FOX News Drops Jeannine Pirro to Please SJWs

According to a Newsweek article featured on ATT.NET:

The Fox News show Justice With Jeanine Pirro was pulled from programming Saturday evening, one week after Pirro’s controversial comments about Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

“Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested,” Pirro said. “Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

– A valid question in the opinion of this blogger, in light of the experience of nations like the United Kingdom, or Germany, where criticism of Islam is essentially illegal and is punished with heavy fines or imprisonment. Perhaps it is time to drop FOX News.

Mr. Cloutier is the author of Mussolini’s War in Spain 1936-1939: Italian Intervention in the Spanish Civil War.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has no Legal Force

Concern has been expressed over an attempt by several states to, in essence, alter our form of government, by altering the way in which their Electoral College votes are awarded in Presidential elections.

Each state has a certain number of Electoral votes, based on the number of U.S. Senators and Congressmen who represent it. No state can ever have less than 3 Electoral votes. The system was designed as a compromise to protect smaller states from being politically overwhelmed by larger states, and to prevent any handful of very populous states from dictating to the rest of the Union.

However, according to well-known and respected journalist Bill Still, 12 states have formed a so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), by which these states would award their Electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than to the candidate who captures the vote within their respective boundaries. And perhaps predictably, 2 of the 12 states are the most populous states in the Union – just the sort of combination the Electoral College was designed to counter.

However, their NPVIC is dead on arrival, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from entering into compacts, without Congressional approval.


ARTICLE I, Section 3, Paragraph 3:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…”

Even if both Houses of Congress could be so thoroughly corrupt as to permit a group of rogue states to attempt such a thing, it would be unlikely to survive a legal challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, such a course of action would constitute a rebellion against the authority of the United States (the authority of the United States is the Constitution) and could result in an unwelcome military response, with Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, Colorado and Connecticut ending up as Reconstruction States – perhaps to the great relief of their citizens.


Patrick Cloutier is the author of Mussolini’s War in Spain. Italian Intervention in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939.





Nancy Pelosi wants to block the State of the Union Address? It does not appear that she can legally do so…

I cannot see how Nancy Pelosi can legally block a State of the Union Address – according to Article II, Section 3, the President is required by law to deliver the SOTU:

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union…he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them…as he shall think proper”.

And: [He] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” – thus it appears that by law, President Trump cannot permit Nancy Pelosi to block the SOTU…


NATO Treaty forbids Replacement Migration

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to remake the image of Europe and issued her invitation for a Muslim and African invasion of Germany, it struck me that she must be in violation of previous security agreements. I decided to have a look at the NATO Treaty, to see what it might say about uncontrolled migrant growth. Analyzing the document, I learned that besides being a collective defense agreement, it requires each member state to ensure stability within its borders, and to stick to the agreement. And member states cannot enter into agreements or organizations that set aside the purpose of the Treaty. These provisions extend to the U.S. as well, since it is the senior partner in the Alliance.

Specifically, Replacement Migration violates the Preamble, Article 2, and Article 8 of the NATO Treaty.

The Preamble’s mission statement defines the Alliance as an organization designed to perpetuate European civilization and the historic peoples thereof; and to provide for the internal stability of member states.

Article 2 requires each member state to guarantee conditions of internal stability. Replacement migration brings instability. Moreover, Article 2 prohibits member states from contributing to instability within other member states, for example, by permitting migrant invasions to pass through their territories, as the Turkish and Greek goverments have done.

Article 8 prohibits member states from entering into international agreements or organizations – such as the European Union – that overthrow the  NATO Treaty. Even if the Treaty promotes closer European political integration, it is not a suicide pact! The Treaty language is very plain in this regard and it is baffling that the governments of leading NATO countries either did not consult the Treaty, or ignored it entirely.

I have posted the NATO Treaty text below for the reader’s benefit and highlighted the relevant sections.

Mr. Cloutier is a translator and an author of several military history books.

The North Atlantic Treaty

Washington D.C. – 4 April 1949

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of [internal] stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 1

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Article 7

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 8

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

Article 9

The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Article 11

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)

Article 12

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

Article 14

This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.

  1. The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
  2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
  3. The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the
  4. ratifications of all signatory states.



Claas Relotius, former ‘journalist’ for Der Spiegel


Claas Relotius, a former journalist for the establishment German newspaper, Der Spiegel, and dedicated member of the Anti-Trump Abroad, has recently been exposed as a fraud. With an arrogance that defines the Left, Relotius made a career out of conditioning the German people to accept ‘progressive’ causes, among them Replacement Migration, which is their own replacement with Muslim and African migrants. Of course, when Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, he had no choice but to attack those ‘backward’ Americans who voted for him. Besides a phony narrative about vigilantes patrolling the Arizona-Mexico border, he also wrote a hit-piece about the people of Fergus Falls, Minnesota. In two recent videos, YouTube personality “Red Pill Germany” explains how Relotius was uncovered by curious Americans and a colleague at Der Spiegel:





Patrick Cloutier is author of Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941.



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?

Patrick Cloutier

Mr. Cloutier is the author of THREE KINGS: AXIS ROYAL ARMIES ON THE RUSSIAN FRONT 1941. He is also the translator of RACIOLOGY.







