“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” —George R.R. Martin

It’s been a while since I last posted an article here. Between my full-time job, family responsibilities, and ongoing writing projects, I had to put Substack aside for a time. I’m currently translating my first essay into French so I can publish it in my native language. At the same time, I’m working on two new essays in English—one political, which I’ll publish under my pen name, and another related to my professional field, which will appear under my real name.

But something happened—something that pulled me back to this space.

Charlie Kirk, the well-known American conservative activist, was shot dead onstage during an event at Utah Valley University. The nation was left stunned, unsure whether he would survive. While the news was still unfolding, social media platforms were flooded with videos of liberals celebrating the attack.

And when the devastating confirmation came—Charlie Kirk was gone—the reaction from some corners of the so-called compassionate left was nothing short of grotesque. They applauded the actions of a terrorist who publicly executed a man for his political beliefs. They justified the murder by labeling Charlie as a racist, a fascist—even going so far as to compare him to Hitler.

What we witnessed was not political disagreement. It was a moral collapse.

A man principally known for debating students on university campuses suddenly became the focal point of all the animosity reserved for those labeled as “oppressors.” According to his detractors, Charlie Kirk deserved to be shot. It was, they claimed, the logical consequence of holding “extreme views.”

This kind of rhetoric is chilling. It reminds me of those who justify sexual assault by saying, “Well, maybe if she hadn’t worn such a short skirt, she wouldn’t have been raped.” The implication is the same: the victim had it coming.

People cheering the gruesome assassination of a man who wanted to debate ideas now position themselves as the moral arbiters of what constitutes an “acceptable opinion.” And that’s what made me realize—this isn’t really about Charlie Kirk, the man. Not about who he was as a person. Not about him being a father, a husband, a friend. Not about how devastating this must be for his wife, his children, and everyone who loved him.

It’s not about empathy. It’s not about morality. It’s about something much darker.

What truly frightens me is the sheer number of people celebrating the death of free speech. Because that’s what this is. A man was murdered for his ideas—and millions cheered.

It’s become clear that large swaths of the contemporary left are no longer interested in debate, dialogue, or dissent. They seek to annihilate opposition through intimidation and violence. We’ve seen this pattern before: Stalin sent dissidents to gulags and carried out mass executions during the Great Purge (1934–1938). Hitler silenced political enemies in concentration camps. Mussolini reintroduced the death penalty for so-called serious political offenses.

The reaction to Charlie Kirk’s assassination demonstrates that similar authoritarian instincts are alive and well—and they’re not confined to the radical fringes. This is no longer about fringe extremism. It’s becoming a mainstream posture.

When a society begins to justify political violence, to rationalize murder in the name of “justice” or “progress,” it ceases to be a free society. And when those who cheer such acts see themselves as virtuous, we should all be alarmed.

We are living through a period of deep and possibly irreconcilable division between the political left and right. Western democracies have witnessed an exponential rise in polarization—not just on economic matters, but on fundamental questions of morality, identity, religion, and the very nature of governance itself.

On one side: right-wing traditionalists, who advocate for nationalism, Christian cultural values, conservative capitalism or economic libertarianism, and strong immigration controls.

On the other: what I call the “Islamo-wokesist” bloc—a coalition of progressives, postcolonial theorists, Muslim political activists, and leftist academics who champion open borders, intersectional politics, identity-driven morality, and collectivist economics.

The divide is no longer political—it has become civilizational.

Efforts to compromise or even engage in meaningful debate have collapsed. With the assassination of Charlie Kirk, free speech itself has died. What once was a forum of ideas has become a battlefield. Each side now sees the other not as a political rival, but as an existential enemy.

In such a climate, where coexistence is no longer possible without violence or repression, we may need to consider an unthinkable but peaceful solution: an ideological secession. A Great Partition.

The traditional concept of sovereignty—based on territory, ethnicity, or language—has become obsolete. It could be replaced by a new model: Ideo-states. These would be geographically defined but ideologically homogenous societies, where people live not according to inherited national identity, but based on shared worldviews and values.

In this model right-wing traditionalists could live among themselves, free to uphold their beliefs in individual liberty, faith, family, and nation. Meanwhile, the Islamo-wokesist coalition could construct their envisioned socialo-neo-communist utopia.

The Great Partition would be a voluntary, consensual geopolitical realignment of Western societies. It would allow the peaceful separation of populations according to ideological orientation. In a time when liberal democratic institutions can no longer contain or mediate the divide, partition becomes the only peaceful alternative to civil strife, violence, or the rise of authoritarianism.

Now, you may think I’ve lost the plot—that this is extreme, dystopian, even absurd. Perhaps you see it as nothing more than an emotional reaction to Charlie Kirk’s murder.

And maybe, in part, it is.

But emotion does not invalidate observation. And what I observe is a society on the brink—not because we argue, but because we cannot argue. Because words have lost to weapons. Because moral frameworks no longer overlap. Because debate now ends in death.

And so, I ask: if we can no longer live together in peace, perhaps the only answer left … is to live apart.

RIP Charlie

On April 2, 2025, 17-year-old Austin Metcalf, a student at Memorial High School in Frisco, Texas, was fatally wounded in the chest during a high school track meet at Kuykendall Stadium.

According to reports, the incident followed a verbal altercation in which Metcalf allegedly asked another student from a different school, identified as Karmelo Anthony, to leave his team’s tent area. In response, Anthony stabbed Metcalf once in the heart. Metcalf died at the scene, with his twin brother present at his side.

Anthony was later arrested and charged with first-degree murder. While he admitted the stabbing, Anthony claimed he acted in self-defense, stating that Metcalf had physically confronted him.

The case quickly drew public attention for the controversy surrounding a GiveSendGo campaign launched by Anthony’s family. The campaign, titled “Help Karmelo Official Fund,” raised over $515,000 to cover legal fees, relocation, and additional associated expenses. The fundraising effort sparked backlash from many who felt it was inappropriate to support someone accused of murder, while others defended it as a community response to what they believe was a racially charged situation: Anthony is Black and Metcalf was white.

Tensions escalated further when, on April 14, Judge Angela Tucker reduced Anthony’s bond from $1 million to $250,000, citing his clean criminal record and strong academic background. She also approved his release under house arrest with an ankle monitor. Critics accused her of showing undue leniency, and some suggested racial bias played a role in the decision, given that both Anthony and Judge Tucker are Black.

What the Karmelo Anthony case really highlights is the submission/victimization dynamic in play among some so-called oppressed community.

In short, while certain individuals from those communities display their insufferable or criminal behavior, others should tolerate those provocative conduct without confrontation. We are asked to submit to their deliberate actions, their capacity to cause a nuisance, their intention to assert dominance (entering and sitting in another school tent in the case of Karmelo Anthony).

When such actions are challenged, those individuals might resort to violence (the fatal stabbing of Metcalf). However, when having to face the consequences, there is often a shift in narrative. Those accused may announce themselves as victims, presenting the situation as one rooted in broader systemic issues like racism or oppression. In this case, Anthony’s supporters claimed self-defense, and his family emphasized threats and harassment they received, dodging accountability while demanding sympathy.

The “submission” aspect hinges on pressuring others to tolerate or overlook misbehavior, using violence if necessary, while the “victimization” aspect center around deflecting culpability and reframing critics as oppressors.

The individual who brought a knife to a school event, provoke an altercation and took another student’s life, is portrayed as the aggrieved party. Whereas the actual victim—who lost his life for refusing to submit to his intention to assert dominance via the capacity to cause a nuisance—is depicted as being responsible for the violence inflicted upon him.

Anthony’s family indirectly demand everyone to accept their self-defense story or be branded racist, they shield him from the implications of his actions exploiting racial victimization.

