¡No Pasarán!

There May Be 450 Million EU citizens to America's 350, Karsenty Tells BFMTV Round Table, "But Their Purchasing Power Is Far Lower than That of the Americans"

2025-05-26T20:34:00.006Z

After announcing on BFMTV over two months ago that tariffs is "a key negotiating strategy of Donald Trump's," Philippe Karsenty adds at a BFMTV News Box round table (1:21:11-1:32:11) that also "Geopolitics is a very important subject for Donald Trump," pointing out that the greater number of EU citizens over America's is irrelevant, given that their purchasing power is far lower than that of the Americans.

Droits de douane: Philippe Karsenty, porte-parole de "Comité Trump France", explique que "la géopolitique est très importante pour Donald Trump"
Le président américain Donald Trump a annoncé vendredi avoir recommandé l'instauration de droits de douane de 50% sur les biens en provenance de l'Union européenne à compter du 1er juin.
Dans un message sur son réseau Truth Social, le chef de la Maison blanche déplore que les négociations commerciales soient "très difficiles" avec les Européens.

The politicians and 'journos' and 'analysts' who now say they were duped by the Biden 'administration' are neither contrite nor forthcoming about their complicity; They have been caught and are up to their same tricks lying about their being caught lying.

2025-05-26T09:48:00.000Z

Thanks, says Damian Bennett, but no thanks:

THX to those sending me links from the interview avalanche of politicians and 'journos' and 'expert' panelists and 'analysts' and 'big brain' celebrities who now say they were duped, gaslit, played, or lied to by Biden and the Biden 'administration', BUT -- but no THX. The people interviewed have not 'come to Jesus', they are neither contrite nor forthcoming about their complicity, they are not suddenly amazingly informed or invested in the truth. They have been caught. They have been caught and are up to their same tricks lying about their being caught lying.
In the long years from 2015 through 2024 I watched hundreds and hundreds of hours of interviews of these same liars lying. I watched them then because I felt obliged so I might stay current, so the lies did not outrun me, so I might have an edge. But in 2025, what does it profit me -- or you -- watching Jake Tapper -- f*cking Jake f*cking Tapper of f*cking C-f*cking-N-N -- continue to lie, but differently?
CNN’s Jake Tapper Hires ‘Queen Of Scandal PR’ To Fight Allegations He’s Profiting From Hypocrisy With Biden ‘Cover-up’ Book May 15, 2025
Tapper: Lara Trump Was Right, I Apologized To Her [Not Publicly], But There Was ‘Context’ Of Both Sides Saying ‘Crazy Things’ May 21, 2025
Tapper: Biden Is Clearly Unfit In Audio Of Hur Interview [That] We Had Transcript Of In March ’24 May 21, 2025
Tapper: I Didn’t Cover Biden Freeze-Ups, Flubs Right Before Debate ‘Because I Just Wanted To Get To The Debate’ May 21, 2025
Jake Tapper's 'Predictable Pivot' From The Biden Exposé Begins May 23, 2025
Tapper is using the findings laid out in [his] book to urge the media to do more digging into—President Donald Trump's health. ... Though Tapper has not claimed he's seen signs of Trump in decline, he has said that he "appears" healthy but "has not been transparent" about his medical record. ... Tapper is basking in the glow of all the attention his book has received, but is slowly doing the "but Trump" pivot because, of course, he is.
Jake Tapper tears the 'coupable mais non responsable' page from the French liars playbook (the Plan B defense when the 'innocent par affirmation personnelle' defense fails), but has added his own special corollary, 'Hey! BUY MY BOOK and let's move on.'

What about Chuck Todd or Joe Scarborough or lesser lights like Chris Cillizza or Ana Kasparian or James Carville (OH! Pa-pa-PUH-leeze!) or George Clooney? These people are not sincere. They have not been red-pilled. They are prima facie dishonest. They are liars peddling new lies. These people will continue robbing your time with now-I-can-tell-it bogusity* interviews and soundbites. You will never learn a single truth from liars playing at truth-telling.
* bo·gus·it·y, (bō'gŏs'ĭ-tē), n. = 1. Contemptuous discordance with the truth or facts; 2. A lie or lies supporting another lie or lies; 3. Utter bogusness;4. Political discourse and discursus

The number of yesteryear liberals who, while remaining liberal, freely entered the light before November 5 are few: Elon Musk, RFKJ, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Mark Halperin (?) -- add your own.

THINK BACK. [Pause to back-think.] When did you -- without benefit of WH access, anonymous sources, research departments, analysts, pundits, experts, medical professionals, and celebrities -- when did you first know Joe Biden wasn't right?

Was it this? Because that surely ain't right.

Council Bluffs IA, November 30, 2019

...or this?
‘You Know, The Thing’: Biden Botches Declaration Of Independence Quote During Campaign Stop March 2, 2020
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the former vice president said during a campaign event in Texas on Monday. “All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”

...or this?
Biden: “I’ll Lead An Effective Strategy To Mobilize TRUNALIMUNUMAPRZURE” (Luzerne County PA, October 24, 2020) October 30, 2020

...or this?
Biden 'Just Fine' After Falling UP Stairs [3x] While Boarding Air Force One March 19, 2021

...or this?
Did Joe Biden Really Just Tell Reporters, ‘MY BUTT’S BEEN WIPED!’? July 26, 2021
[Oh. Wait. Fact check.]

...or this?
USA Today ‘Clarifies’ Fact Check To Say Biden Looked At His Watch 3 Times During Dover Ceremony, NOT ZERO September 3, 2021
[Dammit facts! So tricky. Zero times. Three times. Hard to get that right on the first go.]
Biden Meeting With Pregnant Wife [Jiennah McCollum] Of Marine Killed In Kabul ‘Scripted And Shallow,’ ‘Total Disregard To The Loss,’ Family Claims August 30, 2021
Afghanistan Gold Star Mom [Paula Knauss Selph] Says President Biden Asked [If She Wanted Biden] Photo Op As She Wept In Oval Office After Heartbreaking Loss Of Her Son August 20, 2023
Gold Star Mom [Cheryl Rex] Says She Shook With Anger When Biden Told Her His Son [Beau Biden] Came ‘Home In A Flag-draped Coffin’ August 8, 2023
Rex: “When Joe Biden, our elected president, entered the room, when he approached me, his words to me were, ‘My wife Jill and I know how you feel. We lost our son as well and brought him home in a flag-draped coffin. My heart started beating faster and I started shaking, knowing that their son died from cancer and they were able to be by his side.”
...or was it this?
Biden Wanders Lost On Stage At White House Event April 5, 2022
Literally no one wants to talk to Joe Biden.

Odds are by the end of 2022 you weren't waiting on Jake Tapper to clue you about Biden.

If you truly want some truth, here is some truth:
Kellyanne Conway: ‘Let’s Stop Using Nice Words Like Gaslighting & Cover-up — THEY LIED TO US’ May 22, 2025
Schweizer: Democrats Pushed Biden To Run Since Harris Couldn’t Win, Built ‘Lies Upon Lies Upon Lies’ May 21, 2025
Poll: 63% Say ‘Major Media Journalists’ Knew About And Covered Up Biden’s Mental Decline May 22, 2025

What then is the correct response to this truth, the truth of liars who lied to your face, lie now, and will continue lying?

The correct response to the inveterate liar, the remorseless liar is to hate the liar -- NOT hate the lie, NOT hate the sin, but HATE THE LIAR. Lies, sin, evil of themselves have no power, no sway, no actuality without the agency of the sinner. Pew-warmers recoil! — "HATE! Oh no, we mustn't hate! No, no, hate the sin, not the sinner(s)! We mustn't hate the sinner(s)!" This is phony Christian piety pled by, usually, 'Christian' progressives but also non-Christians or the anti-religious. It is not found in the Bible, so to give it the heft of authority, pleaders try to hijack St. Augustine, whose "cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum" is a very fanciful stretch to 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. Specifically Christ loved the penitent sinner and generally makes plain His contempt for and final judgment on the conceited, the stubborn, the impenitent sinner (for examples, Matthew 22:11-14 and Matthew 13:27-30). It is why Christ suffering on the cross takes a moment to comfort Dismas and ignores the taunts of Gestas. What progressives want you to do is lump all sinners (scil., everyone, the contrite and the unregenerate) in one big forgiving Christian love pot. Not so. Apokatastasis in the primitive Church was perhaps the first seeding of modern Christian progressivism. Christ's judgment is not compatible with 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. Sinners are to be punished, cast into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Dignum et justum.

If you do not hate the thing that is deadset on deceiving you, controlling you, imprisoning you, destroying you, that, dear friends, is why you will always be lied to.

"OH!" exclaim friends, "Well, thank God for that stalwart yeoman athwart the truth -- the conservative press!" [Long hard pause.] Except, except the conservative press is pretty much for shit as well. Here are three tests of a truthful newsroom:
2020 election, was it stolen? A: YES.
Was COVID a natural-occuring zoonotic virus? Is experimental gene therapy a vaccine? As a practical matter, should a rushed insufficiently safety-tested therapy whose manufacturers are wholly indemnified be aggressively promoted? Mandated by government? A: No. No. No. NO.
Was January 6 an insurrection? Were policemen killed? Did DJT incite the crowd to violence? A: No. No. NO.
Please let me know where the 'conservative' press investigated and correctly reported these answers, then steadfastly defended them. Here and there, here and there, count them on one hand: ZeroHedge, Breitbart, Instapundit, ¡No Pasarán! (THX, ES); independent voices: Joe Rogan, Neil Oliver, Paul Joseph Watson, X (post-Twitter), Glenn Greenwald (!?) -- add your own. It wasn't until Trump revenant that the 'conservative' press at large found dentures to bite and a stiff whale-bone corset for a spine.

SO. Again, THX for the links, but no THX. Please, send no more. I'm not in the market for more lies from liars lying about their lying. I hate those people. For your own protection, I would encourage you to do so as well.

Suicide and the Sixth Commandment: You Are Not Allowed to Kill Yourself Anymore than You Are Allowed to Kill Another Person

2025-05-23T09:46:00.000Z

I often say that I am not, or that I do not appear to be, particularly religious. And yet, once you think about it — as I have pointed out in The Real Reason for Secularism (For the Left, the Golden Rule and the 10 Commandments turn out to be a major problem) — religion turns out to be far more humane than secularism. After all, leftists do not consider their neighbors and their fellow citizens as (equal to) themselves, but as children, either as innocents in need of protection or as dirty brats in need of punishment.

Leftists at the head of a nanny government obviously don't think you are their equals, socialists do not believe in "do not covet" (taxes), communists do not believe in "do not kill", nanny governments do not believe in "honoring your father and mother" (your family) — certainly not above Big Brother — and above all, all of the above do not believe in "Do not bear false witness."

… Bearing false witness: leftists allow themselves to lie to others, and they allow themselves to lie to themselves — all to bask in their own valor and glory, as these knights in shining armor turn everything upside down.

In that perspective, leftists have been presenting suicide (like abortion) as not only beneficial, but in need of assistance (like everything else) from the state. In her article, Canada Might Begin Euthanizing Kids Without Parental Consent, Catherine Salgado notes that one particular truth that leftists have been hiding is that "Leftism really is a death cult."

Some of the politicians in the increasingly Communist and dictatorial country of Canada are reportedly still considering allowing kids to be euthanized — even without parental consent. That is outright murder.
It is incredible how everyone can agree that children and teens are not of age to decide they can get tattoos or drink alcohol, and leftists lose their minds at the proposal that minors should learn how to handle firearms safely. But at the same time, leftists screech that kids should be able to choose to receive cross-sex hormones and even permanently mutilating surgeries for “transgenderism” from the earliest ages. And in the future, apparently, the kids who are banned from buying cigarettes might be able to request suicide without their parents knowing.

In his series on the Ten Commandments, Dennis Prager points out that the original Hebrew says not, Thou Shalt Not Kill, but Thou Shalt Not Murder.

Whatever the case, the point remains that, according to none other than God Himself, you are not allowed to murder, or to kill, your own self anymore than you are allowed to murder, or to kill, another person (i.e., your neighbor whom, according to the Golden Rule, you are supposed to treat as well as yourself, and vice-versa). If you must treat your neighbor as your self, and if you are not allowed to kill him (or to lie to him), it stands to reason that the only conclusion is that you are not allowed to kill (or, for that matter, to lie to) yourself either.

JD Vance (Video): "Chief Justice Roberts recently said the role of the court is to check the excesses of the executive. I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment. That’s one-half of his job. The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch."

2025-05-21T17:55:00.007Z

JD Vance: I worry that unless the Supreme Court steps in here, or unless the District Courts exercise a little bit more discretion, we are running into a real conflict between two important principles in the United States.
Principle 1 of course is that courts interpret the law. Principle 2 is that the American people decide how they’re governed. That’s the fundamental small-d democratic principle that’s at the heart of the American project. I think that you are seeing, and I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people. To be clear, it’s not most courts. But I saw an interview with Chief Justice Roberts recently where he said the role of the court is to check the excesses of the executive. I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment. That’s one-half of his job. The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch. You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for. That’s where we are right now.

While in Rome to meet the new pope, America's vice-president also joined Ross Douthat at the U.S. Embassy in Rome for the columnist's New York Times podcast, which led to a lengthy talk about JD Vance on His Faith and Trump’s Most Controversial Policies. (The two Catholics kind of look — and sound — alike; video at the hyperlink.)

JD Vance: I’ve talked to a lot of cardinals this weekend, just because there are a lot of cardinals here in Rome, and one of the arguments that I’ve made, very respectfully — I’ve had a lot of good, respectful conversations, including with cardinals who very strongly disagree with my views on migration — is that it’s easy to get locked in left versus right; the left respects the dignity of migrants and the right is motivated by hatred. Obviously, that’s not my view, but I think some liberal immigration advocates get locked in the view that the only reason JD Vance wants to enforce the borders more stridently is because he is motivated by some kind of hatred or some kind of grievance.
… I really do think that social solidarity is destroyed when you have too much migration too quickly.
That’s not because I hate the migrants or I’m motivated by grievance. That’s because I’m trying to preserve something in my own country where we are a unified nation. And I don’t think that can happen if you have too much immigration too quickly.

… Ross Douthat: The Trump administration, while running for president, made two promises: We’re going to secure the border and we’re going to deport a substantial number of the people who entered illegally under the previous administration.

I would say that you have been more successful than I expected at swiftly securing the border. On deportations, it seems like the actual process is not moving that quickly, and there’s a lot of debates in the courts and elsewhere about relatively small numbers of potential deportees.

Vance: Sure.

Douthat: So, looking ahead four years from now, what would constitute success in immigration policy at the end of this term?

Vance: Well, not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but I do think the most important success is stopping the flow of illegal migration to begin with. And I think that the president has succeeded wildly on that. I agree, it’s been greater than my expectations, and I had high expectations. We’ve done a very good job there, and I think the president deserves a great deal of credit.
On the deportation question, first, this is just a minor wonky point that kind of bothers me in the way this is reported in the media. Sometimes you will hear people say that deportations in the Trump administration are down relative to the Biden administration. That is in fact an artifact of the fact that the Biden border was effectively wide open. In other words, if somebody comes across the border illegally and you immediately turn them around, or you schedule a deportation hearing and say, come back for your hearing, a lot of both of those would get counted as deportation.
So you can have a lot of deportations when you have quite literally millions of people per year walking across the border. That’s low-hanging fruit in terms of deportation. So just a point of clarification there.

Douthat: That’s completely fair. But at the current pace of deportations, you would be deporting numbers commensurate with prior presidents and not commensurate with the numbers who entered.

Vance: That’s right.
I’m sure New York Times listeners are going to be scandalized by this line of argumentation, but I think it’s really important. In some ways, the deportation infrastructure that is developed in the United States is not adequate to the task, given what Joe Biden left us.
There are different estimates of how many illegal immigrants came in under the Biden administration. Was it 12 million? Was it 20 million? It’s hard to count this stuff because you have known got-aways, you have unknown got-aways. You have the people that we never even saw cross the border. So there’s a little bit of guesswork in all this.
I actually think the number is much closer to 20 million than to 12 million ——

Douthat: Just to pause there, one of the most hard-core, critical of illegal immigration think tanks, when I looked into this, had its estimate in the 10 million to 12 million range.

Vance: That’s right. They did. And I think they’re undercounting it, because I think they’re counting the people that we were aware of. I don’t think they were counting that estimate of unknown got-aways. They weren’t counting certain classes of asylum seekers, of temporary protected status seekers. So they were answering a question as honestly as they could. But I think, if you look at the grand scheme of it, it’s higher.
But look, whether it’s 12 million or whether it’s 20 million, it’s a lot. That’s a lot of work ahead of us, and here are two things that we can do. I think one thing is a little bit easier and one thing is a little bit harder. The first thing is you just have to have the actual law enforcement infrastructure to make this possible. And again, I think that we should treat people humanely. I think we have an obligation to treat people humanely, but I do think that a lot of these illegal immigrants have to go back to where they came from. That requires more law enforcement officers. It requires more beds at deportation facilities. It just requires more of the basic nuts and bolts of how you run a law enforcement regime in the context of deportation. And that’s one of the main things in the big, beautiful bill that is moving through Congress right now: more money for immigration enforcement. That’s what that money is for, to facilitate that deportation infrastructure.
There’s also a much more difficult question, and I think you see the president’s frustration and I’ve obviously expressed public frustration on this, which is, yes, illegal immigrants, by virtue of being in the United States, are entitled to some due process. But the due process ——

Douthat: To be clear, this is based on legislation. It’s not based on the judges who are making these decisions inventing this standard. It is a legislative standard.

