A new French-language book on European and American nationalism has been making waves, with reviews already appearing at American Renaissance and Counter-Currents.VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow asked me to take a look at it.

The title, Suprémacistes, by   Philippe-Joseph Salazar, left me skeptical. But the slur “white supremacist” never occurs in the text of the book itself. The author, a French academic residing in South Africa, interviewed numerous thinkers and writers associated with the new white nationalism (more commonly known as identitarianism in Europe), and mostly allows them to speak for themselves.

One of the earlier chapters is devoted to VDARE.com’s own John Derbyshire, whom Professor Salazar visited at his Long Island home. He describes for his French readership his impressions as the train passes through the “vibrant” parts of Brooklyn and Queens, made famous by various racial murders, and on into the more-English-than-England suburbs Mr. Derbyshire calls home.

A prolific essayist with the polemical kick of a kung-fu fighter [yes, the author recounts Derb’s appearance in Bruce Lee’s The Way of the Dragon, below right (Derb is the one in the center)], he is a decisive intellectual influence on the young alt-right probably because of his rapidity of execution. John Derbyshire writes scathing articles which cut to the heart of the subject: a talented polemicist, but one steeped in science and literature, and who knows how to argue. [Links in quotes are added]

Mr. Derbyshire meets the professor at the station. The author does not fail to mention that this “white racist” fired by National Review is married to a Chinese lady and is the father of two mixed-race children. The two men proceed to Derbyshire’s office under the eaves where they chat beneath a picture of George Orwell and surrounded by Mr. Derbyshire’s “modest but powerful” personal library. Prof. Salazar realizes he is “literally at the intellectual sources of white ‘dissidence,’ upstream from what the young people of the movement believe,” and asks his interviewee whether he sees himself as a precursor of the Alt Right.

Amy Coney Barrett will almost certainly replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few days. “We have the votes," GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the imminent confirmation vote [Judiciary Committee sets vote on Barrett's nomination for next week, by Jordan Cairney, The Hill, October 15, 2020]. Of course, Conservatism Inc.’s chattering class thinks Barrett will champion their causes. But the Dissident Right has less reason for enthusiasm. Granted, her record on immigration is fairly good and raises few eyebrows. But what lifts more than a few eyebrows is the substantial influence on her thinking she attributes to her adopted Haitian children. That could affect myriad decisions: not only on immigration, of course, but also on criminal justice relative to the “systemic racism” hoax, and free speech/Big Tech Censorship relative to “racism” and “Hate Speech.” Worst case scenario: Barrett might turn out to be an element in the further dispossession of the Historic American Nation.

On the positive side: the 48-year-old was solid on immigration when she sat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Most legal analysts say she will uphold Trump’s immigration priorities and will follow legal precedent. “She seems to have the more traditional perspective about judicial review in immigration cases, which is that review ought to be limited," said law professor Angela Banks [Amy Coney Barrett likely would uphold Trump immigration policies, analysts say, by Daniel Gonzalez, Arizona Republic, October 5, 2020].

“Judge Barrett leaves policy questions where they belong: with the political branches,” Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies writes. “[I]f conservatives, or those who favor a more restrictive immigration regime, believe that she would use her position as a Supreme Court justice to advance specific immigration policies, they will likely be disappointed—unless those policies are grounded in statute and precedent.” Liberals who think Barrett will read open borders into the Constitution will be disappointed, too [Those Favoring Judicial Activism on Immigration Will Likely Be Disappointed With a Justice Barrett, Center for Immigration Studies, October 5, 2020].

Three cases in which Barrett sided with the Trump administration put Barrett in a favorable light. She ruled against aliens who filed dubious asylum claims and against foreigners try to smuggle their children into the country, Arthur observed. In an outstanding dissent, she affirmed the legality of the Trump administration’s public-charge rule that would bar permanent residency to immigrants on welfare.

The one case where she ruled against Trump involved immigration judges. Trump’s Justice Department limited judges from halting deportation cases through “administrative closure.” Barrett authored the opinion overturning that policy. “Immigration judges have broad authority to administratively close cases where 'appropriate and necessary for disposition' of cases,” she wrote.

So, though it wasn’t exactly a major blow to Trump’s immigration agenda, she is not a 100-percenter on Trump’s immigration priorities. But three of four ain’t bad.

The only time Barrett neared voicing an opinion on immigration in the hearings: answering Sen. Cory Booker’s question about “family separation” at the border, an Obama-era policy.

Is it “wrong to separate children from their parents to deter immigrants from coming to the U.S.?” the “fiercely heterosexual” Booker asked.

Answered Barrett:

That’s been a matter of policy debate and obviously that’s a matter of hot political debate in which I can’t express a view or be drawn into as a judge.