The submission/victimization dynamic can therefore be summarized as: “You have to withstand my insufferable conducts, my way to assert dominance via nuisance, or I’ll cry victim when you push back and/or need to face consequences.”

We should not discuss why Karmelo Anthony had a knife on him at a school sporting event or why he decided to seat in another school tent. Why he provoked a situation in which he can assert dominance via nuisance supported by his capacity to harm. Why he pressured others to silently submit and endure his destructive behavior.

We should just accept the race grift narrative and believe bringing to justice a criminal, a murderer from a so-called oppressed group, is injustice, oppression, racism…

The submission/victimization dynamic highlight the “tribalistic solidarity,” the privilege of some communities, allowed to rally around one of their own, based on shared identity regardless of the circumstances. This leads to defending criminals and murderers while shifting blame the broader society or the victims portrayed as somehow deserving what happened to them, simply because their phenotype supposedly indicates inherent racism.

“The totalitarianism of Western societies shaped by the combined forces of the market and wokeism explained in 26 concepts”

Now on amazon:

Amazon.com:

https://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Fascism-totalitarianism-societies-explained/dp/B0DT6ZR5KW/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.y4z137AopQFkA6pWsH7wzw.WS1w_BhfUpyTO_FvlzYedeLtBoakqALklse6OQGGX3Y&qid=1737221023&sr=8-1

Amazon UK:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Postmodern-Fascism-totalitarianism-societies-explained/dp/B0DT6ZR5KW/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2UXR1DQCVL826&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.j_pcz5r_GFeqm4ZYErxbJw.0iRGO5R3ZKn-9jusTnBxgC3YTWmQA2dq9eysNyzAij8&dib_tag=se&keywords=postmodern+fascism+a+to+z&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1737221070&sprefix=postmodern+facism+a+to+z%2Caps%2C61&sr=8-1

A few days ago, Elon Musk stirred up a heated debate over the H-1B visa program, which grants work visas that benefit many Indian tech workers. Musk has supported the use of these visas, arguing that for America to remain great, it must attract the “best and brightest” talent from around the world.

This stance has led to accusations that Musk is promoting mass legal immigration and enabling the replacement of American workers with cheaper labor from India. Some, like American businessman and Trump ally Vivek Ramaswamy, have suggested that America cannot produce enough skilled workers on its own, and therefore, immigration is necessary to fill these high-skilled roles.

The discussion quickly divided into two camps: Musk’s supporters, who argue that meritocracy—a core American value—should disregard race and nationality, claiming that opposition to H-1B visas is rooted in racism; and those who argue that allowing Indian workers to replace Americans pushes a cultural divide.

This debate, however, has been clouded by racial overtones, obscuring the real issue—a dispute between those who advocate for mass immigration and those who fear the erosion of American jobs and culture. The reality is that H-1B visas primarily serve one purpose: to hire cheaper labor, allowing companies to replace workers earning $80,000 per year with those willing to accept $40,000. Additionally, these workers are highly manageable, as they can be sent back home if they lose their sponsorship.

Statistically, jobs filled by H-1B workers tend to be lower-paying despite similar skill levels, which benefits companies by reducing wage costs. The influx of both low-skilled workers, “the arms” (e.g., taxi drivers, food delivery workers, cleaners), and high-skilled workers, or “the brains,” serves the same purpose: social dumping.

In today’s globalized economy, production has moved to countries with lower labor costs, and mass migration acts as a strategy to cut costs when offshoring isn’t feasible. Whether it’s low-skilled or high-skilled labor, migrant workers are imported to increase profits for billionaires by driving down wages and social standards for local workers, whether they’re white, Black, Latino, or any other race in the U.S.

Focusing on race in the H-1B debate is a trap. Today, Indian workers accepting $40,000 replace American workers earning $80,000. But if Polish workers were to accept $20,000, Musk would likely praise Marie Curie to win the debate. This is not a new phenomenon—I recall how, in Spain, Moroccan workers initially replaced Spanish workers on tomato farms, but later, when Romanians came to Spain under EU laws and offered to work for lower wages, they displaced the Moroccans.

This same process is playing out in high-skilled jobs. While leftists argue that migrant labor is needed for low-skilled jobs because locals won’t do them, the reality is that locals won’t do those jobs at the offered wage. Similarly, when Musk and people like Ramaswamy claim that local workers aren’t the “best and brightest,” the truth is the same: locals won’t take those jobs for the offered pay.

In short, if you refuse low wages at Uber, you’re lazy; if you reject low wages at Tesla, you’re not the “best and brightest.” If you won’t submit to exploitation by your capitalist overlords, you’ll be replaced by someone from halfway around the world.

Trump’s election was based on a promise to enact protectionist policies, reduce mass immigration, and raise the standard of living for American workers, regardless of race. Yet, with Musk endorsement of the H-1B visa, many feel betrayed by a president (via one of his close advisors) who vowed to challenge the globalist elite.

Similarly, just as the woke left demonized white working-class Americans raising concerns about mass migration by calling them racist, Nazis, and bigots …, Musk and his supporters have dismissed concerns by those opposing H-1B visas by labeling them as “subtards,” racist, or woke right-wingers (ironically, a certain Lindsay, adept of that term, resides in a predominantly white area).

Billionaire elites can rely on useful allies from both the left (cultural liberalism) and the right (classical liberalism) to promote ideologies that prioritize individual freedom—individualism, atomization, and even egoism—over a common good view of the world demonized as fascist or Marxist. These ideologies reduce individuals to isolated entities, uprooted from cultural roots, spiritual ties, and shared values, which can be imported or exported according to market demands.

This is why critics of the H-1B visa have wrongly focused on ethnic and cultural concerns, rather than the more critical issue: the erosion of social standards for American workers due to mass migration, or social dumping.

A truly great America should be able to cultivate its own homegrown talent—of all races—without needing to rely on foreign imports.

If America can’t do that, then it’s not truly great.

The New UK budget presented by the Labour Party (left) on Wednesday 30th October states that from April 2026, bequeathed agricultural assets, which were previously exempt from inheritance tax, would be subjected to a 20% levy if worth more than a million pounds.

If that threshold seems a priori quite high, the reality is that most farmers are assets rich but cash poor. The fruit of their labor does not wield a vast amount of money.

While the value of their land can quickly reach this threshold (if they decide to sell it, bearing in mind it is not their intention to sell but to work the land), on average farmers in the UK earn barely £30K per year, working over 60 hours per week and allowing themselves only a few days off.

Being a farmer is a tradition, a way of life, passing on land from fathers to sons, a profession which in reality does not make you rich but which is absolutely critical as it serves to feed the nation.

In truth, the value of farming lands over the past decades has been pushed up artificially by general inflation and housing developers investing in the countryside. Also, besides their land, farmers “work tools” are to be counted as part of their assets e.g. machinery (tractors) or herd.

As a consequence, the inheritance tax will even affect those who earn minimum wages working on their family lands, and who will be forced upon their parents ’death to sell in order to pay the fee.

But who will have enough funds to buy those agricultural properties?

Well, maybe asset management companies such as Blackrock, whose chief executive Larry Fink traveled to the UK to talk business with the Prime Minister Keir Starmer in his official residences and offices of Downing Street on October 21^st.

In the aftermath of the meeting, Starmer tweeted: “I’m determined to deliver growth, create wealth and put more money in people’s pockets. This can only be achieved by working in partnership with leading businesses, like BlackRock, to capitalise on the UK’s position as a world leading hub for investment”.

BlackRock has been previously criticized for investing in fossil fuel and the arms industry, so what will prevent them to invest in the UK farmlands?

