Christianity and the Migrant Crisis

This has been an issue I have not been eager to expound upon but do so because so many have challenged my (very obvious and correct of course) remarks on the subject and it would be easier to simply have an article to refer them too with all of the proper Biblical citations. This has been coming up for quite a while, the issue that it is somehow a Christian duty to be in favor of open borders and allowing all and sundry into your country. This is not true. It is so manifestly untrue that it staggers the imagination that any serious Christian or anyone with any understanding of Christian Scripture could possibly believe it. Rest assured, I do not think they actually do as it is often the ones who are ordinarily the most anti-Christian who suddenly start telling actual Christians how to be ‘more Christian’ when it suits their political agenda. The really perverse thing is that, in this case, it is also an anti-Christian agenda.

I will address this primarily from a Biblical point of view because Christians have many different traditions but pretty much everyone has the same Bible and nothing I will be talking about will involve those books that are present in Catholic Bibles but missing from Protestant ones, so this does not devolve into a denominational food fight. There is actually nothing, at all, anywhere in the Bible that says one has to take foreigners into your country. You can read it from cover to cover, it is not in there. That being so, the proponents of open borders must cite other verses that they then ‘interpret’ to mean national borders should be abolished. They won’t come right out and say that quite often but when you say every country is entitled to have borders and set their own immigration laws but then oppose any and all efforts to actually enforce such laws, you are being dishonest and deceitful and I have heard many (usually Catholics) pull that trick. If you say you are for borders and for immigration laws but when someone crosses the border illegally they cannot be sent back, then you are not for borders and should stop lying.

Since the Bible does not say you must let any and all people into your country as they please, the people who favor this have to come up with something else and it usually comes down to only two or three verses that they repeatedly refer to. I cannot resist pointing out that there are more verses in the Bible that command people to obey kings and princes but I shall try to stay focused here. One of the most cited comes from very, very far back in the Bible, indeed almost to the book of Genesis which, by the way, pretty much all of these people believe to be completely fictions but I am speaking of Exodus 22:21 which says, “You shall not wrong a stranger (aka foreigner) or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” That is pretty simple, calling to mind the trials the Jews suffered in Egypt, it says do not treat others the way that you were treated. Do not oppress foreigners. The Jews, of course, were enslaved by the Egyptians and I don’t think anyone is arguing for the enslavement of foreigners. They want to keep the strangers out which, if they do, will certainly make it impossible to oppress them.

Everyone, presumably, knows the story of the Jews being in Egypt. The Patriarch Joseph became prime minister to the Pharaoh of Egypt and when famine struck the Jews, he gave them sanctuary in Egypt. After he died, the Jews were enslaved, Moses came and told the Pharaoh to ‘let my people go’ and God sent increasingly horrible plagues on the Egyptians until they finally did that and let the Jews go. As soon as they got the chance, all the Jews left, even digging up the bones of Joseph and carrying him away with them as well. The bottom line is, as soon as they were able, they left Egypt to go to their own country which is exactly what people who oppose open borders want too! They want these people to go back to their own countries. However, aside from the history lesson, if anyone quotes this verse, you might also put it in context for them by quoting the verse which immediately precedes it, Exodus 22:20 which says, “He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed”. Now, are most of these migrants Christians? No. Are they even Jews like the people in Exodus? No. You might ask the people who think Exodus 22:20 means to let anyone into your country if they then favor utterly destroying any of them who are not Christians.

The idea that the Old Testament commands mixing it up, promotes diversity or multiculturalism is so blatantly wrong as to be totally absurd. In speaking of foreigners in the “Promised Land” the people are told in Deuteronomy 7:3-4, “Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.” You might also look at Joshua 23: 11-13, “So take diligent heed to yourselves to love the LORD your God. For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you; but they will be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you.” This is not exactly a call for inclusion and acceptance and there are numerous other verses that say the same thing.

Another passage, sometimes cited, is Leviticus 19:33 which says, “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.” For context, the following verse says to love the stranger as yourself and calls to mind the exile in Egypt just as the passage from Exodus did. As with the first verse addressed, this one is basically the same. It does not say to let all foreigners come to your land, it does not say to give them your land, it simply says not to oppress them and this is very interesting for the ‘open borders’ crowd to cite today. I should hope no one would be in favor of oppressing anyone but it is the people who are pro-open borders who are usually the ones who say that White/Western/European people are inherently oppressive which then begs the question of why they want more people to come in to be oppressed? I also cannot refrain from pointing out, to all of these recent, Bible-quoting leftists, that the same people here being told not to oppress the foreigners are also people for whom slavery was okay. Indeed, in the chapter preceding that of the first verse we looked at, which would be Exodus chapter 21, it starts with regulations regarding the treatment of slaves. It is also worth pointing out considering the topic under discussion that what is detailed there is the treatment of Jewish slaves owned by other Jews as foreign slaves were treated differently from Jewish slaves.

I point this out simply to show that, very obviously, the Old Testament did not regard all peoples the same or interchangeable and also to point out how, certainly when it comes to things like regulations regarding slavery or animal sacrifice, we are assured that us modern folk are not bound to obey all these regulations. So, when these irritating things called facts are brought up, if the exchange carries on this long, the open-borders advocate will then shift to the New Testament if they had not started out there with a verse that is, if anything, even easier to toss around in any and all circumstances. It will usually be a verse such as or similar to Matthew 22:39 which says, “And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself”. This is really a fun one to get in to as, again, the person quoting it at you is inferring meaning into it which it does not actually say and has no idea of the context in which the verse is given because they don’t actually read the Bible.

You will notice that this, the second-to-greatest commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself does not say anything about letting throngs of foreign people who worship a different god into your country and giving them welfare payments, housing and medical care. It says to love your neighbor and loving your neighbor is free. We then might ask, as someone did to Jesus, “who is my neighbor?” Before looking at the answer Jesus gave, we should have some context because you really need to do that every time, it is very easy to pluck verses out of context to give people a false impression. Notice that in Matthew 19:19 the command to love your neighbor comes immediately after the command to honor your father and mother, which is to say your ancestors, your blood. Then, for even greater context, look back to the Old Testament to Leviticus 19:18 which says, very similarly, “You shall not take revenge nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD”. Your neighbor was your people, after your family, your wider family, your race or your nation, in this case the Jews were being told not to hold hatred against other Jews. The command from Leviticus to love your neighbor was literally a command to observe what the scholarly types call “in group preference”, the exact opposite of viewing all people as being the same and interchangeable.

