By Olivia Pierson

Nationalism has become the filthiest word in the modern Western lexicon (on a par with the word Colonialism), yet the value of nationalism is arguably good for any country which still has the ability to cultivate feelings of unity and pride in people who share a unique identity and cultural heritage.  It is exactly this reason why globalists hate the idea so much.  They see it as an obstacle to their bleak agenda of worldwide cultural homogeneity.  It is a disagreement very similar in sentiment to the clash between individualism versus collectivism - in fact, it is almost identical to this, only more macrocosmic.  Said globalists must just loathe the Olympic Games; all those powerful athletes patriotically representing their countries and competing for individual physical superiority.  Horreurs!

Marine Le Pen, who has to be one of the world’s most courageous women living today, incurs far too much criticism for standing on a nationalist platform, as if it’s a bad thing.  The national character of France is what the French people once felt so proud to uphold since the time of its great influence over the European Enlightenment. This French character promoted valuable attributes - namely: the emancipation of women and children, religious tolerance, a dedication to scientific inquiry, the economic system of capitalism and innovation, and the greatest gem which makes all these others possible - freedom of speech and of the press.

Watching France go through its general election has become almost as painful as the 2016 election resulting in the election of Donald J Trump as President.  I say painful because of the media bias, skewed so heavily against Madame Le Pen, as it was (and still is) against Trump. Le Pen has been extremely vocal on conquering Islamic terrorism in her own country,  terror which happens now somewhere in the Western world almost on a weekly basis, as some of us predicted it would (and that was before the great immigration crisis).  The current socialist President, Hollande, has said that the French have to accept that this is now le-new-normal. Le Pen is saying “bollix to that” (in French of course), it is something they must fight and eradicate.  Now that’s the spirit!  Where have all the real Frenchmen gone?

Le Pen’s opponent, 39 year old Emmanuel Macron, is declaring that the French people must vote for him in order to stop the “greatest enemy to France - nationalism.”  Excusez moi - is he joking? I’m afraid not. He hates Marine Le Pen and nationalism more than he hates Islamic terror in France, ushered in by the multiculti zealots of the European Union with their suicidal open immigration policies - policies which Macron has committed to continue. The greatest enemy within France is Islamic terror attacks, similar to the Nice truck attack, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Bataclan Theatre massacre… and all the rest (over 32 attacks in the 21st Century alone). 

If Macron wins, he will uphold Hollande’s “just get used to it” attitude to these abominable horrors.  

Do you know what really happened on French soil to the kids at a rock concert when the Bataclan massacre happened?  Some of their bodies were initially not allowed to be released to the parents because the torture had been so indescribably medieval - eyes gouged out, the genitals of their daughters slashed and the testicles of their sons cut off and placed in their mouths.  The liberal media, along with the police, tried to suppress this because they have to go to great lengths not to appear Islamophobic, they’d rather suppress the truth than be accused of xenophobia. Do the parents of France really want this kind of mass murder to be accepted as the new normal in their once liberty oriented country?

The liberal media has been trying to taint Marine Le Pen as the candidate of anger.  I submit that if the people of France are subjected to these shocking acts of terror and don’t feel absolutely consumed by anger, they have already lost their moral compass, to say nothing of the fighting spirit their national anthem “La Marseillaise”  encompasses:

"...they come into our arms and slit the throats of our sons and women. To arms citizens! Form your battalions! Let’s march, let’s march!  So the impure blood shall water the furrows of our fields!”

Brava Marine Le Pen for still having the moral fortitude to emotionally experience righteous anger in the face of pure evil!