Even Forbes has praised the potential high returns at low risk of such investment. And American billionaires such as Bill Gates, who owns 275,000 acres of farmland, already invest in agricultural properties as a way to extend their portfolio and assets.

In conclusion, the socialist government of the United Kingdom has signed with the inheritance tax the transfer of farmlands to American investment fund companies.

What’s more, the Labour Party, in order to try to get the popular opinion on its side, is deploying tactics resembling those employed by Stalin during the dekulakization of Russia between 1929 and 1933 in which more than 6 million Kulaks (peasants) were forced to move to distant areas and even often deported to gulags in Siberia.

Similarly to most of the farmers in the United Kingdom, the Kulaks were not aristocratic fat cats but peasants who after the reform of 1861 that abolished serfdom in Russia, granted them freedom and the right to buy, had managed to purchase lands.

Similarly to most of the farmers in the United Kingdom, they were not wealthy but assets rich.

If the Kulaks were fist tolerated after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, needed for their cultural expertise to feed the population, they were, however, soon demonized by the party due to their ability to hire employees (generally their neighbors living in the same village to help with agricultural work i.e. harvest) and their status of land owners in contradiction with the ideal of a classless society.

By virtue of the identical predatory egalitarian ideology, an apex egalitarianism, the socialist government of the United Kingdom has revoked the exemption granted to farmers claiming that there is no reason for them not to pay inheritance tax when everybody else pays it.

While Stalin wanted to eradicate the Kulak class through execution, confinement or by diluting them into the vast territory that was the soviet union, the UK Labour government seeks to eradicate the farmer class by forcing them to sell their land in order to pay the tax.

And while the Kulaks were portrayed as exploiters, grain hoarders and enemies of the party, left-leaning pseudo-intellectuals and the media portray the British farmers as being wealthy greedy tax dodgers.

Stalin believed the state needed to control agriculture to finance the industrialization of the Soviet empire. Starmer, as per his tweet, is determined to deliver growth by selling off the UK farmlands to American investment fund companies such as Blackrock.

As usual, economic and social liberalism has proven to be a duplicate ideology. One hundred years after the Soviet dekulakization, we are about to experience the capitalist dekulakization.

As collectivization disrupted agricultural productivity, it contributed to one of the most devastating famine in Soviet history, the Holodomor, killing millions.

Therefore, I dread to think about what would be the consequences of this capitalist dekulakization.

On Wednesday 30th October, the UK Budget of His Majesty’s Government (the budget of the United Kingdom), has been delivered by Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer (head of the treasury) and a member of the Labour Party (left).

Among the 4 billion pounds worth of tax hikes were measures such as an increase of employers’ national insurance contributions (tax on earnings and self-employed profits) while also reducing the threshold at which employers start paying the tax, an increase in stamp duty (tax on property purchases) on second homes and a 20% inheritance tax on agricultural assets worth more than £1m (which between machinery and lands is a rather low threshold).

Other significant measures include the rise of the national living wage, minimum wage and benefit payment.

In short, while the entrepreneurs (small enterprises, artisans, farmers) are taxed until death, the masses are kept under controlled with welfare subsidies. Besides, the weight of the imposition will only accelerate the removal of the means of production from the hand of the family size businesses to offer a monopoly on them to big capitalist companies and the government.

You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.

With this budget, the left open the door for a postmodern fascism based on the financial dependence of individuals toward the state to survive, letting capitalist companies and the government control the production of wealth, i.e. control human life.

This will only be a return to a form of voluntary servitude of the masses, forced to work on command, to avoid extreme poverty.

The medieval corporatist system had overturned pagan societies founded on slavery (Greek and Roman) by offering to each individual the possibility of becoming the owner of his means of production.

I have already explained in an article how the corporation was a cooperative community in which all those who participated owned the capital, a self-managed society designed to control competition among its members.

Workers first started as apprentices but in time would become master. In addition those independent corporations of small proprietors regulated production, the poverty and insecurity of the proletariat were unknown.

The British Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789, under the guise of freedom from religious obscurantism and the absolute power of the monarchy, have advanced economic liberalism (i.e. capitalism) and the capture of the means of production by the large landowners and bourgeois class.

This predatory class progressively devoured the small independent proprietors and ended up owning gigantic estates. They became so powerful that they took control of institutions such as the parliament passing acts such as the enclosure (1604), i.e. the appropriation of common land, depriving commoners of their rights of access and privilege by enclosing it.

The large landowners and bourgeois Parliamentarians advocated for the abolition of the monarchy and strived to reverse a system in which property was distributed among the masses (e.g. The English Civil War [1642–1651] opposing Royalists and Parliamentarians).

And so, with those bourgeois revolutions, already the English as well as many Europeans have been dispossessed of their capital and their land, while a small wealthy class took ownership of the means of production. With the enclosure acts for instance, the masses have been ousted from the tools of production in order to ultimately be better exploited.

Ownership of the means of production is the basis of freedom. Those who own them are free, the others are condemned to a precarious way of life in which they have to sell their labor power to survive, in which they are sentenced to become modern slaves.

And that is the issue with the Labour Party budget and similar socialist policies. They play into the hands of capitalism, the exploitation of the masses by the abolition of private property and the establishment of the management of the means of production by the political leaders of the community rather than the citizens.

In fine, the monopoly of the means of production will be held by a hyper class and the masses will be forced to work for this minority but will enjoy the security offered by the state (in the form of benefits).

And so, the government ensures with welfare policies that the proletarian masses are kept alive, providing slaves for capitalism instead of promoting freedom by guaranteeing that everyone has the possibility to own the means of production.

Therefore, socialists are the useful idiots for capitalism. Yet, in the end, both the capitalists and the state will hold full authority over the precarious masses as the hand that gives is always above the hand that receives.

The definitive loss of property is, for the masses, the condemnation to their status as proletarians. Ultimately, in a world where family businesses, craftsmen, small producers … have disappeared in favor of generalized salaried employment, the only goal for the worker is to increase income, security and purchasing power, rather than to own the means of production … exactly what offers the measures in the budget of the United Kingdom.

The mere thought of ceasing to be a salaried subordinate one day becomes unreal in the end…

This is the advent of voluntary servitude.

On Sunday 29^th of September, presidential candidate Donald J. Trump twitted a Catholic prayer to acknowledge the feast of Saint Michael.

In response, the atheist author James Lindsay started spewing a philosophical rant on twitter, claiming that Trump had been subverted by a global conspiracy to undermine the anti-woke right.

“Operation Michael” as dubbed by Lindsay is supposedly a plot to convince the right to adopt a form of Christian nationalism that will usher in the Zoroastrian demon of chaos.

Lindsay is a critic of wokeness known for the grievance studies affair: He submitted hoax articles to academic journals from specialized in critical social theory (queer, race, gender, fat studies…). Four of them were published, including one claiming that dogs humping was an illustration of rape culture.

However, Lindsay is first and foremost an anticlerical who despise religion. His criticism of wokeism is built on an anti-religious framework. Although he is often associated with right-wingers, he is actually a leftist in the original sense of the term, a antichristian liberal who wrote three books to demonstrate that god does not exist and that human rationalism can solve all problems.

Lindsay also advocates for classic liberalism i.e. economic liberalism, an ideology that places the freedom of individuals as its central feature, in which liberty is the primary political value.

Classic liberalism support free market: the economic exchanges should be left to voluntary activity between individuals. No government should intervene to regulate those exchanges. The only task the government should conduct is securing the rights of individuals without violating them.

In this philosophy, the concept of consent is paramount. The authority only borrows its power temporarily with the consent of those it governs and economic exchanges between individuals should not be curbed by moral consideration but determined by consent between the different parties.