Vance: But the amount of process that is due, how you enforce those legislative standards and how you actually bring them to bear, is, I think, very much an open question.
… A lot of very well-funded NGOs went about the process of making it much harder to deport illegal aliens. In the year of our Lord 2025, we inherited a whole host of legal rules, and in some cases not even legal rules, and in some cases not even legal rules as much as arguments that had been made by left-wing NGOs that hadn’t actually been ruled on by the courts yet. And what we’re finding, of course, is that a small but substantial number of courts are making it very, very hard for us to deport illegal aliens.
Stephen Miller, our immigration czar in the White House, a good friend of mine, is thinking of all of these different and new statutory authorities, because there are a lot of different statutory authorities the president has to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. And there is, candidly, frustration on the White House side that we think that the law is very clear. We think the president has extraordinary plenary power. You need some process to confirm that these illegal aliens are, in fact, illegal aliens and not American citizens. But it’s not like we’re just throwing that process out. We’re trying to comply with it as much as possible and actually do the job that we were left ——

Douthat: OK, but ——

Vance: Let me just make one final philosophical point here. I worry that unless the Supreme Court steps in here, or unless the District Courts exercise a little bit more discretion, we are running into a real conflict between two important principles in the United States.
Principle 1 of course is that courts interpret the law. Principle 2 is that the American people decide how they’re governed. That’s the fundamental small-d democratic principle that’s at the heart of the American project. I think that you are seeing, and I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people. To be clear, it’s not most courts. But I saw an interview with Chief Justice Roberts recently where he said the role of the court is to check the excesses of the executive. I thought that was a profoundly wrong sentiment. That’s one-half of his job. The other half of his job is to check the excesses of his own branch. You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for. That’s where we are right now.
We’re going to keep working it through the immigration court process, through the Supreme Court as much as possible.

… Douthat: … The legal authorities that you guys have tried to use, the particular one is the Alien Enemies Act, which is an extremely aggressive claim about wartime powers that, as far as I can tell, even under the most aggressive interpretation is likely to apply only to an incredibly small number of migrants. The claim is not actually that five million migrants here illegally are in a state of war against the United States. Or is that the claim?

Vance: No, it’s not that five million are engaged in military conflict. I take issue that it’s an aggressive interpretation. Let me back up and take some issue with that premise. I don’t think that the supposition, if you look at the history and the context of those laws, is that for something to be an invasion you have to have five million uniformed combatants.
We don’t have five million uniformed combatants. I think I have to be careful here because some of this information is classified. How to put this point? I think that the courts need to be somewhat deferential. In fact, I think the design is that they should be extremely deferential to these questions of political judgment made by the people’s elected president of the United States.
Because when you say there aren’t five million people who are waging war, OK, but are there thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people? And then when you take their extended family, their networks, is it much larger than that? Who are quite dangerous people who I think very intentionally came to the United States to cause violence, or to at least profit from violence, and they’re fine if violence is an incidental effect of it? Yeah. I do, man. And I think people underappreciate the level of public safety stress that we’re under when the president talks about how bad crime is. You know, the one thing I’d love for the American media to do a little bit more is really go to a migrant community where you have, say, 60 percent legal immigrants and 40 percent illegal immigrants. The level of chaos, the level of violence, the level of I think truly premodern brutality that some of these communities have gotten used to. Whatever law was written, I think it vests us with the power to take very serious action against this. It’s bad. It’s worse than people appreciate, and it’s not Donald Trump.
… This is not sustainable. And it’s not just unsustainable, like, oh, this is more immigrants than we used to have. This is a level of invasion that I think we already have laws to help us deal with. I wish the courts were more deferential. We’re very early innings in the court process, and even some of the capital-W worst Supreme Court decisions that have been made, the media says: Oh, this is a big blow to the administration. A lot of these things are very narrow procedural rulings. I think that we’re very early innings here on what the court is going to interpret the law to mean.
… Typically, what I find when I look at the worst cases — I mean, the ones that the media seems so preoccupied with — I’m going to make a couple of observations about it. No. 1, it is hard to take seriously — now, this doesn’t absolve me from doing my duty as an American leader and hopefully as a Christian leader, too — but it is hard to take seriously the extraordinarily emotive condemnations of people who don’t care about the problem that I’m trying to solve and that the president is trying to solve.
That’s not you. It’s why I actually take your concerns seriously. I listen to most of your podcasts. I read most of your columns. So when I see people who for legitimately four years told me that I was a xenophobe for thinking that what Joe Biden was doing at the border was a serious problem, I am less willing — there’s a witness element to this — and I’m less willing to believe the witness of people who are now saying that this MS-13 gang member, and we’ll talk about that case in a second, this guy is somehow a very sympathetic person and you violated his civil rights, et cetera, et cetera.
… I understand there may be disagreements about the judgments that we made here, but there’s just something that it’s hard to take serious when so many of the people who are saying we made a terrible error here are the same people who made no protests about how this guy got into the country in the first place, or what Joe Biden did for four years to the American Southern border.
… There are two things about my boss — and I never reveal private conversations — there are two things about the president of the United States that I am extremely fascinated by. One is he has better instincts about human beings than anybody that I’ve ever met. Just almost a bizarre level of intuition about people.
Second, which I think is very underappreciated and it motivates the foreign policy in Ukraine and Russia, it motivates the things that he said about the Middle East, it motivates really a lot of them, is he has this sort of humanitarian impulse. And I’ve heard the president say: Maybe if we sent the very worst people to different places, then American prisons would be a little less violent. Because as you know, American prisons are not a good place. They’re not very good at rehabilitation.

… Douthat: … When I look at the big, beautiful bill working its way through the House and Senate, I see very conventional, small government Republican policymaking. Certainly not a kind of new industrial policy for the 21st century. So is that out there as a possibility for the administration?

Vance: So, yes. But I think you’re underweighting how much there’s both a carrot and stick element to this and the Trump administration. Again, you see traditional Republicans, small government, blah, blah, blah, blah. OK, but we’re talking about no tax on overtime, no tax on tips. These are things that give domestic consumers more money. And if you combine giving domestic consumers more money with making it easier and cheaper to produce in America and more expensive to produce overseas, then that is, in our view, at least a form of industrial policy.

… Douthat: Is there a legislative vision after the tax bill passes?

Vance: You know, you have to bite off only so much at a time, Ross, and I think that it’s not just a tax bill, of course, it’s an immigration bill. There are a lot of other parts of the policy agenda that matter. There’s a lot of regulatory relief in this bill. This bill is what we’re focused on. And then, yes, once we get this bill passed, we’re going to think about other legislative priorities.

… Douthat: So, a couple of times in this interview, you’ve said something to me to the effect of: I know New York Times readers hate me, I know New York Times readers don’t like me and so on.

Vance: [Laughs.]

Douthat: But here’s the reality of the last couple of years as I experienced it as a New York Times conservative. The Trump-Vance ticket won a constituency you didn’t have before, that Trump didn’t have before in 2016.

Vance: Sure.

Douthat: That included the kind of people who read The New York Times. People who were exhausted by wokeness ——

Vance: Yes. And by the way, if they don’t like me, I still love them.
I’m just trying to acknowledge that a point that I make may not land particularly well, but go ahead.

… Douthat: … There’s a group of people who, it’s not millions and millions of people, but it’s a real and substantial constituency that voted for you guys, to their own surprise. Or even if they didn’t vote for you, they woke up the day after the election — I heard a lot of people say this — and said: You know, in the end, I was glad they won.

… So then, generally, you’re going to face the voters by proxy in the midterms.

You may face the voters personally in some future.

But to this constituency that was pro-Trump — again, maybe it’s to its own surprise, but has found itself sort of shocked at various points in the first few months — what is your pitch to them right now?

Vance: I guess my pitch to them would be: We came into the administration with what we believe was a mandate from the American people to make government more responsive to the elected will of the people and less responsive to bureaucratic intransigence.
… I think that if in two years you look at the past two years, or in four years you look at the past four years, what I hope to be able to say and what I think is true today and will still be true then is that we actually have done, with some bumps, we’ve done a good job at making the government more responsive. More efficient to the cabinet secretaries or the deputy secretaries in those departments. And that this sort of feeling of shock, I don’t dismiss it or diminish it, but I think that the system actually needed some pretty significant reform.

Donald Trump's First 100 Days: “The work accomplished in less than three months is colossal”

2025-05-21T12:48:00.001Z

Interviewed for Valeurs Actuelles by Eric Revel about Donald Trump's first 100 days and in fact calling the work accomplished "titanic", ROF's Sébastien Laye considers that « Le travail accompli en moins de trois mois est titanesque. »

If the United States had already made a mistake by welcoming China into the WTO, continuing to cosset itself with an aggressive competitor was pure idiocy.
POTUS full suite of supply-side economics reforms — rapid deregulation, domestic energy production, unleashing AI acceleration and global alliances, and tax cuts — along with our America First trade policies have now delivered multiple below-expectation inflation reports, robust… pic.twitter.com/1pEeWvFd1G
— sebastien laye (@SebastienLaye) May 21, 2025

Recently, Laye was also interviewed on la Matinale de Frontières Média.

Mon passage ce matin sur Frontières pour parler de Frontières + pic.twitter.com/fj3YXVNxgs
— sebastien laye (@SebastienLaye) May 13, 2025

If Biden Had a High Cancer Score While in the White House, Shouldn't He Have Had Surgery (a Biopsy) Under Anesthesia? Does Anybody Ever Remember Him Handing Over Authority to Kamala?

2025-05-20T19:46:00.048Z

As if there weren't enough questions regarding Joe Biden's (lack of) transparency, and while Fox News senior health editor Melissa Rudy asks doctors to break down what it means that Biden’s prostate cancer is ‘hormone-sensitive’, our friend Duncan Hill digs up what so far seems to be an unasked question:

Last night I heard on the news that Biden's Gleason score was 9. Yikes, that's scary high. But, my next thought was a Gleason analysis required a biopsy. A biopsy from the prostate requires surgery...minor but still done with the patient under anesthesia. So, Biden was unconscious for a period of time. Doesn't he have to publicly hand over temporary authority to the Vice President? Does anybody remember that happening?

Whatever the timing of the biopsy was, there is no way in hell Biden's doctors weren't aware of elevated PSA. And if the cancer has progressed as far as they say it has, an elevated PSA would have shown up a long time ago.

Also, we're told that Biden was undergoing therapy for his cancer while he was occupying space in the Oval Office. Somewhere I heard it was hormone therapy and that was why he had poor balance and cognitive issues. When I was deciding on a therapy for my prostate cancer I did a deep dive into researching hormone therapy. Falling down and mumbling were never mentioned...never...at least in the patients and doctors that I talked to.

How come every Dem narrative falls apart with just a moment of thought applied? Forget it...I answered my own question.

As it happens, now a Former Biden medical advisor says he 'probably' had cancer at beginning of presidency (Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of none other than Rahm "Never let a crisis goto waste" Emanuel).

You can count on another ol' amigo, Damian Bennett, to put 2 and 2 together, joining Joe Biden's Democrat Party and the mainstream media at the hip, and tell everybody
Never Forget, Never Forgive, J6 All Biden's Enablers:

Table setting:
Everybody Pretends To Be Shocked By Biden-Hur Tapes. Nobody Actually Is, Though May 17, 2025

Réchauffage:
Democrats Who Praised Joe Biden’s Mental ‘Sharpness’ Don’t Want To ‘Rehash the Past’ May 16, 2025
Chuck Schumer in 2024: "His mental acuity is great. It's fine. It's as good as it's been over the years."
Chuck Schumer in 2025: "We're looking forward. That's it."
Karine Jean-Pierre in 2024: "He is sharp. He is on top of things."
Karine Jean-Pierre in 2025: "I don't want to rehash the past."
J.B. Pritzker in 2024: "He is on the ball. The man knows more than most of us have forgotten."
J.B. Pritzker in 2025: "Look, all this stuff about his health or, you know, commentary that people are making in books, uh, frankly, that's very backward looking."
Pete Buttigieg in 2024: "The president, the boss that I work for, is a focused and disciplined leader."
Pete Buttigieg in 2025: "Right now with the benefit of hindsight, I think most people would agree [Biden shouldn't have run]. We're also not in a position to wallow in hindsight."
Jim Clyburn in 2024: "I do not believe that Joe Biden has a problem leading for the next four years."
Jim Clyburn in 2025: "I have no idea. I don't have a medical degree."
Elizabeth Warren in 2024: "I talk to the man. The man is sharp. The man knows what he’s talking about. He does the job."
Elizabeth Warren in 2025: "[barely contains laughter] ... The question is, what are we gonna do now?"
As a dog returneth to his vomit...:
The Atlantic: In Defense Of Naked Joe Biden August 4, 2014
Reuters ‘Facts Checks’ Biden Being Ignored By Obama And Democrats April 8, 2022
Claims full context was missing from video of Biden being frozen out by Democrats
Easter Bunny Interrupts Joe Biden While Talking About Afghanistan April 18, 2022
Biden was repeatedly redirected and reminded what to do during the event throughout the day. At one point, the first lady instructed him to wave when he finished speaking. At another point, the first lady told Biden to “stay” when he tried to move out of his seat.
Stacey Abrams: ‘Biden Is A Popular Figure Not By Number But By Intention’ April 29, 2022
WH Economic Adviser Bernstein: Judge Biden On His ‘Efforts’ On Inflation — Not The Results May 31, 2022
Biden Comms Staffer Lies About Extremely 'Senior Moment' With Teleprompter - Then White House Lies Too July 8, 2022
Jill Biden Shoves Joe Off The Stage As Reporters Shout Questions September 30, 2022
NYT Heralds Biden's 'Integrity And Honesty' But Omits Record Of Plagiarism, Fibs January 21, 2023
MSNBC Belcher: Biden Would Kick Any Dems Tail — He’s In Stronger Position Than Obama, Clinton February 27, 2023
Nets Ignore Biden Talking About Ice Cream & Little Kids After School Shooting March 27, 2023
Hours after a radical transgender activist shot and killed six people at a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee, President Joe Biden’s first public comments on Monday were...a bizarre rambling rant about how much he loves ice cream, and how “good-looking” four of the kids in the audience were.
For NYT, Biden Will Never Be Too Old To Be President May 1, 2023
David Leonhardt, NYT columnist: “Strange as it may sound, the American government can function without a healthy president.”
MSNBC Brzezinski: Biden Keeps Up ‘Brutal Schedule’ — ‘You Would Be Exhausted’ if You Put In His Hours May 18, 2023
MSNBC Chris Matthews: Biden’s World Leadership ‘Brilliant At Level Of FDR Or Eisenhower’ July 10, 2023
Politico Praises Joe Biden’s European Wardrobe While Ignoring Allegations Of Bribery July 21, 2023
Sen. Cory Booker Defends Biden: ‘His Intellectual Rigor Is 100% There’ September 29, 2023
CNN Tapper To Comer: ‘Certainly There’s Sleaze,’ But No Evidence That President Biden Did Anything Illegal August 20, 2023
MSNBC Rachel Maddow Suggests Joe Biden Isn’t Too Old To Be President Because ‘He Rides A Bike’ February 9, 2024
Joe Biden Falls Off Bike As He Rides Near Delaware Beach Home June 18, 2022
MSNBC Joe Scarborough: 'F-You' If You Don't Believe This Is THE BEST BIDEN EVER March 6, 2024
After Months Of Hyping Biden As ‘Cogent,’ Joe Scarborough Is Ready To Pull The Plug On Him June 29, 2024
Sharpton Brushes Off Calls For Biden To Drop Out Despite Fallout [After Debate] June 28, 2024
Obama To Biden’s Rescue: ‘Bad Debate Nights Happen’ June 28, 2024
Bill Clinton Defends Biden After Debate Performance: ‘Given Us 3 Years Of Solid Leadership’ June 28, 2024
Pelosi: President Biden Should Be Added To Mt. Rushmore August 9, 2024
Enough, hundreds more like the above. For the record, ahead of the curve for years (actually since before the Bork, and Thomas hearings):
DGB: Mr. Biden's Big Brain Vs. Mrs. Palin's Disqualifications October 2, 2008
Mr. Biden has twice failed to convince his own party that he is presidential material (1988 garnering 2 delegates and most recently 2008, when he garnered none). Mr. Obama reached down and lifted him up, praising Mr. Biden as an exemplary substitute for himself.
Mr. Biden has some unusual experiences that qualify him for something, though not the presidency. [Pause.] Not even the vice presidency. For example, he managed to graduate from law school in the "top half" of his class while ranked 76th in a class of 85, scil., the bottom quintile. That's a very neat trick and valuable experience.
And there's more. There's always more with Joe. So much more that Mr. Obama has "assigned two veteran minders to travel with [Mr. Biden] — David Wilhelm, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, and David Wade, a former spokesman for Senator John Kerry." Mr. Wade follows Mr. Biden around and, when Mr. Biden misspeaks, Mr. Wade steps in. Mr. Wade explains that Mr. Biden's errors of fact, misrepresentations of campaign positions (both Mr. McCain's and Mr. Obama's), misstatements, embellishments, untruths, cheats, and wandering garrulity, all these go to prove Mr. Biden's humanity.
• DGB: Joe Biden Is An Idiot October 23, 2008
DGB: Joe On The Job February 27, 2009
DGB: The Enforcer March 21, 2009
DGB: Joe On The Job V May 4, 2009
DGB: Joe On The Job VI July2, 2009
DGB: Joe On The Job IX November 22, 2009
DGB: Joe On The Job X January 13, 2010
DGB: Joe Biden Is An Idiot IV -- Palace Coup! March 23, 2011
Special Constitutional Scholar Edition
DGB: Joe Biden Is An Idiot V -- Rape! March 24, 2011
[Ahem. Years later...]
Accuser Gives Lurid Details Of Alleged Harassment, Assault By Then-Senator Biden May 8, 2024
DGB: Joe Biden Is An Idiot VI -- Loose Lips May 7, 2011
DGB: Joe Biden, The No-Value Target May 13, 2011
DGB: The Unthinkable -- Joe Biden 2016 May 23, 2011
On and on and on through 2012...
DGB: Joe Biden Is An Idiot XII -- Confuse-A-Cat January 1, 2012
DGB: The Greats Of Political Whoredom -- Joe Biden III September 20, 2012
...then E-Nough! shuttered in 2013, then innumerable emails. Make it stop! OK, enough.

The lying press wants you to believe they were lied to. The lying Democrats want you to believe they were lied to. Biden's lying enablers now want you to embrace the pitiable benignity of Robert Hur's assessment of Biden, a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. It is long past due for Republicans to act like Democrats and J6 everyone complicit in Joe Biden's Potemkin presidency.

