Food for Thought About Canada: Should America Have a 51st State? 52 States? Or a Total of 60? How About Just the Current 50?

So Donald Trump has trolled Justin Trudeau, suggesting to the Canadian PM that his country become America's 51st state, one which he in turn could become the governor of.

Excluding more expansionist rhetoric, regarding Greenland and the Panama Canal (and as the Washington Free Beacon declares its 2024 Man of the year to be the Conservative Party's Pierre Poilievre (thanks to Instapundit's Ed Driscoll, eh?)), the thing about Canada is that it is a (con)federation of 10 sub-units (called provinces) in the same way that the U.S.A. is a (con)federation of 50 sub-units (called states).  

An Old Glory with extra stars
— via AI Magic Media

If Canada should be annexed, should it be as a single state/province, leading to an American total of 51, or as 10 states/provinces, leading to a total of 60 states in the newly enlarged nation?

There is much thought to be given to the matter. 

I actually gave it some thought decades ago, right after college, when I tried imagining what the new American flag might look like: should the Stars and Stripes be 60 stars or — what follows I knew was far-fetched — 50 stars plus 10 star-sized maple leafs on the bottom line of the canton?

It has been common throughout history to talk about Britain's 13 colonies in America, and all of said colonies uniting to become independent. This ignores that George III actually had 15 colonies in all, the 13 below the Saint Lawrence River, plus two above, then called Upper Canada and Lower Canada. The latter admittedly had a very different history, the former Nouvelle France being a conquered territory (and a conquered foreign people with a different language) by Britain a decade prior to the unrest further South. Being former subjects of the French Crown, why did Québec not join the 13, then? Should they not have the most fervent of les Américains resisting the hated roi des Anglais?

Many history scholars and teachers whom I asked this question to hummed and hawed. appearing to never have given a thought to the matter. The answer, I eventually fount out, were that the Québecois were Catholics and apparently, they trusted more in their British overlords than in the mainly Protestant radicals and hotheads of the lower colonies.

I wondered how history had been different had the 1775 invasion of Québec been successful, or had Britain's 14th and 15th colonies agreed to join the continental congresses in the early 1770s and agreed to provide a single united North American continent (down to Spain's Mexico border, anyway). How would the first half of the 19th century been different? Would the Civil War "four score and [about] seven years" years later — had it erupted at all — have been shorter, had the president (Abraham Lincoln or another commander-in-chief?) not needed to worry about an invasion from Queen Victoria's British America?

(An aside from down South: after the Mexican War, the U.S. annexed more than half of Mexico; however, there were plans in 1847 and 1848 to annex even more territory, with not the Rio Grande river serving as the U.S./(rump) Mexican border but the Sierra Madre mountain range. Anyway, the full name of the country is the Estados Unidos Mexicanos and if the 31 United Mexican States (plus the DF equivalent of DC) were also to join the US of A, it might lead to 81 stars on Old Glory, or along with Canada's provinces, 91.)

Population & Area

If Canada were to join as a single state, it would be far from a pushover; its 41 million inhabitants would surpass California's 38,000,000 as the most populous state of the (enlarged) Union. It would also — easily — become the largest state by area. Indeed, as the second-largest country on the planet by total area, the Great White North joining the U.S. would make the enlarged union jump to largest country on Earth, with its total 7.39 million square miles (19.3 million square km) surpassing Russia's 6.6 million square miles (17,000,000 square km).

Reminder: back in 1960, when Alaska became the largest state in the Union, some of The Last Frontier's inhabitants enjoyed provoking the previous largest state, Texas, telling its (very) proud citizens that their state (Alaska) was so much larger that they could split it it in two, making the Lone Star State only the third largest in the Union. By comparison, Canada might split into five, making Alaska the sixth-largest state and putting the proud Texans into (a humiliating?) 7th place.

But the fantasy of splitting Canada into five does not take into consideration that — as mentioned — the country is already split into 10 provinces — not to mention three territories.

Danger: Leftists Galore

The danger of having/asking/requesting (?) the 10 provinces join is that the second-most populous province (among others?) might not want to join at all. There are fewer more anti-American people on this planet than the Quebécois, proud to the Heavens of their French language and heritage, going so far as regularly lecturing the French population on the matter. 

