Here are profound reflections by the great Vincent Reynouard (an extremely active French revisionist, living since 2015 in London exile) on the true basis of our problem.

I already recognized in 1984 that this called for a new, true Aryan religion.

Why? Because the Jew only exploits the problems already existing in us — our pre-existing human condition….

I found this interview in the excellent French weekly Rivarol of September 1, 2021

“When the people stop respecting, they will stop obeying”

RIVAROL: You just published a brochure called: “Mais Qui? [But who?] Open letter to Cassandre Fristot. ”

*** This “But who?” refers to a fiery television exchange recently between a retired French general, Dominique Delawarde, seen in the photo below on the right, looking totally bullied, and a vicious jewish reporter named Posternak on the left.

Former French General Dominique Delawarde is now under investigation by the Paris prosecutor’s office for remarks he made on French television, which have been deemed racist and anti-semitic.

Although the French general never said “jews,” he stated that there was a “community” that controls the mainstream media, so this was enough to get him booted from the show immediately, barred from ever appearing on the program again, and now possibly charged with illegal “hate speech,” namely “public defamation and incitement.”

The Paris prosecutor’s office today opened an investigation into the charges of public defamation and incitement to hatred and violence on the grounds of origin or belonging to an ethnic group, nation, race or religion.

Back in November 2020 he had endorsed the idea that election fraud caused Joe Biden’s win in the US and said, “There are, in my eyes, too many clues that fit together to allow the Western ‘media wolf pack’, of which we know who [ = in French, qui] is in control, to convince me otherwise.”

When the general was being interviewed on CNews this past week, jewish talking head Claude Posternak confronted Delawarde about who exactly it is who controls this “media pack.”

Delawarde responded,

“You know very well who controls the media pack around the world and in France.”

He keeps being pressed on this by the incensed Posternak, who had a look of insane fury on his literally trembling face.

“WHO?” the jew demanded. “But who?Who? Who?”

“Mais qui????”

“This is the community that you know very well!”, Dominique Delawarde, exasperated and goaded, finally told Posternak.

The host of the show, Jean-Marc Morandini, stepped in immediately and said,

“We are not going to allow that. We will stop right there, general, I’m sorry. We can’t let that be said on air. I’m sorry.

Cut!

We are taking the general off air.”

We can’t let that be said on the air.

Here is the video of the interview with English subtitles, which was created and sent to me by a reader.

R: What is your goal, your message?

Vincent REYNOUARD: Through the example of what is happening to the brave Cassandre Fristot, my brochure is addressed to all those who choose to focus exclusively on the Jews, considering them as the main cause of our ills.

These people say, “Let us denounce Jewish power and when it is exposed to the majority, then it will fall.”

Hence her use of the interrogative slogan about media control

“But who? ”

I already want to show them that denunciation is ineffective, especially if, at the same time, some of its supporters engage in imprecations against the Jews that we see on social networks.

My demonstration is based on history. Let us take the example of the anti-Jewish movement which developed in France from the end of the 1880s with the publication of the works of Édouard Drumont.

Over hundreds of pages, the author denounced what he called “the Jewish leprosy”. By the dawn of the 1900s, the anti-Semitic movement had grown strong.

In addition to the facts revealed by Drumont and his followers, the Dreyfus affair [about a Jewish army officer accused of selling the Germans artillery secrets for money for call girls, champagne and gambling]  and the hostility of the [judeo-masonic] French Republic against Roman Catholics had galvanized many energies.

As early as 1899, however, a Swiss observer wrote:

“The cry of ‘Death to the Jews’ marked the apogee and therefore the beginning decline of the movement. It did awaken some people who followed its progress with a vague sort of  sympathy or a nild indifference, and it did make the Jewish peril stand out.

But the result was that the fight against anti-Semitism was well underway […]

And all that will remain […] of this sterile bubbling of foam is a bad memory ”(1).

He was right. In 1904, the israelite world was able to congratulate itself on the drastic electoral failures of anti-semitic political candidates in [French-settled coastal] Algeria, their bastion (2).

In his memoirs, a close friend
of Drumont recounts the decline of the anti-Jewish movement until its final fall in 1909, suffering a final, crushing electoral defeat (3).

At that time, La libre Parole [ = “Free Speech”] by Édouard Drumont was only printing 47,000 copies per issue, compared to 200,000 twenty years earlier.

R .: We can’t just blame the failure of the anti-Jewish movement on its sometimes radical slogans, can we?