Throughout all the lying and revealed truth and finger-pointing one thing has remained constant, immutable -- Joe Biden has always been a self-serving, self-aggrandizing, vain dishonest small man, envious and tormented by the success of others. He is undeserving of forgiveness because he is incapable of contrition. He has no soul. He is an asshole.

ROF President Joins I24 Debate to Discuss Donald Trump's Middle East trip and its impact on Israel

2025-05-20T16:50:00.016Z

On Thursday May 15, Randy Yaloz joined a debate team on the I24 channel to discuss Donald Trump's Middle East trip and its impact on Israel.

After 19 minutes, and more specifically after 30 minutes, the debate about the Jewish state's solitide in the face of terrorists and other foes at Les Grandes Gueules avec David Neeman turns to the Trump trip, while the intervention by the head of Republicans Overseas France starts at the 30:30 minute mark and goes on to the 33:03 minute mark. Surprisingly, therefore, in a program that lasts almost an hour (56 minutes) — and during which at least one participant seemed to go berserk — the American was only given a very quick 2.5-minute remote slot; but Randy managed to say a lot in a short period of time. Bravo Randy!

What Nobody Tells You About Apartheid and Jim Crow: The Policies of South Africa and of the USA's Southern States Were Neither Rightist Nor (Primarily) Racist; What They Were Was "Socialism with a Racist Face"

2025-05-19T08:37:00.035Z

Lost in the ongoing brouhaha about a group of Afrikaner refugees being accepted in Donald Trump's America is the fact that Apartheid was neither a rightist nor even a primarily rac(ial)ist one. The same stands for Jim Crow, as well as slavery, in the Southern States.

As you can't avoid having heard, the Republican Party is often demonized for being predominant in the states that used to have slavery and Jim Crow. Actually, once the Southern states stopped being socialist and discriminatory, they naturally turned towards the free market. And so the Democrat party was left behind, along with and in the wake of Jim Crow and slavery. (Dankie aan Sarah vir die InstaHiperskakel.)

The 20th-century policies of South Africa and America's southern states were leftist policies, typical leftist policies, as it were, designed against capitalism and the free market. Indeed, as David R Henderson writes,

"The socialist roots of Apartheid are a secret in plain sight."

I will never be able to thank David R Henderson enough for his eye-opening Joy of Freedom (one of my very earliest internet and Amazon purchases), which, during the year 2003, pivoted me once and for all to conservatism and contributed to starting me on my blogging career (which has now lasted for over 21 years). As I wrote in 2003 or 2004, after I opened my first website/weblog, the book

is one of the biggest literary discoveries (philosophically speaking) in my life. … Although its subject is the "dismal science" — economics (its subtitle is "An Economist's Odyssey") — David R Henderson's book is a breath of fresh air. Directly or indirectly, it gives in-depth insight about subjects such as racism, segregation, unions, war, communism, fascism, anti-Americanism, education, ecology, and even the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.

The chapter on South Africa's apartheid era is especially eye-opening, and excerpts from said chapter are below, followed by Henderson's comments of America's slavery and Jim Crow era. (If you read this, David, please have the book republished — I bought a dozen copies during and after the Iraq War to hand out as gifts — or at least have it issued as an e-book.)

The main opponents of Apartheid were not just the black people who wanted better jobs, but also the white employers who wanted to hire them.

Before we go into the main subject of today's post, here are a couple of posts throughout the years featuring the writings of David R Henderson — who is a blogger at the EconLib blog and whose "specialty is in making economics understandable to non-economists" — both from my first couple of years of blogging, i.e., both 20 years old or more:
• "Income Is Determined Not by Society Distributing, But by Individuals Earning"
• Poverty and How to Reduce It

• Did you know? Of all the peoples on the African continent (once known as the "Dark Continent"), the only ones to describe themselves (and their language) officially as "African(s)" happen to be light-skinned, indeed white people, i.e., South Africa's Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners.

• Did you know? The word "USA" stands, or used to stand, for two countries: the United States of America, obviously, of course, as well as the Union of South Africa (before the Unie van Suid-Afrika was renamed the Republic of South Africa).

• Did you know? One of the most amazing things I remember learning in college, and that I will never forget, was that the worst animosity between communities in South Africa was in fact not between whites and blacks, but between blacks and blacks (the Xhosa versus the Zulus) on the one hand and between whites and whites (the farming descendants of the Dutch versus the business-oriented descendants of the British) on the other.

More: • Mandela and the ANC: A Look Back
• Fans of Mandela Like to Forget That One of the ANC's Biggest Supporters Was Muammar Gaddafi

Without further ado: here are excerpts from The Joy of Freedom's Chapter 7, which starts out by describing South Africa and segues into America's slavery and Jim Crow eras. (I have avoided using ellipses [i.e., "…"s], but each paragraph below is from a different part of the chapter between pages 102 and 131…)

Free Markets Versus Discrimination
By far the most common, vicious, and destructive use of force against racial and ethnic groups is by governments themselves.
Government use of force against ethnic groups is far more effective than private use of force.
Interestingly, Apartheid and its precursor, the Colour Bar, resulted from the South African government's desire to help white workers avoid having to compete with black workers. Apartheid was, in essence, an extreme form of affirmative action for whites. "Workers of the world unite, and fight for a white South Africa."
Apartheid was, in the words of socialist Thomas Hazlett (in Henderson's "The Fortune Encyclopoedia of Economics"), "socialism with a racist face". The socialist roots of Apartheid are a secret in plain sight. Although these roots are well-known to scholars who have studied Apartheid, they have received little publicity in the West. That so few Western intellectuals have been unwilling to look seriously at Apartheid's socialist roots is not surprising. After all, a serious examination of those roots could easily lead to doubts about the goodness of socialism.   And, as most of us know, questioning the strongly held beliefs in which we have a lot invested is usually painful.
But avoiding pain is never a good enough reason to avoid thinking and understanding, especially when the issue is so crucial.
Let's examine the roots of Apartheid.
Who pushed for the Colour Bar?   Not employers. Indeed, employers wanted the many black workers who were as qualified as the white workers and who were often willing to work for lower wages. The main people who pushed for laws enforcing racial discrimination in workplaces were the white union workers. Their reason was simple: they did not want to compete with black workers. By passing laws that to make work by blacks illegal, the white union workers could restrict the supply of labor and drive up their own wages.
Hazlett: "Industrialists, eyeing low-wage blacks anywhere in their neighborhoods, found them irresistible." That, from the viewpoint of many whites, was the problem. The employers' profit motive and the black workers' desire for better-paying jobs created constant pressure for racial discrimination to break down. Moreover, blacks working alongside whites led to social integration, and social integration led to further economic cooperation, thus breaking down the Colour Bar even more.
So there you have it. Apartheid did not come about simply because South African whites didn't like South African blacks or because whites considered blacks inferior. Those factors were necessary and were present, but the impetus for Apartheid came almost solely from white workers who used government regulation to prevent blacks from competing with them. Without government as the enforcer, the believers in Apartheid would have been seen as a bunch of cranks and would have had their own little racist sects, but would not have been able to able to determine where blacks and whites worked and lived for 40 years. The main opponents of Apartheid were not just the black people who wanted better jobs, but also the white employers who wanted to hire them.
Slavery … is essentially legalized kidnapping.
The U.S. government helped maintain slavery in three main ways.
Government discrimination against black people continued well into the 20th century. Laws in the South required discrimination in restaurants and other privately owned facilities, whether or not the owners desired it. These segregation laws were thus a direct attack on the property rights of the owners.
Small wonder that early 20th-century black leaders Booker T Washington and W.E.B. Dubois, whose disagreements with each other are legendary, agreed on unions.
DuBois: "[Unions are] the greatest enemy of the black working man."
How did unions become so powerful? That can be answered in one word: Government.
F Ray Marshall points out that the craft unions (for example, the plumbers union) could discriminate more than the industrial unions (the auto workers) because the craft unions could determine literally who could join and who could not.
By contrast, employers of workers in industrial unions usually make the hiring decisions.
"look for the union label" 1880s ad campaign
Unions also were strong supporters of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
They also supported the Immigration Act of 1924, which restricted Japanese people from immigrating.
The loss in jobs caused by the minimum wage is not an accidental byproduct of the higher minimum wages. It is the consequence intended by those who most avidly support increasing minimum wages. Unions don't support minimum wage increases because their own members are working at the minimum wage. Virtually all union employees — I've never heard of an exception — work at wages above the minimum.
Although probably no one today would dare admit it, many who vote for increases in the minimum wage understand that one consequence will be to destroy jobs for the least skilled workers, a disproportionate number of whom are black.
Why were buses and streetcars segregated in the first place? It wasn't because the streetcar companies wanted it that way, but because local government required it. In fact, owners and managers of private streetcars strongly opposed segregation. Before the law required segregation, most streetcar companies voluntarily segregated tobacco users, not blacks. Nonsmokers of either race were allowed to ride where they wished, but smokers were relegated to the back or the outside platform. Even after segregation laws were passed early in the 20th century, streetcar companies dragged their heels for as long as they could before complying. Their objection was very simple: Racial discrimination cost them money.
In Augusta, Savannah, Atlanta, Mobile, and Jacksonville, streetcar companies refused to enforce segregation laws for as long as 15 years after the laws' passage. But as the government stepped up the legal pressure, the streetcar companies finally had to comply with the law, and the United States stumbled further into government-enforced segregation.
This is how markets work. Employers care mainly about people's productivity relative to their compensation package. Employers who want to discriminate on grounds other than productivity may do so, but they pay a price — they pass up the opportunity to hire people whose productivity exceeds their wage rate.            [Schindler's List]
Throughout history, governments have generally been much less tolerant of racial differences than private employers have been. This is because the government officials who discriminate incur no cost for doing so, as long as discrimination is politically acceptable, which it often has been.
The free market helps break down discrimination in all economic transactions
Markets are especially good at breaking down discrimination when what is exchanged is goods rather than just labor.
When it comes to saving their economic lives, even otherwise prejudiced people are downright tolerant.
As economist and Nobel prize-winner Gary Becker makes clear in his book "The Economics of Discrimination", free markets make discriminators pay for discriminating.
The bottom line is that in a free market, any employer who discriminates on grounds that have nothing to do with productivity will pay a cost for doing so. The economic system that removes the props from racism is free markets.
That freedom breaks down racial and other kinds of discrimination is one reason many people don't like free markets.        [Including the independence-minded leaders of decolonization!]
In the vast majority of cases, the result of freedom will be racial tolerance and tolerance of differences generally.
Freedom of association means that people should be free to hire or not hire, or to work for or not work for, whom they please.
Moreover, laws against discrimination seem invariably to get out of control in two ways. First, the government often starts to require discrimination.
Second, they make even sensible discrimination illegal.
Laws beginning as modest antidiscrimination measures inevitably evolve into laws that require discrimination or ban reasonable discrimination.
In a government-run society, unpopular groups are often discriminated against, often as a matter of government policy. In a free society, on the other hand, freedom removes the props from discrimination. Government policies against discrimination by business makes headlines. Yet market penalties against discrimination are much more forceful and consistent than government penalties. These market penalties almost never make headlines, and few people know about them. But a free-market economy exacts a stiff penalty from employers who discriminate against people on any basis other than productivity. For all their holier-than-thou talk about the evils of racial and other discrimination, government officials have been the main enemies of unpopular groups, and profit-maximizing businessmen have been their main saviors. Indeed, the market penalty for discrimination has been so strong that businessmen are often tenacious champions of fair treatment, even when doing so is unpopular and even when the businessmen would themselves prefer to discriminate.
"Why did men die of hunger, for six thousand years? Why did they walk, and carry goods and other men on their backs, for six thousand years, and suddenly, in one century, only on a sixth of the earth's surface, they make steamships, railroads, motors, and are now flying around the earth in its utmost heights of air? Why did families live thousands of years in floorless hovels, without windows and chimneys, then, in eighty years and only in the United States, they are taking floors, chimneys, glass windows for granted, and regarding electric lights, porcelain toilets, and windowless screens as minimum necessities?"
(Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority)

Related: More entries in NP's What Nobody Tells You About… series:

• What Nobody Tells You About Indians and Other Native Americans
• What Nobody Tells You About the Alamo and the Texas Revolution of the 1830s
• What Nobody Tells You About the Israeli Rave of October 7, 2023

ROF condamne la RTBF pour la façon anti-journalistique dont la chaîne belge a laissé diffamer l'un de ses porte-paroles

2025-05-15T16:47:00.067Z

Republicans Overseas France condamne la chaîne Belgique RTBF pour son émission du 30 avril durant laquelle on a diffamé l'un des porte-paroles de notre organisation. Pour plus de détails, voir le communiqué de presse ci-dessous et le blog No Pasarán.https://t.co/du3orIiffk… pic.twitter.com/TjjkXAOpND
— Republicans Overseas France (@ROverseasFrance) May 16, 2025

Sous l'image du communiqué de presse de ROF ci-dessous condamnant la RTBF, lire la première ébauche (ou si l'on préfère la version longue ou la version détaillée dudit communiqué — the English-language version of which can be found at the very bottom of this post) avant que celui-ci n'ait été raccourci afin de former un texte d'une seule page.

C'est avec la plus grande indignation que Republicans Overseas (Republicans Overseas France ou ROF) proteste contre votre émission du 30 avril durant laquelle on a diffamé l'un des porte-paroles de notre organisation, incapable de se défendre puisque QR Le Débat n'a pas voulu de lui sur le plateau de RTBF — ce qui, peu de gens le contesteront, est à peine croyable pour une organisation journalistique — mais a insisté pour enrégistrer ses propos plusieurs heures auparavant.

Par conséquent, nous nous sommes vus obligés de rajouter la RTBF à la liste des médias européennes auxquelles on ne peut faire confiance. Et nous avons suggéré à tous les membres de notre organisation de ne plus accepter d'invitations de la part de RTBF.

Nous vous rappelons que M. Erik Svane était allé jusqu'à offrir d'utiliser ses Miles pour payer de ses propres deniers un billet d'avion depuis Paris jusqu'à Zaventem. Or, cette proposition — qu'on ne peut que traiter de généreuse — a été immédiatement refusée, en insistant que sa participation serait enrégistrée au préalable via l'app Skype/Teams.

Le soir même, celui du 30 avril, Sacha Daout et Nathalie Maleux animent un QR Le Débat sur le sujet de Trump, les 100 jours qui ont changé NOTRE monde. Tout le monde est en live, sur le plateau, avec une seule exception — le seul intervenant qui donne le point de vue des Républicains américains, à savoir M. Svane — dont les propos ont effectivement été enrégistrées six à sept heures auparavant.

La RTBF suggére qu'il est neutre et qu'il laisse la parole à tous, et qu'il est "important de donner la voix à un défenseur de Donald Trump" (sauf que M. Svane insiste régulièrement que "I am not a defender of Trump, I am a defender of the truth — and the truth is that Donald Trump is a far better leader than the extreme leftists that are, say, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Tim Walz"). Mais sur une interview par Skype qui a duré entre 30 et 45 minutes, M. Svane apparaît à 40:14-41:33, à 55:30-56:50, et à 1:16:16-1:17:25, soit moins de quatre minutes. Certes, cela n'est pas si critiquable en soi, d'autant plus qu'on a averti M. Svane qu'avec un nombre considérable d'intervenants, aucun desdits intervenants ne devait s'attendre à beaucoup d'air time (de temps d'antenne) par personne.

Cela dit, le reste de l'heure et demie du programme est dominée quasi exclusivement — avec l'exception de Georges-Louis Bouchez — par des critiques acerbes, voire des adversaires déclarés, de Donald Trump et des Républicains, remplis des propos les plus outranciers, avec références en abondance aux Nazis et au Führer ("on se rappelle ce qu'était l'Allemagne dans les années 30", dixit Elio Di Rupo, "si vous lisez Mein Kampf de Hitler…"

Entre parenthèses, ceux qui font sans cesse des comparaisons avec le Troisième Reich — appelons-les les férus du mélodrame (en anglais, Drama Queens) — semblent oublier que peu de gens se rappellent d'une seule famille de Juifs dans les années 1930 et 1940 dont les membres auraient fait tout leur possible pour traverser la frontière, de façon légale ou autre, afin de rentrer dans l'Allemagne hitlérienne! Quoi qu'il en soit, évidemment, il s'avère que ces critiques acerbes ont toujours la dernière parole. Qu'est-ce là, si ce n'est pas une démonstration de la pensée unique ?

Ce n'est pas tous les jours qu'on me qualifie de raciste
Mais quand c'est le cas, c'est que je viens
de gagner un argument avec un gauchiste

Non, le véritable dérapage arrive vers la minute 55:00 ; c'est à ce moment que les choses dérapent et deviennent graves. Suite à son intervention (pré-enrégistrée, donc) à la minute 55:30-56:50, M. Svane est victime d'une diffamation injurieuse, accusé de racisme, d'être rien que ni plus ni moins un raciste, et cela sans la moindre possibilité de se défendre — et alors que sa réponse enrégistrée plus tôt était beaucoup plus longue et nuancée. Dans le monde d'aujourd'hui, c'est une des pires accusations diffamatoires, voire la pire qui soit, qui mérite la "cancel culture" et donc d'être viré de l'espace médiatique une fois pour toutes et, par ailleurs, de la société toute entière.

Tout de suite après l'enregistrement vidéo de notre porte-parole, une intervenante est décrite comme étant "catastrophée" par son discours, comme si cette réaction était l'Alpha et l'Omega sur le sujet — que Erik Svane serait un raciste et qu'il serait coupable de "discours raciste", point final. Et c'est tout de suite après cette intervention, qu'un ancien premier ministre met les bouchées doubles et renchérit avec des accusations nazies et fascistes à propos de l'Allemagne des années 1930 (mentionnées ci-haut).

Ajoutons qu'il n'est peut-être pas anormal que Carine Thibaut, directrice générale d'Amnesty International Belgique, soit "catastrophée" par des points de vue tant soit peu divergents quand les médias, tant belges et européennes qu'américaines, omettent de parler des (nombreux) points négatifs touchant à la présence de 11 millions d'illégaux depuis quatre ans (soit l'équivalent de la population totale de la Belgique), préférant opérer non pas comme des journalistes indépendants mais comme ce que le blog Instapundit appelle des "Democratic Party operatives with bylines" (des agents non déclarés du parti Democrate américain se faisant passer pour des journalistes neutres et objectifs).

