness to intervene are based on a report by Dr. Steven Turley, that those two states are aligned with the Visegrad Group, in its opposition to EU hegemony.
 The non-participation of these NATO members is assumed, based on the hostility of French President Macron to French nationalism, the apparent sabotage of BREXIT by Prime Minister Theresa May, scuttling the legal British effort to leave the EU, and Belgium for the role of its capitol, Brussels, as the seat of European Union power.
Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books.
Paul Golding, leader of opposition party Britain First, was jailed for opposing the Muslim invasion of the United Kingdom. Britain First issued a statement concerning his release, and the totalitarian restrictions now placed upon his civil liberties. He is not permitted to use the internet, contact Jayda Fransen, who is his political associate, may not speak to the media, and is being treated as a domestic terrorist by UK police. The content of Britain First’s message follows below:
On Tuesday morning, Britain First leader Paul Golding was released from HMP Liverpool prison.
He was taken under police guard to Kent by two carloads of officers from SO15 counter-terrorism command.
Instead of catching terrorists, our guardians prefer to act as taxis for newly released prisoners.
Paul was informed that, upon release, he would be subject to draconian license conditions that stop him from doing virtually anything, especially anything political.
The conditions of release are as follows:
-Not to use the internet in any way
-Not to contact Jayda Fransen
JAYDA IS STILL IN PRISON! WRITE TO HER!
PRISON NO: A7921EDFRANSEN
ADDRESS: HMP Bronzefield, Woodthorpe Road, Ashford, Middlesex, TW15 3JZ
-Not to engage in any political activities
-Not to leave his home address for 9 hours
-Not to contact or associate with anyone in Britain First
-To surrender his passport to the police
-To provide details of his phone and car to the police
-Not to speak to the media
These conditions will last for another 9 weeks.
When deputy leader Jayda Fransen is released in 9 weeks time, she will face the same conditions for another four and a half months!
Needless to say, we need to challenge these conditions as soon as possible in the courts.
The authorities cannot be allowed to get away with these acts of political sabotage!
Britain is supposed to be a democracy with freedom of speech and civil liberties protecting our citizens.
Instead, we are a rapidly worsening police state!
Are you sickened by these latest developments?
Please help Paul and Jayda by sending an urgent donation to our legal fightback so we can make a stand against our police state tyranny!
Please send a cheque, made payable to “Albion” to our HQ address urgently:
PO Box 119, Swanley, Kent, BR8 9DY
Do not make the cheque payable to “Britain First” make it payable to“Albion”, otherwise we will have to return it, unused.
Please don’t delay, time is ticking on our chances of beating the police bullies!
Paul is on lockdown and Jayda is still in prison- please think about their plight and make the choice to help them in their time of need!
More updates shortly!
Follow Britain First on Gab, the home of free speech on the internet!
Britain First HQ
THE STATE OF US-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
The past year has been difficult for anyone who wants friendly ties between Russia and the United States. And it appears that this year will be no different.
I have hesitated to write, because the direction of events was either unclear, or things were changing too quickly for a reasonable assessment to be made. What is now clear is that an anti-Russian sentiment has developed in the US media. Whether reporters and journalists look at Russia from the left or the right, it is always a case of the “evil eye” and a search for increasing hostility.
The year 2017 opened with a continuation of accusations of Russian meddling in the 2016 Election, but with the accusers unable to offer any convincing proofs, after more than a year.
Then there was the sudden and unprovoked US missile attack against Syrian military bases in April 2017. As everyone knows, Syria is an ally of Russia and Russian forces have directly supported President Assad, in his fight against foreign Islamic fighters.
Now if all this had occurred in an atmosphere of old-style Cold War hostility, the situation would perhaps be more manageable. But quite the opposite: baseless accusations against Russia and military aggression against Russia’s ally Syria occurred, following an atmosphere of hope that the US and Russia might become strategic partners, with regard to certain regional questions, particularly foreign intervention in Syria’s civil war.
We can recall that candidate Donald Trump himself proposed such ideas and expressed enlightened opinions, which called for US-Russian cooperation and a constructive relationship with Syria’s legal government. And we may recall that he condemned Obama’s proposed military intervention in Syria. These policy proposals resonated well with the American people and in November 2016 the electorate chose Donald J. Trump for US President, giving him a mandate for improved ties between Washington and Moscow. So it was with some surprise that Americans received the news that the US Air Force had attacked Russian ally Syria, on 6 April 2017. And so all through his first year in office, Trump demonstrated a growing unfriendly posture toward Moscow, until in December he approved the sale of lethal military equipment for Ukraine – a state which has made life uncomfortable for its own Russian-speaking population.
What brought about this about-face?
There was at least one party that would not have improved US-Russia relations: the American media.
The US media is not what it used to be.
In 1791, when the US Bill of Rights was ratified by 3/4 of the State legislatures, its First Amendment guarantees for Freedom of Speech and the Press had been crafted in a world when in post-Revolutionary War America, there were about 60 printed newspapers in the entire country (up from 37 newspapers in 1775). But nearly all these newspapers were independently owned. The independence of the Press was so esteemed that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence wrote: “[W]ere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” When Thomas Jefferson became President in 1801, there were about 200 newspapers throughout the country.
When Alexis de Tocqueville published “Democracy in America” in 1831, he could observe that “In America there is scarcely any hamlet which has not its own newspaper.” He also observed that “[T]he persons who hope to bring about revolutions by means of the press should be desirous of confining its actions to a few powerful organs.” In the case of America, he might have added the words: “and counter-revolutions.”
By 1870, there were an estimated 7,000 newspapers in America, thanks in part to the rise of the “Penny Press”, inexpensive newspapers of 4 or so pages, which cost 1 penny.
The number of newspapers in circulation began to decline with the advent of the radio in the 1920s and television in the 1950s. Both of these mediums offered alternate sources of information. Of the newspapers that survived, an increasing number lost their independence and became owned by national newspaper chains, such as Scripps and Hearst, and other corporations.
In 1970, there were 1,748 daily newspapers in the US. In 2016, the number had declined to 1,286. In that interval, in 1992, only 37 US cities had separately owned, competing newspapers (by coincidence, that is the same as the number of independent newspapers that existed in 1775). As an example, the Connecticut State capital of Hartford once had two major competing newspapers: The Hartford Times and The Hartford Courant. The Hartford Times and its patriotic, conservative voice fell silent in 1976. And it seems that many of the victims of this media culling were conservative, patriotic voices.
The trend continued until at present, 6 media giants control 90% of the American media. The owners of these media giants of course, have the option of placing those of like mind – whatever that happens to be – in charge of the junior newspapers they control. Thus, one can travel the length and width of America and find scripted uniformity in editorial opinions, on all sorts of topics, such as gun control and same-sex marriage, and so on, though such opinions do not represent the vox populi.
Television media is dominated by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and FOX. Although FOX News is supposed to be in opposition to the other four, it is really an Establishment outlet. In general, it moves in the same direction as the others, just not as quickly. And sometimes, it has the same destination, though by a different route. An example of this is media coverage on the so-called Russian interference in US elections.
CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have consistently blared out the story that Candidate Donald Trump was assisted by Russian agents in his path to the Presidency. After more than a year of this false narrative, it has been demonstrated that the story was a deliberate lie, created by Hillary Clinton and her allies, in an attempt to steal the election. But the ‘hate-Russia’ narrative marches on. One might think that FOX News and journalists of similar mind, who have supported Trump (and FOX has not been unanimous in its support) would at least promote Trump’s idea of a US-Russia rapprochement. But it did not happen, not even on day 1 of the Trump Presidency. Instead, Russia was treated as an object of suspicion. Whether news is reported from left-wing or right-wing outlets, one thing is clear: the anti-Russian sentiment in the media is unmistakable.
The most recent story – that 13 Russian internet trolls compromised the integrity of the 2016 US election – is laughable and absurd. Do I expect that Russia might be engaged in espionage against the US and American corporations from time to time? Certainly! I recall that in the 1980s, French spies were caught at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. They had entered under cover as recruits in the US Army and had gone through a considerable amount of training, before they were uncovered. The US sent the two men home and hushed up the incident. So if America’s allies have no objection to spying on the US, how could one expect Russia not to do so, when Washington and Moscow have yet to establish a basis for friendly relations? And it would be absurd to say that the US does not spy on Russia. It’s all part of the Great Game. But I do not believe that there was a far and wide conspiracy on the part of Putin, to play kingmaker in America’s electoral process.
So if Russian offenses are only a fabrication, what is it about Russia that so offends the US media? I would say there is more than one factor at work. First of all, the US media giants probably have interests beyond reporting the news, be that energy, raw materials, natural resources, manufacturing, insurance, and so on. Second, if US media giants have interests in those areas, they are going to be the voice of the corporations which are concerned with energy, raw materials, natural resources, etc. Third, an ideological factor may underpin US media aggression toward Russia. Communism can no longer be the problem, since Russia is now a parliamentary state. And Russia is no longer an exporter of revolution. It is rather the United States that has become the destroyer of regimes. I sometimes like to remark that the Comintern left Russia and set up shop in America, and that the US has two parties: Marxist Democrats and Soviet Republicans.
So what did the United States Incorporated and other trans-national corporate states wish to rob Russia of? Or what planned robbery of theirs did Russia thwart? Was it the Donbass? Was it oil from the Caucasus? Or some other natural resource? Or is the US media offended that Russia rediscovered its Orthodox Church, while it pushes Western governments to drown their own peoples in sodomy and debauchery? Or was it because the Russian military supported President Bashar Assad of Syria against radical Islamist mercenaries, and after the Syrian Armed Forces, made the greatest contribution in the fight against ISIS – a fight which the US was almost totally absent from.
Whatever the reason, US and Western media are united in their hostility toward Russia.
In 1831 Alexis de Tocqueville observed that: “In the United States each separate journal exercises but little authority, but the power of the periodical press is only second to that of the people.” What happens when the power of the people becomes second to that of the press? One gets the spectacle the world sees today: a US Presidential candidate who promoted constructive relations with Russia, the American people who voted for him, and the Media Establishment which aborted that policy and mandate with its relentless negative reporting – nay, slander – of the President and anything Russian. As much as President Trump has denounced “Fake News”, he still feels its sting and has periodically sought refuge from it, with actions that contradict his campaign promises: attacking Syria, for example. But there is nothing he can do that will placate the US Media; even his great wealth cannot protect him or his family from its vile hatred of him.
But if the US Media hates Trump for his American patriotism, it equally loathes Putin for his Russian patriotism. It follows that US and Western Media in general despise Western Civilization and its traditions, and actively promote its destruction. Western Civilization will only survive the great waves of chaos travelling around the world, if Russia and the United States work together. How easy it is to see then, that the US and Western Media and their allies will do anything to prevent such cooperation. In the big picture, the attacks on Syria and authorization of weapons for Ukraine may only represent pin-pricks. Trump may have done these things as the only way to sidestep his enemies in the Deep State and the Media. Perhaps he is just biding his time, until he can conclusively overthrow the Deep State-Media ‘State’. Trump and Putin may yet be able to salvage a constructive relationship. But how many pinpricks will Russia tolerate, before it sticks back? And will the United States show as much restraint as Russia has, if that happens? Cooler heads have prevailed before, let us hope they do again.
This article was first published in the Crimean Echo: http://c-eho.info/politika/mir/item/4432-na-sebya-by-oborotitsya
Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books:
 In contrast, there were 53 newspapers in London alone in 1776. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_newspapers England had an estimated population of 8 million in 1775, the Colonies an estimated total population of 2.5 million, including 500,000 slaves.
While working on a translation project this morning, I came to a section of the author’s work (written in Russian), which discusses the connection of some Russian words to one of the earliest written names for God, that is, “Yahweh” (In Russian, “ЯВЬ”, or Ya-Veh). While working with the passage the author wrote, I considered an old English word for Jupiter: “Jove”. Some readers may have heard this word used in the English expression, “By Jove, I think he’s got it”.
I did a little research on the origin of the word Jove. The American Heritage Dictionary Third Edition (1997, p.734) states that the word “Jove” has its origin in the Old Latin word, Iovis. And Iov was the stem for the Latin word Iuppiter, or Jupiter. (In some Indo-European languages, the letter “J” is pronounced like the letter “Y” in our own English language.)
According to The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots (2000, p.xxii), the word Jupiter has its lineage in two ancient proto-Indo-European (or proto-Indo-Aryan) roots: Dyeu and Pəter (pater in later Latin). “Dyeu” referred to a “god” or diety, and in its most ancient sense meant “to shine”; “Pəter” referred to “father”, or the head of a family or clan. So the prehistoric word “dyeu pəter” went into Latin as Iuppiter, ancient Greek language as Zeus pater, and Sanskrit as Dyaus pitar. And thus in the ancient Indo-European and Classical worlds, Jupiter was the “Father of the Gods”, or Chief Diety. As a result of consonant shifts, when a word goes from one language or people to another, the original “Dy” sound in the prehistoric word Dyeu underwent change: Dyeu became Iovis in Latin, and Zeus in Greek.
As Dyeu was the prehistoric ancestor of the Greek word Zeus, the Latin Iovis (pronounced E-yoh-vis), and the Latin stem Iov (pronounced E-yoh-vee), it is not difficult to imagine that the supposed Semitic Hebrew word ‘Yahweh’ (pronounced Yah-vey) was borrowed from an Indo-European language. Just consider the similarities once more:
prehistoric Proto-Indo-European: Dyeu, Greek: Zeus, Latin: Iovis – E-yoh-vis, Latin stem: Iov – E-yoh-vee, Hebrew: Yahweh – Yah-veh
What do you think? Is there any relationship between these words?
Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of a few books and is the writer for Anti-Comintern Blog.
Jayda Fransen, the Britain First Leader leader whose videos about Muslim atrocities were retweeted by President Trump in November of last year, is in jail in the UK for “religiously aggravated harassment“, i. e. free speech, and for protesting against Muslim rapists.
I learned that she can receive mail and letters in prison.
Her address in prison is as follows:
PRISON NO: A7921EDFRANSEN
ADDRESS: HMP Bronzefield, Woodthorpe Road, Ashford, Middlesex, TW15 3JZ
Send her an actual letter of support via old-fashioned postal mail.
* * * * *
I want to add that the British National Party provided this information to me.
Though the BNP is a different party from Britain First, they are fighting for the same cause and think it is reprehensible that Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding were imprisoned.