In order to obtain the consent of the masses, the authority must be democratic in nature and in order to secure the rights of the few against the many, it should be republican. Consequently, classical liberalism is an economic system best suited for republican democracies.

According to that doctrine, no one should possess intrinsic power over others i.e. there is no transcendence. As such, while religion is perceived as a forcible authoritarian system, classical liberalism is said to be the guarantor of individual freedom (as long as it does not violate the freedom and rights of others), rationality, consent and so-called natural rights (rights to life, liberty, and property).

James Lindsay certainly despises Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton as much as he despises wokeism. Indeed, The English author compared the materialist rationality of atheists to a madman’s thought process.

According to Chesterton, the atheist materialist and the madman both trust their ability to reason and their judgment. “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason” says Chesterton.

True madness is not about losing sanity but losing everything in life, yet still explain everything through rationality.

The archetype of the madman is therefore the materialist who opposes spirituality, who proposes a vision of the world more restricted than any religion, who denies the possibility of a higher power that governs everything in the universe.

While materialism limits thought, deprives man of the need for wonder, the Christian has the right to doubt. What Chesterton criticizes is not reason but those who swear by it, who oppose it to faith. He admitted that God might be nothing more than a fairy tale, yet sees Christianity as the answer to natural human necessities (and not as an arbitrary truth).

Chesterton recognized that the dogma impairs individual freedom, but Christianity fulfills the deepest needs of human nature, in contrast to the disappointment and frustration which result from a merely materialistic view of life.

“The outer ring of Christianity is a rigid guard of ethical abnegations and professional priests; but inside that inhuman guard you will find the old human life dancing like children, and drinking wine like men; for Christianity is the only frame for pagan freedom. But in the modern philosophy the case is opposite; it is its outer ring that is obviously artistic and emancipated; its despair is within”.

James Lindsay anti-religious rant somehow does not seem to differ much from the anticlerical ideologies promoted by the left (religion is the opium of the masses says Marx).

Besides, cultural liberalism, the emancipation for morals associated with wokeism, and classical liberalism, free exchange without intervention of the state and without moral considerations are both sides of the same coin.

To think that the left opposes economic liberalism is a fable. The anticapitalism stance of neo-communist wearing Che Guevara T-shirts is a spectacle that rests only on appearances.

Historically, the left is not the workers’ party, the left is the party of the revolutionaries who have gotten rid of the old regime to propound their economic interests under the benevolent mask of freedom.

As such, the British Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789 replaced Christian universalism with human rights, preaching constitutional limits on the power of the monarch to advance economic liberalism.

The foundation of the left ideology is the philosophy of the Enlightenment advocating an ideal of freedom in which the individuals become their own master and no authority, state or religious, can impose a morality.

And that is why the absolute value promoted by the left and wokeism in particular is not the protection of workers but a freedom that is concretely expressed through individualism. A freedom designed for the bourgeois class, and that the proletarian classes, that have only their labor power to offer, will never enjoy. Just like this right to property supported by classical liberalism, only accessible only to those who have the financial means.

And so, both cultural and economic liberalism imagine a model of society based on the privatization of values by suppressing all moral or religious authorities (the state or any other authority no longer impose a vision of “the good”).

Individual freedom must be the only norm. As long as a practice does not harm others, there is no reason to prohibit it. All that matters is consent.

The market ultimately offers an emancipation through libidinal consumption, pacify society through the satisfaction of selfish impulses, turned the act of purchasing into a revolutionary act (the Che Guevara T-shirts).

And this market must regulate itself, without the government interfering: Just as the government should not intervene in the moral choice of individuals, it should not intervene in their economic choice.

In short, all that matters is consent … such as kids consenting to change sex? Such as a Third World surrogate mother consenting to rent her belly for a western bourgeois homosexual couple?

Well, this is individual freedom, isn’t it?

No state, religion or moral authority should impose a vision of what is good, so who are we to decide what is wrong?

Classical liberalism would argue that surrogacy is acceptable as long as there is consent between the parties, between the buyer and the seller, while cultural liberalism, i.e. wokeism, would defend surrogacy on the principle of egalitarianism even against biological consideration: homosexual couples like heterosexual couples have the right to experience parenthood.

Both of those liberal ideologies advocate for the destruction of moral values that curbs individual freedom, in virtue of always more individual freedom.

In summary, there is only one kind of liberalism but with two sides: the cultural and the economic side.

And already more than 100 years ago, Chesterton predicted that those materialist ideologies would lead to a form of insanity present today in the woke dogma, he predicted that ultimately everything will become an object of belief:

“We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which furious party cries will be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening mob with the news that grass is green”.

And he also professed that in place of the materialism claiming that the soul does not exist, we will have a form of mysticism claiming that the body does not exist, thus somehow foreseeing the rise of transgenderism. According to him, Christianity, the return to tradition is the answer to this insanity.

James Lindsay, the anticlerical bourgeois, is a leftie who could no longer stand this woke madness but failed to realized it was only the result of his liberal ideology on society.

In the name of individual freedom, the taboo, the prohibitions imposed by religion, moral regulations needs to be abolished, demonized even. The end of any moral framework, the emancipation from traditional structures (religion, nation) promoted by classical liberalism has paved the way for materialism.

The notion of freedom, confused with emancipation from (oppressive) norms and social values, was narrowed down to the fulfillment of personal desires (e.g. men wanting to become women) … which in turn was narrowed down to the consumption of manufactured goods (e.g. trans phenomenon became a lucrative business for sex reassignment clinics and big pharma).

As the French bishop and theologian Bossuet once said: “God laughs at men who deplore the effects of the causes that they cherish”.

On Saturday 21^st September, the body of Philippine, a 19-year-old schoolgirl, was found in the Bois de Boulogne Park on the western edge of the French capital.

According to the first analyses, she had been raped before being killed and left half-buried in the woods.

On Tuesday, a 22 year-old Moroccan man was arrested for this crime in Geneva. Soon, we learned that earlier this month the French authority had released him from detention after he served only five years, yet having been condemned for seven, for raping a female student in 2019.

He was also under OQTF i.e. obligation to leave the French territory, an expulsion order which had not been carried out.

Philippine is the latest French innocent soul victim of an illegal criminal migrant under OQTF who was never deported (Lola, Sandra and Marion, raped and slaughtered; Matisse, stabbed to death;  Olivier beaten to death…).

Quickly the far left came into play to protect the system and stifle the feeling of legitimate revolt that animates the French population.

They told us that the problem is not the illegal criminal migrants but toxic masculinity. Indigenous French men must deconstruct their virility while we continue to welcome people from the most patriarchal societies in the world.

Furthermore, as usual, the far left started its work of propaganda, criminalizing the simple facts of saying what everyone can see in front of their eyes.

They shamed those who pointed out the recurrences in such crimes involving the same profiles, accused them to generalize from a so-called news item.

They strived to make us believe that shedding a tear for Philippine plays in the hand of the far-right political recuperation, serving xenophobic purposes that it only stigmatizes the poor oppressed extra European migrants.

They endeavored to convince us and make us think that wanting to expel foreign rapists is Nazism.

Those Islamo-wokeist activists have gone far into abjection: They tore down posters in tribute to Philippine displayed in universities, they organized a counter-demonstration to the march planned in homage to her, they interrupted the one-minute silence held in her memory.

They are doing everything in their power to make us accept that she was just a collateral victim of their cosmopolitan and immigrationist dream, for us to forget and move on, for Palestine to become again the central topic of discussion in the media.

They already paint her killer as a structural victim, the eternal victim of white supremacy, of a society that discriminated against him, a society that fails to provide psychiatric care to him, as if the West was responsible for treating every Third World’s lunatics.