Ainsi, vos correspondants aux USA, qui n'ont présenté les illégaux comme autre que des victimes et/ou des opprimés, n'ont pas pu chercher ou su trouver des méfaits d'illégaux (que ce soit des crimes crapuleux ou des "banals" exemples d'irresponsabilité, comme la conduite en état d'ivresse) — et ce, alors que la mère de Laken Riley (étudiante de 22 ans assassinée en février 2024 par José Antonio Ibarra, un illégal du Vénézuela par ailleurs arrêté plusieurs fois auparavant) était présente, en compagnie d'autres membres de famille, dans les tribunes du Congrès lors du discours State of the Union du Président Trump. (Peut-on, dès lors, parler d'un air de soviétisation en Belgique francophone ?)

Déjà, en janvier la RTBF a appliqué un temps de différé dans la retransmission du discours d’investiture de Donald Trump, ce qui poussa le sus-nommé Georges-Louis Bouchez à réagir ainsi :

La RTBF a dit avoir créé un décalage pour permettre aux gens de mettre en perspective les propos de Donald Trump, donc, sous-entendu que les téléspectateurs sont trop bêtes pour avoir un libre jugement. #HDPros 🗣️ Il y a un vrai problème à la @RTBF. Qui sont ces experts qui déterminent le bien et le mal ? On peut ne pas partager le projet de nouveau président des États Unis mais rien ne peut justifier qu’un président élu démocratiquement reçoive ce traitement de la part de petits chefs de la pensée. La direction de l’information de la RTBF n’est pas le Ministère de la censure et de la propagande. …

"La direction de l’information de la RTBF n’est pas le Ministère de la censure et de la propagande", apprenons-nous. La direction de la RTBF elle-même, où règneraient "de petits chefs de la pensée" dans "un air de soviétisation", l'a-t'elle seulement appris ?! Il ne serait pas facile d'affirmer que la réponse soit affirmative…

Si l'on veut à tout prix utiliser le verbe ou l'adjectif "catastrophé", il est difficile de savoir s'il faut être plus catastrophé par les méfaits, malheureusement nombreux, commis par nombre d'illégaux ou par les tribunaux gauchistes qui — contrairement à leur accusations envers Donald Trump et à ses partisans voire à des simples Américains moyens (soit, deux poids deux mesures dans la justice américaine) — accordent tant à des violeurs et des assassins qu'à des simples conducteurs irresponsables une indulgence sans pareil (cautionnement de seulement $500 pour un illégal accusé de viol sur une enfant mineure, de nombreux illégaux ayant causé des morts dans des accidents de la route sous l'influence d'alcool ne sont nullement incriminés pour les décès voire sont carrément remis en liberté, etc etc etc…).

Permettez-nous de faire une transition temporaire en anglais pour évoquer, rapidement, une poignée de faits sans constestation possible, soit un résumé, malheureusement long, d'exemples récents de banditisme ou de conduite irresponsable perpétrés par des immigrés illégaux, aux États-Unis — tout en sachant que — contrairement à ce que prétend Paola Usquelis — le fait même de passer la frontière sans papiers fait de vous ipso facto un hors-la-loi, c'est-à-dire une espèce de criminel.)

To quote Catherine Salgado, "The victims of illegal alien crime, including Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, Ivory Smith, Nate Baker (whose killer was previously ordered deported), David Lee, and Travis Wolfe, received little to no attention from Democrats." To this list can be added Melvin Jesus Aquino Enriquez (Illegal immigrant charged with murder of 3-month-old baby) and Cory Alvarez (Massachusetts Court Gives Haitian Illegal Alien Accused of Child Rape $500 Bond).

On August 3, 2024, German Adriano Llangari Inga “of Minneapolis” was charged with driving drunk, unlicensed, and uninsured when he killed Victoria Eileen Harwell in a head-on crash. The local press did not want to admit (!) that he was an illegal alien and the local Minnesota authorities released the Ecuador native from jail. The Fox News story quoted the White House:

“An illegal immigrant drove drunk, killed an innocent mother, and is now on the run because Democrats didn’t do their most important job: protect their constituents,” Alex Pfeiffer, White House Principal Deputy Communications Director, told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement.

As for Jocelyn Nungaray, the 12-year-old girl was sexually assaulted in June 2024 and killed by two illegal immigrant suspects, Johan Jose Martinez-Rangel, 22, and Franklin Jose Peña Ramos, 26, who then dumped her body in a Houston bayou. The latter "was wearing an ankle monitor at the time he allegedly murdered Nungaray that was provided to him when he was arrested by Border Patrol agents after entering the country illegally and being released from custody".

🤔 La RTBF a dit avoir créé un décalage pour permettre aux gens de mettre en perspective les propos de Donald Trump, donc, sous-entendu que les téléspectateurs sont trop bêtes pour avoir un libre jugement. #HDPros
🗣️ Il y a un vrai problème à la RTBF. Qui sont ces experts qui… pic.twitter.com/NmioVQhQVx
— Georges-L BOUCHEZ (@GLBouchez) January 23, 2025

Les Belges ne seraient-ils point indignés — ou "catastrophés" — par le viol d'une fillette de 14 ans suivi de son assassinat et de l'abandon de son corps dans un marais (quelles que soient les races, les nationalités, ou le statut d'immigration des tueurs, voire de la victime) — qui rappelle tant soit peu les victimes de l'infâme Marc Dutroux (un serial killer envers qui la justice belge a elle aussi essayé de montrer de l'indulgence, en essayant de lui attribuer une liberté conditionnelle)? Que vient faire — que diable vient faire — le racisme présumé là-dedans ?!

Plus tard, Carine Thibaut revient à la charge et prétend qu' "il faut savoir, il y a une personne qui a été renvoyée vers le Salvador … accusée de faire partie d'une Mafia — elle ne fait pas partie de cette Mafia — et cette personne on ne sait pas où elle est". Lorsqu'elle évoque ces contes de fée gauchistes, la directrice générale d'Amnesty International Belgique, qui a trop regardé les médias sous l'influence de "Democratic Party operatives with bylines", fait clairement allusion à Abrego Garcia — dont le statut en tant que "membre actif" du gang MS-13 a été clairement prouvé — y compris par ses propres aveux, en plus d'avoir été jugé coupable de bagatelles comme le trafic des êtres humains et les violences conjugales à l'encontre de son épouse.

Tout cela ce n'est que la partie visible de l'iceberg, sans entrer dans les affres des membres de gangs ultra-violentes d'Amérique centrale et du Sud, tels le MS-13 de El Salvador et le Tren de Aragua du Vénézuela, dont le prix pour entrer dans et faire partie de ces gangs est de commettre des meurtres, que ce soit l'assassinat de membres de gangs ennemis ou de citoyens innocents.

Cette partie de l'interview de M. Svane (comme nous l'avons déjà décrite) "beaucoup plus longue et nuancée", a par ailleurs été coupée ; peut-on dire censurée ?

Certes, on n'a pas tort, loin de là, de noter que pas tous les clandestins sont des criminels (sauf que, en entrant de façon illégale dans un pays qui n'est pas le leur, ils sont tous — contrairement à ce que, encore une fois, prétend l'avocate (!) Paola Usquelis — ipso facto hors-la-loi). Cela dit, il est établi que les autorités qui penchent vers la Gauche sous-estiment délibérément les crimes des migrants illégaux. Quoi qu'il en soit, il semblerait que le vrai problème n'est point avec la droite ; le vrai problème, c'est que pour la gauche, tous les "sans-papiers" sans exception ne sont autre que des citoyens (en herbe) hautement honnêtes et respectables, ceux que ladite gauche loue au ciel avec des panégyriques glorifiantes comme "the dreamers".

Mais le débat sur ce sujet dans ces quelques paragraphes ne peuvent pas camoufler le fait que la RTBF a émis ou laisser émettre une diffamation à l'égard de l'un des membres de ROF — l'une des pires calomnies, voire la pire, qui existe dans l'Occident de nos jours — et que personne sur le plateau n'a fait le moindre effort pour la contredire ou apporter le moindre nuance ou le moindre contexte que ce soit.

Le consensus chez Republicans Overseas ne peut être plus claire : Nous avons rajouté la RTBF à la liste des médias européennes auxquelles on ne peut faire confiance. Dès lors, nous avons suggéré à M. Svane, ainsi qu'à tous les autres membres de notre organisation, et les membres d'organisations qui partagent nos points de vue, de ne plus accepter d'invitations de la part de RTBF (à moins, éventuellement, d'avoir la garantie d'être présent personnellement sur le plateau afin de contrecarrer tant la pensée unique que ces accusations et ces calomnies tant fausses que simplistes, pour ne pas dire fatigantes voire — éternellement — assommantes, sur le racisme).

Il s'en va de soi que nous exigeons tant des excuses de la part de RTBF ainsi qu'un droit de réponse, sans oublier un démenti sur un prochain QR Le Débat.

The Left's apparatchiks don't care about black, gay, and/or trans people: George Floyd was nothing more than a convenient reason to further their goal — the destruction of Western civilization

2025-05-14T19:56:00.000Z

Kevin Downey Jr reminds us that 'The Issue Is Never the Issue': How the Commies Dupe Their Dopes Into Protests and Violence (spasibo to Tovarich Stephen).

For everyone, including myself, who was wondering how the Marxists get their useful idiots to engage in some Tesla frottage, I think I found the answer:
An SDS radical once wrote, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." In other words the cause — whether inner city blacks or women — is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution. —David Horowitz
That means that no one cared about George Floyd. No one at the top of the communist hierarchy anyway. The Marxists just used his overdose death to rally their street animals to burn and pillage our nation's big, blue garbage towns. Floyd was nothing more than a convenient reason to destroy, and, more importantly, to further their goal — the destruction of Western civilization — and to fuel the incipient rise of communism in the United States.
FACT-O-RAMA! Bolshevik Vlad Lenin sent street-level communists around the world to spread propaganda and cause chaos. They were also encouraged to rationalize everything move made by the Kremlin. He referred to these lickspittles as "useful idiots."
That also means that the apparatchiks don't care about black, gay, and/or trans people. Nor do they care about "due process" for illegal immigrants.
… The duty of the useful idiots is to spread lies and cause chaos. I suspect many of these mental bellyflops have no idea that they are marching for Marxism.
The commies have tapped into a group of "practical plonkers" they haven't utilized since the late 1960s, the original "hippies."
… As the left releases its senior squadrons and NAMBLA lads onto the streets — and in front of the news cameras — to draw away our attention, something much more insidious is taking place in our colleges.
Propagandists, posing as teachers and professors, are brainwashing legions of hapless kids looking for purpose.
PINKO-RAMA! One of the 45 goals of communism for America includes this gem: Goal #17-Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Millions of kids enroll in colleges and universities looking for an education but end up with an indoctrination.
… The good news is that Donald Trump has gained popularity with young people, as well as black and Hispanic voters. Trump stands for liberty and freedom, not the communism that the useful idiots on the left are peddling. With younger voters embracing Western values, the future no longer scares the bejeebers out of me.
So the next time you see a blue-haired toilet person screeching about colonizers, "racism," or a jet gifted to Trump, just remember, the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution, even if the annoying useful idiot blowing her nose on a Tesla is too stupid to understand that.

Related: Dennis Prager — The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks — The 1619 Project exists solely to convince the young generation that America was founded on evil principles

Is Leo XIV in Favor of Donald Trump's Policies or Against? ROF Spokesman Joins the TV Debate About the Vatican's Choice of an American Pope

2025-05-13T03:13:00.000Z

ROF's Nicolas Conquer heads to BFMTV to join the debate about the selection of a new pope (from 40:10 min until minute 58 (finish)).

Among the TV viewers was ROF's Paul Reen:

Naturally BFM had an agenda to try and create political controversy between Trump and the new Pope, emphasizing a quote from the Pope’s brother claiming that the Pope thinks the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction on immigration and that Trump’s deportation of illegal criminals is unjust (even though there is a clip circulating of when the Pope was a Cardinal warning about mass immigration into Europe).
Nicolas handled it all very well stating that Trump was delighted with the selection of the first American Pope, but reminded viewers that Trump was elected to do a job and is doing it and that a growing number of Catholics are supporting his policies while he also supported the independence, grace, and hopeful longevity of Pope Leo…

The 100-day-period that has changed America the most in the past 100 years: Trump's Counter-Revolution Is a Blitzkrieg, Acting on All Fronts Simultaneously

2025-05-12T04:30:00.000Z

In his first hundred days, Franklin Roosevelt established the foundations for what would become the welfate state, writes GÉRALD OLIVIER in La Contre-Révolution Trump après cent jours (1ere partie), that is, an ever-increasing involvement of the government in all aspects of citizens' lives.

What Trump has accomplished in his first hundred days almost a century later — in an article where GÉRALD OLIVIER gives a "survey of what was, if not accomplished, at least initiated, during the hundred day-period that has changed America the most in the past 100 years" — is similar to FDR's, but in the opposite direction.

In three months, he has launched the most ambitious counter-revolution ever envisioned in the United States. The term is not too strong. It is indeed a "counter-revolution." Donald Trump's ambition is to unravel the immense web woven by the government since 1945 and unleash the creative and entrepreneurial energy of the American people. At the same time, he aims to rebalance the international trade system as it has existed since that same date, in order to consolidate the United States' position as the world's leading power while restoring its aura in the world.

This counter-revolution has been conducted at a rapid pace, primarily through presidential decrees (Executive Orders or EOs). He signed 142 of them. A record. FDR signed 99 in his first three months.

Neither the form nor the substance of this counter-revolution were surprising.

Trump is known for wanting to move quickly and favoring a form of chaos to surprise and destabilize his adversaries. He learned this in business. To change things, "you have to move fast and cause havoc," as a popular expression in Silicon Valley goes. He therefore launched a furious "blitzkrieg," acting on all fronts simultaneously.

Donald Trump also announced and detailed the actions of his future administration during his presidential campaign. In dozens of tirelessly repeated remarks and speeches. His slogans "America First" and "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) foreshadowed everything he has undertaken since January 20: fighting illegal immigration, fighting inflation, reviving fossil fuels, reducing bureaucracy, eliminating wokeness, returning to common sense, reindustrializing the United States, and rebalancing international trade.

The only surprises came from his foreign policy. Trump restored the Monroe Doctrine and proclaimed a new American imperialism, something he had hardly elaborated on before his election. He also clashed with geopolitical realities, and his hopes of achieving peace in Ukraine were dashed by the intransigence of the parties to the conflict. However, his commitment to Israel in the Middle East was exemplary.

An overview of what was, if not accomplished, at least begun during the 100-day period that changed America the most in a century.

Illegal Immigration

The fight against illegal immigration is the most convincing success of the American administration since January. Donald Trump managed to close the country's southern border. What his predecessors said was impossible without a new law from Congress, he accomplished single-handedly in just a few weeks. The border with Mexico, which was crossed by an average of 5,000 people every day from 2021 to 2024, and sometimes as many as 12,000, is now seeing fewer than 200 daily crossings. 178 to be precise at the end of April. The flow has stopped. Overnight. There is no longer a massive influx of illegal immigrants into the United States. This has had an immediate impact on criminal risk, terrorism risk, and drug trafficking.

At the same time, the Trump administration has launched the most massive deportation operation of all time. Every day, approximately 1,000 illegal immigrants, accused of crimes in the United States and sometimes already convicted, are apprehended and returned to their countries of origin or held in pretrial detention on American soil. This is particularly the case for members of the MS-13 gangs in El Salvador and the Tren de Aragua gang in Venezuela, who are sent to the CECOT terrorist detention center in El Salvador.

The administration's swift execution, particularly that of the border police (ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement), has provoked the ire of Democrats and several judges who have attempted to block the deportations, arguing that they are unconstitutional and deprive the victims of their rights. Trump and his administration have appealed these orders, and these disputes will inevitably end up before the Supreme Court, which will be called upon to rule in the coming months, or even weeks. This will be an opportunity to clearly redefine the scope of presidential powers regarding illegal immigration, as well as the limits to judicial obstructionism.

As a reminder, interference by federal judges to block executive branch decisions at the national level has been steadily increasing recently, constituting a means of blocking government action, completely contrary to the popular will expressed through the electoral process. During George W. Bush's two eight-year terms in office, there were a total of six judicial injunctions against his decisions. Then, twelve during the eight years of the Obama presidency. And sixty-four during Trump's first term alone. Under Biden, the total had fallen to fourteen. It has reached thirty-five during the first three months of Trump's new term, for a total of 99. Clearly, the local judicial system has become the new recourse for the Democratic opposition to halt executive action and interfere with the democratic process when the Republicans are in power.

Fighting Inflation

On the inflation front, the price of key commodities, including eggs—a staple of the traditional American breakfast—and especially gasoline, have fallen considerably. It cost $6.50 to buy a dozen eggs on January 21st; now, the price is $3.20. A 50% drop. A barrel of crude oil, which was $73 on January 20th, fell to $58 on April 8th. It has since risen to $63. This represents a drop of 15 to 20%, which was immediately felt at the pump by American drivers (and European drivers, but with less impact given the weight of taxes on gasoline prices in Europe).

In Georgia, gasoline has fallen below $2 per gallon (akin to 4 liters) in some places. The national average price remains at $3.15, whereas it had hovered near $5 in July 2022.

The United States is currently experiencing no domestic inflationary pressure. This does not prevent the media from denouncing a "potential risk of imported inflation" presented by the widespread increase in tariffs that Trump introduced on April 2. However, this is only a "risk," not a proven reality, and this risk is uncertain because the level of the tariffs in question is currently subject to multiple negotiations, and the impact of a tariff on a product's selling price is a matter of debate.

Energy Revival

Regarding energy, the Green New Deal, beloved by the tree huggers, is dead, and the United States has once again withdrawn from the 2015 Paris Agreement. Donald Trump has reauthorized the exploitation of fossil fuel deposits, authorized liquefied gas exports, issued new exploration permits, notably in Alaska, a vast territory containing equally vast hydrocarbon reserves, restarted the production of "clean coal," and suspended permits for the installation of new "wind farms." In short, fossil fuels, which abound in the United States' subsoil, are once again popular, and renewable energies are being restored to their historic place as backup energy sources.