I also want to thank Peter Brimelow of VDare for posting this information on his site.
OBJECTIVES: 1) Provide direct military support to the historic people of Sweden, in operations to regain control of Swedish territory occupied by Muslims and other hostile refugees. 2) Provide direct civil or military support in the accelerated repatriation of the same Muslims and other hostile refugees, to their points of origin. To this end, the Swedish authorities shall encourage self-deportation on the part of Muslim persons, or other hostile or incompatible refugees.
FRAMEWORK: As the Swedish Prime Minister has expressed his intent to use the Swedish Armed Forces to regain control of his country, if necessary, Operational Scenario #4(b) of Plan Green shall be in force.
Sweden is not a NATO Treaty member, so Treaty obligations do not apply in this context. Depending on the political situation, the Swedish Government may find it necessary to request assistance from regional neighbors on an individual basis, if NATO ‘deep-state’ bureaucrats attempt to block a relief operation. In such a situation, NATO neighbors Norway and Denmark may provide direct support to Sweden as individual, sovereign states, rather than as part of the NATO Alliance. Finland has close ties with Sweden and may also provide support. As it is a Baltic power, Russia’s assistance might also be sought for security operations, perhaps in the form of a naval patrol.
A Brief Description of Sweden, its Armed Forces, and Law Enforcement:
SWEDEN. Population: 10,000,000; of this, 460,000 are Muslims (officially). Constitutional Monarchy: King Carl XVI Gustaf. Prime Minister: Stefan Löfven. Opposition Nationalist Party: Sweden Democrats. Refugee population from African and Muslim countries, as of 2016, was at least 562,000. Other statistics have their population at 591,000. The refugees are responsible for an unprecedented crime wave. The Swedish government has long suppressed criminal statistics, which demonstrate that nearly 100% of rape crimes are committed by Muslim and African refugees. Active-duty Swedish soldiers: 25,340. Reserves: 29,830. For 2019, 7 active battalions and 14 auxiliary battalions are planned. Police in uniform: 19,144, or 1:192 of population. At present, Sweden’s military has been reduced to such a state that it may be unable to cope with an Islamic insurgency.
Below: Sweden is a Scandinavian country located between Norway, Finland and Denmark.
Although Sweden’s recent defense planning has been based on developing its ability to repel a foreign, that is, a Russian invasion of its territory, the greatest actual threat to Sweden is posed by the significant internal barbarian population, which has been placed in Sweden and aided by political forces and others, who are hostile to the historic Swedish people. Through rape colonization and a very high fertility rate, silently or actively encouraged by previous governments, the Muslim and Third World populations in Sweden threaten to displace and eliminate the historic European population in a matter of generations.
Theater of Operations – Basic Geography.
Sweden has some of the most difficult terrain in the world, with high mountains running in a north-south direction, along its border with Norway. The terrain descends in the direction of Finland, the Gulf of Bothnia and the Baltic Sea, and moving south from the southernmost border with Norway. The terrain, whether high or low, has areas of deep forestation. Sweden has a long coastline along the Gulf of Bothnia in the east, the Baltic Sea to the southeast, and the Denmark Strait (Skagerrak, Kattegat waterways) to the southwest.
Theater of Operations – Urban and Populated Areas.
Most of the urban centers and population are located in the southern part of the country. Hostile Muslims and Third World refugees are concentrated in these population centers. Therefore, most military operations will occur in the southern part of the country.
PREPARATION FOR OPERATION “SORTIE SWEDEN”.
Swedish Mobilization: Prior to the commitment of international forces for direct and indirect support of Swedish military forces, the government shall ensure that maximum military strength is made available. (Sweden should end the conscription requirement for women. In light of the grave demographic threat the nation faces, loss of any woman of child-bearing years is catastrophic, so the trend toward a reduction of the historic population should not be facilitated and accelerated by combat losses.)
Call-up of Swedish Military Reserves/Home Guard.
Establish a Line of Containment Malung-Borlänge-Falun-Gävle. No Muslim or other hostile refugee may go north of this line; the same who are north of the line must depart northern and central Sweden and move south of the line, for eventual deportation.
Mobilization of Police Forces, including Auxiliary Police, if they exist. If Auxiliary Police do not exist in Sweden, the national, county, and local authorities shall enact and activate training programs without delay.
Organization of the historic Swedish population as Militia, on a County basis; weapons shall be distributed to the same. If Sweden has an insufficient supply of individual weapons and/or support weapons, an allied nation (or allied nations) may fill this need.
Native Swedes shall be evacuated from localities, where either the Swedish Army or Police do not have the strength to provide security, or where a small community or number of families is so overwhelmed in number by Muslims, that their position is untenable and their defense impractical.
Set up Transit Camps in southern Sweden, in areas removed from major population centers. As Muslims are no longer to be hosted by Sweden, the Camps shall be of a temporary nature.
Secure Strategic Points Around the Country.
Starting with their bases, Swedish regiments and battalions shall establish garrisons to prevent them from being overrun by surge mobs of Muslims and hostile refugees, and prevent infiltration of bases by small Muslim teams or individuals. The Swedish Army shall secure Stockholm, Karlstad, Gothenburg, Malmö and other cities, as well as all airports. Air and naval bases shall be secured by the Air Force and Navy, respectively, who shall prevent loss of personnel and equipment. Army and Air defense personnel, or other personnel, who are not likely to be employed in their authorized conventional missions, may be redeployed to reinforce and provide security for other facilities, or be deployed to reinforce the Police in the cities, towns, and villages of Sweden.
Swedish and Allied Naval/Marine units shall secure strategic ports and coastal cities.
The Swedish Military shall coordinate the deployment of allied formations and shall retain supreme command of their operations on Swedish territory.
Swedish and Allied combat battalions shall deploy to the Line of Containment.
The Swedish Army and Allied forces shall engage in what shall be characterized as clearing operations.
Operation “Sortie Sweden” shall have 5 stages:
1) From the Line of Containment, advance to phase line Karlstad-Stockholm.
2) Advance to phase line Gothenburg-Boras-Jönköping.
3) Advance to phase line Halmstad-Ljungby-Växjö-Kalmar
4) Advance to phase line Helsingborg-Kristianstad
5) The final advance converging on Malmö.
Swedish and Allied forces shall advance from the Line of Containment in a southerly direction. The advancing Swedish/Allied force will be as the hammer, the successive cities along the successive phase lines will be as anvils.
Advancing forces shall link up with garrison forces, relieving the cities and communities under Muslim siege.
Swedish citizens and foreigners who have aided, abetted, or supported the hostile refugee populations shall be detained.
As Swedish and Allied forces advance, they shall order all Muslim communities to depart in a southerly direction and direct them toward Transit Camps.
All Muslims/hostile refugees shall be disarmed.
Resistance shall be met with lethal force. Where Muslim resistance is organized or fanatical, overwhelming firepower shall be employed.
Once the final objective city, Malmö, is secured, Swedish/Allied forces shall prepare for post-operation missions.
The Swedish and Allied navies shall patrol the Denmark Strait (Skagerrak, Kattegat waterways), the Baltic Sea, and the Gulf of Bothnia, for the shipment of arms and persons bound for Sweden, which are intended for the support and reinforcement of Muslim insurrection.