It is instructive that a growing number of peaceful French muslims, who came to the country before Islamic terrorism took root, are voting for Marine Le Pen - they know first-hand exactly what their uncivilised, fundamentalist co-religionists are capable of, and it is what their parents came to France to get away from.  They chose a secular country like France in which to raise their families so this kind of evil would be foreign to their children. Like most people, they failed to anticipate how the Trojan Horse of multiculturalism would usher these horrible acts right into the homes next door.  These French muslims do not support open immigration from Islamic lands and are disturbed by the orthodox Salafist enclaves of those who would seek to Islamise France:

“In September Mohamed Boudia posted on social media a selfie of himself and Le Pen, an act for which he was threatened with death, and which served to reinforce his own belief that the Islamic extremists must be rooted out. While the majority of France’s estimated 4.5 million Muslims want to lead peaceful, integrated lives (only 2.1m are said to have declared their faith), there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of extremists.”

Right now, French unemployment sits at ten percent.  How can France sustain taking in more welfare-dependent refugees and migrants, peaceful or otherwise, when unemployment is this high? Even if they could, why should they, as if it represents some moral obligation to take in those coming from the bitterly sectarian third world who bring their backward problems with them?  Le Pen is the only candidate who speaks sense around these issues - French citizens first - the rest put on indefinite hold as France sees fit.  That is its absolute right as a sovereign nation.

Considering that Marine wrested control of the National Front from out of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen’s, holocaust-denying grip - causing a vicious family feud, she has sought to turn the party into something significantly rational, a party which envisions a secular, sovereign France with control of its economy, borders and culture. For a daughter to be prepared to confront her infamous and powerful father over issues she thought him to be profoundly wrong on, shows remarkable strength of character and integrity to personal values.  She has shown herself to be a true descendent of an enlightened country which once gave the world philosophical greats such as Emilie du Chatelet, Voltaire, Descartes, Lavoisier, Bastiat and was a most beloved second home to Benjamin Franklin.

Refreshingly, because she has a sense of history, Marine also knows who these amazing people were and what they achieved during The Enlightenment and beyond.  She is exactly what France needs at its helm in order to hold a steadfast course through the politically stormy waters of the next decade.



If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​ 

By Olivia Pierson

Right now in media circulation, a big lie is doing the rounds: that Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria is a secular regime.  This is not true.  The same lie was told about Saddam Hussein’s regime before he was overthrown from power in Iraq.  Even some light surface reading on Saddam's Return to Faith Campaign will dispel that porky. 

In the last week or so, I have heard this lie coming from the lips of many media outlets and political commentators who should know better, like Nigel Farage, Ann Coulter, Paul Joseph Watson and Katie Hopkins (I deeply respect these four great people, but they happen to be wrong on this one).  

Apart from the fact that Assad has filled his administration only with Alawites (a sect of Shia Islam), the Syrian regime is a Baathist regime, as was the Iraqi administration under Saddam.  The Baath Party is a form of Arab nationalism, conceived as an anti colonialist, socialist movement for Arabs which liked to advertise itself as secular and borrow ideas from the Enlightenment such as ‘truth’ and freedom of speech. It emphasises ‘truth’ as interpreted by the scholarship of Islam, not truth interpreted by the scholarship of scientific thought as the European Enlightenment emphasised.  There was no freedom of speech under Saddam’s brutal police state neither does it exist in Assad’s Syria.  So much for the Arabs making claims on the Enlightenment - the truth is the Arab world has never had one and that is why it’s such a sectarian mess.

If Syria is so secular someone might like to explain why there are no Jews living there?
We know Jews were heavily persecuted under Bashar al-Assad’s Baathist father, Hafez al-Assad. They were even forbidden to leave Syria for Israel.  During the 1990s the small Jewish population left in Damascus were under heavy state surveillance by Assad’s secret police in their homes, their schools and their synagogues.  Does that sound like a secular family dynasty to you?

It has never been a secret that Bashar al-Assad sponsors Islamic terrorism, not only of the Shi’ite variety like Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement, but also Sunni terrorism which has now mutated into ISIS.  He allowed Al Qaeda terror training camps to operate in Syria, in order to ensure that terrorists kept pouring across the border into Iraq to fight the Multinational Forces led by the United States.  This is widely known.  