Trump established a "National Energy Dominance Council" whose task is to work not simply toward US energy independence, which was achieved during his first term, but also toward its dominance in the global market.

Trump also ended the ban on internal combustion vehicles in 2035. The Biden administration had decreed that electric vehicles should account for 67% of car sales by 2032, and 100% three years later. This decision was made without any public consultation or parliamentary debate by the un-elected bureaucrats of the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump put an end to this ambition, which was nothing more than wishful thinking and would spell the end of the American auto industry.

Conversely, he encouraged the production of all types of vehicles—internal combustion, hybrid, and electric—on American soil. This was to revive the struggling industry and support the re-industrialization of the United States. Many manufacturers, including Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, Hyundai, and Audi, have responded to this call, motivated by the desire to avoid the tariffs that President Trump has begun imposing on imported vehicles and auto parts.

Government Reform and the Fight Against the Deep State

The DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) is the most spectacular creation of the Trump 2.0 administration. And the opposition it has generated is both a reflection of its success and an illustration of the true mood prevailing in Washington.

For decades, American presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have complained about a sprawling, costly, and paralyzing bureaucracy. Ronald Reagan complained about it as early as 1981, Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and Barack Obama in 2012. All vowed to take action to reduce this bureaucracy.

At the time, this ambition was unanimously supported by public opinion. But all these presidents have, in truth, done nothing. A speech full of melodrama, and nothing beneath it. Donald Trump, on the other hand, who had promised to act quickly and decisively to reduce the power and influence of un-elected bureaucrats during his campaign, set about drastically reducing bureaucracy upon his return to the White House. First with a simple rule: a new regulation can only be instituted if ten existing rules are eliminated. Then with the creation of DOGE, which he entrusted to Elon Musk.

The task specified to Musk is to identify all "abuses, fraud, and waste" existing in government agencies and services, in order to inform directors so that they can take the necessary measures. In just three months, Musk has exposed tens of billions of dollars of waste, often bordering on negligence, sometimes incompetence, as well as outright embezzlement and a form of corruption. In short, Musk has revealed the use of billions of dollars of public funds to finance opaque progressive propaganda outlets in the United States and abroad.

Musk should have been celebrated as a hero. He should have been praised, thanked, and rewarded. Because, without asking for any compensation, he launched a fight on behalf of American taxpayers, to ensure that their hard-earned dollars were spent wisely and for causes that served the United States' interests. But he was vilified, denounced, threatened, and attacked. His companies' products were vandalized and boycotted. Why? Because by attacking the bureaucracy—that is, the deep state—with a chainsaw, Elon Musk has shaken the Democratic political machine and endangered the radical nebula that has thrived for years on hidden government subsidies. The violence of the attacks he continues to face is, moreover, the true measure of the success of his actions.

So far, DOGE has saved $160 billion. That's 10% of the budget deficit. One hundred and twenty thousand civil service jobs have been eliminated. That sounds like a lot, but it only represents 6% of the workforce, or $12 billion in savings per year. Dozens of agencies have nevertheless seen their missions redefined or suspended, indicating that DOGE's impact is not just economic but political.

Dans La Contre-Révolution Trump après cent jours (1ere partie), GÉRALD OLIVIER nous donne un "Tour d’horizon de ce qui a été, sinon accompli, du moins commencé, au cours des cent premiers jours qui ont le plus changé l'Amérique en un siècle."

Le 30 avril a clos les premiers cent jours du second mandat de Donald Trump à la Maison Blanche. C’est une date symbolique. Non pas en référence aux cent jours de Napoléon en 1815, mais aux cent jours de Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) en 1933.
Devenu président après deux ans d’une crise économique sans précédent, Roosevelt avait réussi à stopper la spirale dépressive et redonner espoir à ses concitoyens, grâce à une série de réformes votées durant ses cent premiers jours. Ce faisant, il avait révolutionné le gouvernement, la politique et l’économie américaines plus qu’aucun de ses prédécesseurs. Ses premiers jours avaient établi les fondations de ce qui allait devenir « l’Etat providence », soit une implication toujours plus étendue du gouvernement dans tous les aspects de la vie des citoyens.
Près d’un siècle plus tard, Donald Trump est engagé dans une œuvre comparable, mais en sens inverse. En trois mois, il a lancé la plus ambitieuse contre-révolution jamais envisagée aux Etats-Unis. Le terme n’est pas trop fort. Il s’agit bien d’une « contre-révolution ». Donald Trump a pour ambition de détricoter l’immense toile tissée par le gouvernement depuis 1945 et de libérer l’énergie créative et entrepreneuriale du peuple américain. Dans le même temps, il ambitionne de rééquilibrer le système du commerce international tel qu’il existe depuis cette même date, afin de conforter la place des Etats-Unis comme première puissance mondiale et de restaurer son aura sur le monde.
Cette contre-révolution a été conduite à cent à l’heure principalement à coups de décrets présidentiels (Exexutive Orders ou EOs). Il en a signé cent quarante-deux. Un record. FDR en avait signé 99 sur ses trois premiers mois. …
Immigration clandestine
… Pour rappel les interférences de juges fédéraux pour bloquer au niveau national les décisions de l’exécutif n’ont cessé de se multiplier récemment constituant un moyen, totalement contraire au vœux populaire exprimé via la processus électoral, de bloquer l’action du gouvernement. … l’appareil judiciaire local est devenu le nouveau recours de l’opposition démocrate pour stopper l’action de l’exécutif et interférer avec le processus démocratique lorsque les Républicains sont au pouvoir.

"Wholly unprepared for wartime production needs": Is America still the world’s leading technological and industrial power?

2025-05-11T15:11:00.058Z

Is America still the world’s leading technological and industrial power?

asks ROF's Sébastien Laye in the Washington Examiner as he lays out A Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook for the US.

This is the daring and haunting question some of the most brilliant minds in technology and industrial policy recently addressed in a thick volume called The Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook.

Compiling contributions from American Compass, the Institute for Progress, the Foundation for American Innovation, and the New American Industrial Association Foundation, this extensive text lists policy proposals anchored in the belief that if we prolong the mantra “invent here, make there”, a lurking decline will decidedly knock the U.S. off its pedestal.
These researchers focused on three areas: industrial, national security, and frontier innovation. With AI, these three considerations are tightly intertwined inasmuch as technology has become the cornerstone of industrial and innovation might. The playbook proposed by these researchers has the merit to remind policymakers that without a manufacturing base, this three-pronged approach would be heedless.
At the inception of the text, the authors dramatize the stakes by asserting that America is wholly unprepared for wartime production needs, as it would take at the current pace nearly eight years to replenish our weapons inventory. These manufacturing problems are further exacerbated by failing electrical and energy infrastructure nationwide. From the citizenry’s perspective, technology, like other pursuits, should support economic growth, national security, and community flourishing.

Other entries in Sébastien Laye's Washington Examiner series:
• Promethean Rivalry: The AI race between America and China is even more impactful than the Space Race or the Atomic rivalry at their apex
• Silicon Valley against China: the Trump administration needs to step up America's artificial general intelligence (AGI) game
• Is General Mayhem the Dystopian Future for International Technologiy Rivalries? Read About MAIM (Mutually Assured AI Malfunction) in the U.S.-China AI Race
• A national security imperative: By doubling down on partnerships with Ukraine and Greenland, the U.S. aims to break free from Chinese dependency while reinforcing its technological supremacy

Jusqu’à la trahison de Berlin en juin 1941, Staline et Hitler s’entendaient comme larron en foire pour se partager la Pologne et les pays nordiques

2025-05-10T19:59:00.006Z

Vladimir Poutine a « oublié » que l’URSS a d’abord été l’alliée de l’Allemagne nazie, rappelle Yves Bourdillon sur le site de l'IREF (see bottom of this post for English-language hyperlinks).

Vladimir Poutine a présidé vendredi le défilé sur la Place Rouge à Moscou célébrant la victoire des Alliés sur l’Allemagne nazie, où il a effectué, comme toujours depuis trois ans, un parallèle entre ce combat victorieux et celui contre l’Ukraine. La Russie “a été et sera une barrière indestructible contre le nazisme, la russophobie, l’antisémitisme », a-t-il claironné.
… Ceci rappelle la phrase de l’écrivain britannique Joseph Conrad ironisant déjà au XIXème siècle sur le « dédain quasi sublime des dirigeants russes pour la vérité ».
… La célébration de la victoire sur l’Allemagne nazie a toujours servi, mais encore plus massivement depuis l’invasion de l’Ukraine, de pierre angulaire à la légitimité du régime russe pour faire oublier ses échecs sur le front économique et social, ou les atteintes aux libertés publiques.
Il peut être utile de rappeler que jusqu’à la trahison de Berlin en juin 1941, Staline et Hitler s’entendaient comme larron en foire pour se partager la Pologne et les Etats baltes [les pays baltes et la Finlande pour Staline, le Danemark et la Norvège pour Hitler] dans le cadre du pacte Molotov-Ribbentrop ayant permis à l’Allemagne nazie de masser toutes ses troupes à l’Ouest pour submerger l’armée française. Et les sacrifices gigantesques subis alors par les Russes ont été partagés par les Ukrainiens…

Related: • Some Mind-Boggling Revelations About Stalin, World War II, and a Century of Russian History
• For the first two years of World War II, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were allies; Hitler and Stalin secretly planned and jointly began the war that inflicted such horror and destruction

The Trump Revolution: 47's political initiatives must be understood as a comprehensive strategy in which everything is interconnected

2025-05-10T12:30:00.011Z

The Trump revolution is underway says Philippe Karsenty, who bemoans that Trump's 100 Days has given rise to a tsunami of fake news about him. Speaking on Causeur, the spokesman for the Comité Trump France wants to re-establish a plethora of truths.

In assessing Donald Trump's first 100 days in office, the French media emphasize—with considerable irony—the president's approval rating, which currently stands at around 45%. However, they fail to mention that Emmanuel Macron's approval rating is at 25%, while François Bayrou—who was appointed Prime Minister just a month before the American president took office—struggles to stay above 20%. Certainly, Trump's personality, his outrageousness, his attitudes, and his negotiating methods can sometimes be disconcerting. However, the key is not the form but the substance of his policies and strategy.
The Trump revolution is underway and it will be beneficial for the United States as well as for the free world; and contrary to what most French media outlets chorus repeatedly repeat, the only ones who might be worried about it are dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, notably China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and North Korea.
President Trump's political initiatives must be understood as a comprehensive strategy in which everything is interconnected. They require adjustments that sometimes create disruptions, and where the long-term objective is sometimes not immediately apparent. Some will only produce positive effects over time and with the various stakeholders taking his policies into account. Moreover, unlike professional politicians and ideologues, Donald Trump is pragmatic; he knows how to adapt to the uncertainties he faces.
Fighting Illegal Immigration
During the Biden presidency, the United States experienced an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration. In just a few days, the Trump administration managed to secure the southern border and stem the flow of illegal immigrants. At the same time, its deterrent policies have drastically reduced the arrival of criminals and the importation of drugs, particularly fentanyl, a synthetic drug that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in the United States in recent years. In addition, a process of mass expulsion of illegal immigrants has been initiated.
However, in keeping with their constant demonization of Donald Trump, some French media outlets are using misleading terminology to incriminate him; the most striking example being the mistranslation of the English term "deportation" into "déportation" (deportation) to play on its connotation linked to the deportation of Jews during World War II, when in fact it only practices "expulsions" of illegal immigrants… something France struggles to achieve with its infamous OQTF (Foreign Orders for Foreign Nationals).
Foreign Policy in the Service of the United States and the Free World
The international order established in 1945 has shown its ineffectiveness in the face of major crises. Thus, the bombings and invasions of countries by the United States itself—notably Serbia, pounded by Bill Clinton in 1995, and Iraq, invaded by George W. Bush in 2003—as well as the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the 500,000 deaths in Syria over the past fifteen years, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022—following the seizure of Crimea in 2014—have clearly demonstrated that the international order has descended into anarchy.
Faced with this, Donald Trump has chosen to confront crises, attempt to end ongoing wars, and restore the United States' deterrent capacity.
He has established a diplomacy that serves the United States and the free world, notably securing, since coming to power, the release of 47 American hostages or prisoners around the world. Contrary to popular belief in France, Donald Trump is not interested in the Nobel Peace Prize he is suspected of courting. However, he does take spheres of influence into account in the negotiations he engages with various international actors. It is in this spirit that he ensured that the Chinese company that managed the Panama Canal was excluded, but also that he expressed his desire to move closer—sometimes too eagerly, I must admit—to Greenland and Canada, both of which are part of the American sphere of influence and where China—a strategic American adversary—is seeking to gain a foothold. It is also in this spirit that, far from abandoning Europe, he encourages it to achieve its defense autonomy, since there is no guarantee that future American administrations will be well-disposed toward the Old Continent.
The Middle East
In Israel, it is thanks to the proactive approach of the new American president that a ceasefire was reached between Hamas and Israel in January 2025 and that Israeli hostages were released. It was also under his leadership that the Houthis in Yemen—armed and financed by Iran—were considerably weakened, even though the missile attack that struck Israel on Sunday, May 4, promises massive and decisive retaliation. Thus, while Donald Trump appears to be giving a chance to negotiate with Iran to achieve its nuclear disarmament, it is highly likely that recent events will precipitate the prospect of a coordinated attack against Iran or a destabilization of the regime that could lead to the imminent fall of the mullahs; for the greater good of the Iranian people and the Middle East.
The new American administration is pragmatically observing the situation and seeking to find innovative solutions. Thus, while Emmanuel Macron's France is mired in outdated dogmas—notably the concept of "two states for two peoples"—Donald Trump, seeing that this solution is not working, has committed to frank and massive support—military and diplomatic—for the State of Israel to enable it to eradicate the Islamism that has attempted to destroy Israel on October 7, 2023—and more generally the Western world for over 40 years. Here, it is important to recall the youth of the new Trump administration who, with a few exceptions, experienced September 11 as the first historical event of their adult lives; allowing them to grasp the magnitude of the risks that this deadly ideology posed to their lives and way of life.
Ukraine
In Ukraine, far from the propagandists and talk-show generals appearing on some French television stations calling for a prolongation of the war at the risk of triggering World War III, Donald Trump has set himself the goal of ending the fighting, which has already claimed nearly a million Russian and Ukrainian lives (dead and wounded).
Donald Trump seems to be losing patience with Vladimir Putin and could therefore establish a balance of power with Russia to force it to stop the fighting. Nothing is certain, but Vladimir Putin now seems to be identified as the obstacle to a cessation of hostilities. With the exception of a few hardliners, everyone understands that Crimea, like the territories conquered by Russia since 2022, will not return to Ukrainian control in the near future. It is in this spirit that negotiations are beginning in order to put an end to the war and guarantee the future security of Kyiv, particularly by uniting the economic and mining interests of the United States and Ukraine.
It's the Economy, Stupid!
One of Donald Trump's main economic goals is to cut taxes for businesses and households, including completely eliminating income tax for those earning less than $200,000 a year. To achieve this, he intends to reduce excessive government spending but also bring money into the Treasury without taxing the American taxpayer.
To this end, he has initiated a trade war to rebalance the tariffs applied reciprocally between the United States and its trading partners. Among his financial and political objectives are the reindustrialization of certain key sectors by getting many large companies—both American and foreign—to commit to investing several trillion dollars, as well as the fight against social and environmental dumping by China.
La hausse des droits de douane a provoqué un choc sur les marchés financiers. Un mois plus tard, les bourses mondiales ont repris le chemin de la hausse et les cours sont aujourd’hui supérieurs à ce qu’ils étaient le 2 avril 2025, à l’annonce de ces fameux droits de douane. De plus, cette stratégie commerciale avait plusieurs objectifs, notamment celui d’affaiblir les deux principales menaces géostratégiques du monde libre, l’Iran et la Russie, dont les ressources sont essentiellement indexées sur les cours des hydrocarbures qui ont fortement baissé (– 30%) depuis l’arrivée de Trump à la Maison Blanche. Par ricochet, cela a immédiatement fait baisser le coût de l’essence à la pompe qui est un poste de dépenses important des ménages.
Afin de réduire la dépense publique, d’éradiquer les gaspillages et de faire la chasse aux subventions inutiles, le DOGE (le Département de l’Efficacité Gouvernementale) a été lancé sous la direction d’Elon Musk. Des médias ont ironisé sur le fait que « seulement » 160 milliards de dollars ont été économisés en trois mois. Face à cela, François Bayrou est toujours à la recherche de 40 milliards d’économies pour boucler son budget.
Enfin, lors du 1er trimestre 2025, le PIB américain s’est contracté de 0,3%. La plupart des médias ont attribué ce mauvais chiffre à Donald Trump et à ses droits de douane. C’est oublier qu’il n’est devenu président des Etats-Unis qu’au 20 janvier 2025 et que sa bataille commerciale n’a été lancée que le 2 avril, soit juste deux jours après la fin du premier trimestre 2025 ; la paternité de ce ralentissement économique étant donc bien à attribuer aux politiques de l’administration Biden.
The Fight Against Wokism: A Cultural Revolution
Shortly after taking office, Donald Trump uttered a revolutionary phrase: there are only two sexes, man and woman. He continued his campaign by ending DEI (Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion) programs. Many immediately criticized him, accusing him of racism, when the exact opposite is true: Donald Trump refuses to allow people to be favored—or penalized—because of their skin color, gender, or sexual orientation.
He wants this rejection of all discrimination to be applied in universities; this has led him to engage in a standoff with the most prestigious institutions, which, in addition to discriminating, have become the scene of major pro-terrorist demonstrations (Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis).
In short, the results of Donald Trump's first 100 days are indeed positive, thanks in particular to the fireworks of presidential executive orders he has signed. It's amusing to note that those who led France to near-bankruptcy and impotence over the past forty years dare to criticize him. Their actions led France to lose its European leadership, ceding it to Giorgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister, who has become Europe's true "strongman."
Donald Trump still has considerable work to do, but he still has three and a half years to restore the prestige and deterrent power of the United States, for the greater good of his country and the free world. Don't count on most French media outlets to keep you informed of his successes because, unlike in the United States, where the once-dominant media have given way to alternative media—podcasts, radio interviews, and social media—"progressive" propagandists are still firmly in power in France.
Let's be patient and see him in November 2026, at the time of the midterm elections. It is then that the American people, who gave him a clear mandate on November 5, 2024, to reform the country, will be able to express themselves, approve or reject the policies implemented.