The same left that yesterday campaigned to colonize other continents in order to civilize the “savages” desire today, in the identical paternalistic spirit, to import all extra-European psychopaths in order to re-educate (i.e. “save”) them.

What’s worst, they claim that if we had expelled Philippine’s killer back to his country, he could have murdered a Moroccan girl rather than Philippine and for these race fetishists, this is unacceptable. Indeed, they rejoice at the fact that the victim is a white woman rather than extra-European.

Moreover, as Philippine comes from a Catholic family, in some ways she is probably far right, therefore somehow, she deserves her fate.

And if you think I’m exaggerating, believe me, this is only the surface of the rot heap that was their response to this dreadful murder.

I hate them so much.

RIP Philippine…

Credit image: Laurel (Twitter: @bloglaurel)

On Monday, August 26 at around 8:40 p.m. in Mougins (a commune in Southeastern France), Eric Comyn, a 54-year-old gendarme (French paramilitary police officer) was violently hit by a reckless driver who refused to comply.

Eric succumbed to his injuries almost one hour later by 9:30 p.m. He was married and the father of two children aged 12 and 16.

The driver, originally from Cape Verde, is unfavorably known to the police and justice services. His criminal record includes 10 convictions, mainly for assaults and traffic offenses.

He was drunk at the time of his arrest.

A few days after her husband’s death, Eric’s widow delivered a poignant speech:

“I want to thank France for killing my dear husband whom I love so much, the father of our children.

Pay attention, I’m not talking about foreigners but repeat offenders.

I state it loud and clear, France killed my husband.

France killed my husband, the father of my children.

France killed my husband through its inadequacy, its laxism and its excess of tolerance.

France killed my husband

How? Why? Why can this repeat offenders just move about freely?

When will our legislators truly open their eyes?

Would they need to be directly affected to act?

How many deaths before these murderers are truly punished?

Ban, expulsion, withdrawal of rights granted by a well-crafted procedure … and so on…

1981 (death penalty abolished in France) should have never existed.

What is next for this murderer?

Immediate deferral awaiting judgment.

Three hot meals a day, social assistance in jails.

Whereas retirees who financially contribute their whole working life

Potentially have to work again in order to afford three hot meals.

Then reduction of the sentence for good behavior, freedom…

… and he starts over.

What is it about us then? No more sons … for my parents-in-law, who is also retired from gendarmerie…

No more brother … because he had a sister whom he loved and who loved him too…

No more father … no more husband … but we, on the other hand, got sentenced for life…”

On 27 June 2023, Nahel Merzouk, a 17-year-old of Moroccan and Algerian descent, was arrested by the police after driving recklessly, without a license, almost hitting a pregnant woman, a teenager and a cyclist.

Nahel was shot and killed by an officer after refusing to comply. The left was quick to claim that the killing was racially motivated and an example of the (alleged) police brutality against ethnic minorities in France, resulting in accusations of systemic racism within the French forces.

In addition, deputies from the left demanded to the National Assembly to respect a minute of silence in his memory enforcing even more the racist narrative.

Nahel’s death led to widespread protests and riots in which vehicles were set on fire buildings were burnt, damaged or looted costing millions to the French taxpayers.

Nahel was known to police and had been charged with resisting arrest many times before. He could have killed pedestrians or the officer who shot him if he wouldn’t have dared to use his weapon to stop him.

However, the left wants a world in which the police force no longer apprehend those considered as oppressed, i.e. the minorities, even if they run over innocent families.

The left wants a world in which we abolished punishment for criminals identified as the victims of systemic racism.

What is more, the left almost suggest that those crimes were justified, specifically when the fatalities are white i.e. oppressors by nature.

Following her speech about her husband murder and France’s laxity, Eric Comyn’s widow received a wave of hate on social networks with messages such as “family of fascists, that bitch can join him promptly”.

Her crime? Being the wife of a white police officer.

In response to the riots deemed far right that followed the killing of three young girls in Southport, UK, Keir Starmer, the left-wing prime minister and Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, were considering adopting an official definition of Islamophobia before the law.

If some political commentators claimed that this would represent a threat to free speech (i.e. the institution of blasphemy law), establishing a specific criminal offense for such a vague notion would above all play into the hand of the most radical Islamists groups.

Indeed, the concept of Islamophobia serves a political and religious project. It was introduced in the west by the Sunni Islamist organization known as The Muslim Brotherhood to prevent any criticism of Islam and Islamism and to re-educate a society that is (supposedly) structurally Islamophobic.

When in 1924, the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished, this was experienced as a humiliation by the Muslim world and many among them feared that their identity will be dissolved in Western modernity.

Subsequently in 1928, The Muslim Brotherhood was created in Egypt while still under British ruling. The goal of the brotherhood was to unite Muslims around the world under the symbolic community of the Ummah and free Muslim lands from any foreign authority in order to establish authentic Islamic societies and ultimately restore the Caliphate.

Beside the reconquest of the Muslim territories, The Muslim Brotherhood sought to spread Islam throughout humanity. Therefore, in the ’70s, their elites infiltrated campuses in the west where they developed a critic of the western materialist that appealed to the anti-capitalist left.

Despite being considered a terrorist organization in many countries and their half-avowed objective of implementing an Islamic society, the ideas of The Muslim Brotherhood were welcomed with open arms in the social sciences.

The left rallied with them out of opportunism, because of their shared hatred for the West deemed responsible for all ills in the world, and because they saw in the international Muslim community, the Ummah, a neo-communism of some sort, a communism guided by God.

The Muslim Brotherhood also played on the notion of victimization, they characterized the Muslims in relation to the supposed bad treatment its members receive in the west because of their beliefs.

They have elevated Muslims to the status of an oppressed minority by redefining the concept of Islamophobia from the hostility towards Islam i.e. the religious ideas, into the hatred of Muslims i.e. individuals.

If being adverse to theological doctrines in the West is not problematic, loathing Muslims, therefore people, becomes problematic.

At this time, the ideology of the left was mutating from the social (class struggle) to the societal (race, sex, sexuality…), i.e. the indigenous working class was replaced by minorities as revolutionary agent,

And so, intellectuals from the Muslim Brotherhood, thanks to the exacerbated victimization of Muslims population, successfully united with the societal left, fed with dogmas theorized in post-colonial studies, under the intersectionality banner.

As a result, they have given birth to a political chimera: Islamo-wokeism, an alliance against the presumed white supremacy, colonialism and racism of the west.

In addition, thanks to the petrodollars provided by oil-producing Islamist nations to support their political maneuvers, The Muslim Brotherhood was able to open associations and Islamic centers all over the West.

They have also been accused to have infiltrated supranational groups such as FEMYSO, a pan-European network of 32 Muslim organizations across 22 European countries financed by the European Union, the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE), and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) self-called “the collective voice of the Muslim world”.

Regardless of the veracity of those accusations, The Muslim Brotherhood considers that the international Muslim community, the Ummah, is sovereign and that Muslims are not assimilable. Therefore the West must take into account their particular needs. They demand the sanctity of Islam by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The Muslim Brotherhood seeks not to reshape Islam but the way Westerners look at Islam. The fight against Islamophobia became a sword, a pretext for political activism, it justifies religious actions, and the victimhood ideology became a shield, a protection against any criticism and a means to find support through collective emotion, to obtain from Western democracies unilateral advantages under the pretense of reparation.

Islamophobia is not only a concept used to affirm Muslim identity, but also a fast track to the establishment of the crime of blasphemy. It gave birth to the idea that that there is a specific discrimination against Muslims that is not based on race or ethnicity but culture, language, custom or religion.