The response Jesus gave was the familiar story I am sure everyone knows about “the Good Samaritan”. Jesus was speaking to a predominately Jewish audience and the Samaritans were probably the one group of people the Jews despised more than any other. They were effectively a schismatic sect of Judaism, usually described as being mixed race though this may mean mixed-ethnicity but it doesn’t really matter. The point is, Jesus was talking about a people who professed the same religion as the Jews but who were traditionally hated and shunned by the orthodox Jews. As the story goes, a presumably Jewish man was robbed and left half-dead by the side of the road. His fellow Jews walked by without helping but a Samaritan saw him and immediately stopped to help and was extremely generous to the injured man. Jesus then asked which had shown himself to be a good neighbor and the obvious conclusion is that it was the Samaritan. He saw someone who had been injured and helped him which, contrary to the way most twist this story, makes the definition of “neighbor” even more exclusive rather than inclusive, it is something determined by how you behave.

One might also point out that the Samaritan did not take the injured Jew home with him, tossing out his youngest child to give the man a place to stay and so on. The exact words of Jesus in this story is to help someone who has been attacked in your path, not to go out into the world in search of people who have it worse off than you and bring them home. This was effectively a lesson about reciprocity, which is the part everyone gets wrong because they invariably reverse the story. It was about who the neighbor is and the point was that the neighbor is the one who helped the injured man, the Samaritan proved himself to be a good neighbor by his deeds. This, in context with what Jesus had first said which prompted this question comes down to this: He said to love your neighbor as yourself and when asked who your neighbor is, the answer is a person who helps you when you have been attacked. The Samaritan did not help a man who had ruined his own life, he didn’t take the man home with him, he effectively rendered first aid (to a schismatic of his own religion). It is really not a complicated story and is rather simple. It also has more to do with mugging than with migration.

In Like 9:51-56 we see that Jesus sent two of His apostles ahead of him, while on His way to Jerusalem, to make preparations for a place to stay in a Samaritan village. The Samaritans, hearing that they were headed for the ‘rival’ Temple in Jerusalem, refused to welcome them and when the apostles asked if Jesus might not rain down some fire and brimstone on the Samaritans for refusing to receive them, Jesus said no and scolded them for suggesting such a thing. That is worth keeping in mind because, if one is a Christian, commanded to love everyone, the greatest act of love for a Christian is to save the souls of others from eternal agony by spreading the Gospel to them. At this point in human history, most of the world is probably aware of Christianity and the story of the Gospels. Most of those flooding into Europe certainly know about it but believe it to be wrong, adhering to the Islamic religion which claims to be the final word. So, keeping that in mind, we can see from the reaction of Jesus that raining down Hellfire missiles on these people’s villages would not be the Christian thing to do but we are also told very clearly how to deal with such people and it is not letting them take up residence in your country in massive numbers.

In one of the shortest books of the Bible we see very clearly how a Christian is to handle those who have rejected Christianity. 2 John verse 10 says, “If anyone comes to you bringing a different doctrine, you must not receive him in your house or even give him a greeting. To greet him would make you a partner in his wicked work.” That is when they come to you but the same holds if you go to them as Matthew 10:14 says, “And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town” or in other words, have nothing to do with such people. Do not harm, do not oppress, simply avoid. Do not associate with them and do not allow them into your home. Mark 6:11, Luke 10:11 and Acts 13:51 all say the same thing just in case anyone thinks I might be taking things out of context.

The final point that I think needs to be made, which all of this tends to broadly coincide with, is the notion that Christianity should not even acknowledge nationality but should instead embrace the revolutionary “brotherhood of man” type concept. According to this way of thinking, everyone is your neighbor and even your brother or sister. This is not only wrong, this is anti-Christian. The fundamental mistake that well-meaning people make in parroting this line is to confuse the flock with the faith. Christianity is for all people and does not change according to time, place or nationality. That is not the same as saying these distinctions do not exist and, again, the Bible actually makes clear that the exact opposite is true. How many times does the Bible reiterate the commandment to “Honor your father and mother” to receive God’s blessing? This, particularly in the Old Testament days when people lived much longer, is a command to honor *you* ancestors who are, obviously, not going to be the same as those of everyone else. The numerous genealogical tables found throughout the Bible also attest to the importance of your blood ties, your ancestry, the history and bonds of your family and your people.

Isaiah 51:1 says, “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were hewn and to the quarry from which you were dug.” In other words, honor your heritage, know the history, customs and traditions of your people, your ancestors. Nor can this be confined to the Old Testament as I Timothy 5:8 says, “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” This means you take care of your own first, your own family and your own people are your first priority before helping others. This means that the “Good Samaritan” would not have been good if he had left his fellow Samaritans to starve so he could help the Jew on the side of the road. Although when it comes to the “Migrant Crisis” the focus is on Europe, this part is also very demonstrative for the United States and the influx from Latin America, all of which is Christian and has been for longer than North America. You take care of your own and it is precisely because Christianity is the same for all people in all places, that Christian mercy stuff does not just apply to Americans but applies to everyone south of the border too. You take care of your own, you do not shuttle them along for someone else to deal with for you.

However, on this issue the one verse that the “brotherhood of man” types invariably bring up is the line from Galatians 3:28 which says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” and, I must say, when it gets to this point you can start planning your victory dance because you are about to win the argument. This verse does not mean that all of these things are the same but that *Christ is the same* for all of them. There is not one Jesus for Swedes and another Jesus for Somalis, there is only Jesus. This is why, in Acts chapter 15, St Peter said that Christianity is not only for the Jews but for the Greeks and Romans as well and that they did not have to be circumcised. This is why Christians do not keep kosher, because such was not their custom, they did not have to become Jews in order to be Christians. Jesus is the same for all people everywhere but people are different and they do not have to all be made the same. Obviously, there were differences between Jews and Greeks as this shows, just as the distinctions between slave and free or male and female no longer ceased to exist. St Paul was approached by a runaway slave and he sent him back to his master, women were told to keep their heads covered in church and so on, there are numerous other verses showing that Christianity did not mean that men and women or different nationalities were all interchangeable but that the faith was the same and the need for the faith was the same for all people everywhere.

This is why, as with Christianity as I suppose it would be with anything else, you must take the entirety of it and not hand pick the bits out that please you. All people need salvation and that salvation is open to all but that does not change the fact that your family and then your people are your first priority. This goes back, again, to the “good neighbor” point. You cannot be a good Christian or a good neighbor on behalf of someone else. To say you will accept the responsibility of dealing with someone else’s problems is only to encourage them to carry on being a bad neighbor or a bad Christian or no Christian at all. Remember that Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart and then, secondarily, to love your neighbor *as yourself*. This means that loving your neighbor in the Christian context is predicated on loving yourself first and if you are displacing your own people for another, you obviously do not love yourself and are, therefore, incapable of loving your neighbor!