As the insurgent Muslim refugee population has no conventional air force, Air Operations in “Sortie Sweden” shall mainly be characterized by reconnaissance of the ground, patrolling for possible flights of Muslim drone aircraft, and providing support to ground and naval forces.
Swedish forces and Police shall provide perimeter security around Transit Camps, general security within the Transit Camps, and personal security for Civil Authorities working to repatriate Camp detainees. Detainees shall be deported, starting with young adults first, followed by children and their parents. The middle-aged and elderly shall be deported last. Those who self-deport shall not be required to wait or follow any sequence.
If politically feasible, Swedish and Allied forces shall set up a land corridor, via which refugees shall return to their points of origin, ideally via the route they entered Europe.
Drafted by Patrick Cloutier
Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books and is the writer for anti-cominternblog.com.
Election 2016 was marked by unusual violence that was directed against supporters of Republican President-elect Donald Trump. With moral support from even the White House, left-wing extremists, Mexican nationals, and black activists continue to target Trump supporters. Little was done to restrain these mobs and Obama himself took part in fomenting attacks against police officers across the country. The Republican victory on November 7 was followed by a period of uncertainty, as to whether or not the Deep State would openly rebel against the Constitution and prevent the new President-elect from taking office. The swearing-in of Donald J. Trump to the U.S. Presidency did not reduce the civil violence that was fostered by Deep State-sponsored Antifa (Anti-Fascist) groups, even as the prospect of open war between the states receded to the horizon. And now that the furtive plot to overthrow President Trump and the Constitution is being brought to light, the Deep State appears to be tumbling into ruins. But the Deep State still retains strongholds, such as California, from which it can continue to resist or regroup. Therefore, it is worth considering the possible scenarios that might develop, if the Deep State should somehow rebuild its strength.
The only time that a US Presidential election provoked a civil war, was when Republican Abraham Lincoln won the election of 1860. Seven southern states withdrew from the Union in January 1861 and formed the Confederate States of America. Hostilities began in April 1861, when South Carolina bombarded and captured Fort Sumter. When President Lincoln began mobilizing an army to recover the fort, four more southern states seceded and joined the Confederacy. The “War Between the States” lasted four years and ultimately ended in a Northern victory.
Though the North and South disagreed strongly on such questions as tariffs, states rights, and slavery, they agreed on forms of government: the Constitution of the Confederate States of America was identical to the United States Constitution, in nearly every respect. They also had the same national heroes, such as Patrick Henry and George Washington. These shared values and heroes made eventual reconciliation possible, once the war ended in 1865.
A reconciliation today might be more difficult: while Republicans or residents of “Red” states may still revere George Washington and Patrick Henry, Democrats or residents of “Blue” states are more likely to worship Che Guevara, or America’s ‘False Dmitri’, Barack Obama. While a Republican would not hesitate to display an American flag, it was observed that on the first night of the Democratic National Convention in July, not one American flag was to be seen.
Thus, “Red” states and “Blue” states are sharply divided by visions of government: Democrat states tend to lean toward the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, while Republican states tend to lean toward more representative government models. In terms of politics, ideology, and geography, a hypothetical civil war would differ strongly from the previous American experience. For those analyzing the possibility of civil war in the United States, the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 may be a relevant case study.
There were two major camps in the Spanish Civil War: the National Front and the Popular Front. Each side corresponded to a bloc that could be expected to form in a second American Civil War. The pillars of Spain’s National Front, that is, the Catholic Church, the Spanish military, landowners, monarchists, and the Falange Movement, correspond to the US Republican Party, the religious right, the US Military, the wealthy, Constitutionalists, patriots, and social conservatives. The Popular Front’s republicans, socialists, communists, Anarchists, and Basques, correspond to the US Democratic Party, liberals, socialists, black militants, LGBT extremists, Antifa, and Mexican separatists.
A look at how states voted in the Electoral College in the past 20 years, suggests where the initial frontlines would lay in a civil war. The states of the Pacific coast, the upper Midwest, and the Northeast have generally voted for Democratic presidential candidates. These might form a bloc that we shall call “Blue States.” The South, the lower Midwest, and Western states have generally voted for Republican candidates, and so we shall call this bloc the “Red States.” An analysis of voting patterns at the county and city level reveals that a Blue-Red split would not strictly fall along state lines. Nevertheless, for a simple prediction model, it is sufficient to work with state lines.
Below: Electoral College Maps from Elections 2000 and 2016, Demonstrate a Pattern of Republican and Democrat Voting That Has Generally Held for 20 Years.
With the geography of the two hypothetical sides established, the next thing to consider is what sides the military services might support. In the last century, military services were split in civil wars, in which socialism was a competing political vision. Thus, in the 1905 and 1917 Russian Revolutions, naval personnel sided with socialists and Bolsheviks. This phenomenon was repeated in Germany in 1918, when the German Navy declared for the socialists and Spartacists, and again in Spain in the 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War, when most of the Spanish Fleet supported the socialist-communist-anarchist Popular Front. Professional soldiers – both active duty and retired – tended to support those who promoted nationalism and traditionalism. While revolutionaries were victorious in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, “old guard” army servicemen put down the 1905 Revolution, the Spartacist Revolt, and overthrew the Popular Front government in the Spanish Civil War. Given past experience, one might expect the US Navy to defect to the Blue States (but do not count on it!), which coincidentally possess many seaports. And past experience might cause us to expect the bulk of the US Army, Air Force, and Marines to align with the patriotic Red States – which coincidentally host 7 out of 11 major military installations in the United States, and many smaller installations. Similarly, a presumed Red State bloc would possess 35 US Air Force bases, while a presumed Blue State bloc would possess only 18. In the case of the US Navy, 15 bases are located within a presumed Blue bloc, while 13 are located within a presumed Red bloc. Even though over 200 patriotic, senior officers were purged and replaced during Obama’s tenure, one may still expect very strong support for President Trump among all ranks.
Of strategic importance will be the number of nuclear warheads each side controls. The US Navy controls nearly 4,000 warheads, while the US Air Force controls nearly 5,000.
Another factor to consider is gun ownership among the civilian population: over 60 million Americans own at least 300 million guns, and many of these weapons meet military standards. Most gun owners tend to vote for pro-gun, Republican candidates. In the role of militia, they would be a very important factor in determining who controls a given region.
Another factor to consider is energy: the Red States would control majority portions of oil, gas, and coal deposits in the United States. And the Red States would have a large share of food production. One area in which the Blue States may have some advantage is manufacturing. This advantage would be brief, if Red State forces moved quickly to secure adjacent Blue State industrial regions.
Lastly, one must consider that in addition to being a war of ideologies, this would generally be a war of races, as well. Most Americans prefer not to recognize it, but it is a fact that race-identity strongly motivates significant numbers of people on both sides of the struggle.
In this writer’s opinion, without foreign intervention, a conventional military uprising on the part of the Blue States would probably fail, soon after it began. However, if the Blue States (the Deep States) pursue irregular (asymmetrical) warfare, by using ideologically committed militant forces, they might affect the strategic balance. Antifa, Muslims, black militants and separatists might engage in ethnic cleansing attacks against white civilians, particularly women and children. Through the use of terror tactics, they may force the evacuation of white populations from disputed areas and thus offset conventional military setbacks, by forcing Red States to redeploy regular forces for civil defense. But such actions would almost certainly risk reciprocal – and perhaps far stronger – responses from Red States, particularly if they feel compelled to recover the initiative.