But what is not as widely known in mainstream media circles is that according to former Alawite members of Syria's Military Intelligence, Assad opened the doors of his slaughterhouse, Saydnaya prison, to allow the most radically murderous Al Qaeda terrorists and ex-Iraqi Baathists to be released and abetted because he thought the Multinational Forces might eventually come for him too.  In 2011 he let these savages out fully knowing they would ravage, rape and butcher their way through Syrian towns so that he could look like the strongman standing between peace or extreme terrorism in his own country.  This risk to his regime was one he was willing to live with as a calculated distraction from the original peaceful protesters crying out for democracy and gaining world attention.  At first this ruse worked, now it has backfired.

Since when did a so called ‘secular’ butcher have any more credence in Western eyes than a sectarian butcher?  Why are commentators clinging to this false detail and promulgating it?
I know the answer to that - it is because they think it adds weight to making the case for non- intervention in Syria’s civil war.  Take a look at this staggeringly complex list of militias and armed groups currently fighting in Syria as I write:

List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war...

How could anyone look at this list and say with a straight face that Assad’s Syria has operated as a secular regime?!

I understand the rational apprehension people have toward the idea of a Western intervention in Syria’s ghastly war.  President Trump gained so much support for his ‘no foreign entanglements’ rhetoric, while he was also talking on the campaign trail about building “safe zones” in Syria - that was a dual minded proposition right there.  But since his strike last week on a Syrian airbase over Assad’s disgusting use of chemical weapons (again) on his own defenseless civilians it is clear to me that the language coming out of the President’s administration is beginning to sound as though regime change may be on the cards in their minds.  Nicky Haley, along with Rex Tillerson,  are making the case that there cannot be a stable Syria with Assad at the helm, and I think that is obvious.

If this is so, the yuuuuuuuge problematic question on everyone’s lips will be if not Assad, who would fill the power vacuum? 

Assad is obviously an evil and incompetent leader - just look at the gutted ruins of half his country and the refugee crisis it has unleashed into the Western world.  So much for a “strongman” who holds these problems at bay from impacting the West.

What seems to not exist in anyone’s vision for a new Syria is some sort of model to act upon.  Iraq is the closest thing we have as an example of a way to deal with Assad, but the cost of Iraq has been terrible. However, what made the situation in Iraq infinitely worse than it had to be was after a decade of war, President Obama got handed a victory there, the result of General Petraeus’ surge. Obama turned that hard-won victory into a defeat by blazingly sign-posting U.S troop withdrawal and failing to negotiate a decent Status of Forces Agreement.  The result was ISIS, with the U.S Forces having to go back in to retrain Iraqi Security Forces and help clean up once more.  This was a disaster Obama could and should have avoided had he but once listened to the counsel of President Bush.  But there it is, being only a Social Justice Warrior President, he was stupendously out of his depth as an effective, real world Commander in Chief.   

It is worth noting that the regimes sympathetic to totalitarianism, Iran, North Korea, China and Russia are all involved with supporting armaments to the Assad regime. It looks as though the Trump administration is about to act militarily in North Korea, or at least push China to.

Before I end this post, I will remind people that U.S intervention has at times been extraordinarily successful. The reason that the once imperialist, murderous Japanese regime of Hirohito and Tojo is now a wealthy, peaceful democratic country is because of U.S intervention and a relatively short occupation. The reason that South Korea does not look anything like totalitarian North Korea is because of a U.S military intervention.  In the case of Japan it was total defeat and unconditional surrender thanks to the atomic bomb.  When I look at Assad’s Syria he has consciously driven his country into the ground resulting in a spectacularly failed nation, if not a rogue nation propped up by dubious countries like Iran and Russia.

If anti-interventionists want to make the case for leaving the Middle East well alone to destroy itself (and keep from impacting the West), without the meddling of NATO nations, then fine, now is the time to clearly make that case. But please spare us from the silly myth that the case is greatly fortified by the fictional notion of Assad being a secularist strongman who is keeping terrorism in check.

​That is pure camel dung.



If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​