The Bible clearly does not teach that all the people in the world are the same and interchangeable. Far from that, the Bible teaches people to have “in group preference”. It says to honor *your* forebears, take care of *your* own family and *your* own people before taking care of anyone else, it says that the teachings of Christ are for all people and not for some people to observe on behalf of other people. It says that the greatest thing you can do is save others from eternal damnation but if people refuse that gift, you are to have nothing to do with them and not even wish them well as you would be wishing them well on a destructive path. For a Christian country such as Poland being asked to take in Muslim migrants, even being scolded by the Catholic hierarchy for being reluctant to do so, the simple fact is that the Bible says not to welcome such people at all, not into your country, not even into your home. There are many *extremely* wealthy Muslim countries which could be taking care of their own just as there are many countries in between Somalia and Sweden for neighborliness to apply. The point about Christianity and Christian morals being the same for everyone means that you take care of yours and that everyone else does the same. You cannot be a good neighbor *for* someone else and taking care of others before you have taken care of your own is specifically anti-Christian. As with so many things these days, actual Christianity is the complete opposite of what so many so-called Christian leaders say that it is. 

What Countries Are Made Of

Many people in the west today seem to be in total ignorance of what makes a country. No one else in the world, be it South Africa, Israel, India or China is as ignorant on this subject as the west. For some, no doubt, it is not ignorance but for others I can find no other rational explanation. Certainly, on the part of the far-left, I do not believe ignorance is the issue as they despise western civilization and have convinced themselves that the world will be a better place once it disappears entirely. However, those who are dragged along by them are no doubt simply ignorant and the other group which I must believe is ignorant on this subject are the libertarians. It certainly makes no sense for the people who claim to be the most suspect of government and the ones who most glorify the individual to also believe that countries are made by governments rather than by their population. If they truly believe the things they claim to, ignorance is the only possible explanation for this bizarre belief.

In demonstrating how peoples make countries, one will also see quite clearly how, even in our very republican-dominant age, monarchies loom very large given the fact that throughout most of human history, in every part of the world, monarchy has been the dominant form of government, growing naturally from the expansion of families into clans, clans into tribes and tribes into nations. I shall use, for example, the United States and Mexico to demonstrate this and the underlying fact is that, as my old university history professor said, history is the most important subject there is. People make countries and people are the product of their histories. Everything that has happened in the past accumulates to create the people of the present and everything about them, some of it good, some of it bad but all essential to the finished product. This relates to something else I pointed out recently with the controversy over Christopher Columbus. Whether you like Columbus or not, it was his discovery which prompted the colonization of the Americas by the European powers and whether you like European imperialism or not, none of the countries in the Americas today would exist without it.

The United States of America and the United Mexican States, though neighboring countries, are extremely different. One is a global superpower, the other is a country most of its people would like nothing better than to flee from and regard being sent back to as a most cruel and inhumane punishment. Why are they so different? They are different because of their peoples and the vastly different histories of their peoples. The American and Mexican populations have been formed by vastly different historical experiences which have all come together to make for very different peoples with very different attitudes, customs, values and overall worldviews. These two peoples are not the same and they are not interchangeable. If the United States, for example, came to have a majority Mexican population, it would not be like the USA of the present but would be more like Mexico. Similarly, if the last Mexican Emperor and Empress had had their way, at least according to the letters of Empress Carlota, Mexico would have invited in large numbers of Europeans, changing the population and making Mexico a country more like central Europe than it is today.

The United States as it exists today is the product of a long succession of accumulated history. To pick out a few examples, modern America has been formed most of all by the history of the Kingdom of England. Things such as the Magna Carta, the English Reformation, the English Civil Wars, the Westminster Parliament, Common Law, the “Glorious” Revolution of 1688 all had an impact. The men of the English colonies who formed the United States were themselves formed by these historical events, and others. Modern America is further the product of the War for Independence (obviously), the “frontier mentality” of the westward settlements, the War Between the States, Reconstruction, the world wars and so on, all merging together to create the people and thus the country as it exists today. The United States is the way that it is because of the American people, what decisions they make and what decisions their ancestors have made all the way back through history. Were you to take an American and plant him or her in Thailand, he or she is not going to be interchangeable with the native population, even if they master the language and take up Buddhism. It simply is not possible and if Thailand was suddenly inundated with American immigrants, it would quickly cease to resemble Thailand and resemble the United States.

Mexico, likewise, is the product of a totally different people with a totally different history from any other. In the first place, the vast majority of the Mexican population has not only European roots but American Indian roots. The history, habits and thinking of the Aztec, Zapotec, Mayan and others are all part of what makes the majority of the Mexican population what it is today. On the side of their European ancestry, events which have formed Mexico today include things such as the ‘Reconquista’, the “fueros de los Españoles” and the Inquisition. America had the Pilgrims, Mexico had the Conquistadors, America came from a constitutional monarchy, Mexico from an absolute monarchy. The Bourbon centralization of power, the uprising of Father Hidalgo, the way Mexican independence was achieved, the long hold on power of General Santa Anna, the civil wars, Benito Juarez, the dictatorship of Diaz, the Mexican Revolution and the decades long rule of the PRI and so on, are all part of what has shaped modern Mexico by shaping the Mexican population and, taken altogether, make Mexico what it is today. As with the United States, some of these events were good, some were bad but the opinion of anyone about them is irrelevant, all that matters is that, right or wrong, they happened and they have shaped the Mexican public of the present time.

This explains why people are different and why certain people can adapt to or “assimilate” into certain countries better than others. The more similar the background which has formed a people, the more easily they can assimilate. It is easy to see this at work if one imagines alternate histories. If, for example, the Spanish had never liberated their homeland from the Moors and it was, instead, these Arab-Moorish people who crossed the ocean and conquered Mexico, obviously, the modern Mexican people would be totally different than what they are now. On the other hand, the United States would perhaps not be as different from what it is now if the Norman conquest of England had never taken place since the differences between the Normans (essentially Vikings who had adopted French culture) and the Saxons were not so great, both being north European, Germanic peoples of the same religion and basic values. Things would certainly be different, but not as different because a Saxon descendant of Vikings and a Norman descendant of Vikings are obviously not as dissimilar as a Spaniard and an Arab or a Moor.

People make countries just as people make cultures and when people move from one country to another they take their culture and all that has formed them to their new home. When the English moved to America, they established New England, built English homes, operated according to English law and so on. They did not start living as the Mohawk or Iroquois or Huron lived simply because they were in North America. Similarly, when the Spanish came to Mexico, they did not start wearing Quetzal-feather headdresses, building pyramids and taking up human sacrifice. They brought Spanish culture with them, though there was a greater blending of people in Mexico because the Spanish did not bring any women with them, only soldiers and priests. Hence why the majority of the population in Mexico is mixed-race and the population of the United States has been predominately European. All the actions and inactions of all who have gone before them have made each population what it is today. Even when people try to imitate others, they are still bound by their own accumulative history. The first German Reich, for example, called itself the “Holy Roman Empire” but it was still quite different in a number of ways from the original Roman Empire because the German and Italian people were different and had vastly different histories.