Having worked for the Québec government in a Dallas office as my first summer job — it was a standing requirement that the name of the province always be written with its French accent, whatever the language (English or other) it was written in (as you can see in this very post).  With support from France, sometimes — notably when Charles de Gaulle shouted "Vive le Québec libre!" during his 1967 tour, leading him to cut his state visit short — the Québecois regularly hold referendums about splitting from the rest of English-speaking Canada and becoming independent.

The last time Quebec (no accent here for Search Result purposes) tried this, in 1995, I wrote about it in The Globe and Mail (an upgrade of a 1992 text in the International Herald Tribune), which got me a trans-Atlantic call from a Canadian radio station (since they would be interviewing a foreign observer in Paris), where they had trouble believing my view that the French population did not seem that interested in the issue at all.

The danger of having Canada join at all, whether as one or as 10 (9?) sub-units, is the leftist mentality that dominates (the media being worse than America's, as observed, say, during the truckers' Covid revolt).

Twenty years ago, indeed, the Canadian sanctimocracy ("rule by the holier-than-thou") was described during the Iraq War as a nation crippled by a dishonest pacifism, while No Pasarán quoted the International Herald Tribune as saying that Because Canadian Mentality Is Closer to That in Europe, They Are More Generous and More Security-Conscious than Dollar-Hungry American Capitalists Are.

The following year, in March 2005, one Michael Coren wrote in the Toronto Sun that it pained him to say it, but

I'm so very tired of the way … that we Canadians have come to define ourselves not by who we are but by who we are not. … With a malodorous stew of ignorance and malice, [publicly funded mediocrities screaming abuse at a great and noble nation] pump Canada at the expense of deflating the United States" 

The writer's mailbox was soon overflowing, with 1,000 letters from Canadians of all backgrounds and ages. To Coren's delight, over 90% "wrote to say that I had spoken for them."

Unsurprisingly, the remainder, filled with insults such as "collaborationist, double-crossing fifth columnist, fraternizer, quisling, saboteur, security risk, subversive traitor, treasonous turncoat, two-timing quisling", only served to prove… exactly what Coren had written the previous week, "deliciously [illustrating] Canadian hypocrisy and self-delusion": 

We flatter ourselves into a false sense of grandeur by flippant assumptions of our own tolerance and liberalism. 

 … Goodness me, I'm as bad as the Norwegian fascist who sold his country to the Nazis because I wrote that the United States is not the ugly bully so many Canadians make it out to be.

 … Conclusion? The chauvinistic neurosis of the Canadian liberal is in many ways even more repugnant than the insularity of some Americans. 

Back to the 2024 meeting at Mar-a-Largo: PJMedia's Robert Spencer mentions that

Someone at the meeting, according to Fox News, then warned Trump that as a state, Canada would be deep blue, whereupon Trump suggested it become two states, a leftist one and a patriotic one.

So, according to Donald Trump, that makes neither 51 nor 60 (59?), but a total of 52.

Insurrection and Treason: What Did the Words of the 14th Amendment Mean in the 1860s?

Are these dozens of Capitol policemen lying dead or wounded
in the aftermath of the January 6th "insurrection",
or is it a scene from a Victor Fleming film?

The way the January 6 protests at the Capitol have been described by the usual Drama Queens, you would think that you are in Georgia when Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler are galloping through the flames devouring Atlanta and that, in the aftermath, dozens of Capitol policemen are lying dead or wounded like in the harrowing outdoors hospital scene of Gone with the Wind. 

As The Hill cites Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to urge Congress to block Donald Trump from returning to the White Hose (as reported by Yael Halon on Fox News), a central question (beyond double standards) arises: What did insurrection and treason mean to the authors of the 1868 Amendment as well as to the rest of the population, i.e., in the 1860s?  (Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah.)

Related: • The January 6 Protest Summarized in One Single Sentence
• Let's Stop Using the Words "Trump Tried to Overturn the 2020 Election"; It's Unprofessional Journalism
Insurrection and treason meant raising armies, equipping them with uniforms, firearms, and artillery, and going to war and to the battlefield — resulting in a number of American deaths in four short years in the middle of the 19th century greater than that of all America's wars of the 20th Century (including World Wars I and II) combined. (The current post is a major update of a post that appeared almost one year ago, to wit on on January 6, 2024.)