VR: No, of course not. But this permanent denunciation of the Jew too often went hand in hand with a shortage — not to say a total absence — of constructive proposals.

The basic idea was simply: “Let’s throw the Jews out and give back France to the French. Then everything will be nice again, as it was before.”

But what was this “before”? The monarchy ? The [Napoleonic] empire? The Republic ?

In 1889, in his work La fin d’un monde, [  = “The End of a World”] Édouard Drumont lamented:

“We are lying on a wooden pallet, groaning, dying in a room already moved out of, one from which we have gradually removed, along with the values ​​and money, all the cherished relics of our past, everything that spoke of the soul, everything that recalled the life of our ancestors. “(4)

This was proof that the French past was over, definitely fini. Since 1789 [the year the French Revolution began], our society has undergone many irreversible transformations. I am thinking in particular of the industrial revolution, made possible by the harnessing of steam power, and the rural exodus that followed in its wake.

In a university thesis presented in 1905, an author demonstrated that, for reasons of convenience, industries had settled in big urban areas. This phenomenon had quite naturally triggered a flight from the countryside, a major transformer of society (5).

By the twilight of the 19th century, these transformations were well underway. In a work published in 1881, an author had underlined:

“If democracy […] has won out on the political level, the full transformation of our world is far from complete.

The country, plagued by a thousand internal conflicts, has not found its way to a new unity and peace. 

Most of the new institutions [for a successful democracy] have yet to be built; manners are yet to be redone; and the great work before us runs everywhere into difficulties of a most complex nature […]

Placed between a world which is no more, and a world which is not yet here, we strive to shed light [… ] inmidst all the confusion that is inevitable in times of great transition.”(6)

To believe that it would suffice to expel the Jews for everything to be all right was highly naive. 

The stakes were much higher.
Hence we saw the decline of the anti-Semitic movement, which had remained in the domain of reaction. A bit like boulangisme …

***

.

***.

R .: Do you think the same [peetering out of anti-semitic movements]  is true today?

VR: I think the situation has actually deteriorated, because an aggravating factor has intervened, unknown 120 years ago: the repression by the state of anything perceived as anti-Semitism.

Denouncing the Jew is therefore no longer just ineffective. It has become dangerous, too, because it has been punished with fines of 45,000 euros [same as US dollars] and one year in prison.

Cassandre Fristot will soon experience this repression.

R .: However, the simple question she asks “But who?” Is not necessarily anti-Semitic, especially if the answer also involves non-Jews.

VR: It is true that among the “traitors” castigated by Madame Fristot were [the gentile] messieurs [Emmanuel] Macron [the president] and [Olivier] Véran [a doctor and the French health minister, reviled by Covid truthers].

In my brochure, however, I explain why, in the eyes of our adversaries, the addition of a few goyim [to a list of evil Jews[ does not change anything.

The Jews know that modern anti-Judaism does not target Jews only; it also denounces those gentiles whom one could call “the judaized.”

A short time ago, a Jewish lawyer, Maître Oudy Bloch (photo), launched this declaration

 “This question, ‘Who?,’ makes it possible to target the Jewish community without actually naming it. “(7).

.

Let us agree that he is right. Thirty years of struggles on the front line haveled  me to really know my opponents. I read them, I listen to them, and I can tell you that, if they have many a fault, they are neither stupid nor naive.

On the contrary, they can figure out very well where you are going with something.

A: Note, however, that with her sign, Madame Fristot was advocating neither hatred nor violence.

And nothing has come up to show that secretly she wants to bother or persecute the Jews.

VR: Certainly, but even if laid out very calmly, denouncing the Jews can lead to a conviction.

The strategy employed by our adversaries is very simple. Consider the European Jewish Organization (OJE): with its 55 volunteer lawyers, it “hunts down anti-Semitism in all its forms.”

In a video presentation, its president first shows physical or verbal violence against Jews: insults, threats, graffiti, degradation, desecration … (8)

Then, in her video entitled “Reacting”, she explains:

“Some [anti-Jewish authors] write very well, and […] their words will be imprinted […] in minds that are perhaps a little less well trained, a little less solid, and in weaker minds. And it is the weak minds who go and take action. So from online hatred, it goes directly to criminal and violent acts. “(9).

This is how these people justify the crackdown on what they call “anti-Semitism in all its forms”.