Another pair of examples, which might prove illustrative is South Africa and Liberia. One country, South Africa, was established by European colonists while the other, Liberia, was established by African-American colonists. Each established societies very different from those of the natives who surrounded them and each were also extremely dissimilar from each other and have had very different histories. This should be obvious considering that the life experiences and accumulated history of emancipated slaves from America and Dutch and later British colonists were radically different and would invariably cause each to build very different societies. Likewise, if people are interchangeable, regardless of their origins, South Africa would still be functioning the same today, under Black African rule, as it previously functioned under British or Afrikaner rule which it clearly is not.

That is the bottom line; that peoples are not interchangeable. Mexico, The Philippines, the Republic of China and numerous Latin American and African countries have, to varying degrees and at various times in their past, for example, emulated the U.S. Constitution. None of them, however, have functioned in the same way that the United States has functioned because what has formed them is nothing like what has formed the United States and certainly not those “Founding Fathers” who established the United States. Peoples make countries, governments do not and if the population of Japan were to become predominately Indonesian, it would no longer resemble Japan as it is now or has ever been, even if all of the government framework remained in place. The character, experiences and accumulated history of a nation matters, no two are exactly alike and no two are interchangeable nor can that accumulated history ever be totally wiped away.

The Prospects for France

Today, the French citizenry voted in their first round of presidential elections and, as expected, the so-called "centrist" Emmanuel Macron finished in first place and the so-called "far-right" candidate Marine Le Pen coming in second. The two will next face each other in "round two" for the big prize of the presidency of the Fifth French Republic. At this point, obviously, nothing definitive has been decided. It is obvious that French voters are tired of "business as usual" and so have chosen two candidates from outside of the usual political parties who have held a monopoly on power in France, pretty much since after World War II. However, it is also obvious that the French public is extremely divided. Macron and Le Pen could hardly be more different. One is a nationalist who wants to put a halt on all further immigration to France, while the other is an internationalist who thinks borders are meaningless and nationality is a thing of the past. One wants to take France out of the European Union while the other used to work for the European Union and is firmly for staying. The upcoming "round two" election will be one of 'Marine Le Pen' versus the ruling global elite.

However, for being such seeming opposites, Macron and Le Pen do have at least a few similarities. Both are nominal Catholics but effectively secularists. The most that can be expected in differentiating the two on that point is that Le Pen seems less likely to attack the traditional faith of France outright but neither can be expected to defend it. They largely hold the same opinions on what Americans at least call the "social issues", both being basically pro-gay, pro-abortion and so on. They are also both skeptical of NATO with Le Pen talking of taking France out of the alliance and coming to an agreement with Russia while Macron would prefer to have European Union military force take over the job of defending the continent. So, Macron would not be such a great change on that front, for whereas Le Pen wants to leave NATO and the EU, Macron simply wants to replace the NATO flag for that of a militarized EU. This puts Le Pen firmly at odds with the trans-Atlantic internationalists. You can easily tell who the ruling class wants people to be afraid of by how they are described in the media. Le Pen, who wants France to be first and foremost for the French, is called the "far-right" candidate, while Macron, a former member of the Socialist Party who nonetheless claims to be neither left nor right, is called the "centrist" candidate.

We have also seen obvious efforts to tilt the scales in favor of Macron such as the last-minute closing of thousands of Le Pen supporters Facebook accounts (a "mistake" the company has claimed) and the sending of double ballots to French citizens abroad who are expected to vote for Macron rather than Le Pen. All of this along with a flood of negative media coverage that tries to portray Le Pen as little less than a Nazi and Macron as a stable, brilliant, boy-genius untainted by the political process. Neither have held elected office before but, of course, for Le Pen this is portrayed as a negative but for Macron it is a positive. Although it has faded somewhat since President Trump decided to lob a few missiles at Syria, there were also preliminary efforts to de-legitimize a potential Le Pen win by warning of Russian efforts to "interfere" in the election. Given that former U.S. President Obama voiced public support for Macron, I have no doubt the Russians would prefer a Le Pen victory but to say so would be "interference" and "undermining" the election. Obama showing support for Macron or his previous warning to Britain not to leave the EU is, of course, not seen as interfering at all.

If the polls are to be believed, unfortunately in my view, this is working since they currently show Le Pen likely to lose by quite a large margin in the second round of voting. In truth, she was always a rather long shot, and this "populist" wave that has had the globalists in such a panic, has never been so sweeping as many would like to believe. "Brexit" was a win but not by a very wide margin. Austria was a loss, Italy was a win but it remains to be seen if anything will come of that. In the Netherlands, Wilders came close but ultimately the Dutch voted as their betters told them to and no one has ever expected Alternative for Germany to have any real electoral success. The victory of Donald Trump was what sent the globalists into hysterics in the first place and yet, lately, he has totally reversed course on most things that sent them calling for the smelling salts. No "Muslim ban", no trade war with China, no friendship with Russia and NATO went from being "obsolete" to essential with a single utterance. The point is that Le Pen has a very up-hill struggle ahead of her and those who want to keep France French will have to fight harder than they've ever fought before if they want to squeak out a win. All the odds are against it.

Of course, the odds were against St Joan of Arc too but, despite some very talented artwork, Marine Le Pen is no Joan of Arc, which is part of the problem. I do not want to discourage anyone, were I a French citizen I would be voting for Le Pen without hesitation, however, the best that can be hoped for from her is buying time or, to put it another way, stop things from becoming any worse. This is because, as I have said before (The Root of the Current French Crisis -please read it if you haven't already), only a repudiation of the French Revolution and all that goes with it can truly save France. After a traditional monarchy that lasted a thousand years, France has had five republics, none of which have lasted more than a century. Legitimate authority must cease to be subject to the public whim of the mob, the faith, values and culture of France must be embraced and defended, the sacred bloodline of French kings must be restored and to be French must be defined by blood rather than mere citizenship documents. This republican nonsense has been tried. My God, it's been tried *five times* and continues to fail! It does NOT work and it doesn't work because it is an unnatural contrivance built on silly, idealistic slogans and pandering to a mob that wants the impossible. At this point, most French people don't even know who they are or what their country is.