Consequently, it is not certain practices of Islam that are problematic (place of women, criminalization of homosexuality…) but how Westerners view Islam i.e. disapproving of a practice becomes an Islamophobic act.

Everything is susceptible and can be interpreted as Islamophobic: secularism is Islamophobic, imposing the respect for the laws of a country is Islamophobic, anything that hinders the development of Islam is Islamophobic…

Therefore Islam must be accepted unilaterally in its entirety.

Furthermore, The Muslim Brotherhood considers that violent jihad can be justified in case of self-defense. Violence is only the result of injustice and Islamophobia. So, the West must adapt to prevent offended Muslims from becoming violent (via groups such as the Muslim Defence League or lone wolf terrorist).

Ultimately, as the victimization via the notion of Islamophobia legitimize violence through self-defense, the more brutal Islam is, the more our occidental nations call for tolerance.

The Muslim Brotherhood fed on western guilt and victimized dogmas to impose their radical Islam in the West: an intellectual, political and religious project that seeks to establish a global Islamic society by a progressive acclimatization to Sharia law.

Paralyzed by the fear of being accused of Islamophobia, a concept born from the confusion between the rejection of Islam (ideology) and the rejection of Muslims (the individuals), Islamo-wokists like Starmer have rendered any criticism of Islam impossible and supported the foundation of a new ideological terror.

In the end, Islamophobia is the Trojan horse of Islamism.

I have been thinking a lot about the three innocent girls who lost their life in Southport, UK, recently and all I could write was this little silly poem.

I wish I had the skills to turn it into a song, it would make more sense than just that foolish attempt to make something meaningful from the sadness that invades me at the thought of their brutal death and how their parents must feel.

A childish homage that was maybe not worth sharing.

You left my side in a second

The light went out all around

When the blade pierced your soul

I could not hear any more sound

It was not your time to leave

Still so many years to breathe

And so much I hoped sharing

Teach you to read and sing

Lord, I can’t bear to know

She is so far from me now

I always looked after her,

Let her watch over me below

I hope she finds her peace

On the other side

A light among the starry night

Now you shine in the sky

You shine in the sky

You illuminate my night and guide me in the dark

Now you shine in the sky

You shine in the sky

You illuminate my night and guide me in the dark

I pushed away my friends

And I closed in on the pain

How many years of sadness  

Before my heart ignites again

So grief-stricken

Consume by the ache

Filled with bleakness

Consumed by the hate

Lord, I can’t bear to know

She is so far from me now

I always looked after her,

Let her watch over me below

I hope she finds her peace

On the other side

A light among the starry night

Now you shine in the sky

You shine in the sky

You illuminate my night and guide me in the dark

Now you shine in the sky

You shine in the sky

You illuminate my night and guide me in the dark.

Video on Youtube: Selective outrage i.e. the cultural elite hypocrisy (Southport stabbing) (youtube.com)

Many thanks for your support. Like, comment, share on my Youtube channel, it will help me to grow. I am still an amateur trying to find my feet and will definitely improve with time!

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@DupontLajoie

Essay on Amazon: amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Postmodern-Fascism-History-Ideology-ebook/dp/B09Y3GCTYZ

Twitter/ X: twitter.com/Dupontl02

Youtube: Dupont Lajoie - YouTube

Essay on Amazon: amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Postmodern-Fascism-History-Ideology-ebook/dp/B09Y3GCTYZ

Twitter/ X: twitter.com/Dupontl02

I am white, apparently my skin color should make me feel ashamed

Because for all evils in the world, my race is the only one to blame

The roots of injustices, past, present and all those to come

Evidently should be attributed to the makeup of my genome.

I am proud of my roots, my country, culture and history

But they say this feeling is despicable and discriminatory

The self-affirmation of one identity is only tolerated

To those who are part of an honored community.

I am uncomfortable when I see all those foreign flags flying on my streets

And this man arrested early hours in his house guilty of posting a tweet

They manifest their freedom apparently, while he is accused of bigotry

Fearing the day when from his culture will only be left a distant memory.

I am thankful I was born in a great and such prosperous country

And can’t blame boats full of dreams for wanting to come here

But still remain among masses inequality and scarcity

Affluent virtuous souls only add poverty on top of poverty.

I am revolted that we leave our people freezing dying in the street

That we open our borders while we shut our eyes on the native paucity

We abandoned those who, for generations, strived to make a living

While treating those just arrived yesterday with proper decency.

I am baffled by those anticapitalists who support human exploitation

The importation of immigrant slaves under the guise of compassion

Being called racist when I wish them a fulfilling live in their country

Rather than working hours delivering food receiving half a salary.

I am told that the great replacement if a conspiracy theory

And that nothing has changes since I was a kid in this country

Yet, in the neighborhood fewer and fewer people look like me

And they increasingly speak a language that is foreign to my ears.

I am worried about a religion that gradually impose its rules and dogma

And the resurgence of a century-old war justified by a holy vendetta

I should put a veil on the atrocities committed legitimated by a fatwa

And renounce my values by fear of being accused of xenophobia.

I am not surprised by the violence that each year grows exponentially

They imported barbarism from oversea and expected all to go pacifically

Now they are panicking as the Europeans emerge from their docility

Blaming the masses for the chaos created and the disintegration of our safety.

I am shocked and disgusted by the murder of this little blond teenager

Killed and dismembered on her way back home by an illegal foreigner

How can we still protect the one we love and be assured of their wellbeing

When life depends on the application of an obligation to leave the territory.

I am saddened when I think about those who fought for this country

And what we have done with the freedom their sacrifice provided

Day after day, their memoirs is desecrated by ungrateful narcissist

Who willingly try to make us believe than patriot equal fascist.

I am enraged we allow thugs rioting and that antiracism means toppling our history

That the action of one justify the guilt by association based on the color of the skin

Should I in return explain criminality solely by virtue of those epidermis ideologies?

Revert to segregation, and in time only offer as solution the suitcase or the coffin.

I am fearful of those ideologies justifying violence towards nonconformist

Brutality is permitted to muzzle the designed scapegoat deemed supremacist

The wrong thought, the wrong speech would condone outright bestiality

And yet, according to them, we are the one who came out of humanity.

I am bothered that your pride boils down to dancing naked on the street

And your freedom mostly materialized by the public exhibition of your kinks

I don’t shame same sex loving but do I deserve to be called homophobic

For wanting explicit sexual behaviors to remain private under the sheets.

I am puzzled by an ideology that denies basic biology

And tells me I just need to identify in order to be

What is a woman should not be so hard to explain

And more than just based on the fear to offend.

I am outraged about this society glorifying deviancy

Drag queens at school and the hyper sexualization of kids

Am I the bad guy for wanting as long as possible children to be

Sheltered and protected from adult content unconditionally?

I am nervous when adult male cross-dressers are using female lavatory

I have nothing against them as individuals but please understand me

My little girl is my world, she is a miracle, she is the only one for me,

The only thoughts that run through my mind are concerns for her safety.

I am silenced by the intellectual elite, the new puritan

For voicing opinions that justify branding me as the villain

Canceled for the wrong words, expressing the wrong idea

Punished for refusing to blindly swallow their propaganda.

I am a number, at best a voter when they need me

I am forgotten, apparently condemn to disappear

As I am not fitting into the category of those deemed oppressed

Therefore, I should just work, pay my taxes and keep quiet.

I am hopeful that soon people in the west will wake up and rise

That we will experience a change of paradigm and refuse to compromise

We have been too far in the self-hatred of our values, our flag, our land

It is time to be proud again of what ancestors built and passed into our hands.

I am a father, a mother, a son or a daughter,

I am an uncle, an aunt, a grandfather or a grandmother.