A .: Hence the lawsuits brought against Cassandre Fristot, who had contented herself with naming a few Jews (and two non-Jews).

VR: There is also a complaint against the sovereignist Agnès Cerighelli. She is accused of having declared: “almost all the levers of political power, of media power, of the judiciary are in the hands of Freemasons and Zionists” (10).

Here again, replacing “Jews” with “Zionists” does not fool anyone. Let us stop taking our adversaries for naive Little Bo Peeps who could be fooled by such a crude artifice. Agnès Cerighelli will also have a bitter experience in court.

.

R.: And let’s not forget Samuel Goujon, the host of a website, now deactivated, called “Ils sont partout” [ = (((They))) are everywhere”] …

VR: With his website, Samuel Goujon is emblematic as a victim of the opponent’s strategy [ = of saying hate speech leads to hate crimes].

Master Oudy Bloch explains:

“On his website, there is a sort of world map with all these Jewish personalities and the way they relate to each other.

What emerges is a conspiracy theory of how the Jews – of course – control politics, the economy, the media […] being the famous “Jewish lobby”.

 It is  The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And on his VK page, Mr. Goujon posted pictures of Jewish personalities, and the comments underneath were violently anti-Semitic: it was an incitement to hatred, an incitement to violence, and calls for the murder of these Jews, but [also ] of the Jews in general. 

 And Mr. Gonjon, in his capacity as director of the publication of his website and his VK page, is equally responsible for  those who make these comments. “(11).

The argument is clear:

“M. Goujon is engaged in a simple census work which could be that of a sociologist. However, even if he denounces Jews without excesses, he acts in accordance with the spirit of the anti-Jewish rant The Protocols of the Elders of Zion . 

His work is therefore motivated by anti-Semitism. This is why, downstream, it produces “hatred” and for this, Mr. Goujon is entirely responsible.”

I wish to add that, if prosecuted for “public provocation to commit deliberate attempts on life”, the defendant [Goujon] risks up to 5 years in prison.

R .: We are therefore experiencing a frightening increase in repression which goes well beyond France because even England is now concerned.

VR: Yes. In early August, a 69-year-old Briton, Graham Hart, was convicted of inciting anti-Jewish hatred.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment on him.

In his garage, converted into a radio station, the convict hosted “The Graham Hart Show”. In particular, he said: “Why did [Hitler] hate the Jews? Why were they driven out 199 times from 79 countries? Because of rheir garbage, that’s all. ”

And also: “If you are listenung to us, Mr. Jew, know that we are coming. Let’s get rid of the Jews. It’s time for them to go. After Christmas I will get to work, I will go on the attack — because I have had enough. ”

According to the survey, its audience was limited to about thirty people. But the argument was dismissed on the grounds that the Internet allows many
subsequent re-transmissions … His lawyer added that henceforth Hart “understood [his hate speech crimes] perfectly and regretted them bitterly”; moreover, the defendant pleaded guilty and declared that he expected a prison sentence. So the defense was to plead, “I got it  I won’t do it again — so please be indulgent. ”

In vain: on August 6, Hart was sentenced to 32 months in prison, 10 years of ban from using social media and a compulsory psychiatric follow-up (12).

Two weeks later, the British justice system increased the prison sentence imposed on Alison Chabloz: 32 weeks instead of 18.

.

In addition to the fact that Alison had not done all of her community service hours, Judge Beddoe justified his decision by telling her:

“You have no regrets. You are only defiant of the authorities ..No mitigating circumstances can be found for you.”

More generally, he said: “You must not be surprised if your mean and hurtful opinions provoke anger” … and “There is a difference between a reasonable comment and a deeply shocking comment. You know where the line is; or, in any case, you know it now. ”

Finally, the judge warns Alison that in the event of a new conviction (for similar “crimes”) “the sentence will be even more severe.”

Satisfied, the spokesperson for the Jewish association who was suing the artist said: “Anti-Jewish people like Ms. Chabloz and Graham Hart (recently convicted) now know that we will not stop defending the Jewish community. Let all those who think like them know it. “(13)

A: This general aggravation is very worrying, because nothing seems to be able to stop it.

VR: It is true that our adversaries will always go further. For them, for example, anti-Zionism is still a form of anti-Semitism.

Anti-Zionism is first and foremost the defense of people who are grouped together under the term Palestinians. Personally, I am not opposed to the fact that the Jews have their own land; however, I remain very critical of the way Israel was created, that is, at the expense of people who were established there for a very long time.