During the 2016 election campaign, some American media openly called for a coup d’etat, if Donald Trump won the election., In the months since the election, rebellious FBI and CIA agents have sought to answer this call, by bringing about a palace coup. In addition, Black Lives Matters threatened to start an uprising and agents of George Soros were everywhere, raising commotions. It has also been reported that anti-Trump forces have been stockpiling weapons for an insurgency or civil war. With light being shed on its Civil War-in-the-Shadows, the Deep State is down, but not out of the game. It may need to replace some of its agents, but no one should think that the Deep State is going away. As long as the paymasters are free to move their pieces around on the board, Americans must remain vigilant to the possibility that the Deep State will regroup, and try again.
Patrick Cloutier is the author of Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941 and Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942, and is the translator of Raciology, by Vladimir Avdeyev.
 There were even calls for assassination: http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/anti-trump-resistance-assassination-threats-rioting-assault/
1,300 years ago, following the Moslem conquest of Spain, an Arab force under al Hurr ibn Abd al-Rahman al Thaqafi crossed the Pyrennes Mountains, and captured the city of Narbonne, to use as a base of operations for raids into Aquitaine and Southern France.
It was the year 717. Western Europe was faced with the threat of Moslem conquest. All of Iberia (Spain and Portugal), except the mountainous far north, had been brought under Muslim control in just 6 years. It seemed that France (or Gaul) would suffer the same fate. Muslim expansion was checked at the Battle of Toulouse in 721, when Odo of Aquitaine killed the new Saracen commander, Emir al-Samh. Even so, Muslim control of Septimania (the Mediterranean coast of modern France) remained secure.
Most historians consider the re-conquest of Spain to have begun in 722, when the Visigothic nobleman, Pelagius, defeated a Muslim force at the Battle of Covadonga in 722 and established the Christian kingdom of Asturias. But it would not be until the time of Charlemagne, when measurable progress in the Reconquista would be made again.
In 732 A.D., the Moslem governor of Spain, Abd er-Rahman, decided to seize the rest of France. He led an army of 50,000 men northwards, but was decisively defeated at the Battle of Tours, in October of that year. Still, the Muslims would control southern France until 759, when Frankish King Pepin conquered Narbonne.
Below: Iberian Peninsula circa 756 A.D.
In 778, Charlemagne sent an army against the Muslim Moors in Spain. He eventually won control of the northeastern corner of Iberia, even though his rearguard under Roland met a disastrous end at the Roncesvalles Pass, at the hands of wild mountaineers. Years later (801), he captured the city of Barcelona (capital of modern Catalonia). Charlemagne made the captured territory (portions of Catalonia and Aragon) part of his dominions, under the title of Spanish March.
Below: Empire of Charlemagne circa 814 A.D.
In the 800s, the Kingdom of Asturias expanded southward to the Duero River. In the early 900s, it became known as the Kingdom of León. To the east, Navarre, Castile, Aragon, and Barcelona also expanded at the expense of the Moors, so that by the year 1000, a significant portion of northern Spain had been cleared of Muslim influence.
Below: Kingdom of Asturias (Leon), circa 910 A.D.
Below: Iberian Peninsula, circa 1000 A.D.
In the first half of the 1100s, the new nation of Portugal added its energy to the Reconquista, as King Alfonso pushed the Muslims to the southern bank of the Tagus River. The other kingdoms of Iberia continued to press them as well, until by 1200, half of the Iberian peninsula had been brought under Christian control.
The final push against the Moors began in 1481. Muley Abu’l Hassan, Muslim king of Granada, attacked Marquis Rodrigo Ponce de León, Duke of Cadiz, but King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain came to his aid. After 10 years of war, the Muslims were expelled from Spain in 1492.
Although Muslim political control in Spain was eliminated, many Muslim peasants of Moorish origin remained. Over several decades, these Muslims had to convert to Catholicism or be expelled. The descendents of those North Africans can still be seen in Spain. Mayte Mateos and María Mendiolas, who formed the 1970s Spanish pop group Baccara, may be representative of the European and North African types found in Spain:
Mayte Mateos and Maria Mendiolas of Baccara.
Along with the Muslims, the Jews were also expelled from Spain, due to the establishment of the Inquisition, and the prevailing opinion that they were too willing to do business with Muslims. Indeed, it was widely thought that the Jews had aided the Muslims in their first conquests and occupation of Iberia.
With the above expulsions, the Catholic character of Spain (and Portugal) was consolidated. With a single faith, a union of crowns, and more or less compatible ethnic groups, Spain experienced a meteoric rise in power, particularly with its discovery of the New World, which brought it immense wealth – something it could not have done, if it had still been distracted by conflicts with the Muslims in Iberia.
Now, 1,300 years after the Muslims crossed the Pyrennes Mountains into France, Europe again faces the threat of Muslim domination. And it was brought to this condition, not by an army of jihadists, but by the invitation of half-mad gentiles and Jews, who believe that filling Europe with millions and millions of half-educated, rapacious Muslims and Africans, is a path to a Brave New World.
From 721 to 1492, Europe knew what it had to do, in order to preserve its peoples, faith and civilization: expel the Muslim. It took over 700 years to do so, because the Muslims had formidable armies, and Europeans were not always united in the effort. Today, the nations of the West have the most formidable armies and weapons in human history, and the Muslim invaders have nothing more than an invitation from Angela Merkel and Europe’s sad sacks. Chanting socialist mantras, the leaders of Western European governments even refuse to summon the will to fight. The Muslim, on the other hand, has not hesitated to seize the opportunity offered to him by Europe’s turncoats.
However, the peoples of Europe are awakening to the danger. The question is, can they succeed in bringing nationalist governments to power, that will act with the necessary resolve, before it is too late? With all the power and means at Europe’s disposal, it should take no more than a decade to clean the British Isles and the Continent of Muslims and Africans. Why take 700 years to do so?
Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books, and is the writer for anti-cominternblog.com.
 R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History from 3500 B.C. to the Present. (New York: Harper and Row, 1986) 204.
 Some historians assert that the battle took place in 718 A.D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius_of_Asturias
 France derives its name from the Germanic tribe that dominated the region, the Franks.
 Philip Van Ness Myers, A Short History of Medieval and Modern Times for Colleges and High Schools (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1906) 44.
It seems Italy plans to send 470 soldiers into Niger to “help the West African nation stem the flow of Europe-bound migrants.”
Brenda Walker’s December 5, 2017 article, [Europe: Troops Battle Burnout as Well as Muslim Mass Murderers, VDARE.com] discusses yet another drawback of mass Muslim migration, that is, the need to use regular soldiers in the role of police, to quell Muslim attacks. But the troops are not being used to fight terror: when the police make precision raids on extremist hideouts, they are fighting terror; when a nation deploys thousands of troops to protect citizens from a violent minority, it is fighting an insurgency.
As Ms. Walker points out, deploying Europe’s armies for domestic counter-insurgency duties, results in reduced training and availability for conventional NATO war operations. And Ms. Walker rightly brings attention to the fact that it is the mass-migration policies of West European governments, which fostered the conditions the continent-wide Muslim insurgency. She might also have asked by what authority West European governments brought this crisis upon the West? As it turns out, under the NATO Treaty, they have no authority at all.