Are these a mob of violent MAGA nuts, deranged Tea Partiers, and other
treacherous  "insurrectionists" on January 6, or are they extras in a Hollywood movie?

During the administration of James Buchanan (the 15th president preceding Abraham Lincoln), his secretary of war stealthily gathered large stores of government arms and sent them to federal arsenals in the South, effectively anticipating the outbreak of civil war.

After the conflict of 1861-1865, Ulysses S Grant wrote in his memoirs that John B Floyd, the Secretary of War, 

scattered the army so that much of it could be captured when hostilities should commence, and distributed the cannon and small arms from Northern arsenals throughout the South so as to be on hand when treason wanted them.

The name of John Floyd's predecessor as Secretary of War was Jefferson Davis, and when first seven, then 11, states attempted to secede over the winter of 1860-1861 (related: During the Winter of 1860-1861, Did the South's Democrats Obtain Their Aim — the Secession of 7 Slave States — Thanks to Elections Filled with Stealth, Lies, Voter Fraud, Intimidation, Violence, and Murder?), he would duly become president of the newly-formed Confederate States of America

So there you have it: To the people in the 1860s, to the writers of the 14th Amendment, insurrection and treason meant months and years of preparations, hoarding weapons, both light and heavy, raising armies, and engaging in warfare against the central government, the mother nation, and the Stars and Stripes, leading not to thousands upon thousands of deaths, but to hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Who in their right mind — besides the usual gang of Drama Queens, that is — could in any way reasonably compare January 6 to the Civil War or, for that matter, to 9-11 or to Pearl Harbor?

Indeed, only one words fits that comparison.

That word is: Preposterous.

CAPTION: Clark (Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn) Gable to Vivian Leigh,
sounding like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden: "With them
[the retreating USA-hating CSA rebel soldiers] goes the last semblance of law and order"

Related (Civil War era): • What Caused Secession and Ergo the Civil War? Was It Slavery and/or States' Rights? Or Wasn't It Rather Something Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House?
• During the Winter of 1860-1861, Did the South's Democrats Obtain Their Aim — the Secession of 7 Slave States — Thanks to Elections Filled with Stealth, Lies, Voter Fraud, Intimidation, Violence, and Murder? (Wait 'til You Hear About… Georgia's Dark Secret)
• Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"
• Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Dreadful — 19th-C Slavery Conditions?
• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History

To end this post, let us quote, approvingly, from (believe it or not) the New York Times. After spending half his column considering a counterfactual in The Antidemocratic Quest to Save Democracy From Trump, Ross Douthat gets to the main point:

Had [Hillary] Clinton explicitly tried to induce Congress to overturn the result of the 2016 race and had a left-wing protest on her behalf turned into a certification-disrupting riot, almost none of the people currently insisting that we need to take the challenge to Trump’s ballot access very seriously would be saying the same about a challenge to her eligibility. Instead, they would be accusing that challenge of being incipiently authoritarian, a right-wing attack on our sacred democracy.

And they would have a point. Removing an opposition candidate from the ballot, indeed, a candidate currently leading in some polling averages (pending the economic boom of 2024 that we can all hope is coming), through the exercise of judicial power is a remarkably antidemocratic act. It is more antidemocratic than impeachment, because the impeachers and convicters, representatives and senators, are themselves democratically elected and subject to swift democratic punishment. It is more antidemocratic than putting an opposition politician on trial, because the voters who regard that trial as illegitimate are still allowed to vote for an indicted or convicted politician, as almost a million Americans did for Eugene V. Debs while he languished in prison in 1920.

Sometimes the rules of a republic require doing antidemocratic things. But if the rule you claim to be invoking treats Jan. 6 as the same kind of event as the secession of the Confederacy, consider the possibility that you have taken the tropes of anti-Trump punditry too literally.

The term “insurrection,” New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait wrote on Wednesday, is “a defensible shorthand for Jan. 6.” But it’s not “the most precise” term, because while “Trump attempted to secure an unelected second term in office,” he “was not trying to seize and hold the Capitol nor declare a breakaway republic.”