St Joan of Arc, an illiterate peasant girl, knew who she was and she knew what France was. She knew that France was for the French and not for the English. She knew that France had to have a king and who that king had to be. She knew that the true culture of France was a Christian, Frankish, Gallic culture and not an Islamic, Arab or African culture. The majority of the most highly educated people in France today are unable to grasp what that simple, uneducated peasant girl in the Middle Ages knew instinctively. This is what the Revolution has done to France. She knew that it was her duty to expel the invaders from her country and yet, she knew that it was even more fundamental to the survival of France to see the Dauphin, Charles VII, properly crowned King. Today, while I hope the French can recapture that "Spirit of the Marne" that prevailed in 1914, the invaders of today are not the Germans. The supporters of Le Pen are at least aware enough to know that they are being invaded, that they are being displaced, as a people and as a culture, yet as long as they remain bound to the republic and the legacy of the Revolution with all the accompanying "equality" and "brotherhood of man" idiocy, they will never be able to truly put a stop to this destructive cycle of one republican failure after another and the ultimate eradication of the French as a people, as a distinct nationality. That cannot be allowed to happen for the world would be a far darker place forever if it did.

The Double Standard on Deportations

There is, today, a great deal of ‘storm and stress’ over the issue of migrants/refugees/illegal immigrants across the western world. Whatever term one chooses to use, it involves a minority group of people living in a country who are a different people than the majority. This has caused quite heated divisions in these countries over how to deal with these non-native minority elements. Some want more, some want less and some want those already present to be sent back to their country of origin. The rhetoric around these differences is escalated by accusations of racism and “Islamophobia” which itself is often used synonymously with the term ‘racism’ and that is regarded as the worst thing someone in the western world can be accused of. Even being found guilty of murder or child rape does not lead to the pariah status that even being accused of racism will. Filmmaker Roman Polanski, for example, pled guilty to raping a 13-year old girl in 1977 and yet continued to have a lucrative film career and win numerous Academy Awards and European Film Awards from his peers. Martin McGuinness, a leader of the PIRA, was responsible for numerous murders but rose to become Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Enoch Powell gave one speech that attracted accusations of racism and immediately lost his job. American comedian Michael Richards used racial slurs in response to some hecklers in 2007 and social pressure ended his stand-up career. The taint of racism can easily render a public figure untouchable.

However, what is odd, is that the same people who usually push this strategy are the same people who consider being “Euro-centric” a terrible insult even while they themselves display an extremely Eurocentric attitude by holding European or European-descended people to a vastly different standard from non-European peoples. This ranges from accusations of racism to issues of civil rights to the issue of immigration. For example, in Japan, it is not uncommon to find restaurants that refuse service to anyone who is not obviously Japanese. Japan attracts considerable criticism for things like whale hunting but no one seems unduly outraged about businesses that refuse service to White people or Black people whereas in a western country, a restaurant that refused to serve people of a different race would be considered outrageous and, in the United States certainly, illegal. Now, it should be said, I do not think the Japanese should be criticized for this. Usually, the reason behind such a policy is that the business has had trouble with rowdy foreigners in the past and I think they should be able to serve or not serve whoever they choose. It is *their* business after all. However, the lack of similar criticism, unfair though I think it would be, is noteworthy.

The non-immigration issues have often been brought up by those on the political right to highlight the double-standard of the left and, though they do not say so, their “Eurocentric” view or one could call it a type of western supremacy that says western people are so lofty and so much better than everyone else that they must be judged by a higher standard than other people. So, it has been pointed out how western feminists are more concerned about an imaginary “pay gap” between men and women than they are about women in certain Arab countries who have virtually no rights at all (and before anyone complains, it is a *fact* that, in America at least, it is against the law to pay women less for doing the same job as a man and if this is happening to you, female, feminist reader, you can sue your employer right now and easily win). The people who are staunch defenders of freedom of religion for Muslims in traditionally Christian, western countries, have nothing to say about the total lack of religious freedom in Muslim or atheistic countries like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the People’s Republic of China. One could go on, and I have, so there is no need to highlight it more here.

Immigration and/or immigration-related issues have, however, not received the same push-back that has been seen on issues related to women’s rights, gay rights or religious freedom. Yet, this is just as true and generally dates to the shift away from traditional authority, old European colonialism and the Cold War. There are numerous examples, undoubtedly more than I could relate here, that illustrate the point that the exclusion, expulsion or mass deportation of a minority people from a country by the native majority only seems to attract widespread criticism and condemnation when it is contemplated by western countries but not when it is actually carried out by non-western countries. It is not considered outrageous by the majority population in non-western countries nor is it considered wrong or racist by mainstream opinion in western countries themselves. Sometimes this was done by legal means, in other cases it was simply a case of the western minority fleeing in the face of certain death if they remained.

Expelled Dutch & mixed race people arrive in Rotterdam

The Republic of Indonesia, for example, had prior to independence been a colony of The Netherlands, known as the Dutch East Indies. When pressure from the United Nations and the United States forced the Dutch to relinquish the East Indies, the Indonesians afterward moved to purge non-native elements from the country. Dutch owned businesses and property were seized by the Indonesian republic and in December of 1957 all Dutch nationals, some 50,000 people, were forced to leave Indonesia. Dutch aircraft were forbidden to land in Indonesian territory and all Dutch publications were banned from the country. Most readers have probably never heard of this which is itself part of the point. Indonesia did not become a pariah in the international community, was not accused of being racist or xenophobic but, while some Dutch people and those directly involved certainly spoke up about it, wider opinion was that the Indonesians were justified in wanting ‘Indonesia for the Indonesians’ and that subjects of the Queen of the Netherlands did not belong in Indonesia, most by this time also believing they never had in the first place. Many more people left Indonesia on their own because they were of partial Dutch ancestry and were subject to often extreme social pressure to leave, from housing difficulties, employment difficulties to people of mixed race background being unable to even buy food from many Indonesian grocers.

In the countries of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, previously united under colonial rule as French Indochina, likewise never had a large population of French people who lived there. However, there were some and in some cases French families had lived in Indochina for generations. The 1937 census of French Indochina showed that there were 42,345 French people living in Indochina. By comparison, there were over 300,000 Chinese people living in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia according to the same census in 1937. However, as Vietnam became independent, first in north and (year later) in the south, the French population was either killed or forced to flee to avoid being killed. Their presence, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the colonial government or the regime of the French-backed Vietnamese emperor, was simply not tolerated by the ruling Vietnamese Communist Party and today the French population in Vietnam is non-existent.

Human "dust" left in Vietnam

Similar to the situation in Indonesia, people of mixed-race background in Vietnam were not tolerated once the Vietnamese were completely governing their country themselves. Most Franco-Vietnamese fled with the end of French influence in Vietnam, knowing what fate would befall them if they were to remain. Likewise, at the end of the American involvement in Vietnam, there were about 35,000 mixed race children born to Vietnamese women by American fathers. Some took their children home with them to the USA when America began withdrawing from Vietnam, some married the mothers but unfortunately most of these mixed race children were abandoned and those that were not killed outright faced a lifetime of scorn and discrimination. The Vietnamese referred to them as “the dust of life” as most went from state orphanages to lives as homeless beggars on the streets. Their mothers often abandoned them since a half-White or half-Black child would cause the mother to be regarded as a prostitute and a collaborator, whether she had been or not, by post-war Vietnamese society. The children of Black soldiers often fared worse than the children of White soldiers since they were more likely to be visibly the most different from the rest of the population. Needless to say, the left-wing “flower power” protestors of the era had nothing to say about this and did not denounce the victorious Vietnamese as racist or bigoted because of their actions toward racial or mixed-race minorities in their country.