NATO’s mission statement reads, in part: “The Parties to this Treaty…are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples.”
Thus, NATO members are obligated to protect and preserve the freedoms, traditions, and posterity of the historic peoples of Europe.
Article 8 of the Treaty reads, in part:
“Each Party…undertakes not to enter into any international engagement [that is] in conflict with this Treaty.”
Therefore, any EU diktat or agreement which opposes the NATO mission of protecting the freedom, common heritage and posterity of the historic peoples of Europe, is void and without legal force.
And what does the NATO Treaty say about all the chaos imported to the Continent by Chancellor Angela Merkel?
Article 2 of the Treaty reads: “The Parties will…promote conditions of [internal] stability and well-being.”
A child can see that Merkel’s Muslim refugee policy has brought nothing but murder and destruction to the cities of Germany and thus, violates Article 2 of the NATO Treaty.
How is it that for the last 60 years, no one knew that NATO’s first mission is to protect the historic peoples of Europe? How is it that no one knew that Muslim and Third World migration is in conflict with this mission? Like medieval peasants listening to a Latin Mass, the people and nations heard, but did not understand. Whenever Article 5 for collective defense has been invoked, all have nodded in stupefaction, none asking about the NATO Treaty’s other articles. Europe and America continue to bring gifts to the NATO Shrine, but never ask what the NATO God gives in return. And now Germany, which is already beset by over a million Muslim refugees, with thousands more arriving each week, will find itself in the embarrassing position of requiring NATO assistance to restore internal stability.
Perhaps this is a sign that the NATO Treaty has outlived its usefulness. While it may promote European political integration, none of the signatories acceded to a suicide pact. And it is understood that “when a treaty becomes dangerous or incompatible with the independence of a state, or a permanent obstacle to…the rights of its people, it can be abrogated” [John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia of the Law (Buffalo, William S. Hein Company, 1984) V.3, 3313.]
Patrick Cloutier is the author of Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941 and Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942, and is the translator of Raciology, by Vladimir Avdeyev.
 John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia of the Law (Buffalo, William S. Hein Company, 1984) V.3, 3313.
BUCHAREST, Romania — Romania’s royal house says former King Michael, who ruled the country during WWII, has died in Switzerland aged 96.
A History of Violence: Muslim Mercenaries in European Armies
Although the peoples of Europe are rightly aghast at the prospect of ethnic and cultural displacement by the unprecedented wave of Muslims entering the continent, largely at the invitation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, history shows that European governments find them to be useful. Since Islam burst onto the world scene in 632 A.D., Muslims have not only fought against Christian kings, but have fought for them, as well.
The Christian princes of Europe fought each often and did not hesitate to hire Muslim mercenaries for this task. Thus, the princes of Italy paid for Muslim mercenaries. In 835 A.D., the Neapolitans hired Saracens from Sicily, to defend their city against the Lombard ruler, Prince Sicard. And the city of Benevento hired Muslim mercenaries from North Africa in 842.
King Roger the Great of Sicily (1095-1134) supplemented his Norman force with Muslim mercenaries. Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, emptied the Italian city of Lucera of Christians, in order to house Muslims from Sicily, whom he employed as soldiers.
In the 1300s, Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania accepted Muslim refugees into his realm. These Muslims, known as the Lipka Tatars, were led by Tokhtamysh, who had lost a war to the infamous Mongol Khan, Tamerlane. As part of the asylum agreement, the Tatars owed military service to the state. Their cavalry regiment helped defeat the German Teutonic Knights at the Battle of Tannenberg in 1410.
The European practice of hiring and recruiting Muslim soldiers did not end with the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. Tatars served in the armed forces of Peter the Great (1689-1725) and Empress Catherine the Great.
In the Colonial Era, Muslim soldiers put down anti-European revolts by their coreligionists. Thus the French could take over Muslim West Africa with their help, while the British were able to defeat the Dervishes in the Sudan, with an Anglo-Egyptian army that was 50% Muslim.
In the 20th Century, Muslim troops were decisively used in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). In that conflict, Nationalist leader General Francisco Franco had the loyalty of the Army of Africa, a formation composed of Moroccan units and Spanish colonials. Along with the Spanish Foreign Legion, it was considered the best-trained and most experienced force in the Spanish Army. By 1939, the Nationalists (with Italian and German help) had defeated the Socialist government, due in no small part to the loyalty of Muslim troops.
The world of 1939 is gone, but not the association of Muslims with European governments: Paris has admitted many Algerians, just as London admits Pakistanis. Even Scandinavian governments, without similar colonial associations, have imported large numbers of Muslim refugees, in part due to pressure from the EU.
In October 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel abruptly announced that her nation would not limit the number of Islamic refugees entering the country. Almost overnight, a flood of Muslims headed toward Europe. In a matter of weeks, over 800,000 Muslims arrived in Germany alone. In reaction, Hungary closed its borders, followed by other European nations. Merkel’s refugee policy has since caused a dramatic rise in the popularity of Nationalist political movements in Germany and elsewhere.
On 18 November 2015, Bjorn Höcke, who is a member of the opposition Alternative for Germany Party and an elected representative for the State of Thuringia, spoke about the massive refugee invasion. According to him, German soldiers are being ordered to evacuate their barracks, in order to make room for the Muslims, nearly all of whom are able-bodied men of military-age. Why would Chancellor Merkel want to house Islamic refugees on German military bases? Will she use them to write yet another page in the age-old story of using Muslim mercenaries, to defeat political rivals?
Mr. Cloutier is the author of Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942.
 Michael C. Howard, Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies. The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel (Jefferson: McFarland & Co., 2012) 218.
 Hunt Justin with Ursula Carlson, Mercenaries in Medieval and Renaissance Europe (Jefferson: McFarland & Co., 2013) 6-7.
 Scott G. Bruce, Cluny and the Muslims of La Garde-Freinet. Hagiography and the Problem of Islam in Medieval Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015)
 RHC Davis, A History of Medieval Europe. From Constantine to Saint Louis (New York: Routledge, 2013)
 David Motadel, Islam and the European Empires (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 42-43.
 A. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History. 3500 B.C. to the Present (New York: Harper and Row, 1986) 848.
America and the Battle for Germany
Thirty-six years ago, naïve thinking in the White House led to a US retreat across the world stage, in the face of communism. Ronald Reagan appeared and offered Americans strong leadership in a world of crisis. He contained communism and his policies eventually brought an end to the Cold War. Today, after 8 years of ineffective leadership that has crippled America abroad and torn her apart at home, the people have chosen Donald Trump to lead in the face of an even greater threat: the Islamic invasion of the West.
Although the Communist Bloc was a military threat to the West, the US and her European allies stood firm and successfully developed economic and military deterrents, which prevented everyone’s worst fear – a Warsaw Pact invasion. Nor were communist governments able to eradicate Western Civilization in the minds of their captive peoples, often having to use its symbols to legitimize their rule. And once communism dissipated, Eastern Europe quickly reclaimed the pillars of Western thought and governance. Indeed, in many ways, the Western identity of former Warsaw Pact members is stronger than ever: no Islamic invasion threatens them.
In the capitals of western Europe, however, political dilettantes and mattoids are striving to impose a super-state across the continent, without the consent of the governed. But they may only build it upon the ruins of Europe. To this end, leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel have handed their nations over to millions of violent Muslim refugees, who are ready to commit any atrocity under the green banner of Islam. However, before Chancellor Merkel and those like her could betray their own people, they first had to undermine the NATO Treaty.