Jews answer that, twenty centuries ago, this region was once the Jewish homeland. But even if one concedes that, a people who lost their territory for such a long time cannot just show up and return there if their return involves expelling, without sufficient compensation, other inhabitants who have nothing to do with it.

Note that these two arguments are universal: they apply (or should apply) anywhere, anytime, and regardless of the people involved.

In this case, the fact that the Jews are involved is purely accidental. Be that as it may, Israel is the result of two injustices: one against the
German people who have been slandered [with the Holocaust, etc ] , the other against the Palestinians (who have been despoiled).

For 70 years, peace in the Middle East has been untraceable. There is nothing surprising about this. [The Italian-French philosopher] Lanza del Vasto warned:

“In injustice, peace is impossible, because injustice is a state of violence and disorder which cannot, and which must not be maintained.

It imposes itself by violence, is preserved by violence, and it provokes the violence of revolt. “(15)

A .: Does that mean that in the end, in your opinion, Israel is doomed?

VR: No doubt, but this state does have nuclear warheads. I am convinced that if, one day, Israel finds itself in a desperate situation, its leaders will not hesitate to use them … A small remark in passing: the existence of this arsenal was revealed on October 5, 1986, with supporting photos, by the Sunday Times. 

The daily benefited from information disseminated by an Israeli who had worked at the manufacturing site and who had defected:
Mordechaï Vanunu.

“We will never break the human spirit.”

.

If, really, the Jews controlled all the press, then this information would have remained hidden.

The Israeli nuclear arsenal affair therefore shows that the Zionist lobby does not control everything — far from it.

R .:  You will get the objection that the revelation by the Times was intended, and premeditated.

VR: No, because on October 6, 1986, then Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres mustered all his nerve to say: “Israel has not changed its policy; it is not we who will take the initiative to bring nuclear weapons into the region ”(16)

This brazen, even ridiculous lie demonstrates that the Israeli authorities were caught off-guard. So let’s stop believing that a Jewish lobby can manipulate everything, foresee everything, and be behind every event …

A: Yet some claim that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion had it all covered in advance.

VR: We can believe it by quoting short extracts. For example this one: “There are only a few years that separate us from the collapse of the Christian faith, our most formidable adversary by its theories on the supernatural, and the future life” (17).

Some see the announcement of Vatican II a century in advance. But the beginning of the sentence is crucial: “Freedom of conscience is proclaimed everywhere, therefore there are only a few years that separate us from the collapse of the Christian faith …”

It is therefore not a prophecy, but the observation that by the end of the 19th century, in Europe, the Faith had considerably receded.

I could cite many other examples. I add that the Protocols failed to predict 1) Hitler coming to power,

2) the creation of the State of Israel, or 3) the anti-Christian counter-religion of the Shoah — this missing many major events in the history of the twentieth century.

A .: You are talking about the counter-religion of the Shoah. But to be precise, should we not be actively denouncing these unbearable excesses coming from Israel?

VR: Of course; I have also devoted a large part of my life to this. However, we must act without hatred, by limiting ourselves to opposing the truth to the lie. Not long ago, so, I released a video entitled: “Simone Veil, liar of the Shoah”.

(In French)

At the start of 2005, Madame Veil claimed that, sixty years earlier, in Birkenau, she had never seen the sky: “It was because of the crematorium, she says, and its black smoke, suspended in the sky.”

The journalist who collected her comments added: “[Simone Veil] does not remember having seen the sun at all in 1944: the black smoke from the crematoria darkened the sky. “(18)

This item of [Holocaust] “memory” wanted to make us believe that in 1944 the crematoriums of Auschwitz-Birkenau operated all day long, cremating hundreds of thousands of bodies. To this, I opposed three aerial shots of the camp taken by Allied reconnaissance planes on May 31, 1944, on August 23 of that year, and again on September 13, 1944.

Each time, the sky is completely clear.

I conclude that Simone Veil outright lied.

This fact was something I established. I did not insult her; I declared myself ready to defend my accusation in front of historians and survivors of the camp (19). It is much more constructive this way.

R.: I suppose she did not answer you …

VR: I waited with curiosity for the criticism of my usual online opponent whom I always allow to express himself freely under my videos.

In response, he gave himself up to a flood of imprecations against me: I am a loser, arrogant, and so on… He ended with a tribute of a few lines to Simone Veil.