One area where the minority community was quite large, though still small compared to the overall population, was the Empire of India. Anglo-Indians which included both mixed race people of British and Indian parentage or simply British people who were born and raised in India, were originally marginalized by both the Indian population and the British colonial authorities. However, they made a life for themselves on their own and ultimately became a distinct and fairly important new group of people in the British Raj. They became instrumental in the functioning of the empire due to their widespread employment in handling Customs, the Post Office, the telegraph network, the teaching profession and the Indian railroad industry. However, with the coming of independence and the conversion of the Empire of India to the Republic of India, the Anglo-Indians came under increased social pressure and discrimination by the majority population which considered them both alien and, in the increased militancy of the times, as collaborators with the enemy. In 1947 this pressure drove many Anglo-Indians to leave the country and relocate to the United Kingdom or one of the Commonwealth Realms. Social pressure did not relent with time and in the ensuing decades the vast majority of Anglo-Indians ultimately left the country and the tiny minority remaining are almost unanimous in wishing to live somewhere else. With all of the international sympathy for India and hero-worship of Gandhi, the plight of the Anglo-Indians went largely unnoticed and India was not vilified for how the White and mixed-race population was treated.

The same story can be found across the continent of Africa, though in most countries the non-African minority was always extremely small, in some cases to the point of being statistically irrelevant. However, in those areas with large non-African (generally European) minorities such as South Africa or the former Rhodesia, this population has been drastically reduced since these African countries came under African rule. Again, the circumstances of the White minority in South Africa or the former Rhodesia goes almost completely unreported with mainstream liberal opinion in the west being that this should be ignored at best or at worst that the White minority deserves no sympathy as they have been deemed the “bad guys” regardless of whether they were actually around during the era of White rule. In Algeria, in north Africa, at the height of the colonial period there were about a million French people living in the country, roughly 10% of the total population. With the achievement of Algerian independence, however, those million people suddenly vanished and no one seems to mind about it. The French minority being driven from the country by the Algerian minority has attracted no condemnations.

Again, one could cite many examples similar to these. How many people objected to the forced removal of over a million Greeks from Turkey in 1923 (when about half as many Turks were expelled from Greece) or the dwindling of the Greek minority to statistical irrelevance today? I am sure some will say that the current situation in the western world is not equivalent to these examples of Indonesia, Indochina, India or Algeria since these were places under colonial rule and it was, frankly, justified that the people with the same blood and skin color of the former rulers be removed from the country when those rulers were overthrown. Yet, this same attitude, again, does not apply to western countries. The Spanish are still vilified for the expulsion of the Moors and Jews following their long war of liberation from Moorish rule and the subsequent establishment of the fallaciously notorious Spanish Inquisition. The fact that Islamic forces once ruled over southern Italy does not shelter Italians who want to stop the influx of Islamic immigrants from being labeled racist or Islamophobic today. The same could be said for European countries from Greece to Hungary which were under Islamic rule for centuries.

Loyalists arrive in Canada

That, however, is ultimately beside the point of any fundamental moral issue. The countries of the western world today are not under the rule of a foreign people and the countries of Asia or Africa were no longer under foreign rule when they expelled or forced into exile their racial minority populations. Furthermore, even if one were to regard it as unfortunate or even immoral, that does not necessarily mean it was an unwise policy. I have previously, while admitting it distresses me to say so, put forward the possibility that one reason for the relative stability of the United States after independence, as compared to the neighboring country of Mexico, is because the loyalist population in America left the country and thus, while divisions certainly existed between the Federalists and anti-Federalists and so on, there was unity on the fundamental form and character of the country. There were differences in how to best govern but there was unity in terms of the fundamental structure of the country as a constitutional republic. In general, differences cause problems and the greater the differences, the greater the problems will arise to the point that a country can go from disagreements over policy to being dominated by total, internal, ideological warfare over the most basic idea of who they are and what they are about.

Finally, this illustrates, I think, the basic point that mainstream, western, liberal thought has gone so far off the rails that they are eating their own tail. They have become so lost in civilizational self-hatred and racial guilt while at the same time being assured that their own point of view is the only right and moral way of thinking that they have become a walking, talking contradiction. Their current view regarding this mass movement of peoples is that White, western, historically Christian people are the worst people in the world, that they are cruel, oppressive and exploitative while simultaneously arguing that everyone who is not of this cursed breed should come and live in White, western, historically Christian countries! One would think they would be the first to advocate building walls and shutting off all immigration to save the non-European peoples from these terrible racists who are so genetically inferior in moral terms that they cannot help being racist and will never not be racist or exploitative. One would think they would be telling the other peoples of the world to stay as far away from White, western people as possible. Yet, they seem anxious to invite more and more people to come and be oppressed and exploited.

There is simply no way the liberals and leftists who currently advocate open borders and regard cutting down on immigration, enforcing immigration laws or deporting people to their homelands as a fate worse than death emerge from this encounter with the facts as honest or honorable people. They must either accept that all peoples have a right to keep their homelands for themselves or they must denounce the expulsion of minorities no matter who does it. The only other alternative is that they are complete liars when it comes to their insistence on equality, which many of the more radical elements do not even give lip-service to anymore, and must admit that they only consider western societies fit to live in. As it stands now, the only possible explanation for their behavior is that they are so hate filled that they are truly committed to the total destruction of their own peoples and civilization or that they are more convinced of the superiority of their own worldview than any crusaders or missionaries ever were and wish to see all peoples of all cultures ground beneath their ideological boot heels. Personally, I would prefer for everyone having their own space to maintain their own cultures, peoples and customs. We used to call that diversity...

How Demographics Impact Politics

Given a recent exchange I had regarding the last election in The Netherlands, I thought it worth illustrating the point about the significance of demographics a little more precisely. In terms of looking at the monarchy alone and nothing else, some demographic changes have not been bad for the cause of monarchy. However, the nature of these examples does not bode well for the future of traditional authority in western civilization if one considers the basic facts on display and not simply isolated situations. There are a couple of cases I can think of immediately that make the point quite well and may be more relatable to most readers than that of the Kingdom of The Netherlands in which case the worry is about the way things are going rather than the way they are. The two specific cases that first jump to mind are those of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom and the province of Quebec in the Dominion of Canada. The situation in these two places make the case quite clearly about how important demographic changes can be. In both, certain changes happened to benefited the monarchist cause but they nonetheless make the point that birthrate and immigration have political consequences.