According to the Treaty preamble, NATO members are pledged “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage, and civilization of their [historic] peoples.” Angela Merkel’s refugee policy violates that mission statement, as well as two Treaty articles, which require members to promote conditions of internal stability (Article 2) and prohibit members from entering international agreements that conflict with the Treaty (Article 8). Thus, Merkel’s project for cleansing Germany of Germans, under the cover of an EU agreement, has no legitimacy – and only the mistakenly assumed legitimacy of her actions has prevented Germans from rising up en masse in revolt.
As the leader of the senior partner of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, President Trump can directly address Chancellor Merkel’s treaty violations. A first step would be to align with the patriotic AfD Party and help restore order in Germany, which is reeling from a Muslim jihadist crisis that has grown beyond police control. The United States and its allies can send military reinforcements to Germany, in order to support the German police and military, while civil institutions reverse the Muslim migrant flow.
On a grand strategic level, the Trump Administration can take the lead in driving Islam out of Europe, from the Arctic Circle to the toe of Italy, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Aegean Sea. To this end, the United States should align itself with nationalist European leaders like Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and Victor Orban, and movements like BREXIT. The US must also stand ready to support and supply European armies, like Sweden’s, which have been weakened to such a point that they may not be able to cope with an Islamic insurgency. All the while, the US should help civil institutions promote self-deportation of Muslim refugees.
From a broad perspective, the United States should cultivate a strategic partnership with Russia to defend the periphery of Europe, a first priority of which should be the defeat of ISIS in Syria. Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that America and Russia seem marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destiny of half the globe. If they work together to perpetuate the legacy of Western Civilization, there could not be a more appropriate use of their power.
The Western World is at a crossroads in history. She can choose to fall to the hordes of Islam or she can choose a new Renaissance in a new Age of Reason, whose light travels far into the future, like the distant stars of the night. If she chooses Reason, then she must first win the Battle for Germany. And Trump, whose Presidency combines the three elements of man, moment, and means, must lead not only America, but all of Western Civilization.
Mr. Cloutier is the author of “Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941”.
WAS DEATH OF BIN LADEN IN 2011 FAKE NEWS?
As everyone has been told, Osama bin Laden was killed by US Navy Seals, during the reign of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The event allegedly took place on the 2nd of May, 2011. Yet there are persistent doubts, as to whether Bin Laden was killed that day.
One troubling part of the story is the lack of physical proof – Bin Laden’s body was disposed of very quickly, without media coverage. Photographs of the burial were not published – we are told – in order to avoid offending Muslims. Instead, Bin Laden was buried at sea, in a secret location – which is an offense to Muslims. Coincidentally, nearly all the Navy Seals who carried out the raid, died soon after in a helicopter crash.
Third, whether or not Bin Laden was killed on 2 May 2011, it appears that a story was manufactured, in order to convince the world he died in that raid. The Obama Administration offered a video, which it claimed was a home movie of Bin Laden, in his domestic compound; but there is no way to positively identify the man in the video.
And a still-image from the footage reveals an interesting coincidence: the room in which Osama bin Laden was allegedly filmed, has a brown and white color scheme, which was very common in US Army buildings. Compare the two images below:
Are the similar paint schemes a clue that the Bin Laden ‘home movie’ was faked on a US military installation? If so, was the death of Bin Laden on May 2, 2011 fake news?
Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books and is the writer for anti-cominternblog.com.
“[W]hosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.” – John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Sec. 202, Chapter 18.
America is known for having a government, as embodied in the United States Constitution, which consists of a system of checks and balances that prevents any of the three branches of government from gaining absolute power. The nearly 230-year history of Constitutional government has, from time to time, seen this system prove its worth.
One of the first well-known instances of a government branch being checked, occurred in 1798. Congress had passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by President Adams. Although ostensibly aimed at sympathizers of France, with whom the United States was involved in an undeclared naval war, many saw the acts as an attempt to suppress criticism of the U.S. Government. Feeling against it was so strong that state legislatures decided to do something about it. The results were the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which declared that because the ‘federal government had assumed undelegated powers’, the Alien and Sedition Acts were ‘unauthoritative, void, and of no force’, within their respective borders.
In 1803, the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress void, in the case of Marbury v. Madison. In Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress had given the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus. However, the SCOTUS found that this exceeded the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. And so Congressional power was checked, at the same time that Judicial power grew.
Another episode occurred in the War of 1812: the United States attempted to invade Canada, via the Niagara front, but the Federal Government could not legally order the New York State Militia to invade another country. It could only be used to repel invasions. The New York militiamen were politically aware, and legally refused to cross the border into Canada.
In 1857 the US Supreme Court ruled that runaway slave Dredd Scott was the property of his Southern owner, not a legal person with standing to sue for his freedom. In the wake of this decision, a number of northern states (New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania) passed legislation which nullified the SCOTUS decision, within their jurisdictions. As a result, it became difficult or impossible for Southerners to recover their property in runaway slaves, if they fled to a Northern state. While the SCOTUS had made a technically correct ruling, it learned that its power was not supreme, in the face of moral outrage.
In more recent times, the US Congress placed a check on the so-called “Imperial Presidency”, by limiting its ability to deploy American soldiers. The War Powers Act of 1973 had come about, because over time US Presidents had sent more than 500,000 American troops to Viet Nam, without a declaration of war. Passed by an overwhelming majority, the Act required the U.S. President to notify Congress within 48 hours of having committed the US Military to combat, and forbade such armed forces from remaining in a foreign country for more than 60 days, without Congressional authorization; an additional 30-day window provided for an orderly withdrawal of such troops. For a while, this piece of legislation curtailed Presidential military adventures, but appeared to be in peril as a result of Obama’s unauthorized military intervention in Libya. However, the threat of its invocation was enough to prevent him from attacking Syria.
The checks-and-balances discussion has now shifted to the “tyranny of the courts”. Previous US Presidents battled to keep the Judicial Branch from intruding on what they viewed as Executive prerogatives: President Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling, which favored the Cherokee Indians over the State of Georgia. Jackson remarked: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it”, and proceeded to support Georgia against the Cherokees. And Abraham Lincoln placed judges under house arrest, when they defended the civil liberties of suspected Confederate sympathizers. In these cases, the affected justices appear to have been conscientious in their legal research and appear to have done their intellectual best, when forming the opinions they had arrived at, even if dissenting opinions could be made.
However, after World War 2, the Judicial Branch began to walk away from sound, legal rulings and began its penchant for inventing intent and legal doctrine. One notable example is the Separation of Church and State doctrine. In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court based its doctrine on a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, in which he expressed the opinion that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state”. Jefferson’s letter was neither a founding document, nor an executive order, nor a state paper, nor an act of Congress, and therefore, not a solid foundation upon which to build a legal principle. It was a letter which expressed the opinion of a US President. As such, it is worthy of historical interest, but not for issuing judicial edicts. This example of ‘judicial legislation’ has gone unchecked to this day.