This concession prompted howls of online derision from his left-wing critics, but Chait is obviously, crashingly correct. There are arguments about precedent and implementation that tell against the case for Trump’s ineligibility and prudential arguments about the wisdom of suppressing populist fervor by judicial fiat. But the most important point is that there are many things a politician can do to subvert a democratic outcome, all of them impeachable and some of them potentially illegal, that are simply not equivalent to military rebellion, even if a bunch of protesters and rioters get involved.

To insist otherwise, in the supposed service of the Constitution, is to demonstrate yet again that too many would-be saviors of our Republic would cut a great road through reason and good sense if they could only be assured of finally getting rid of Donald Trump.

Related (January 6): • The January 6 Protest Summarized in One Single Sentence
• Let's Stop Using the Words "Trump Tried to Overturn the 2020 Election"; It's Unprofessional Journalism
• The Central Absurd Inconsistency of the Ray Epps Conundrum Described in Two Sentences
• Kabuki Theater: the "top 12 strange, stand-out moments" of the January 6th Committee's interview with Ray Epps
• Only about 1% of the January 6 protesters actually entered the Capitol (often at the invitation of the Speaker's Capitol Police); In fact, it was the 99% who stayed out of the Capitol who heeded Trump's words
• Déjà Vu All Over Again in the Banana Republic of Biden: No, the Democrats did not run better campaigns in 2022; they cheated, as usual
• Isn’t it strange that in Florida, with all those strict rules against cheating, the GOP red tsunami happened as predicted? The Democrats have again fixed, rigged, and stolen an election
• Let’s dispense with the myth that liberals are really against voter fraud; Voter fraud is actually an essential part of their election strategy
• If the Democrats learned anything from their 2016 debacle it’s that they didn’t cheat nearly enough
• What the January 6th protest actually reveals is the criminal determination of the Democrats to establish a one-party state at whatever the cost
• Democrats don't support voter fraud; they just worry about disenfranchising the deceased
• Voter ID: Apparently not allowing minorities to cheat is a form of racial oppression
• Of the 47 countries in Europe today — the nations and the continent that the Democrats are always telling us to emulate — 46 of them currently require government-issued photo IDs to vote
• Joe Biden, Why Are You Calling Denmark a White Supremacist Country? And You, Barack Obama: Why Are You Calling Africa a Racist Continent?
• 2020: an almost totalitarian effort by the national political and social media to suppress and ridicule any doubt of the accuracy of the election result
The DOJ and the FBI "have no conscience or soul": “There is a fervor to attack the J6 protesters, ruin their lives, and bankrupt them”
• "I believed a farrago of lies" Writes VIP Whose Leftist Half of the American Electorate was "Taken in By Full-Spectrum Propaganda" Regarding the Jan. 6 (Non-)Riots
• Our élites constantly lecture everyone about "disinformation," about "big lies", etc; They're the biggest liars of all, with zero accountability
• Isn't America Being Governed by a Mafia Family Dynasty, setting things up so that there will always be Democrats in power?
• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party
• Voter Fraud: A Note to Leftists Who Claim that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced"
• Dennis Prager: The Numerous (and Sweeping) Anomalies Regarding the 2020 Election That Cannot Be Ignored
• How to Prevent America from Becoming a Totalitarian State

Sébastien Laye: "Politicians Understand Nothing About Economic Liberty"

L'économiste et entrepreneur Sébastien Laye, est l'invité exceptionnel du grand entretien de Frontières. 

Sébastien Laye : "Les politiciens ne comprennent pas la liberté économique !"

SOMMAIRE 00:00 : Citation d'Etienne de la Boétie: "il y a chez l'homme, une préférence pour la servitude volontaire" 03:30 : Quel partie est libéral en France ? 11:30 : Vers un Trump Français ? 24:30 : La prise de conscience d'un besoin de souveraineté 35:07 : Immigration et écologie du point de vue d'un libéral

Metz-y Christmas: Jesus Kidnapped from French Nativity Scene, Joseph and Mary Beheaded

'Tis the season to be jolly...

notes Duncan Hill; and yet

I didn't see this reported in the French or other European press. You'd think this would make the news

My prayer for this Christmas and the coming new year is that civility returns to Western Civilization.