In Northern Ireland, for example, most are well aware, I am sure, that the Protestant population favors continued union with Great Britain and thus the retention of the British Crown in Northern Ireland. The Catholic population, on the other hand, favors republicanism and have traditionally supported the reunification of Ireland under a republican government. Most will also be well aware that, traditionally, Catholics had much larger families than Protestants, particularly after the Protestant churches began to accept the use of birth control whereas the Catholic Church remained staunchly opposed. However, it is also common knowledge I think, that in recent years the Catholic opposition to birth control has become mostly nominal. Today, Catholics, at least in Europe and the Americas, tend to divorce and use birth control at roughly the same rate as Protestants. Finally, we must also keep in mind that, according to the Good Friday Agreements, the issue of Irish reunification was left up to the will of the voting public of Northern Ireland.

Today, Catholics are less likely to favor unification than in the past, though most still hope for it eventually. When one considers how many fewer children Catholic Irish families have today, compared to decades past, one can easily see that if the Irish Catholics had carried on having families as large as they once did, the six counties would today be part of the Republic of Ireland and it would have taken no military campaign or terrorist attacks in order to bring it about. It would have happened peacefully, by the democratic process, simply because the Catholic population would have overtaken the Protestants to become the new majority in Northern Ireland. So, as far as the six countries of Ulster are concerned, the monarchy was saved because Catholics started using birth control and their rate of reproduction drastically decreased. Of course, by that same measure, if Protestant, loyalist Britons had moved in sufficient numbers into the Republic of Ireland, they might have brought the whole island back into the United Kingdom with no other weapon but the ballot box. If it works for once side, it can also work for the other. The change in the Irish Catholic birthrate has meant that the Queen still reigns in Northern Ireland. Birth rates matter.

Moving across the pond to Her Majesty’s Dominion of Canada, the province of Quebec, traditionally Catholic, ethnically French and habitually disgruntled at those who speak English, secession and establishing an independent “Republic of Quebec” has been quite popular in recent years. Quebec separatists were able to garner sufficient public support for the issue to be put to a vote in 1995. As we know, the secessionists did not get their way and the Queen continued to reign over the province of Quebec thanks to 55,000 more votes opposed to independence. The premier of Quebec at the time, Jacques Parizeau, (who of course supported secession) caused some controversy when, in his concession speech, he attributed the loss to, “l’argent et des votes ethniques” (“money and ethnic votes”). He later apologized and many accused him of being drunk. However, as Canadian commentator Mark Steyn recently pointed out, Parizeau was not wrong as the non-ethnically French population of Quebec did vote to remain in Canada rather than in favor of an independent Quebec.

The next premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, who also favored secession, caused similar outrage by stating rather gloomily just before the referendum that the decline of the French-Canadian birthrate could harm their cause. “We’re one of the white races that has the fewest children”, he said and, indeed, French-Canadian women have just about the lowest birth rate of any White women anywhere. In other words, if French-Canadian women had still been having as many children as they had been even in the 1950’s or if the non-French ethnic minorities were not so numerous, the secessionists would have won and Quebec would today be an independent republic. Mr. Bouchard also, years later and more carefully, warned again about the declining numbers of the French-Canadian population. So, again, birth rates matter and immigration matters, these things have very real political consequences. They are not, however, of equal significance because while birth rates can always be changes, demographics cannot. Once one population is replaced by another, it cannot be brought back. No one likes to deport people these days and, even if they did, once a population gains sufficient numbers they will not allow themselves to be deported.

None of this should come as a surprise. It makes perfect sense that ethnic minorities in Quebec should wish to remain a part of multicultural Canada rather than be part of a uni-cultural French-Canadian nation-state. What reason does a Haitian have to be outraged over the defeat at the Plains of Abraham? Why should an Arab wish to preserve the Catholic culture of the Jesuit missionaries? Is there any objective reason why a family from China should prefer the French language to the English one? There is none. In fact, the Chinese family may wonder why the French language is given preference over their own Mandarin in Canada when English-speakers outnumber them both. In British Columbia, the Chinese-Canadians outnumber the French-Canadians after all. Again, in the two cases, the outcome was good for the cause of traditional authority but ‘sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’. This shows how demographics can and do affect the politics of a given place and the results will not always be the same.

In the monarchies of western Europe (as in the United States), racial minorities tend to vote for the most left-wing of the major parties (far left fringe parties tend to be limited to well-to-do Whites). For the first time in European history, an election was determined by a non-European minority group. This happened in France with the election of the socialist President Francois Hollande. Minorities tend to vote as a bloc and this was certainly the case in France in which 93% of the African and Arab Muslim population voted for Hollande while only 7% voted for his opponent Sarkozy. This amounted to 1.7 million votes and in an election that was decided by 1.1 million votes, that means that the non-French population determined who the leader of France would be.

This is clearly shown to be based on what the socialists oppose rather than what they support. The domestic agenda and values of the socialists are totally opposed by most Muslims but they tend to vote for socialist parties because these parties oppose the once dominant Christian culture of Europe and any limitations on immigration. Quite sensibly, they vote for the party that supports multiculturalism as well as moral positions they despise since the multiculturalism part will allow them to change the moral policies easily enough in due time. But, it is the French Republic so, perhaps readers here may be inclined not to care. How about a monarchy? How about the most venerable monarchy in Europe? How about the Kingdom of Denmark? In 2011 the Socialist Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt won the parliamentary elections by only 8,500 votes. This socialist, woman politician, of a party whose motto is “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” (sound familiar?) was supported by 89.1% of the African & Asian minority, meaning that the Danish parliamentary elections could easily have been determined by people who are not Danish at all. Again, this makes sense for them given what the Social Democrats of Denmark vigorously support but it is hardly a good thing for the oldest kingdom in Europe that this fastest growing segment of the population overwhelmingly backs a party whose slogan is that of the French Revolutionaries.

This is a pattern that holds true in most every monarchy in Europe with a sizable non-native minority population. In the United Kingdom, minorities have overwhelmingly voted for the Labour Party which has certainly been the least friendly of the two major parties to the monarchy (and witness what they did to the House of Lords). In the Kingdom of Belgium, a quarter of the population of Brussels in now African or Arab and in a country in which the traditional unifying factors have been the King and Catholicism, the capital city is already more Islamic than Catholic. In the Kingdom of Spain, the Socialist Party tried to pass a law allowing the half a million Moroccans in the country to vote in Spanish elections. The effort failed and it is probably not a coincidence that in the following 2011 elections the socialists were ousted from power. It should go without saying that the socialists in Spain would not be doing this if they expected the Moroccans to vote for anyone but themselves. This party formed part of the government of the Second Spanish Republic, was banned by the Franco regime and while today more friendly toward the monarchy (so long as the royals do as they’re told), their youth wing is still openly republican and a party congress did declare support for what they termed “civic republicanism”. Given that, where they stand seems clear enough.