Related: The 100-day-period that has changed America the most in the past 100 years — Trump's Counter-Revolution Is a Blitzkrieg, Acting on All Fronts Simultaneously
La révolution Trump est en marche affirme Philippe Karsenty, qui regrette que Les 100 jours de Trump ont donné lieu à un torrent de fake news le concernant. Sur Causeur, le porte-parole du Comité Trump France souhaité rétablir de nombreuses vérités.

En évaluant les cent premiers jours de Donald Trump, les médias français insistent – avec beaucoup d’ironie – sur la côte de popularité de Donald Trump qui s’établit actuellement autour de 45%. Pourtant, ils oublient de rappeler que celle d’Emmanuel Macron se situe à 25% tandis que François Bayrou – qui a été nommé Premier ministre juste un mois avant la prise de fonction du président américain – peine à se maintenir au-dessus de 20%. Certes, la personnalité de Trump, ses outrances, ses attitudes et ses méthodes de négociations peuvent parfois décontenancer. Pourtant, l’essentiel n’est pas la forme mais le fond de sa politique et de sa stratégie. La révolution Trump est en marche et elle sera bénéfique pour les Etats-Unis et le monde libre ; et contrairement à ce que répètent en chœur la plupart des médias français, les seuls qui pourraient s’en inquiéter sont les dictatures et les régimes autoritaires, notamment la Chine, la Russie, l’Iran, la Turquie et la Corée du Nord.
Les initiatives politiques du président Trump doivent être comprises comme une stratégie globale où tout est lié. Elles nécessitent des ajustements qui parfois créent des à-coups et où, parfois, l’objectif à long-terme n’apparait pas immédiatement. Certaines ne produiront d’effets positifs qu’avec le temps et la prise en compte de ses politiques par les différentes parties concernées. De plus, à la différence des politiciens professionnels et des idéologues, Donald Trump est pragmatique, il sait s’adapter aux incertitudes auxquelles il est confronté.
… En somme, le bilan des 100 premiers jours de Donald Trump est effectivement positif, notamment grâce au feu d’artifice de décrets présidentiels qu’il a signés. Il est amusant d’observer que ceux qui ont conduit la France à la quasi-faillite et à l’impuissance ces quarante dernières années osent le critiquer. Leurs actions ont conduit la France à perdre le leadership européen pour le céder à Giorgia Meloni, la présidente du Conseil des ministres italien qui est devenue le véritable « homme fort » de l’Europe.
Le travail qui reste à accomplir à Donald Trump est considérable mais il a encore 3 ans et demi pour restaurer le prestige et le pouvoir de dissuasion des Etats-Unis, pour le plus grand bien de son pays et du monde libre. Ne comptez pas sur la plupart des médias français pour vous informer de ses succès car, à la différence des Etats-Unis où les médias autrefois dominants ont cédé la place aux médias alternatifs – podcasts, entretiens radiophoniques et réseaux sociaux – les propagandistes « progressistes » sont toujours solidement aux commandes en France. …

L'assaut du Capitole n'a pas eu lieu : l'échec du discours médiatique contre la droite

2025-05-08T11:30:00.000Z

Sur La Matinale de Frontières, Louise Morice interviewait "très intelligemment" Philippe Karsenty sur la politique douanière de Donald Trump. Jeremy Stubbs, directeur adjoint de la rédaction du magazine Causeur, est présent aussi. Louise Morice, elle, est la journaliste victime de l'agression par des députés LFI à l'Assemblée nationale. Quant à l'interview (qui commence à 6:48), ça s'appelle L'assaut du Capitole n'a pas eu lieu : l'échec du discours médiatique contre la droite !

L'assaut du Capitole n'a pas eu lieu : l'échec du discours médiatique contre la droite ! 07/04

Frontières

476K subscribers

Streamed live on Apr 7, 2025 REPLAY | La Matinale de Frontières

Dans notre matinale du 7 avril, nous recevons Philippe Karsenty porte-parole du comité Trump France, ainsi que Jeremy Stubbs, directeur adjoint de la rédaction du magazine Causeur. Nous évoquons l'annonce de Donald Trump, le président américain a déclenché une guerre commerciale en imposant des droits de douane à de nombreux pays, dont ceux de l'Union européenne. Comment la France et plus largement l'UE peuvent réagir ?
Lors de notre Interview Frontale, nous accueillons Jérôme Sainte-Marie, sondeur, politologue et président de l’institut Pollingvox. Nous revenons sur la mobilisation en soutien à Marine Le Pen, ainsi que la manifestation organisée par LFI. Également au programme, le clivage entre bloc populaire et bloc élitaire.
Sommaire :
00:00 : Intro
02:14 : Le Flash
06:48 : Le Réveil des Idées Philippe Karsenty porte-parole du comité Trump France, ainsi que Jeremy Stubbs, directeur adjoint de la rédaction du magazine Causeur. Nous évoquons l'annonce de Donald Trump, le président américain a déclenché une guerre commerciale en imposant des droits de douane à de nombreux pays, dont ceux de l'Union européenne. Comment la France et plus largement l'UE peuvent réagir ?
46:48 : L'Interview Frontale avec Jérôme Sainte-Marie, sondeur, politologue et président de l’institut Pollingvox. Nous revenons sur mobilisation en soutien à Marine Le Pen, ainsi que la manifestation organisée par LFI. Également au programme, le clivage entre bloc populaire et bloc élitaire.
1:03:54 Le Grand Échiquier, la chronique internationale de Julien Girard.
Bon visionnage !

Windmills and Solar Panels in Spain and Portugal Provoke the Collapse of the Electric Network

2025-05-06T18:33:00.005Z

Don Quichotte: Damn Windmills! I warned all of you!
(gracias a Roland y obrigado a Sarah)

Trump's 100 Days: SUCCESS OR DISASTER?

2025-05-06T12:30:00.017Z

After Donald Trump marked 100 days in the White House, Philippe Karsenty spent 45 minutes with Boulevard Voltaire answering questions about les 100 jours de TRUMP : SUCCÈS OU DÉSASTRE ?

There's finally a new sheriff in town, said the spokesman of le Comité Trump France.

Philippe Karsenty : 100 jours de TRUMP : SUCCÈS OU DÉSASTRE ?

Boulevard Voltaire

147K subscribers

4,143 views May 3, 2025

📲 Rejoignez-nous sur nos différents réseaux sociaux : 🔵 Notre compte Instagram | @bvoltaire.fr | https://www.instagram.com/bvoltaire.f... 🔵 Notre compte X | @BVoltaire | https://x.com/BVoltaire?ref_src=twsrc... 🔵 Notre compte TikTok | @BVoltaire | https://www.tiktok.com/@bvoltaire?_t=... 🔵 Notre canal Telegram | @Bvoltaire | https://t.me/BVoltaire 🔵 Notre page Facebook | @bvoltaire.fr | / bvoltaire.fr 🔵 Notre page Linkedin | @BoulevardVoltaire | / boulevard-voltaire

Why We Hate The 'News Media' — a thorough accounting of the propaganda machine

2025-05-05T18:10:00.008Z

May 5, 1970 - Berkeley, California, USA: Protester wearing gas mask throws tear gas back at the police
during protest at the University of California at Berkeley against the Cambodian Incursion of the War in Vietnam.
Photo by Stephen Shames

What exactly is the ‘news media’?

asks Damien Bennett, as he gives what DB Hill calls "a thorough accounting of the propaganda machine" by Democratic Party operatives with bylines.

We are meant to believe it is an impartial, nonpartisan, agendaless recorder of facts of the day. [Coffee snort shoots out the nose.] No retelling of something seen -- filtered through everyone from an originating witness to stringer to downline transcription to ante-hoc 'fact checker' to copy desk to proofreader to bureau chief to the publisher's shadow -- no retelling is without a POV, a slant, by the time it is mantled with a headline. It has always been so. But today's ‘news media’ has no authentic POV. Everyone is -- quite literally -- on the same scripted page. There is no originating 'reporter', instead there are hidden fabricators, who create and shape 'news' fictions for -- Influencers. Flavorists. Propagandists.

NPR Says It Won’t ‘Waste Our Time’ Covering Hunter Biden Laptop Story October 22, 2020
Terence Samuel, NPR’s managing editor: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions. And quite frankly, that’s where we ended up, this was … a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way.”
Glenn Greenwald: With News Of Hunter Biden Criminal Probe, Don't Forget The Media Outlets That Peddled The 'Russian Disinformation' Lie December 10, 2020
WaPo, NYT Refuse To Return Pulitzers For Spreading Lies About Russia Collusion Hoax May 27, 2023

The ‘news media’ is today in the business of peddling, peddling junk 'news'. It is the Temu of propaganda. It does not report on new developments, it shifts and shores up narratives. The 'news media' and its creatures have taken their thirty pieces of silver, but unlike Judas Iscariot, who hung himself in shame for what he wrought, the 'news media', au contraire, is looking forward to prizes, bonuses, creative management contracts, speaking tours, and book deals -- everywhere the rattle of the shill's buy-me-pay-me begging bowl.

BEGIN HERE. Your lying eyes:

Joe Scarborough (MSNBC): ‘F-You’ If You Don’t Believe THIS IS THE BEST BIDEN EVER March 6, 2024
“Start your tape right now, because I'm about to tell you the truth. And f-you if you can't handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I've known him for years. The Brzezinskis have known him for 50 years. If it weren't the truth, I wouldn't say it.”
WaPo: ‘Cheapfake’ Biden Videos Enrapture Right-wing Media, But Deeply Mislead June 15, 2024
The Republican National Committee posts a clipped video. Then the New York Post, the Telegraph and other pro-Trump outlets follow suit with the same deceptive framing.
The Guardian: Videos Of Biden Looking Lost Are A Viral Political Tactic: ‘Low-level Manipulation’ June 19, 2024
France24 (AFP): ‘Cheapfakes’: Out-of-context Videos Target Biden's Age June 19, 2024
NYT: How Misleading Videos Are Trailing Biden As He Battles Age Doubts June 21, 2024
NYT Backtracks, Admits ‘Hard To Imagine’ Biden Could Have Run U.S. For Another Term December 19, 2024
Telegraph: The Truth About The Joe Biden Cover-up Is Finally Starting To Emerge April 19, 2025
Continue. ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE... (a merest sampling)

Media Reportedly Pushed 25Th Amendment To Be Invoked 600+ Times Against Trump. What About Biden? [Spoiler: 1] July 9, 2024
Despite Shooting, ABC, CBS And NBC Blast Trump With 95% Bad Press September 18, 2024
‘The Entire Room Is White’: NY Magazine Cries Racism After Cropping Black People Out Of Trump Party January 28, 2025
The article, titled “The Cruel Kids’ Table,” falsely peddled the claim that “the entire room [was] white” at a pro-Trump event hosted by GOP Youth Advisory Council Co-Chair CJ Pearson—a black conservative.
The Two Jakes: Split Video Proves Tapper’s Hypocrisy In Discussing Presidential Mental Fitness February 27, 2025
...Tapper was indignant at that thought of someone without a medical degree daring to claim that Biden was in cognitive decline.
Receipts Don’t Lie: Drew Holden Slams Jake Tapper’s Cash-Grab Book On Biden’s Mental Decline February 27, 2025
Ian Miles Cheong On X April 17, 2025: NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher on the truth: “Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.”
[The entire talk here; money quotes start at 03'17".]
Study: Media Gaslights Americans With Misleading Term [“Maryland Man”] For Illegal Immigrant Gangbanger Over 500 Times April 21, 2025
Staying on Script: The Legacy Media Coordinates Messaging With The DNC And Here’s How We Know (WATCH) April 28, 2025
Collin Rugg On X April 28, 2025: Former CNN reporter Chris Cillizza says journalists were *not* covering up Biden's mental decline but were rather just too trusting of the Biden White House. Cillizza: "I think it was an inherent and sort of unconscious bias more than a conscious bias."
[Also from Chris Cillizza.]
Republicans Keep Trying To Make Biden’s Mental Capacity An Issue August 19, 2021 Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Glenn H. Reynolds: At White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Fake Remorse Over Biden ‘Mistakes’ April 28, 2025
Emma-Jo Morris: The White House Correspondents Dinner Taught Me That Media Bias Isn’t About Politics, Just Insanity April 30, 2025
Chuck Todd Claims Establishment Media ‘Didn’t Miss The Story’ On Biden’s Mental Decline April 29, 2025
Todd: “And it’s this horrible sort of pitting different news organizations against each other when ultimately the people at fault are Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jill Biden, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, every elected member of Congress.”
AYFKM? WHCA's 2024 Photo Of The Year Says Everything About Why The Legacy Media Is Dead April 29, 2025

2024 WHCA Picture Of The Year. No. Really. NOT This.

‘60 Minutes’ Report That Prompted Trump Lawsuit Is Nominated For An Emmy Award May 1, 2025
Last fall’s “60 Minutes” story on Kamala Harris — the subject of Trump’s $20 billion lawsuit against CBS — was nominated for an Emmy Award Thursday for “outstanding edited interview.” Trump, in his lawsuit, complained that the interview was deceptively edited to make his Democratic election opponent look good.
‘Aging Happens Quite Quickly’: Jen Psaki Claims She ‘Never Saw’ Biden Decline May 3, 2025
NYT: ‘Chilling Parallels’ Between Third Reich And Trump’s Second Term May 3, 2025
Trafalgar Group Pollster Robert Cahaly: Media Pushing Fake Polls To Pressure Congress May 4, 2025
[Apparently over half the country is lying to itself.]
Media Fail — Trump Job Approval Rises 4 Points To 53% April 6, 2025
CNN’s Enten: Regretful Trump Voters Do ‘Not Exist’ April 16, 2025
CNN Data Analyst Harry Enten's Brutal Numbers On Trump Approval Will Devastate Dems May 2, 2025
Enten examined who people thought would be doing a better job as president: Trump or Kamala Harris? "Trump continues to score a higher percentage of the vote than Kamala Harris!" Enten explained. He said they've continued to see it in "poll after poll."

The hem of the reckoning.

ABC News, Stephanopoulos Settle Defamation Lawsuit With Trump, Pay $15 Million, Apologize December 14, 2024
Trump Cancels State Department Subscriptions To NYT, AP, Reuters [et al.] February 19, 2025
On Feb. 14, a follow-up memo directed procurement teams to prioritize the cancellation of contracts with six major news organizations: the Economist, the Times, Politico, Bloomberg News, AP and Reuters. ... Earlier this month, the Trump administration ordered the General Services Administration (GSA) to terminate all media contracts, including subscriptions to Politico, BBC, E&E and Bloomberg.
Jeff Bezos Announces Significant Shift In Washington Post Opinion Page Direction February 26, 2025
Jeff Bezos On X February 26, 2025: I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages. We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
CNNLOL Wiped Out (Again) In Quarterly Ratings April 5, 2025
TOTAL PRIMETIME VIEWERS / DEMO VIEWERS
Fox News: 3.012 million (+46 percent) / 380,000 (+63 percent)
CNNLOL: 558,000 (-6 percent) / 121,000 (-1 percent)
MSNBC: 1.024 million (-18 percent) / 96,000 (-21 percent)
Trump And CBS News Agree On Mediator To Settle $20B ‘60 Minutes’ Lawsuit April 8, 2025
Disgraced Crybaby ’60 Minutes’ Executive Producer Resigns In A Snit April 23, 2025
[Click link for roster of media shills fired, resigned, snit quit, squeezed, canceled, or demoted. Add Jennifer Rubin and Taylor Lorenz, both out at WaPo.]
Paramount Chair Shari Redstone Throws Down After ‘60 Minutes’ Producer Resigns: Media Must ‘Give The Facts, Not Opinions’ April 23, 2025
Public Broadcasting Exec Resists Trump Order To Defund NPR: 'WHOLLY INDEPENDENT' Of The Federal Government' May 2, 2025
['Wholly Independent' but needy.]
In the 2025 fiscal year alone, NPR and PBS received around $535 million from the federal government.
NYT Mocks Rural California Town For Not Using Mainstream Media May 4, 2025
[Why might that be?]
Trust In The Media Hits All-time Low In 50 Years March 1, 2025
71% Believe Media RIG POLLS To Fit Political Agenda April 29, 2025

An augury.

SOVEREIGNTY Wins The 2025 Kentucky Derby, Beating Favorite JOURNALISM May 3, 2025

And it turns out it wasn't just the WHCA Picture Of The Year. It is also the Pulitzer Prize in "breaking news photography."

Isn’t it funny that they gave the award for the one on the left? https://t.co/iwL5KTzoet
— The Gas Stove 🔥 (@TheGasStovee) May 5, 2025

Évelyne Joslain : "La gauche transnationale occidentale ne tolère aucune remise en question de ses politiques migratoires"

2025-05-02T18:00:00.000Z

Suite à la parution de La Guerre Culturelle (Éditions Presses de la Délivrance), Evelyne Joslain est interviewée par Etienne Fauchaire dans The Epoch Times.

Epoch Times : « C’est avec Wilson que la guerre culturelle commence vraiment », écrivez-vous. Pouvez-vous expliquer pourquoi Woodrow Wilson est à vos yeux le « premier président mondialiste » et en quoi 1913 est une année pivot dans l’ascension du socialisme en Amérique ?

Évelyne Joslain : Woodrow Wilson fut le premier président « progressiste » des États-Unis, c’est-à-dire, le premier chef de l’exécutif de gauche ouvertement acquis aux idées socialisantes, voire socialistes, de son époque. Mais il fut aussi, et surtout, le premier président cosmopolite, ce que l’on appellerait aujourd’hui un mondialiste.

Là où ses prédécesseurs voyaient en l’Amérique une nation à part, exceptionnelle par son attachement à la liberté, Wilson, lui, rompait avec cette tradition : il méprisait la Constitution américaine et considérait les modèles européens comme supérieurs. Sa fascination pour le système parlementaire britannique ou l’État-providence bismarckien en témoigne.