I am this dad who wakes up early as he needs to work for his family

And this party animal who goes to bed whereas the sun is rising.

I am this sick man who regrets not having enjoyed life more

And this lazy teenager spending his days glued on his iPhone.

I am the tears of a father who sees his first son born before him

And the nostalgia of an elder who thinks back to a distant century.

Diploma in hand, I see the joy in my parents’ eyes

Ball at my feet I dream of being my country’s pride.

I am this girl in love who has been waiting for his phone call anxiously

And this hugs from the stranger who shares my bed this evening.

I am this pious woman who prays for her husband every day at night

and the one who relentlessly dances and laugh as if the end is nigh.

I live comfortably employed in the finance but exhausted by stress

And I am nothing in life, depressed, everything seems to be pointless.

I am the noisy clamor of an entire stadium singing an anthem

and silent words written on a paper forming a poem.

I am a random act of kindness, a fight between friends

The smiles of a wedding, the tears of a relationship end.

A vintage wine too pricey, one glass too many

A birthday celebration, a meditation at the cemetery.

The forgotten countryside, the lights of the big cities

The discreet neighbor and the one whose music bothers me.

I am a brother, a sister, a nephew or a niece,

but for them I am a bigot, transphobe, racist and Nazi.

I am all of those slanders and derogatory terms that allow you to dehumanize me

As I will never accept to support your wrongs under the guise of virtue signaling.

You can try to demonize me

I know I am right

With outright pride, I admit it,

I am far-right.

On Sunday, June 9^th, in France, the nationalist and right-wing party Le Rassemblement National emerged as the big winner of the European elections with nearly 32% of the vote.

The centrist coalition run by the presidential party Renaissance grabbed just under 15% of the vote.

Following the humiliation received by his movement and about an hour after the first results, the president Macron took the floor for a solemn address to the French people.

He announced the dissolution of the National Assembly and new legislative elections on June 30 and July 7, 2024, a decision that could propel Jordan Bardella, the leader of Le Rassemblement National to the position of Prime Minister.

It ensued in the French political landscape several simultaneous plot lines, a war of succession among competing claimants for control of the executive throne, standing at the head of the Council of Ministers.

The left parties, fearing that Le Rassemblement National and satellite right-wing factions obtain the majority of seats in the National Assembly, formed a coalition called Le Nouveau Front Populaire ; a reference to the alliance of French left-wing movements that won the May 1936 legislative election preventing fascist-related organizations to access power. It included the Socialist Party (PS), the Green Party (Europe Ecologie-Les Verts), the French Communist Party (PCF) and the far-left party La France Insoumise.

With Le Nouveau Front Populaire, the left therefore plays on the Reductio ad Hitlerum, plays the Nazi card, attempting to gain voters by demonizing Le Rassemblement National.

Éric Ciotti, the leader of the conservative party Les Républicains tried to forge an alliance with Le Rassemblement National.

The centrist faction of his party announced they were expelling Ciotti but he refused to step down and barricaded himself in their headquarters. He subsequently received support from the right-wing faction of his party.

A Parisian court overturned the exclusion of the French conservative leader invalidated the move, thereupon allowing him to retain his power to make decisions on who to nominate in the upcoming snap elections.

Les Républicains are imploding, splitting between the right-leaning faction calling for an alliance with the Le Rassemblement National and the centrist faction rejecting such a deal with the nationalist party.

On the right side of Le Rassemblement National stand Reconquête the far-right political party founded by Éric Zemmour known for advocating a reduction in immigration numbers and de-Islamization of France.

During the European election campaign Zemmour has proven to be extremely critic of Le Rassemblement National despite affinities reproaching Jordan Bardella and its head figure, Marine Le Pen, to have compromised ideologically seeking de-demonization over political integrity.

Leading the EU election campaign for Reconquête was Marion Maréchal who happens to be Marine Le Pen’s estranged niece.

Marion fell out with her aunt when she joined Zemmour’s party in 2022.

Unlike him, during the campaign, she refused to bash Le Rassemblement National saying, “I make the difference between my opponents and my competitors”.

Marion called for Reconquête to back her aunt’s party and step down from the upcoming snap election in order to strengthen the far-right position against Le Nouveau Front Populaire, the left coalition.

She was fired by Zemmour for insubordination, asserting that she betrayed Reconquête and rejoined her family’s camp.

Reconquête is now collapsing, slashed between the Pro-Zemmour and pro-Marion factions. The former dubbing Le Pen’s niece a traitor, the latter affirming that she is pragmatic wanting a win for the far-right ideas rather than a win for the party and that Zemmour let his ego get the better of his political conviction.

The left alliance Le Nouveau Front Populaire also face internal dissension.

First, Raphaël Glucksmann, leader of the Socialist Party, claimed he obtained a very clear commitment from the coalition that the attacks of October 7 will be described as “terrorist”.

However, according to French newspapers, the agreement is on shaky ground as Glucksmann has already threatened to leave the alliance due to the far-left party La France Insoumise rhetoric that legitimizes Hamas as a resistance movement and the ambiguities of its pro-Palestinian members.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of La France Insoumise has a strong hold on the rest of the alliance, Le Nouveau Front Populaire. He has started a great purge punishing those who challenged his authority in the past preventing them from being candidates in their constituencies in the upcoming election.

Some political observers affirm that Macron decision to dissolve the National Assembly was done in order to push parties to clarify their position and regain a majority. Others support the idea that Macron hopes for Le Rassemblement National to win the election and Jordan Bardella take on the role of Prime Minister.

Then, until 2027 and the next presidential election, Macron would be able to show the French the incompetence of Le Rassemblement National, blaming them for all the social issues of the country and therefore paving the way for his political party to reacquire presidential power.

Who will claim control of the executive throne seating at the head of the Council of Ministers?

Answer June 30 and July 7.

On Tuesday, June 4^th, in Clacton-on-Sea, on the east coast of England, a woman known as Victoria threw a milkshake over Nigel Farage, the leader of the political party Reform UK, soon after he announced he would stand for election.

Reform UK is deemed to be a right-wing populist movement with strong policies opposing immigration and championing Brexit i.e. the withdrawal process of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

Few hours after the “milkshake incident” it was revealed that Victoria is a Labour supporter (the UK left party) and an OnlyFans model.

Far from being anecdotal, her profile symbolizes the synthesis of what the left has become over the past decades

Indeed, in the second half of the 20th century, the left renounced the orthodox Marxism doctrine or rather translated its core concepts of class struggle from social terms to societal terms, into the warfare between genders, races, sexual preferences.

The collective emancipation and fate of the working classes were replaced by considerations about the way of life, personal values, and individual fulfillment. The economic and historic determination became peripheral issues and the social matters were substituted by societal concerns.

In short, the social critique was abandoned in favor of the societal. Instead of calling for the end of capitalism, the new liberal elite called for the end of a society perceived as traditionalist and archaic.

During the sexual revolution, this new cultural elite provided an academic justification for promiscuity claiming that an unhindered sexuality was the secret of happiness, and that the carnal repressions, embodied by the model of the bourgeois family, only lead to psychological pathology.

Correspondingly, the counterculture of the 1960s and the hippie movement blithely mocked the nuclear family deemed oppressive in the (sub) cultural media (films, songs, fashion, etc.) of the time.

From the deconstruction of all forms of restrictions, customs, and institutions that governed sexual relationships (the cultural, contractual, or even moral obligations) would supposedly emerge a magnificent world in which frustration, gender conflict, inequality, jealousy, and envy no longer exist.

The new left sold us the utopia of sexual communism.

In truth, their epicurean emancipation put a veil on the economic oppression of the productive classes gradually forgotten, erased from the collective unconscious and the political and social discourses.