All of this is to show that things like birthrates and the demographic makeup of a population has a very real effect on the politics of any country. Minority groups tend to overwhelmingly vote for leftist parties in any country and leftist parties, by their very nature, tend to be opposed to all things traditional. Even people who would vote for more conservative parties in their own country tend to support the more leftist party in another country in which they are the minority. In the United States, for example, Black, Hispanic, Asian and Jewish Americans all tend to vote for Democrats by very large margins. However, I know plenty of Mexicans who support the more right-of-center PAN in Mexico but support the Democrats in America. This is a matter of self-interest. All of these groups are voting for the party that best serves their collective self-interests, which makes perfect sense. The problems we see today and coming tomorrow, however, arise because people in Europe and the European-descended populations around the world tend to recoil from the very idea that they have collective self-interest at all. This is something that should change, for if it does not, western civilization will either cease to exist or it will require extremely unsavory and drastic measures to save the longer the issue is postponed.

The Crisis in Germany

That Germany is in the midst of a crisis is beyond dispute. The same could be said for most of western Europe but Germany would seem to be "ground zero" for this particular disaster. What is going on is absolutely astounding. Mass attacks on women, child rape, repeated terrorist attacks and yet the government of the Bundesrepublik remains committed to the lie that nothing is wrong, nothing must be changed, just carry on 'business as usual'. Only, if you are a woman, you might not want to go out alone if its late and you might want to dress more conservatively. Don't do anything that might offend the new arrivals, don't send the wrong message and certainly do not do anything to make them mad because while at the same time the government assures everyone that these people are perfectly innocent and peaceful, they also want everyone to walk around on eggshells for fear that the slightest offense could prompt them to an act of mass murder. Again, it's just astounding. And it is astounding that *anyone* in Germany is willing to tolerate this situation. There are those who do not of course, but they are still overpowered by those who do or, at least, those who are too afraid not to. Is there a solution to this crisis? Can anything be done?

As I wrote several years ago in The Case for Monarchy: Germany, the restoration of the monarchy would be at least a big part of the answer. Now, I realize many will (as they have done before) accuse me of being a hammer who sees every problem as a nail, but I really can come up with no other option that would save the German people from the demographic drowning their republican leaders have subjected them to. The Germans must, absolutely *must* get out from under the shadow of Nazi Germany and World War II. That is positively never going to happen in the current system because the current republic only exists because of Nazi Germany. Let me be perfectly blunt about this: the Federal Republic of Germany is not a government or a country or a nation, it is essentially a political apology. It exists only to serve as a vehicle for guilt, shame and to continuously milk the German people like they were no more than cattle in order to give money and resources to non-Germans. Patriotism is considered evil, national pride is evil, even considering the German people worthy of survival is now being considered evil. You shouldn't have to know as many mental health experts as I have to know this is not a healthy mindset for a people and is, in fact, quite dangerous. If you don't care about the suicide of the German nation, you should, because sometimes suicides take others with them when they go.

What do I mean by that? I mean that people are being pushed into a corner where they are going to wonder who, who in all of Germany's existence, ever put the Germans first, and they're going to see nothing but the scowling face of Hitler looking back at them. It isn't true of course, but it certainly seems that way due to the unnatural fascination with the man. He haunts Germany and he won't go away because his memory is far too useful as a way of shaming people into submission. And, of course, his handful of modern-day admirers don't mind at all either for it makes them seem to be the only alternative, as if modern Germany is simply seething with National Socialism just below the surface. When a regime that is in the process of destroying its own population says that Hitler is still 'Public Enemy #1' that can only help Hitler's public perception. Moreover, the Federal Republic is repeating almost all of the mistakes of the Weimar Republic that led to the Nazis taking power. Communists can agitate all they like but Nazis are arrested. Speak out against any group you like, except for the Jews, that can land you in jail. Celebrate perversity, ruin the traditional family, there are so many things Germany is doing today that it did in the 1920's that it is almost frightening. And, on top of it all, as long as Hitler remains the ultimate bogeyman, the elites are, in so many words, constantly telling the people that their only choice is them or the Nazis and when "them" means no more Germans in Germany, the Nazi's won't seem so bad.

This circular pattern must be broken! Another alternative must be put forward and that can only happen by the Germans being reconnected with their traditional, pre-1918 past. Not a past of guilt and shame but a past they can take pride in, a past that is pro-German and not anti-anyone else. There is plenty there to work with and would not require anything all that radical to accomplish. Again, I am not trying to be so partisan about this, but I see no other solution. The Weimar Republic existed as a vehicle for reparations for World War I and was doomed to fail. That failure manifested itself with the rise of National Socialism as a reaction to this and the same thing will happen again in reaction to the vehicle for the World War II guilt cudgel that is the current republic. A healthy national pride can only be achieved by embracing the totality of German history, the organic development of Germany as manifested in the First German Empire, the German Confederation that replaced it at the Congress of Vienna and finally the Second German Empire. That second empire, as we know, came together through the German princes which would be extremely difficult at this point but the example of the German Confederation would be a workable model that could, I think, be easily modified for current circumstances.

A possibility?

The symbolism is at hand already. The black-red-gold flag was, originally, the flag of the German Confederation, basically by taking the black and gold colors of Imperial Austria and adding a red stripe as a nod to Brandenburg, the electorate held by the kings of Prussia. A new confederation of German states for German people is something that could be done without princely leadership as the German princes are understandably gun-shy about having anything at all to do with politics, other than the Hapsburgs who I am not sure would be on-board with such a notion anyway. However, while I would be happy to see Austria included, I would also be just as pleased to see Austria take the lead in their own direction and work on a revival of the model of Blessed Emperor Charles for a "United States of Greater Austria" across the old Hapsburg lands. A place for every people and every people in their place. Either way, turning away from the current system is no longer only preferable but vital for the survival of the Germans as a people.

All of this can be accomplished if the Germans can get back in touch with their ancient roots. The Germans have a long and glorious history of great kings, great thinkers, great saints and great artists. It only serves the interests of those in power now to pretend as though nothing of German history can be seen beyond the concentration camps. I am certain that every German today, whether they like it or not, knows who Adolf Hitler is. I doubt every German today knows who Otto the Great or Friedrich Barbarossa was -and that is scandalous. That is intentional. That must change and change quickly or the Germans will not survive. And for those whose mindless hatred might make them think that would be no great loss, be forewarned that the death throes of the German people could leave quite a lot of devastation behind. Western European nations have displayed something of a habit of this, be it the French in regards to the British or the British in regards to the Germans themselves, that once their blood is thoroughly up they will willingly rush headlong into ruin so long as they can take their enemy down with them. That wouldn't be pretty and no rational person should ever want such a thing to happen. Let us take care that it does not.