In the event of a face-to-face debate, I would have waited for the end of his logorrhea, then I would have said calmly:

“Well, let’s get to the point: in claiming that in Birkenau the smoke from the crematoriums permanently obscured the sky, did Simone Veil tell a lie? Can you answer yes or no?”

R .: It will be objected that, if you denounce the testimony of a Simone Veil, it is in order, through her, to attack the entire Jewish community. It is therefore out of anti-Semitism.

VR: The first question is: Did Simone Veil lie? If so, then we must be able to say it calmly; if, on the other hand, it is judged that she did not lie, then it must be demonstrated during a fair, face-to-face debate between the two parties. Whether or not I’m anti-Jewish doesn’t matter.

A: Let’s broaden the debate. Although Simone Veil chaired the Foundation for the Memory of the Shoah, she is best known for having given her name to the law which decriminalized abortion in 1975.

A century earlier, in 1884, Alfred Naquet introduced a law that authorized divorce. And we could add the Neuwirth law legalizing the contraceptive pill in 1967. Three laws against the family — and all three were introduced by Jewish parliamentarians, three of them.

So don’t people have some reason to focus on the Jews?

VR: This is precisely the purpose of my brochure. I warn against such superficial analyses. On several occasions, I have already spoken about abortion. The causes are not only to be sought in a Judeo-Masonic plot hatched in lodges, they are also of another type. From the 1820s on the decline in the birth rate correlated to the rural exodus (20).

This was because urban living conditions, with the problems of housing, supplies and broken families, logically led to a drop in the birth rate.

This decline was the result not of Christian continence, but of so-called illegal birth control practices, from contraception to abortion. The phenomenon grew to such an extent that in 1881 a book on infanticide appeared. Entitled: A forensic study of abortion, it was intended to facilitate the discovery of the culprits (21) but it was very incomplete, since the vast majority of abortions remained unknown. Yet statistics showed a dizzying increase in the number of cases: within forty years, the number of cases tried had multiplied by three, and the number of defendants multiplied by five (Ibid., p. 13).

In 1939, 450,000 annual abortions were deplored, many of which were performed in 10,000 clandestine offices (22). The expansion of modern contraceptive methods is slowing the phenomenon.

In any case, shortly before the adoption of the law decriminalizing this practice, there were between 50 and 80,000 abortions each year, i.e. a minimum of 140 per day (23).

So, sure, the bill was introduced by a Jewish parliamentarian, Simone Veil, but it was unfortunately also the result of a pressing social demand. The best proof is that in 1976, the number of abortions recorded was around 135 thousand (24). Who can make us believe that in 1975 people were really opposed to abortion but that a year later, following the passing of Veil’s abortion law, they would have suddenly changed their minds?

It is inept. Since then, moreover, social demand has been maintained: from 2001 on, the annual number of abortions has remained above 200,000.

I conclude that with or without Mrs. Veil, abortion would have unfortunately been legalized. The same goes for divorce. In 1792, the Revolution reinstated divorce, which no longer existed since Charlemagne.

In 1816, the restored Bourbon monarchy abolished it. Did France then become an idyllic country, made up of families united by the faith and virtue of the people?

No. Sixty years later, a survey showed that after 1816 the number of children born out of wedlock had almost doubled, from 41,000 to 70,000. The author concluded:

“It is obvious that our morality is not growing under the regime of the indissolubility of marriage. There are 3 million illegitimate children in France […] and, of this figure, there is a considerable number due to separated spouses ”(25).

For if, in 1816, the legislator had abolished divorce, it had returned to the legal separation that existed under the Ancien Régime (26).

However, from 1841 to 1867, the annual number of requests for separation rose from 987 to 2,849, an increase of 200% (27)!

90% of the requests were made by women, the vast majority due to severe abuse inflicted by the husband. With some exceptions, the rest of the requests followed adultery committed by one of the spouses (Ibid., P. 59).

In 1878, the situation had worsened further: 3,277 pronounced separations, of which 86% at the request of the wife, in 98% of cases for serious abuse (28).

In his book on divorce published in 1881, Alfred Naquet underlined this situation (29). The partisans of divorce specified that separation, which left people unable to remarry, was a source of very serious disorders: multiplication of irregular households, abandoned children, women without marital status, etc. (30)

Hence the adoption of the law on divorce. Like abortion, it was the result of social pressure. Because once voted, a growing number of couples resorted to it, with an explosion of cases from the 1970s on  (31).