Thanks to the Rair Foundation, we learn that 

It’s that time of year again in Open Borders Europe. While families hope to celebrate the birth of Christ in peace, the grim reality repeats itself: Christmas markets are under terror watch, churches face vandalism, Christmas trees are burned, and even the nativity scene – symbolizing Jesus and Mary – is desecrated, yet again, in a trend that has worsened with every passing year since Europe opened its doors to mass migration in 2015.

The latest incident took place in Metz, France [writes Natacha Kadur], where two of the four figures in the Nativity scene installed outside Metz train station were vandalized. City services discovered the figures’ heads had been ripped off on Tuesday.

 … This is not an isolated event. Across France and much of Western Europe, acts of violence and hatred against Christian traditions have become an annual ritual of their own. Churches are defiled, Christmas markets are monitored like war zones, festive and religious decorations are systematically destroyed, and even those dressing up as Santa Claus are attacked. What once brought communities together now comes under attack by those who have no respect for European heritage, aided by leftist policies that open the gates to those who openly despise the West and its Christian roots.

A Pattern of Destruction

Every year, we see the same trend, and yet, the media and political elites remain silent or dismiss such incidents as “isolated cases” or “mindless acts of vandalism.” These are not random acts; they are part of a growing hostility toward Christianity and Western culture, enabled by open-border policies and the deliberate erasure of European identity.

Who Is to Blame?

While police investigate this latest attack in Metz, the bigger question is ignored: Who brought this chaos to Europe in the first place? The answer is clear. The same politicians who champion open borders, mass migration, and “tolerance” have created a climate where Christian traditions are no longer safe.

 … The desecration of nativity scenes, like this latest incident in Metz, is not just an attack on religious symbols. It is an attack on Europe’s culture, history, and identity. Every torn-down decoration, every burned tree, and every defiled church sends a message: Christianity has no place in the Europe of tomorrow. 

Rair stands for Rise Align Ignite Reclaim

Missing the Miss: Europe Trying to Outlaw "Sexist" Expressions Such as "Mademoiselle", Society Failing to Catch Up

One of the of the left's crusades in Europe has been trying to outlaw the word "Miss" for an unmarried woman — as, also, the old continent is trying to do away with, say, the Miss France competitions (the Netherlands scrapped theirs this year) — although it turns out that Switzerland banned the word already back in the 1970s and a recent RTS article deplores how it has been hard to get Swiss society to follow through and reject the "sexist" term. 

This came to mind as a reader named McGehee responded to a Sarah Hoyt InstaLien about Kamala Harris as follows:

I guess we need to learn more about Mlles. Hidalgo et Rousseau, to fully appreciate the comparison. As in, how many AOCs are they worth?

Bad boy, McGehee! Bad boy! A French directive for businesses from 2017 states as follows:

Eliminate all : head of the family, mademoiselle, maiden name, married or husband's name, patronymic name, etc. These expressions are banned from French law. Monsieur and Madame are sufficient. For example, remove "Mademoiselle" from all forms, letters, employment contracts, etc.

For instance, the word "Mademoiselle" is persona non grata in Switzerland's government, explains Pauline Rappaz, while Libération's Pauline Moullot points out that the French administration and legal system alone no longer use it.

Une circulaire de Matignon appelait ainsi les administrations à «privilégier» le terme de «madame» et à «éliminer autant que possible» des «formulaires» et «correspondances» l'appellation «mademoiselle», tout comme «nom de jeune fille», «nom patronymique», «nom d'épouse» et «nom d'époux», pour leur préférer «nom de famille» et «nom d'usage».

Dans l’entreprise, un guide coécrit par le ministère du travail et celui de l’égalité femmes-hommes publié en automne dernier et à destination des PME et TPE préconise d’adopter un «langage sans stéréotype»:

Éliminez toutes les expressions sexistes telles que : chef de famille, mademoiselle, nom de jeune fille, nom d'épouse ou d'époux, nom patronymique, etc. Ces expressions sont bannies du droit français. Monsieur et Madame suffisent. Par exemple, supprimer le «Mademoiselle» de tous les formulaires, courriers, contrats de travail…

So, in your private life, you can still use "Mademoiselle". 

For now.