Furthermore, this hedonistic ideology falsely subversive promising liberation turned out to be the definitive submission to neoliberal capitalism.

The promotion of deviant lifestyle only served the interest of the market as it ultimately led to the merchandizing of frivolity and the transgressive consumption of libidinous goods, understood as a revolutionary deed. Effectively, it is revealed to be the indisputable submission to our instinctive lustful impulses.

The hedonistic concept of freedom sold by a new left more concern about societal issues than social issues, translated into the submission of individuals’ desires fulfilled by the act of buying.

The purported liberation born from the sexual revolution was nothing more than subjection to the neoliberal capitalist system and eventually open the door for the commodification of the body: from Only Fans girls profiteering from the rampant sexual misery to western bourgeois paying surrogate mothers in Third World countries i.e. purchasing babies.

It is contradictory to fight for left-wing values and to sell oneself into the adult entertainment market, certainly the most capitalist market contemporarily. Besides, in a society where moralities have been disintegrated by the cultural elite, there is nothing subversive about porn anymore.

The postmodern virtue actually comes from people such as Victoria, the supposed “good guys” who demonize their political rivals by calling them fascists.

What Victoria mostly reproaches to Nigel Farage and Reform UK is their policies opposing immigration deemed xenophobic and oppressive against the right for individuals to roam the earth without constraint.

But what Victoria and the new left fail to comprehend is that mass immigration allows multinational companies to engage in social dumping—paying migrant workers below the standard specified by law to increase their profits—and to put pressure downwards on salaries, thus reducing the social standards for the indigenous working class.

Therefore opposing mass migration, as does Nigel Farage and his party, is protecting the proletariat against the violence of the neoliberal capitalist system. Consequently, while Victoria by her life choices glorify the commodification of the body and, in reason of her open borders ideology, revealed to be the useful idiot for capitalism, Nigel Farage represents the true and genuine resistance against the exploitation of the working class, he represents the authentic ideals of the left.

However, with the shift from the social to the societal, there is no longer any need to defend the interests of indigenous workers or to conceptualize the relationship between production and consumption to claim to be on the left, but simply to take part into a global multicultural and multi-gendered orgy enabled by the neoliberal capitalist system.

Like, comment, share, it will help me to grow.

I am still an amateur trying to find my feet and will definitely improve with time!

Essay on Amazon: Understanding Postmodern Fascism: A Brief History of the Woke Ideology eBook : Lajoie, Dupont: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Twitter/ X: https://x.com/Dupontl02

Youtube: m.youtube.com/@DupontLajoie

On Wednesday, April 10 was released the latest issue of Livre Noir’s magazine captioned “Infiltrated to the Heart of the Far-Left” (Infiltrée au cœur de l’extrême gauche) in which a young journalist, Pauline Condomines, detailed her findings after six months of investigations and infiltration in various far-left associations throughout France.

Among them, “Urgence Palestine” a pro-Palestinian group created after the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, whose stated goal is a cease-fire in Gaza, support the self-determination of the Palestinian people and defend their rights.

Pauline first joined a local section of the collective in the 20^th district of Paris. Meetings after meetings, she successfully managed to incorporate the national committee, then a very restricted and confidential group in which she gained access to a lot of information.

During her infiltration, Pauline discovered that far from being a simple association of activists who want to support the people of Gaza, Urgence Palestine glorify terrorism, antisemitism and incite militants to use violence.

For instance, in each meeting that she attended, activists constantly praised Hamas and the October 7 massacre. For those radicalized militants, Islamist terrorism in Gaza and the west alike must be de-demonized. Above all, the crimes committed by Hamas terrorists on Israeli civilians must not condemn.

Pauline even exposes an internal document written by Urgence Palestine activists in which Israeli civilians killed on October 7 are considered as an “extension of the Zionist entity” (extension de l’entité sioniste), therefore guilty of oppressing Palestinians.

Hamas terrorism is regarded as an act of resistance. In a confidential record divulged by Pauline, October 7 is dubbed “The Glorious Operation Al Aqsa Flood” (la glorieuse opération déluge d’al Aqsa).

The elected representatives of La France Insoumise, a far-left political party, often attend meetings with militants and tolerate their constant apology of terrorism and violence. On February 7, the far-left deputy Daniel Simonet was present when Hamas massacres were called: the resistance in action.

The antisemitism of Urgence Palestine activists is fed with conspiracy theories. More specifically, the militant remodel the Jewish conspiracy theory into a Zionist conspiracy theory.

They believe that Israel controls the world, from politics to finance and media. They even question the reality of the Islamist attacks in France. In their narrative, those terrorist actions were orchestrated by the Zionists to stir up animosity against Muslims.

This conspiracy theory create and feed in them a hatred towards Jews and Israel. For those militants, there is no other solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the total destruction of Israel.

Pauline even took screenshot of a conversation in which an activist in an uninhibited way reveals his wish to see the European Union bombing Israel.

The militants also harbors a hostility for anyone who is not endorsing the complete elimination of Israel. Those who support Palestine without advocating the eradication of Israel are branded “left-wing Zionist” and considered to be the group worst enemies.

Their radicalness is not confined to discourse but also takes the form of violent action against those who dare to criticize Hamas.

For instance, Urgence Palestine was invited to participate in the women’s rights demonstration held on March 8.

When they heard that a feminist faction denouncing the rapes committed by Hamas soldiers on October 7 would be attending the rally, Urgence Palestine activists decided following one of the leaders’ request, Omar Alsoumi, to attack the group.

Pauline unveils the minutes of a meeting held on the March 5, a few days before the demonstration, in which Omar called for a physical opposition against the feminist faction.

In private conversations, Omar also encouraged people to “walk them out” of the demonstration, and in response some activists publicized that they planned to arm themselves with broomsticks to serve as baseball bats.

The day of the demonstration, a video emerged showing Omar throwing bottles at the feminist group which was mostly composed of Jewish women, and other Urgence Palestine activists, obeying their leader’s orders, attacking them.

Immediately after the demonstration, Urgence Palestine militants decided to communicate a false version to the media claiming they were first confronted by the feminist group and only defended themselves against the assault.

In an audio leaked by Pauline, we can hear Mornia Lapsi, a well-known antiracist activist, explaining that the video of the attack should be doctored before being sent to “friendly media” such as Al Jazira or Contre Attaque (far left).

On March 28, while having a debrief meeting, the militants showed no remorse about the violence against those women during the demonstration. On the contrary, they concluded the assembly by pledging to organize themselves better in the future when conducting similar assaults.

Urgence Palestine succeed in uniting feminist LGBT, Marxist, and Islamists groups around the support for Palestine at the cost of great compromise.

One of the leaders, Elias D’Imzalene, is a fiche S, i.e. an individual considered to be a serious threat to national security in reason of his incitement to jihad (the fight against enemies of Islam). He is known for his battle against Islamophobia understood as anything that hinders the construction of the Muslim community, its visible and political expression.

At his side, Marxist militants justify their collaboration with Islamists with the need of a temporary alliance for the Palestinian cause and feminist groups such as AG Féministe Paris Banlieue pressure their adherents not to condemn Hamas’ rapes.

Despite Urgence Palestine asserted antisemitism, apology of terrorism and Hamas, violent actions … no dissolution procedure has yet been launched by the French government.

To buy the magazine “Infiltrated to the Heart of the Far Left”, support or subscribe to Livre Noir:

https://livrenoir.fr/nos-abonnements/

To complete the reflection on the alliance between the far left and Islamism:

https://dupontlajoie.substack.com/p/islamo-wokeism-or-why-the-left-stand