And the rampage continues. Into the first weeks of America’s latest Presidency, Judge Robart of Washington State and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals obstructed Trump’s executive prerogatives, vis-à-vis immigration. The new President issued an Executive Order that temporarily blocked immigration from certain Muslim countries, known for being hotbeds of terrorism. Obama had acted similarly in the case of Iraq, but no judge found fault in that President…John Eastman, a political commentator for The Hill, pointed out that the courts neither bothered to refer to the law in dispute, nor to explain why President Trump is supposedly in error. Indeed, they were decisions whose sole foundation was sanctimony. Trump and his team subsequently issued a revised version of the original executive order, but en echelon, the U.S. District Court in Hawaii continues the attack on President Trump’s immigration policy, with Judge Derrick K. Watson issuing a temporary restraint against the revised order. These Judicial attacks on the Executive Branch may be without precedent in American jurisprudence, but problem judges have a history far more ancient than the United States.
The Old Testament makes reference to problem judges, whom the Jews referred to as “Rebellious Elders”. In Deuteronomy 17:11-12 we find: “11. According to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the Judgment which they shall tell thee thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the Sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest (that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God) or unto the Judge, even that man shall die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.”
According to the Talmud, the prohibition in Deut. 17:12 did not refer to an ordinary man who refused to abide by a decision of a priest or a judge, but applied only to a judge: that is, an Elder, a member of a superior court, such as the Sanhedrin of Twenty-Three or the High Court in Jerusalem. Such an elder who defied an authoritative Rabbinic interpretation of Torah only, not an interpretation of Rabbinic law, was found guilty of a capital offense…Whether the Supreme Court could pardon a rebellious Elder and overlook the affront to its authority and the damage to law and order, was debated in the Talmud. The opinion of the majority was against pardon, as it would tend to increase divisions in Israel.
So the idea that judges might attempt to pervert or overthrow the law, and be punished for it, was a question that was raised far back in antiquity. This same question is considered in the U.S. Constitution under the articles for impeachment. However, in the present political landscape, President Trump may not find sufficient votes in Congress for an impeachment, nor for a successful conviction in the Senate; so other recourse must be had, in order to counter judicial tyranny.
When push comes to shove with an out-of-control Judiciary, President Trump’s best bet may be to follow the example of Andrew Jackson. When a judge or court tries to trample on Presidential prerogatives, he might simply send the offenders a polite message, advising them that he is not required to comply with an illegal order, explain where the offense lies, and then proceed with business as intended. And necessity may dictate that he consider Abraham Lincoln’s approach to insubordinate jurists. In either case, he will be aided by the fact that the jurists who confront him cannot show the same due diligence that their predecessors did, for they are indeed, Rebellious Elders.
Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books.
 R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History from 3500 B.C. to the present (New York: Harper and Row, 1986) 797.
 George Horowitz, The Spirit of Jewish Law. A Brief Account of Biblical and Rabbinical Jurisprudence with a Special Note on Jewish Law and the State of Israel (New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1993) 200-201.
 Article I: Sec. 2, Para. 5; and Article I: Sec. 3, Para. 6, United States Constitution.
Anyone who has followed recent events in Europe, with the Continent being overrun by Muslim refugees on the one hand, and Turkish President Erdogan’s bellicose threats on the other, must wonder why any sane Western leader would want to have a Muslim nation as a partner in the European Union, or the NATO Alliance.
Since 2015, vast numbers of Muslim refugees have entered Europe via Turkey, which has offered itself as a transit point for Muslims, who want an early, soft retirement in Europe. Two million Muslim men of military age have found their way to Germany, thanks to Turkey’s role as a stop-over, and thanks to German Chancellor Merkel’s liberal entry policy. At the same time, Erdogan has pressed for Turkish admission to the EU, and has promised to send more refugees, if Turkey’s application is rejected. He has even threatened Europe with violence.
No reasonable European would welcome Erdogan’s Muslim belligerence into the community, nor is anyone required to. However, reason has not prevailed for some time in the capitals of Western Europe. But nationalist governments – like those of Hungary and Poland – get closer each day. Besides voting down Turkish membership in the EU, what else could nationalist European governments do, with regard to Turkey?
Europe can expel Turkey from the NATO Alliance. Although the Treaty has no explicit provision for expulsion, ordinary parliamentary procedure allows any organization to expel a member. Thus, a 2/3 majority vote of NATO members would be sufficient for expulsion, even if the United States were to oppose the measure.
The specific basis for expulsion of Turkey is violation of Article 2 of the NATO Treaty.
Article 2 reads: “The Parties will contribute toward…peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions…and by promoting conditions of [internal] stability and well-being.”
- Turkey has become a repressive Islamic state and has permitted 2 million Muslim marauders to use its territory as a base to reach Western Europe. They in turn began a rolling wave of Muslim crime, gang rape, and instability in European cities. As stated above, Turkey’s President has threatened Europe with even more violence.
And NATO’s mission statement should also be considered in an expulsion hearing. It reads, in part: “The Parties to this Treaty…are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples.”
- Turkish ambitions to export Islam to Europe and expand territorially at the expense of NATO member-states, conflict with the NATO mission to protect and perpetuate the historic peoples of Europe.
In light of the above, Turkey’s actions should be interpreted as an attack upon Europe. Therefore, the NATO Alliance is duty-bound to expel Turkey as a member. It would be no loss. In the post-Cold War world, without a Bolshevik Russia threatening to export communism, using the Dardenelles Straits to bottle up the Russian Fleet is completely unnecessary, especially when modern Russia can become a most valuable ally in the war against Islamic fundamentalism.
Lastly, as Turkey’s actions are an attack on Europe, the collective defense provisions of Treaty Article 5 authorize NATO to follow expulsion, with military action. In order to ensure that it does not threaten Europe again, Turkey should be invaded and partitioned. Only a century ago, Turkey seized territory from its neighbors – those territories can be returned. Greece for example, could regain Constantinople. This would place the European side of the Dardanelles and Bosporus Straits in friendly hands. She could also regain the coastal zones of Asia Minor. And partition would solve the Cyprus Question, with that island returning to Greece. Armenia could be reunited with her ancient lands around Mount Ararat. The stateless Kurds claim a significant portion of southeastern Turkey – they could be united with their kinsmen in northern Iraq. And last but not least, Syria could reclaim Antioch and Alexandretta.
Up to now, President Erdogan of Turkey has had his way in exporting Islam and terror into Europe. The question now facing the West is: shall NATO expel and partition Turkey, or shall Turkey expel NATO and change the face of Europe?
Mr. Cloutier is the author of Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941, and Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942.
BELOW: SEE MAPS THROUGH RECENT TIME OF TURKEY AND ITS NEIGHBORS
Below: Map of Turkey Showing its Territorial Claims in Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
Below: The Kurds claim southeastern Turkey as part of their ethnic homeland, which also extends into Iraq.
Below: Distribution of Armenians in 1900 and 2000.
Below: Distribution of Greeks in 1900 and 2000.
Below: Turkey after Treaty of Sevres, 1920. The treaty recognized Greek and Armenian territorial claims.
Below: The Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 gave Turkey its present boundaries, except for Antioch and Alexandretta (Iskenderun) in the south, which were part of Syria. However, France controlled Syria until 1946 and ceded Antioch and Alexandretta to Turkey, in 1938-1939. The region took the name of Hatay and became a part of Turkey, as reflected in the map:
Below: Antioch (Antakya) and Alexandretta (Iskenderun) were part of Syria until 1938, when Turkey took over.