Agnes Repplier on Humor and Other Subjects: "People who cannot recognize a palpable absurdity are very much in the way of civilization"

Sunday is the day that Agnes Repplier passed away 74 years ago. The American writer (1858-1950) is three or four generations removed from us (if not five), and seems forgotten today but the woman once described as no less than "our dean of essayists" sounds like she was the equivalent of a blogger for over 50 years at the turn of the century (19th-20th). 

Wouldn't you say that the following quote applies to the left and their wokesters for (at least) the past 25 years?

People who cannot recognize a palpable absurdity are very much in the way of civilization.

Amen!

As it were, Agnes Repplier managed to put humor and mockery into perspective:

Humor brings insight and tolerance. Irony brings a deeper and less friendly understanding.

Humor distorts nothing, and only false gods are laughed off their earthly pedestals.

Hugh Prather said much the same thing: there are two kinds of humor in this life — the humor that unites, and the humor that divides. One is tempted to apply the following Agnes Repplier quote to conservatives and the quote following that to leftists:

The clear-sighted do not rule the world, but they sustain and console it.

The pessimist is seldom an agitating individual. His creed breeds indifference to others, and he does not trouble himself to thrust his views upon the unconvinced.

It has been wisely said that we cannot really love anybody at whom we never laugh.

There is always a secret irritation about a laugh into which we cannot join.

It is not what we learn in conversation that enriches us. It is the elation that comes of swift contact with tingling currents of thought.

It is not easy to find happiness in ourselves, and it is not possible to find it elsewhere.

And to conclude:

We hear so much about the sanitary qualities of laughter, we have been taught so seriously the gospel of amusement, that any writer, preacher, or lecturer, whose smile is broad enough to be infectious, finds himself a prophet in the market-place. Laughter, we are told, freshens our exhausted spirits and disposes us to good-will–which is true. It is also true that laughter quiets our uneasy scruples and disposes us to simple savagery. Whatever we laugh at, we condone, and the echo of man’s malicious merriment rings pitilessly through the centuries. Humour which has no scorn, wit which has no sting, jests which have no victim, these are not the pleasantries which have provoked mirth, or fed the comic sense of a conventionalized rather than a civilized world.

Kamala's Total Incompetence Explained to the French; RIF Member's Comparison Is "Borrowed" by a Le Pen Family Member

Appearing on CNews (video at link) on the night of the elections to explain Trump's victory to French viewers, RIF's Philippe Karsenty used a comparison of America's Democratic candidate with two French politicians (considered radical leftists and hardly renowned for the level of their IQs) that he has been constantly using for months (merci pour l'InstaLien, Sarah) et il s'est prononcé

sur les résultats des élections américaines : «Kamala Harris, c'est le croisement d'Anne Hidalgo au niveau intellectuel et Sandrine Rousseau au niveau économique. Face à une personnalité comme Donald Trump, il n'y avait pas match», dans #180MinutesInfo

A couple of days later, it emerged that — in the "Imitation Is the Sincerest Form of Flattery" department — the Identité Libertés party's Marion Maréchal (the niece of le Rassemblement National's Marine Le Pen who has been a guest at CPAC) was using the exact same formula. As Le Figaro put it (with video at the hyperlink), 

Marion Maréchal estime que Kamala Harris est un «croisement entre Anne Hidalgo et Sandrine Rousseau»

Mercredi 6 novembre matin, Donald Trump n’avait pas encore proclamé sa victoire que Marion Maréchal s'exprimait déjà sur X pour le féliciter de son triomphe. «Now, our turn to Make France and Europe great again !», écrivait la députée européenne nationaliste, revisitant le slogan de campagne du candidat républicain. Invitée ce jeudi sur TF1, la nièce de Marine Le Pen a de nouveau fait part de sa joie de voir le républicain revenir aux affaires. Pour la députée européenne, l’échec cuisant de Kamala Harris, qu'elle qualifie de «croisement entre Anne Hidalgo et Sandrine Rousseau», se situe dans sa stratégie identitaire. «Elle a tenté d'enfermer cette élection autour de trois questions : êtes-vous un homme ou une femme ? Êtes-vous noir ou blanc ? Êtes-vous homosexuel ou hétérosexuel ?». Or, on voit bien que Donald Trump arrive à rassembler autour de lui», estime la présidente du parti Identité Libertés, qui refuse toutefois de se qualifier comme «trumpiste».