Mondialiste, il le fut aussi par sa politique étrangère, en engageant les États-Unis dans la Première Guerre mondiale, jouant cependant un rôle décisif dans la victoire des Alliés, et en inaugurant une doctrine géopolitique au nom de laquelle l’Amérique se devait d’assurer la liberté du commerce maritime mondial et le libre-échange entre États-nations. Il est à l’origine de la Société des Nations (SDN), ancêtre des institutions internationales supranationales.

Comme je le rappelle dans mon livre, le sénateur Henry Cabot Lodge fut l’un des premiers à comprendre et dénoncer l’idée mortelle pour l’Amérique et les autres nations d’une souveraineté supranationale en devenir. Pour Wilson, c’était « le monde d’abord, l’Amérique en dernier ». Son irénisme foncier l’empêchait de concevoir la corruption inévitable de grands organismes internationaux incontrôlables. Certes, sa SDN échoua. Mais l’idée demeura.

Wilson a aussi définitivement marqué l’Amérique de l’intérieur, par des réformes adoptées en 1913, et imitées dans tout l’Occident : création de l’impôt sur le revenu (impôt direct sur les citoyens, remplaçant les droits de douane qui frappaient les pays étrangers), élection des sénateurs au suffrage universel, et surtout, création de la Réserve fédérale, une banque centrale indépendante du pouvoir exécutif.

Diana West, dans son ouvrage magistral American Betrayal : The Secret Assault on Our National Character, n’exagère en rien en parlant de trahison du caractère national. C’est bien l’esprit des Pères Fondateurs que Wilson a renié.

Il est donc tout à fait amusant que Donald Trump envisage le démantèlement des héritages les plus délétères de cette année 1913, qui fut en réalité l’ouverture officieuse de la Guerre culturelle minant l’Amérique depuis plus d’un siècle.

En 1944, lors de la Conférence nationale des Partis communistes, Alexander Trachtenberg, éditeur de journaux marxistes et activiste au sein du Parti communiste américain, a tenu ces mots devenus célèbres : « Lorsque viendra le moment de prendre le contrôle de l’Amérique, nous ne le ferons ni sous la bannière du communisme, ni sous celle du socialisme : ces termes sont trop entachés et repoussants pour le peuple américain. Non, nous nous emparerons de l’Amérique sous des étiquettes que nous aurons rendues séduisantes : le libéralisme, le progressisme, la démocratie. Mais nous la prendrons bel et bien ! » Aujourd’hui, il n’est pas rare d’entendre des figures politiques ou médiatiques défendre des idées traditionnellement classées à gauche ou à l’extrême gauche, tout en se réclamant du libéralisme et de la démocratie. De quelle manière le terme « libéralisme » a-t-il été progressivement vidé de son sens originel et détourné à des fins idéologiques ?

Alexander Trachtenberg, marxiste américain né en 1886, fut un éditeur militant et un révolutionnaire pur, convaincu, à l’instar d’Antonio Gramsci, que la transformation des sociétés passe par le temps long.

Un siècle plus tard, cette stratégie portait ses fruits : deux jours avant son élection à la présidence des États-Unis en 2008, Barack Obama déclara, dans une annonce jubilatoire à ses électeurs : « Nous sommes à deux jours de la transformation en profondeur de l’Amérique », renouant ainsi avec les prédictions de Trachtenberg.
… Depuis les débuts du « progressisme », terme choisi pour masquer un socialisme larvé, les théoriciens de gauche ont systématiquement cherché, avec succès, à manipuler le langage pour dissimuler leur identité idéologique véritable et leurs objectifs réels. Ce processus s’est déroulé en plusieurs étapes – que je détaille dans mon livre – et a conduit, dès les années 1970 et l’avènement du politiquement correct, à l’établissement d’une véritable nomenclature codée.

Notons que ce sont les universités qui, bien souvent, ont été à l’avant-garde de cette subversion lexicale, forgeant des expressions nouvelles et détournant le sens des mots afin de produire des versions « acceptables » des réalités, c’est-à-dire conformes à l’idéologie de gauche.
… En Europe, les « libéraux » … européens revendiquent leur différence avec les libertariens américains opposés à un gouvernement interventionniste, si bien que cela leur permet d’adhérer pleinement à cette idée d’un super-État européen.
… Ils se montrent tout aussi muets face à l’immigration incontrôlée, en réalité vraisemblablement voulue et donc contrôlée par les idéologues mondialistes. Ils n’émettent jamais non plus de critiques envers les institutions internationales ni les structures globalistes, n’ayant de cesse, en revanche, de mépriser tout ce qui touche de près ou de loin au « populisme », c’est-à-dire, en réalité, aux aspirations des peuples enracinés. …

… Dans le sillage des idées d’Antonio Gramsci et de Léon Trotsky, un intellectuel communiste hongrois exilé à Berlin, Georg Lukács, participa en 1923 à la fondation de ce qui allait devenir l’École de Francfort. Aux côtés de plusieurs penseurs allemands, juifs pour la plupart qui fuiront par la suite le nazisme pour se réfugier aux États-Unis, Lukács contribua à l’implantation sur le sol américain de cet institut conçu dès l’origine comme un outil de subversion culturelle dans le cadre de la « longue marche à travers les institutions ». Pouvez-vous revenir sur la nature idéologique de l’École de Francfort, sur sa stratégie d’action intellectuelle et sur l’héritage qu’elle a laissé, notamment dans la genèse du phénomène aujourd’hui qualifié de « wokisme » ?

L’École de Francfort fut à l’origine un think tank marxiste installé au sein de l’Université de Francfort. J’ignore ce qu’il en reste aujourd’hui sur place, mais son héritage intellectuel, lui, s’est largement exporté, notamment aux États-Unis, où il s’est naturellement enraciné à l’Université Columbia. Cette institution est devenue, dès les années 1930, l’épicentre de la révolution gauchiste qui, à partir de 1968, s’est diffusée dans la quasi-totalité des campus américains.
… Il est important de rappeler que la violence n’est pas une dérive accidentelle de l’ultra-gauche, mais un outil assumé de son arsenal idéologique. Les penseurs de l’École de Francfort ont toujours revendiqué la désobéissance civile, la subversion, voire la confrontation directe, au nom de la supériorité morale de leur cause. La violence est justifiée parce que les fins seraient nobles, et les adversaires, par définition, coupables.

Enfin, tous les concepts forgés dans les milieux universitaires de gauche depuis les années 1980 – dans le sillage d’Howard Zinn, Edward Saïd, Noam Chomsky – s’inscrivent dans la continuité directe de la Théorie Critique, la marque de fabrique de l’École de Francfort. C’est cette matrice idéologique extrémiste qui a abouti au wokisme, promu d’abord sous Barack Obama, puis sous Joe Biden, et qui continue aujourd’hui à irriguer la gauche radicale occidentale.

… Autre marqueur dans cette longue guerre culturelle que vous décrivez : l’immigrationnisme, qui a encouragé l’importation massive de millions d’étrangers en Occident afin de servir, selon vous, l’agenda mondialiste porté par la gauche. À ce titre, vous affirmez que la loi américaine sur l’immigration du 3 octobre 1965 constitue à elle seule « une révolution mondiale », dans la mesure où elle a rapidement essaimé en Europe, alors fragilisée moralement par la décolonisation. Quelle est la genèse de cette loi, et quelles en ont été les répercussions pour l’ensemble du monde occidental ?

La Loi de 1965 sur l’immigration aux Etats-Unis, connue sous le nom d’Immigration and Nationality Act, doit son adoption en grande partie à l’activisme du sénateur Ted Kennedy. Elle constitue l’aboutissement de plusieurs courants idéologiques ayant émergé dans le monde avant de s’implanter et d’émerger en Amérique.

Il faut rappeler le poids symbolique de la conférence de Bandung en 1955 précédant un vent de décolonisation. Ce mouvement sera soutenu par des Américains, qui ont vu d’un mauvais œil des Européens, bénéficiaires de l’aide militaire et financière américaine, s’accrocher à leurs vastes et coûteux empires coloniaux.

À cela s’ajoutait l’essor de l’anti-américanisme porté par les intellectuels progressistes des années 1950, Lionel Trilling en tête : désobéissance civile, non-conformisme et émergence d’un “chic radical”… Vingt ans avant l’universitaire décolonialiste palestino-américain Edward Saïd se dessinait déjà cette préférence pour l’Autre : l’étranger, l’exotique, perçu comme nécessairement opprimé. Il devenait chic et moralement vertueux de se préoccuper de la misère du “Tiers Monde”, appellation nouvellement formée.

Une autre idéologie sous-jacente accompagne ce bouleversement : celle des frontières ouvertes, ou plutôt, d’un monde sans frontières, où l’accueil inconditionnel devient un impératif moral, et où les populations de souche sont sommées d’accueillir et d’accorder des droits civiques à tous ceux qui se présentent.

Tout cela s’inscrivait aussi dans le contexte des directives venues du fameux concile Vatican II. Le sénateur Kennedy, catholique par héritage familial sinon par ses mœurs personnelles, était sensible à tout ce fatras intellectuel, en plus d’être désireux de laisser son nom dans l’histoire. Il n’hésita donc pas à mentir outrageusement en affirmant que cette loi « n’apporterait aucun changement indésirable » ou « n’était en rien révolutionnaire », et réussit à l’imposer au Congrès. On connaît la suite.

En soixante ans, sous l’effet de cette loi d’inspiration révolutionnaire, l’Amérique a ainsi connu plusieurs vagues migratoires successives qui ont profondément transformé son ADN fondateur.
L’Union européenne continue à promouvoir cette même politique, et le Royaume-Uni, bien qu’ayant quitté l’Union, continue d’en appliquer les principes avec des effets identiques. La gauche transnationale occidentale ne tolère aucune remise en question de ses politiques migratoires. L’Angleterre de Keir Starmer, trotskiste devenu Premier ministre, en offre une dernière illustration frappante : Renaud Camus, auteur de la théorie du Grand Remplacement, vient tout juste de se voir refuser l’entrée sur le territoire britannique. Son crime ? Avoir qualifié ce processus de remplacement organisé des populations de souche de « génocide culturel et civilisationnel » de l’Europe.

Il convient également de noter que, bien que cet Immigration Act de 1965 précède d’un an la formulation de la doctrine Cloward-Piven – du nom des deux sociologues marxistes enseignant à Columbia –, il est évident qu’elle s’inspirait déjà de leurs travaux en cours. Au cœur de cette pensée : l’idée qu’une crise, savamment provoquée par la saturation des services publics et l’effondrement des institutions – sous l’effet de vagues d’émeutes, de catastrophes orchestrées et d’arrivées massives d’étrangers soigneusement non assimilés – pourrait déclencher une révolution marxiste.
La crise, réelle ou fabriquée, constitue un excellent moyen pour imposer aux populations des mesures impopulaires et totalitaires. …

… Dans le cadre de ce mouvement de balancier idéologique entre les États-Unis et l’Europe, vous affirmez que « Lyndon B. Johnson est le premier président responsable de la guerre culturelle », et que sa politique a directement inspiré, en France, la loi Pleven de 1972, première législation antiraciste adoptée dans l’Hexagone. Cette loi, souvent critiquée pour avoir permis un usage militant et judiciaire des tribunaux par certaines associations woke, a aussi préfiguré, rappelez-vous, la loi Gayssot de 1990, portée par un député communiste, qui pénalise le racisme, l’antisémitisme, ainsi que la contestation de crimes contre l’humanité.

Avec Lyndon B. Johnson, la guerre culturelle est devenue une réalité tangible et visible. Il s’est inscrit dans la continuité de ses prédécesseurs démocrates – Woodrow Wilson, qui avait déjà introduit des idées socialistes, et Franklin D. Roosevelt, architecte d’un État profond tentaculaire –, mais ce président-là fut celui qui creusa un fossé définitif entre la droite et la gauche américaines. Un fossé devenu, soixante ans plus tard, irréconciliable.

Johnson ne s’est pas contenté de politiques sociales : il mit en place un arsenal de lois qui instituèrent un traitement préférentiel de certains citoyens au détriment d’autres, jugés moins « méritants ». À travers un système redistributif d’allocations, de privilèges et de « droits » spécialement créés par le gouvernement – en rupture avec les droits universels garantis par la Constitution –, il posa les fondations d’un clientélisme systémique.
Parallèlement, il amorça la militarisation idéologique de la justice, désormais à deux vitesses, à partir notamment de la Loi sur les droits civils de 1964, qui permit à certains groupes de bénéficier de cabinets d’avocats gratuits.

… Vous abordez également longuement l’écologisme, dont vous situez le coup d’envoi idéologique en 1972 avec le rapport Meadows du Club de Rome. Vous vous indignez que le scandale du Climategate, survenu en 2009, n’ait pas « définitivement révélé l’imposture planétaire » que constitue la « lutte contre le changement climatique ». En quoi est-elle devenue, à vos yeux, « le cheval de Troie de la gauche marxiste et un pilier central du wokisme » ?

La lutte contre ledit changement climatique est un exemple éclairant des extrémités auxquelles la gauche néo-marxiste est prête à recourir pour atteindre son objectif fondamental : la destruction du capitalisme et des sociétés traditionnelles. Ce sujet est devenu le Cheval de Troie par excellence de cette gauche, et ce que je considère comme le pilier central du wokisme, avant même celui de l’immigration.

Pourquoi ? Parce que les deux autres piliers du wokisme – les obsessions identitaires sexuelles et les questions raciales obsessionnelles – ne font pas l’unanimité au sein de la gauche elle-même. En revanche, la cause climatique, elle, rassemble. Elle se présente comme une croisade universelle, une urgence planétaire, un idéalisme vert qui séduit particulièrement les jeunes générations, toutes cultures confondues. C’est le sujet vertueux par excellence, celui qui vous place instantanément dans le camp du Bien.
C’est aussi un sujet parfaitement compatible avec la dialectique marxiste : la Terre, idéalisée puis déifiée, est décrite comme une victime exploitée et pillée par l’homme, figure de l’oppresseur capitaliste, destructeur par ses activités et coupable par sa démographie.

Plus encore, les néo-marxistes les plus radicaux vont jusqu’à établir un lien direct entre le climat et l’immigration : les populations du Sud global ne fuiraient plus seulement la misère ou les conflits, mais les conséquences environnementales des exactions des anciens colonisateurs du Nord. L’immigré devient ainsi « réfugié climatique ». Il fallait y penser. Le pape François et Greta Thunberg ont largement œuvré pour légitimer cette vision.
Ce sujet rallie également toutes les élites mondialistes : têtes couronnées, institutions internationales, politiciens, financiers, médias, artistes, universitaires, scientifiques subventionnés, milliardaires rouges et lobbies mondialistes… tous trouvent un intérêt très concret à entretenir l’alarmisme climatique. Et, dans cette grande mécanique idéologique, c’est l’Union européenne, bien plus que les États-Unis, qui apparaît aujourd’hui comme la surface du globe la plus dramatiquement atteinte par le catastrophisme climatique.

ROF's Vanessa Biard Tries to Bring Some Sanity to France's LCI TV Channel

2025-05-02T17:57:00.002Z

Among the people who were face to Face à Darius Rochebin Thursday night was Vanessa Biard-Schaeffer (appearing at 1:13:07 and 1:27:27), ROF's vice-president who was, in the words of Paul Reen, "defending Trump against the clown Gallagher Fenwick who compared Trump to a rapist on FranceTV last week, and can only resort to name calling. Bravo Vanessa for trying to bring some sanity to these ridiculous TDS channels."

Au sommaire : 1er-mai : Jérôme Guedj et le PS pris à partie. "90 % des emplois sont menacés par l'IA" (L. Ferry). Administration Trump : le début d'une purge ?
Source : Face à Darius Rochebin
#Mouvements sociaux
#Face à Darius Rochebin
#Intelligence artificielle

Partial List of Illegal Aliens Committing Crimes or Treated with Kid Gloves: We will probably never know the true extent of illegal alien crime because…

2025-05-01T11:23:00.011Z

Hardly a week goes by when we don't read (except, needless to say, in the mainstream media — including abroad, such as Belgium's RTBF, entirely partisan) about another illegal alien committing a crime or getting extraordinarily good treatment.

Here is a partial list of criminals — Be sure to read the excerpt of Catherine Salgado and John Lott's articles at the bottom of this post…

• In June 2024, a 12-year-old, Jocelyn Nungaray, was sexually assaulted and killed by two illegal immigrant suspects, Johan Jose Martinez-Rangel, 22, and Franklin Jose Peña Ramos, 26, who then dumped her body in a Houston bayou. The latter "was wearing an ankle monitor at the time he allegedly murdered Nungaray that was provided to him when he was arrested by Border Patrol agents after entering the country illegally and being released from custody".

• Cory Alvarez (Massachusetts Court Gives Haitian Illegal Alien Accused of Child Rape $500 Bond)

• Melvin Jesus Aquino Enriquez (Illegal immigrant charged with murder of 3-month-old baby)

• Two men have been arrested in connection with the April 2015 theft of Homeland Security Kristi Noem's purse, both of whom (one, Mario Bustamante Leiva of Chili, has been named) are illegal immigrants

• California is set to release an illegal immigrant convicted of killing two teenagers over six years before his sentence was set to conclude, it was learned in April 2025. Fox News:

Oscar Eduardo Ortega-Anguiano was driving drunk at high speed in 2021 when he crashed into a car carrying 19-year-olds Anya Varfolomeev and Nicholay Osokin. Both teens were killed in the fiery wreck. Ortega-Anguiano was later convicted of two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2022.
Now, California officials say he will be released early, sparking outrage from the victims' families and immigration officials.
Ortega-Anguiano has an extensive criminal history. He was convicted of burglary in 2005 and stealing a car in 2007. He was also convicted of battery and kidnapping in 2014. … Tom Homan … noted that Ortega-Anguiano is now a felon because he has already been deported multiple times.