R . : What conclusion do you draw from these studies?

VR: In the case of divorce and abortion, [the Jews] Alfred Naquet and Simone Veil were only the revealers and accelerators, while admittedly being harmful, of societal diseases from which France had suffered for a long time.

I generalize this teaching: if the Jews were able to corrode our country, it is because they found a society that was already corrupted. Far, therefore, from the jews being the prime cause of our decadence, the Jews are at most an accelerator and a propagator.

The evil is first of all in ourselves.

R .: But to act as an accelerator, you have to have power. It was therefore necessary that the Jews first seize this power.

VR: Yes, and for the same reasons: if the Jews were able to acquire power, it is because they found a society already plagued by mercantile materialism.

In my brochure, I prove it, with supporting texts. This is the most important part of my presentation. This is why, relying on history, I say that denouncing the Jews is insufficient. Because it is leaving the root of the problem intact.

R.: But what is this root? And what do you offer?

VR: Beyond merely asking “Who?” [while knowing the answer full well], Anti-Jews must ask themselves:

“What is the root cause of the triumph over us of this mercantile materialism, and how do we remove it from ourselves in order to get rid of our parasites that infest us? ”

In my brochure, I demonstrate that this cause lies in the disappearance of the feeling of transcendence. One of the first consequences is the appearance of selfishness which kills the Common Good. The solution therefore consists in correcting our errors, our faults and our shortcomings in order to re-enter the service of the Common Good.

R .: But how do you think you can reach people? In the anti-vaccine-passport demonstrations, they chant:

“Freedom”.

VR: Exactly. As early as 1867, in a sadly forgotten book, The Decadence of Europe (32), an author [Stefan Buszcynski] wrote:

***

According to the Polish Wiki:

One of Buszczyński’s most important works was The Decadence of Europe (1867), whose readers included Napoleon III, Jules Michelet and Victor Hugo, among others.

decadence-europe-stefan-buszczynski-1867

 

***

 

“It is not enough to want freedom, you also have to be worthy of it.

It is not enough to be ready to die; you have to know why and how to die.

Only he is a hero, a true son of freedom, who dies pure; and he is pure that knows and loves the truth. ”(P. 122).

Further on, he clarified: “In truth, it is harsher to grapple with your passions than with an enemy armed with a bayonet.”

In a hand-to-hand struggle, blood rises to the eyes; a tumult disturbs the senses; a moment of forgetfulness leads to courage.

But the moral struggle against the passions, the successive struggle, continues, every day and every hour, from morning to evening, throughout life, and this is the only road to victory.

When one has conquered oneself, when one is master of oneself, then one can call oneself free and march bravely into combat.

When you have risen to this sublime height, where the true defender of freedom must stand, you have an immense horizon in front of you, you are as if inundated with a dazzling new light.

There is no risk of making a mistake. We may succumb, but it will not be without glory. An army of men like these would be invincible. “(P. 123)

Why that? The author explained:

“Intellectual power has the gift of multiplication; it has the property of doubling, of tripling, of centupling. And it can magnetizing the masses. The force of light penetrates them, and this makes them invincible. “

But beware :

“If the negative mind makes use of these forces, it can only act in a negative way; then each movement becomes artificial, galvanic, and ephemeral.”

Because, underlines the author:

“Can those who are themselves slaves defend freedom?”

Is it possible to shake off the yoke of tyrants when we voluntarily bow our head under that of our own passions? “(P. 124)

And to conclude:

“Only inner freedom can lead to outer freedom.

And the one who pronounces the word freedom, at the same time pronounces the words light, truth and love.

[Outer] freedom is the daughter of [inner] freedom.

His first right, his first impulse is love. […] He who denies the supreme light, denies all light, denies the truth; he serves darkness, he is the slave of error. 

The hands of slaves are neither worthy nor capable of reaching freedom.”

That is why in my brochure, I call on Cassandre Fristot – and through her all those on my side – not to be afraid of bravely speaking the truth but to remain without hatred in this fight.

R .: Here we find the message of Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Love your enemies”.

VR: Yes, but that doesn’t prevent us from actively, resolutely and publicly fighting them. My own life proves that.

But we must fight without hatred, limiting ourselves to exposing the truth. Didn’t Saint John say that the Truth would set us free? For my part, I know that until now, Providence has helped me a lot.