This in turn lead Philippe Karsenty to say (privately to his inner circle) "I have been using that expression [the comparison of the Democratic politician with the French politicians Anne Hidalgo and Sandrine Rousseau] on all the networks for two months!" And to tell a friend of Marion Maréchal: "When she uses my expressions, wouldn't it be fair play to quote me?"

The Fall of Assad's Syria Signifies that the Iranian Mullahs' Régime Will Shortly Disintegrate

On Facebook, Eber Haddad explains the latest developments in the Middle East, i.e., the collapse ofthe Assad régime (merci pour le hyperlien, Sarah):

After 53 years of dictatorship from father to son, it is the end of the ASSAD dynasty. The "rebels" have entered Damascus, Bashar Al-Assad has fled his country, and the officers of the Syrian army have abandoned their posts, their equipment, and their uniforms.

It is also one of the consequences of the ceasefire obtained in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah on which Biden, Blinken, and Macron insisted vigorously without having the slightest idea of ​​the consequences. Their ignorance in geopolitics is legendary.

The "rebels" seeing the Shiite axis weakening took advantage of it to give the final blow to Bashar Al-Assad knowing full well that no one would come to his aid. Hezbollah, which has protected him for over ten years, is extremely weakened after its war against Israel, the Iranians can no longer do anything for him because the mullahs' régime is also very diminished, and the Russians, caught in the Ukrainian quagmire, no longer have men or equipment to send to support Bashar. Moreover, they have evacuated their base in Tartus and have urged their nationals to leave Syria as quickly as possible.

This is probably also the end of the "Shiite arc", the defeat of the Iranian strategy which, under the pretext of its intention to destroy Israel, wanted to dominate the Middle East. It is very likely that the mullahs' regime will shortly disintegrate.

It will be much more complicated or even impossible for Iran to send weapons and missiles to Hezbollah if that were still its intention. You only have to take a look at a map of the region to see this.

The "rebels" have released all the prisoners in Sednaya prison near Damascus, one of the worst in the world, nicknamed by Amnesty International "a human slaughterhouse", after releasing those in Homs where the prisoners held in solitary confinement for years believed that it was Saddam Hussein's army that had come to free them and all of whom thought that Hafedh Al-Assad [1930-2000] was still president!

C'est la fin de la dynastie « ASSAD » après 53 ans de dictature de père en fils. Les « rebelles » sont entrés dans Damas, Bashar Al-Assad a fui son pays et les officiers de l'armée syrienne ont abandonné leurs postes, leur matériel et leurs uniformes.

C’est aussi une des conséquences du cessez-le-feu obtenu au Liban entre Israël et le Hezbollah sur lequel Biden, Blinken et Macron ont insisté avec vigueur n’ayant pas la moindre idée des consequences. Leur inculture en géopolitique est légendaire.

Les « rebelles » voyant l'axe chiite s'affaiblir en ont profité pour donner le coup de grâce à Bashar Al-Assad sachant très bien que personne ne viendrait à son secours. Le Hezbollah qui l'a protégé depuis plus d'une dizaine d'années est extrêmement affaibli après sa guerre contre Israël, les Iraniens ne peuvent plus rien pour lui car le régime des mollahs est aussi très diminué et les Russes pris dans le bourbier ukrainien n'ont plus ni hommes ni matériel à envoyer pour soutenir Bashar. D'ailleurs ils ont évacué leur base de Tartous et poussé instamment leurs ressortissants à quitter la Syrie au plus vite.

C'est probablement aussi la fin de « l'arc chiite », la défaite de la stratégie iranienne qui, prétextant son intention de détruire Israël, voulait dominer le Moyen-Orient. Il est très probable que le régime des mollahs se désagrège dans quelques temps.

Ça sera beaucoup plus compliqué voire même impossible à l’Iran d’envoyer des armes et des missiles au Hezbollah si telle était encore son intention. Il suffit de jeter un coup d’œil à une carte de la région pour le constater.

Les « rebelles » ont libéré tous les détenus de la prison Sednaya près de Damas, une des pires au monde, surnommée par Amnesty international « un abattoir humain », après avoir libéré ceux de Homs où les détenus maintenus à l'isolement depuis des années croyaient que c'était l'armée de Saddam Hussein qui venait leur rendre la liberté et pensaient tous que Hafedh Al-Assad était encore président !