That’s reasonable, and likely much better than what other jurists would say [Amy Coney Barrett Declines To Comment On Separation Of Children At The U.S. Border, by Matt Perez. Forbes, October 14, 2020].

The Soviet State Committee on the State of Emergency, August, 1991

Our country seems headed for a political crisis, with the enemies of Deplorable America making noises suggesting they are planning a post-election “Color Revolution”-type coup against Trump. As a long-time Russia-watcher, I suggest that the failed Soviet coup of 1991, and the collapse that it spurred on, is instructive.

The key point that year came when Soviet military and security units refused to move against Boris Yeltsin and his defenders. Could something like that happen here, with Trump playing the Yeltsin role?

What yours truly has dubbed the globalist Blob has been signaling for some time that it has no intention of yielding to Trump come election day. Hillary Clinton, in her guise as the post-American Madam Defarge of the present Cultural Revolution, has even stated publicly that Joe Biden should not concede the election to Trump “under any circumstances.” [Morning Greatness: Hillary Clinton Says Biden Should Not Concede ‘Under Any Circumstances’, by Liz Steele, AmGreatness.com, August 26, 2020]

Meanwhile, the Democrats, with help from rabid Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol and David Frum, have been “wargaming” scenarios for preventing Trump from taking office should he win, developing a plan for what Trump has correctly described as “an insurrection.” [The Billionaire Backers of the ‘Insurrection’, by Julie Kelly, AmGreatness.com, Sep 14, 2020] The plan is to claim that Trump has stolen, or attempted to steal, the election. “As far as our enemies are concerned," as I wrote here last month, "they are on the right side of history, and neither election law nor the Constitution or any antiquated notions about fair play will stop them.” [Revolution and Resistance: How can elections continue?, American Remnant, September 4, 2020]

The mail-in balloting plan plays into the Blob’s wargaming. If the Democrats can’t swing the election their way by hook or crook, then the lengthy process of accounting for all the mail-in ballots could be used as a means to sow confusion and chaos, giving them room to maneuver in the aftermath of Election Day.

The Blob’s minions have been signaling their intention to drag out the vote count. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, for example, declared on Face the Nation that her state would not be held to any “artificial deadlines” for reporting election results. [MI Gov. Whitmer: No ‘Artificial Deadlines’ for Announcing Election Results, by Jeff Poor, Breitbart, October 11, 2020] In an example of the psychological projection characteristic of Democrats, Whitmer further claimed that those who might want to expedite the vote count had “political agendas.”

Meanwhile, the Blob’s militant wing has been circulating a plan for post-election disruption. [READ: Left-wing Radicals Post Online Guide to ‘Disrupting’ the Country if Election is Close, by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, October 12, 2020] A Leftist group calling itself ShutDownDC [Tweet them] plans to prevent a Trump “coup”—more projection there—by shutting down the country and forcing Trump out if the vote is too close to call. The plan calls for “sustained disruptive movements all over the country.” The militants also state that they intend to demand that “no winner be announced until every vote is counted.”

ShutDownDC further proclaims that it has no intention of allowing the country to return to normal. The goal is to “dismantle” what it calls “interlocking systems of oppression.”

This isn’t just about an election—it’s a blueprint for completing the Left’s anti-American Cultural Revolution.

Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com]

See also: You’re Next! If Biden/ Harris Win, A Crackdown On Whites Is Coming;

You probably caught Keith Olbermann's October 9th address to the nation. In case you didn't, or need reminding, here it is:

Trump can be, and must be, expunged. The hate he has triggered, Pandora's boxes he has opened, they will not be so easily destroyed.

So, let us brace ourselves. The task is two-fold: the terrorist Trump must be defeated, must be destroyed, must be devoured at the ballot box, and then he, and his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators, and the Mike Lees and the William Barrs, and Sean Hannitys, and the Mike Pences, and the Rudy Giulianis and the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has destroyed by turning it over to a virus.

Remember it, even as we dream for a return to reality and safety and the country for which our forefathers died, that the fight is not just to win the election, but to win it by enough to chase—at least for a moment—Trump and the maggots off the stage and then try to clean up what they left.

Remember it, even though to remember it, means remembering that the fight does not end on November 3rd, but in many ways, will only begin that day. [Links added]

 Keith Olbermann: "Terrorist Trump" And His Enablers And Supporters Must Be "Removed From Our Society", RCP, October 9, 2020

An hour or so after watching that, while it was still bouncing around in my head, I took my dog for a walk. Basil gets a good long daily walk: forty-five minutes around the quiet, arboreal streets of our middle-middle-class suburb.

So we're strolling along one of those streets when I spot a big yard sign. At first glance from a distance, I thought it was something promoting a candidate for the coming election.

Then I read it:

HATE HAS NO HOME HERE.