• On August 3, 2024, German Adriano Llangari Inga “of Minneapolis” was charged with driving drunk, unlicensed, and uninsured when he killed Victoria Eileen Harwell in a head-on crash. The local press did not want to admit he was an illegal alien and the local Minnesota authorities released the Ecuador native from jail. The Fox News story quoted the White House:

“An illegal immigrant drove drunk, killed an innocent mother, and is now on the run because Democrats didn’t do their most important job: protect their constituents,” Alex Pfeiffer, White House Principal Deputy Communications Director, told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement. [Llangari Inga has since been apprehended.]

“This is precisely why the Trump Administration is taking action to hold these so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions accountable,” he added.

• A black woman is murdered by half a dozen whites, but MSM outlets show no interest, since the whites are not Americans but illegal aliens:

Authorities in Lancaster, South Carolina, have charged six illegal immigrants between the ages of 13 and 21 in connection with the "random" May 2 murder of a mother who was driving to meet friends in Rock Hill.

• We could go on, but Ann Coulter provides the list: 9/11, San Bernardino, the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Pulse nightclub, Kate Steinle, Laken Riley, Mollie Tibbets, Ana Navarro, etc. etc. etc. etc.)…
• Certainly, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that all illegal are not criminals (except that, by the very fact of entering illegally into a country that is not theirs, they are all of them are ipso facto lawbreakers). Having said that, it is established that authorities leaning left underreport — deliberately underreport, needless to say — the crime rates of illegal immigrants (see next bullet point). Whatever the case, it seems that the main problem is not with the right; the real problem is that for the left, all "undocummented workers" without exception are nothing but the most honest and respectable and hard-working of (would-be) citizens, those whom said Left praises to the Heavens and glorifies with panegyrics such as the dreamers.

• Indeed, it turns out that, according to Real Clear Politics, the Crime Rates of Illegal Migrants [Are — Deliberately—] Underreported. Listen to John R. Lott Jr:

Democrats frequently claim, almost as an article of faith, that illegal immigrants are less prone to commit crime.

… This tenet is incessantly parroted by the legacy news media. Sample headline, this one from ABC News: “No, migrants are not driving a surge in violent crime as Trump claims.” ABC asserted that crime in this country is declining despite an influx of illegal immigrants.

… But is this “the truth”? Are these “the facts”?"
The data suggests that the answer is pretty clearly “no.”

These claims usually conflate legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants tend to follow the law, but illegal immigrants are a different story.
[For example, a] Maricopa County Attorney’s Office study revealed that illegal immigrants committed 21.8% of felonies sentenced in Maricopa County Superior Court, over twice their proportion of Arizona’s population. Mexican nationals alone accounted for 13% of inmates in the state prison system.

Earlier work that the Crime Prevention Research Center did for the Arizona County Prosecutor’s Association also found that illegals made up a disproportionate share of the Arizona prison population [while] legal immigrants were more law-abiding than the general population. Illegal immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, are more likely to be classified as dangerous, and are 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.
… Critics like the Washington Post … ignore a key issue: Criminals often target those similar to themselves. Illegal immigrants, therefore, are more likely to commit crimes against other illegal immigrants. These crimes often go unreported – for fear of deportation – and as the local population of illegal immigrants grows, underreporting almost certainly increases.

• One Oregon prosecutor, writes Catherine Salgado (thanks to Stephen Green, who calls it CRISIS BY DESIGN), claims that it doesn’t matter at all in an attempted murder case if the violent criminal was an illegal alien or not.

The victim would likely beg to differ, considering her attacker probably should never have been in the country and anywhere near her to begin with.
After a “Portland man” slit a woman’s throat, journalist Andy Ngo asked the Oregon county’s prosecutor whether the accused criminal is an illegal alien. But the prosecutor claimed that was irrelevant information to the case. Ah, to live in a Democrat-run paradise, where the criminals are protected and the victims are despised.
“A ‘Portland man’ named Manuel Jesus Huchin-Interian was convicted for slashing the throat of a woman and leaving her to bleed out on the ground,” Ngo explained. “The victim narrowly survived with the eight-inch neck wound.” Amazing how Democrats are spending so much time and effort bewailing illegal alien criminals like accused drug- and human-trafficking Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the “Pomona father” who is actually a felon, while they never have time for the victims of illegal alien crime.
… We will probably never know the true extent of illegal alien crime because Democrat states and officials are so zealous in hiding statistics on how many people are robbed, raped, and killed by illegals.
… The victims of illegal alien crime, including Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, Ivory Smith, Nate Baker (whose killer was previously ordered deported), David Lee, and Travis Wolfe, received little to no attention from Democrats. We have not forgotten how Joe Biden called Laken “Lincoln,” or how the Democrat congressmen refused to stand or applaud to honor Jocelyn’s and Laken’s mothers.

More: Abrego Garcia……

RTBF : Trump, les 100 jours qui ont changé NOTRE monde

2025-05-01T10:49:00.009Z

Le 30 avril, la télévision belge lançait un débat sur Donald Trump, les 100 jours qui ont changé NOTRE monde. On m'avait interviewé pour QR Le Débat sur RTBF via Skype/Teams et j'apparais à 40:14-41:33, à 55:30-56:50, et à 1:16:16-1:17:25 (à d'autres moments aussi, peut-être, j'ai peut-être omis une ou plusieurs apparitions).

Dans la section sur les immigrés illégaux, à 55:30, l'on me traite de raciste, se gardant bien de laisser apparaître les passages de l'interview où je dis que traverser illégalement la frontière, quel que soit le pays, fait de vous d'office un criminel — si j'arrivais sans passeport ou visa à Zaventem, je serais moi aussi "hors-la-loi" — ou les passages où je parle des membres hyper-tatoués des gangs hyper-violents de MS-13 et de Tren de Aragua.

• Mise à jour : ROF condamne la RTBF pour la façon anti-journalistique dont la chaîne belge a laissé diffamer l'un de ses porte-paroles

À vrai dire, pour ma seconde apparition sur RTBF, j'avais été interviewé (à distance par Nathalie Maleux, la co-animatrice de Sacha Daout) pendant 45 à 60 minutes, et il y a donc énormément de détails et de nuances qui n'ont pas été retenues.

Trump, les 100 jours qui ont changé NOTRE monde
Ce 30 avril, cela fera 100 jours... 100 jours de présidence de Donald Trump, 100 jours de bouleversements aux Etats-Unis et dans le monde :
Coups de chaud et coups de froid dans les relations diplomatiques, mesures économiques contraignantes, atteinte aux Droits de l'Homme, attaques sur le monde scientifique...Cette présidence est-elle en train de changer la donne ? Quid de la démocratie, quid de l'impact sur l'économie mondiale et donc sur notre portefeuille ? Quid de l'équilibre planétaire ? Faut-il craindre une 3e guerre mondiale ?
Les principaux ministres et représentants politiques belges et européens seront présents. Experts économiques, voix américaines, la parole sera également donnée à des personnalités qui soutiennent les décisions du Président américain.
Avec nos envoyés spéciaux et des représentants des MFP, nous serons à Washington, Moscou, Kiev, ... pour constater les effets dans le monde entier de cette politique.
Nous donnerons les clés pour comprendre l'impact de Trump sur nos vies : notre portefeuille, notre sécurité, notre armée, nos entreprises, les Droits de l'Homme, les sciences.

The Imperial Judiciary: The Constitution A) does not authorize judges to veto a president and B) it is not a suicide pact: The rights of citizens are sacrosanct; The rights of spies, terrorists, and illegal aliens are nonexistent

2025-05-01T09:08:00.000Z

Power corrupts. … the judiciary is an overreaching monster in black robes, hellbent at overturning the 2024 election one unwarranted TRO—temporary restraining order—at a time.

What is going on right now, writes Don Surber, can be described as Trump v. the imperial judiciary. (Thanks to Mark Tapscott, who adds that Don "takes apart the federal judiciary’s illegal immigrant deportation insanity more effectively and completely than I’ve read anywhere else.")

District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts issued an order that prevents President Trump from using one of the nation’s oldest laws—The Alien Enemies Act of 1798—to deport of MS 13 and other terrorist illegal aliens. The law was written and approved by Founding Fathers such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson who realized the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The rights of citizens are sacrosanct. The rights of spies, terrorists and illegal aliens are nonexistent.
Murphy is one of 677 district judges who have taken it upon themselves to veto any and all presidential actions that George Soros does not like. The same people who turned and looked the other way when Biden was calling a protest at the Capitol an insurrection now refuse to allow the deportation of violent criminals who are here illegally.
They want El Salvador to send one of their citizens back. Imagine if Putin said, you know, I changed my mind. Send Brittney Griner back.
There are three branches of government and we are told they are equal. The legislative branch has stopped legislating, instead deferring to career government employees to write the rules, enforce them and then adjudicate them. Protected by Civil Service, they bob in the bowels of government like a fatberg and are accountable to no one.
The judiciary also writes laws, legalizing gay marriage, abortion and taxpayers paying for tranny surgery for military men with fetishes. No one holds them accountable. Oh, sure, we can amend the Constitution to get around the justices. The only time the politicians did that was to impose an income tax on us.
The lack of accountability in the bureaucracy and the imperial judiciary gunning for President Trump are why Erez Reuveni, Assistant Director of the Office of Immigration Litigation, felt he could get away with lying in court and saying the government made a clerical error in deporting of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran, back to El Salvador.
… Judge Murphy in Massachusetts’ call for hearings and appeals before we deport anyone is an absurdity to the power of bizarre. The only process due them are two questions: Do you have a passport and a visa? If the answer is no, buh-bye, fella. You just won a one-way ticket home—or El Salvador, whichever Trump chooses.
As Chris Matthews said,
“I think the country is going to get really ticked off at a government that won‘t do what they tell them to do. A country without borders is not a country. If you don’t have a border—I‘ve never heard of a country in the world that doesn’t have a border. That‘s what defines a country. If you don’t enforce it, you’re a joke.”
But that was nearly 20 years ago when liberals at least bothered pretending they supported the border. Now they want our country to be a joke—and it was under Biden.
We are in an emergency. Untold millions illegal aliens are wandering around the nation.
But the imperial judiciary’s actions eclipse the danger of this emergency by demanding that every one of these millions of criminals be granted a trial and the appeals that follow. Much to the delight of Democrats, the illegal aliens crisis has led to a showdown between the courts, which they control, and the president, whom they hate.
The 677 district judges are not the only threat. The Supreme Court is siding with the liars inside the government and the lying media.
… Sundance called the attacks on Trump enforcing immigration law lawfare on steroids
… But the ones breaking the rule of law are in the judiciary. And not just with illegal aliens but in the false insurrection cases, rejecting out of hand claims of fraud in the 2020 election, allowing Obama to spy on Trump, allowing Biden to raid his home, 91 counts in 4 indictments and trying to order military planes to turn around in midair.
The judges are the ones who should respect their authority first by recognizing the boundaries. The Constitution does not authorize judges to veto a president. District judges have taken it upon themselves to expand their districts to include the entire nation and in the case of Boasberg, El Salvador too.
We often hear that justice delayed is justice denied but this order underscores another saying: Time plus no answer equals no. A president has 4 years to fulfill his promises to the American people. Lifetime appointed judges can wait him out. They did that in his first presidency.
The press is hunky-dory with judge-shopping by the Soros Left to block Trump from upholding immigration law and the like.
… Federal judges are not the only rogue elephants using their power to prevent elected officials from doing their job and enforcing laws. PJ Media reported, “Judge temporarily blocks Mayor Adams' administration from allowing ICE onto Rikers Island.”
… I sure hope Tom Homan starts living up to his warnings about arresting officials who aid and abet illegal immigration.
There is hope. The Supreme Court is extending its schedule (delaying its three-month summer vacation) according to Fox
… Make no mistake, this is an attempt to stifle the president and blunt his presidency. Elections have consequences? Hah! John Roberts has enabled the district judges to veto Trump over and over again.
… Some people advocate having the president ignore the courts. That reflects the corruption of the courts.

In response to Don Surber's article, a reader by the name of Tmitsss quotes one of its lines as he goes on to refer to the Declaration of Independence:

“Do you have a passport and a visa? If the answer is no, buh-bye, fella.”
Due process applies to deprivation of life, liberty and property. Foreigners without a visa have no protected right to remain.

Vietnam Defeat 50 Years On: It’s a very dangerous thing to be an American ally when Democrats are in power

2025-04-30T17:02:00.004Z

Kabul gave us Ukraine, and all the death that ensued

Fifty years after Saigon, Rod D. Martin asks us to Remember the Nobility of a Betrayed Cause (cảm ơn to Mark Tapscott).

Fifty years ago, April 30, 1975, the world watched in horror and disbelief as the last American helicopter lifted off from the rooftop of our embassy in Saigon. South Vietnam had fallen in the manner of Ernest Hemingway, “first gradually, then suddenly”: a decades-long war, a relative peace, and then a mad dash by the North Vietnamese Army that consumed the country in less than a month.
The tragedy was simply breathtaking. And horribly, horribly unnecessary.
What followed was not peace, but darkness. The swift collapse of South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos (turns out the Domino Theory was true) brought the subjugation of millions, and the opening act of a Communist bloodbath across Southeast Asia. At least a million were sent to the “re-education camps” in Vietnam alone. Half a million were murdered. Another two million fled this brutal night by sea, on rafts wholly unsuited for the tumultuous ocean, in wild hope that an American aircraft carrier might happen upon them. Close to half a million died in the water.
None of that counts the genocide of Pol Pot — whom the American left had dubbed “the George Washington of Cambodia”. Over the next three years he murdered between a quarter and a third of his entire population. He would have gone right on had not even the Communists in Moscow and Hanoi been horrified (though Beijing gave him their unqualified support both before and after the massacre).
None of this had to happen. This was not the end of a war, but the culmination of betrayal — a betrayal of an ally, of a cause, and of the very principles America had defended with precious blood and treasure for eight long years.
The received wisdom is that Vietnam was a mistake, a misguided war fought in the wrong place at the wrong time. That narrative is false. The Vietnam War was part of a noble, epic struggle — the same struggle that won the Cold War and saved the whole world from a similar fate. It was a just effort to stop Communist totalitarianism and genocide from consuming yet another corner of the globe. South Vietnam was not a hopeless case. It was a fledgling republic, striving to build a free society in the shadow of Marxist tyranny and under constant assault from within and without. Its people fought with courage and resolve for more than two decades, first with our help and then — fatally — with almost none.
In many ways, the fall of Vietnam mirrored the loss of China in 1949: a long American effort thrown away at the very last through perfidy in Washington — begun and betrayed by Democrats in both cases — with ghastly, ongoing consequences. The two were even similar in this: a Christian President of China (Chiang Kai-shek) betrayed by Truman, a Christian President of South Vietnam (Ngo Dinh Diem) assassinated on orders from JFK, after both of which came the deluge.
By 1973, we had won. No, really. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger negotiated the Paris Peace Accords, forcing North Vietnam to accept South Vietnam’s sovereignty and halting hostilities.
… Nixon called it “peace with honor” because it represented more than withdrawal — it was a commitment, a guarantee that America would not desert its friends or allow 58,000 of its sons to have died in vain.
But with Nixon forced from office, Congress fell into the hands of men more concerned with leftist politics than principle. … Deprived of ammunition, fuel, and the will of its ally, South Vietnam collapsed — not because it lacked heart, but because it was abandoned, by the same Democrat Party that had sent America’s sons to die there just ten years before.
This is the reality the left refuses to confront even half a century later. The fall of Saigon was not inevitable. It was engineered in Washington more than Hanoi. It was not a military defeat — it was a political surrender, the first of many. Over the next five years, Democrats handed 26 countries to the Communists. That’s on top of Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran.
Richard Nixon understood this. Years after, in No More Vietnams, he laid out the real lessons of that conflict, lessons we ignore at our peril. … He rightly condemned the gradual escalation that defined the Kennedy and Johnson years, insisting that decisive action at the outset would have saved countless lives.
The same could be said for China, where decisive Soviet action in 1945 in Manchuria, fecklessly answered by Truman, set the tone for the rest of the war.
… These lessons, learned at tragic cost, should have guided us forward. But they were forgotten. In 2021, Joe Biden gave us a second Saigon, this time in Kabul.
Once again, a Democrat President abandoned our allies, violated our commitments, and handed victory to the forces of barbarism. Once again, desperate people clung to departing American aircraft, hoping in vain that the land of the free would not forget them. Once again, we left billions of dollars worth of weapons for our enemies and consigned countless friends to death.
It’s a very dangerous thing to be an American ally when Democrats are in power.
Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was not a tragedy born of necessity. It was a choice — a deliberate reversion to the very perfidy that doomed South Vietnam. And just as in Vietnam, the consequences were immediate: a resurgent Taliban, women and girls booted from schools and reduced to chattel, jihadists emboldened, and American credibility in tatters. Kabul gave us Ukraine, and all the death that ensued.

Related: Il y a 50 ans, tout le Vietnam devenait un pays totalitaire communiste

La chute de Saigon, le 30 avril 1975, acte toujours, dans l’imaginaire collectif, la défaite des Etats-Unis dans la guerre du Vietnam. Or, la réalité historique est différente. Ce qui s’est passé au Vietnam après cette date est tout aussi marquant, sinon plus. … c’est bien l’armée sud-vietnamienne qui a été défaite, les troupes américaines ayant quitté le pays deux ans avant. Les derniers soldats américains étaient partis le 29 mars 1973 et la situation militaire n’était pas très bonne côté communiste.
… Les 140 000 personnes évacuées en avril 1975, quand Saïgon est tombé, étaient presque exclusivement des civils et des militaires vietnamiens, pas des militaires américains en fuite. L’Amérique avait perdu la guerre… chez elle, dans les médias et l’opinion publique. Une guerre qui n’avait plus de soutien, menée par une administration en proie à des graves affaires intérieures. C’était pourtant, malgré ses horreurs, une guerre juste contre le communisme qui allait transformer de nombreux pays de l’Asie du Sud-Est en dictatures criminelles. … Ce sont les « boat people » sur lesquels se réfugient, au risque de leur vie, des milliers de Vietnamiens fuyant leur propre pays, qui ouvriront enfin les yeux sur la terrible situation du Vietnam.

Ironie de l’Histoire, 50 ans après, le Vietnam, même s’il reste une dictature, a choisi d’adopter l’économie capitaliste et le style de vie occidental. C’est aussi une victoire de l’Amérique.