Particularly when, heavily condemned to fines and prison in 2015, I had to resign myself to exile, but with nowhere to go, when, suddenly, a friend offered me a house in England.

A: Where can we get your brochure?

VR: From RIVAROL (Editions des Tuileries, 19 avenue d’Italie, 75 013 Paris), the most courageous weekly we have left (10 euros free), or directly from Éditions Critias (<https: // editions-critias .com>).

Good luck to all!

***

Interview by Jérôme BOURBON.

_________________

1. See Henri Dagan, Enquête sur l’Antisémitisme (Stock, Paris, 1899), p. 25-26, letter from Georges Renard.
2. See L’Univers israelite, July 1, 1904, p. 371.
3. See Raphaël Viau, Twenty years of anti-Semitism, 1889-1909 (ed. Eugène Fasquelle, Paris, 1910), p. 371.
4. See Édouard Drumont, La fin d’un monde (ed. Albert Savine, Paris, 1889), p. VI.
5. See Jean Guillou, Emigration from the countryside to the cities (ed. Arthur Rousseau, Paris, 1905), p. 238, 244 and 245.
6. See Clarisse Coignet, Education in Democracy (ed. Delagrave, Paris, 1881), p. VI and IX.
7. Source: https://youtu.be/G2V9shnJ0IU, 7’35 to 7’41.
8. Source: https://youtu.be/xn0I39zs95c, the first minute.
9. Source: https://youtu.be/S4tbggFBAEE, 3’03 to 3’22.
10. Source: https://fb.watch/7F1ZuL0DfS/ 2’40 to 2’46.
11. Source: https://youtu.be/G2V9shnJ0IU, 1’22 to 2’12.
12. Source: https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1274216077139644423.
13. Source: https://gab.com/Reynouard/posts/106778249648283417.
14. Source: https://youtu.be/xn0I39zs95c, 3’02 to 3’23.
15. See Lanza del Vasto, Pages d’Enseignement (ed. Of the Rock, 1993), p. 31.
16. See, for example, The St. Louis Post Dispatch, October 7, 1986, p. 6.
17. SeeThe Protocols of the Elders of Zion, translation of Butmi, VII, 03.
18. See La Libre / Match, June 19, 2005, p. 33 and 46.
19. Video at the following address: https: //www.bitchute.
com / video / nhNVME7X42J5 /
20. See Le Matin , January 15, 1942, p. 1.
21. See Ambroise Tardieu, Medico-legal study on abortion, (Librairie Baillère et Fils, Paris,
1881).
22. See Le Jour , June 6, 1939.
23. See, for example, Jean Legrand, “Abortion before and after 1975”, published by the Evangelical Protestant Committee for Human Dignity.
24. Source: https://www.ined.fr/fr/tout-savoir-population/chiffres/france/avortements-contraception/
abortements /.
25. See the Official Journal, June 26, 1876, p. 4602.
26. See Essais de Jurisprudence, by HDLM,
lawyer in Parliament (Paris, 1757), volume 2, p. 18.
27. See Ernst Cadet, Le Mariage en France. Statistics. Reforms (ed. Guillaumin et Cie, Paris, 1870).
28. See The Official Journal, Chamber of Deputies, May 7, 1882, p. 522.
29. See Alfred Naquet, Le Divorce (ed. E. Dentu, Paris, 1881), p. 5-6.
30. See The Official Journal, Chamber of Deputies, May 9, 1882, p. 529.
31. See Le Divorce en France (Les collection de l’Inséé, n ° 85-86), p. 48.
32. See Stefan Buszczynski, La Décadence de l’Europe (Librairie du Luxembourg, Paris, 1867)

 

.

…..My comment

JdN: I add this from Buszczynski:

The pompous word of “progress” which the so-called leaders of humanity proudly inscribe on their banners is intended to make us believe that society is marching forward with a gigantic step forward.

The opposite emerges for me from facts that jump out at me and from the lessons of history.

In truth I see a certain movement of humanity visible to everyone, but as I go deeper, I note that the progress, which we speak so loudly, is very slow, often led astray by ill will and violence, more often still by a false theory , bought at the cost of numerous victims sacrificed without any real necessity, I finally recognize that it is in opposition with the laws of nature and enemy of the human rights.

.

Freedom is you controlling your thoughts, and therefore your heart, and subsequently of your actions.

And so the Great American Experiment of 1776 was doomed to failure. It did nothing to address the out-of-control, egoic mind.

.

.