The Sheriff — Donald Trump — Will Manage to Stealthily Overthrow Iran's Mullah Régime (video)

After returning to Paris a day before Thanksgiving from Washington (where he met with congressmen along with aides to the Shah's family), RIF's Philippe Karsenty appeared on France TV Info (video at hyperlink), where he proceeded to tell French viewers that "Things are being prepared in Washington, to ensure that internal movements are created in Iran … The objective is to ensure that the ayatollahs' régime collapses … There are revolutions that can take place without external military attack."

According to Philippe Karsenty, Donald Trump is in favor of a regime change in Iran, in support of the aspirations of the Iranian people. "The Iranian people have had enough, they want to become free. There is a sheriff on the planet called the United States and Donald Trump. There are only 54 days left to wait, and I can guarantee you that it can change the software of all the players on the international level"

Philippe Karsenty est revenu sur la position de Donald Trump concernant la guerre au Proche-Orient, lors d'une interview sur franceinfo, mercredi 27 novembre. Le porte-parole du "Parti Républicain US" en France s'attend à un changement de régime en Iran avec l'arrivée du nouveau président élu.

L'arrivée de Donald Trump à la Maison Blanche, en janvier prochain, ne sera pas sans conséquence, notamment sur la situation au Proche-Orient. "Il se prépare des choses à Washington, pour faire en sorte qu’en interne il y ait des mouvements qui se créent", déclare Philippe Karsenty. Pour le porte-parole du Parti Républicain US en France : "L’objectif est de faire en sorte que le régime des mollahs tombe… Il y a des révolutions qui se font sans attaque militaire extérieure."

Trump, le Chérif

Selon Philippe Karsenty, Donald Trump est favorable à un changement de régime en Iran, en soutien aux aspirations du peuple iranien. "Le peuple iranien en a assez, il veut se libérer. Il y a un chérif sur la planète qui s'appelle les États-Unis et Donald Trump. Il n’y a plus que 54 jours à attendre, et je peux vous garantir que ça peut changer tous les logiciels des intervenants sur le plan international", ajoute-t-il.

 

The Power of Words: A Frenchwoman's Detective Work on Donald Trump and His Choice of Language

Over at France's semiology website, Elodie Mielczareck gets into some detective work to examine Donald Trump's choice of words and, indeed, compare them with that of Kamala Harris. Notably three departments:

• the semantic aspects: frequency of words and their symbolic scope; 

• the rhetorical style: which figures of speech are used, which tone, what effects; 

• pragmatic linguistics: which specific speech actions are used

We learn about the art of repetition and amplification in Trump's speeches along with his warlike strategy, contrasted with Kamala's autobiographical speech and her rhetoric of hope

Using John Searle's philosophy of language, Elodie Mielczareck further contrasts Trump's vision of a conflicted world with Kamala's attempts at pragmatic engagement.

• les aspects sémantiques : fréquence des mots et leur portée symbolique;
• le style rhétorique : quelles figures de styles, quelle tonalité, quels effets ;
• la linguistique pragmatique : quels actes de langage en particulier ;

In the eyes of many in Poland, the EU is behaving like the former Soviet Union

This came before the Polish elections ousted the country's conservatives and brought the left back into power. But in honor of St. Nicholas’ Day (Mikołajki comes from Mikołaj (Polish for Nicholas, meaning little Nicholas)), we are bringing a lashing-out from The Economist at Poland's rightist government before the election, leading a Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament to come to the country's defense.

Poland’s government

Your leader on the Polish government read in places like an election pamphlet from the opposition Civic Platform party (“A Polish pickle”, April 21st). The governing Law and Justice (PiS) party received an overwhelming mandate from the Polish people in 2015, including a clear instruction to rebalance a judiciary, which had been stacked with allies by the former government without any complaint from the European Union.

To counter its weakness at home, Civic Platform is seeking to Europeanise what are essentially domestic issues and fight its battles in Brussels rather than Warsaw. By imposing an agenda of ever increasing centralisation and trying to force a mythical European identity on member states (the same policies that contributed to Brexit), the EU is behaving, in the eyes of many in Poland, like the former Soviet Union.

ASHLEY FOX, MEP
Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament
Brussels