Американская Декларация Независимости


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

Северная Каролина:

Уильям Хупер, Джозеф Хьюс, Джон Пенн

Южная Каролина:

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[1] and commentary.[2] 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.[3]

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),[4] 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”,[5] “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 мятежmyatezh, 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” andunited States”: I examined the phrases and considered them against the historical background of the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation[6] and the Constitution of the United States,[7] as well as Russian usage.[8]

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.,[9] 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”.[10]

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].”[11]

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.”[12] 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.[13]

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”.[14] 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.[15] 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[16] – such as the power to mint coins – to the United States, the several States became more than associates: they were now statutorily joined,[17] 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.[18]

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.[19]

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;[20] and the High Courts of Ohio, New York and Maine would not recognize the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision as valid.[21]

During the War Between the States, Kentucky declared neutrality, though it was short-lived.[22]

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,[23] 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”.[24] William Rawle’s writing guided the thinking of many Americans, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story,[25] who often cited “A View of the Constitution” in his own written work, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833);[26] 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.[27]

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.[28]

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.

Patrick Cloutier

Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books.

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941.

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942.

Regio Esercito: the Italian Royal Army in Mussolini’s Wars, 1935-1943



[1],,, S.F. Udartseva, Deklaratsiya Nezavisimosti – Inauguratsionnie Rechi, trans. S.A. Nurgazievoy and V.V. Markova (Almaty: Zheti Zhargy, 2004) 29-34.



[4] Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Barnes and Nobles Books, 1994)






[10] 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-

[11] 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.;view=1up;seq=41

[12] John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia (Kansas City: Vernon Law Book Co., 1914) V.2: 1887.


[14] Yielding the expression “объединенные государства в конгрессе собрались”.

[15] P.G. Mezhuev notes in his version of the Declaration that Государствa is a more accurate term for “States”, but retains the word Штаты.

[16] 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.

[17] 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.”



[19] 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.







[26] – Concerning secession, see Chapter 3.


[28]  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.

Operation “Reforger-Sobieski” – the Liberation of Germany from Islam



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.


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,[1] 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.[2] 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.



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.



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:

Hungarian 34th SF Battalion

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 KSK Brigade

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:

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.


Netherlands Armed 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:

The Netherlands Marine Regiment shall muster in Doorn and Rotterdam; it shall then cross the frontier with Germany, in the direction of Düsseldorf.

Danish Armed Forces:

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). 

Polish Forces:

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.

Czech Forces:

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.

German Forces:

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.

Austrian Forces:

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.

Hungarian Forces:

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:

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”.

United States Forces:

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 82nd Airborne Division

US 101st Airborne Division

US 75th Ranger Regiment

US 2nd Cavalry Regiment (attached to German 10th Panzer Division)

US 173rd Airborne Brigade

US 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade

US 2nd Marine 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 and Swiss Forces:

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.




[1] 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.

[2] 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.

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941.

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942.

Regio Esercito: the Italian Royal Army in Mussolini’s Wars, 1935-1943


Paul Golding, Britain First leader jailed for opposing Muslim invasion of UK, is released from Jail, but remains under government surveillance.

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



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!

Yours sincerely,
Britain First HQ


And Now it’s Time for the ‘News’…Or, the Untruth about Russia…


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[1] (up from 37 newspapers in 1775).[2] But nearly all these newspapers were independently owned.[3] 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.[4]

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.”[5] 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.[6] 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.[7] 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.[8] 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.

Patrick Cloutier

This article was first published in the Crimean Echo 

Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books:

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941.

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942.




[3] In contrast, there were 53 newspapers in London alone in 1776. England had an estimated population of 8 million in 1775, the Colonies an estimated total population of 2.5 million, including 500,000 slaves.






Is the word “Yahweh” of Indo-European Origin?

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?

Patrick Cloutier

Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of a few books and is the writer for Anti-Comintern Blog.

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941.

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942.




Write to Jayda Fransen, Political Prisoner and Deputy Leader of the Britain First Party.

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:


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. 

Operation “Sortie Sweden” (Utfall Sverige) – A Plan Green Scenario.

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.



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

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941.

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942.



Case Blue: from Deep State Civil War-in-the-Shadows to Open Military Revolt?

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.[1] 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’,[2] 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.[3]

Thus, “Red” states and “Blue” states are sharply divided[4] 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,[5] 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,[6] and many smaller installations.[7] Similarly, a presumed Red State bloc would possess 35 US Air Force bases, while a presumed Blue State bloc would possess only 18.[8] 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.[9] Even though over 200 patriotic, senior officers were purged and replaced during Obama’s tenure,[10] 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.[11],[12] 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[13] and agents of George Soros were everywhere, raising commotions.[14] It has also been reported that anti-Trump forces have been stockpiling weapons for an insurgency or civil war.[15] 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

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.












[12] There were even calls for assassination:




The Reconquest of France and Spain 721-1492 A.D.

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.[1]

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.[2] 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,[3] when Frankish King Pepin conquered Narbonne.[4]

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.[5] 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,[6] 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.[7] 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.[8]

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,[9] 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?

Patrick Cloutier

Mr. Cloutier is an author and translator of several books, and is the writer for

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1941.

Three Kings: Axis Royal Armies on the Russian Front 1942.


[1] 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.

[2] Some historians assert that the battle took place in 718 A.D.


[4] France derives its name from the Germanic tribe that dominated the region, the Franks.

[5] Philip Van Ness Myers, A Short History of Medieval and Modern Times for Colleges and High Schools (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1906) 44.





NATO and Muslim Mass-Migration

Brenda Walker’s December 5, 2017 article, [Europe: Troops Battle Burnout as Well as Muslim Mass Murderers,] 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.][1]

Patrick Cloutier


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.

[1] John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia of the Law (Buffalo, William S. Hein Company, 1984) V.3, 3313.