En 1889, Fidus reprend les cours réguliers qu’il s’était promis de suivre à Munich. Il y fait la connaissance de Wilhelm Hübbe-Schleiden, originaire, lui aussi, d’Allemagne du Nord, converti à la théosophie de l’occultiste Madame Blavatsky et partisan d’une politique coloniale allemande. Ce nati de Hambourg était un ami intime de Madame Blavatsky et de son adepte américain Henry Steel Olcott, qui avait fondé aux Etats-Unis une secte théosophique. La religiosité théosophique de Steel Olcott était un mélange obscur de bribes hétéroclites tirées des religions d’Asie et de trucs de prestigiditateur, qui avait pourtant acquis une notoriété internationale. Il faut aussi rappeler que ce cher Henry travaillait accessoirement pour le gouvernement américain. Pour rassembler leurs adeptes allemands, Hübbe-Schleiden édita une revue mensuelle, intitulée Sphinx, dont le graphiste principal fut évidemment le jeune Fidus. Cette collaboration dura trois ans. Influencé par les idées glanées dans la revue, Fidus fit siennes celles d’un « cercle de vie » et d’une « thérapie par la lumière ».
Fidus, lui, quitta Munich pour Berlin, où il travailla pour des revues telles Jugend, Pan et Simplicissimus. Plus tard, il collabora à Kraft und Schönheit et à Die Schönheit. Le regard de Fidus sur la beauté naturelle du corps humain et son style « Art Nouveau », quelque peu édulcoré, firent de lui le graphiste le plus connu d’Allemagne au tournant du siècle.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
The arguments over identitarians should embrace or abandon Christianity is a question that still remains unresolved within the broader movement.
Last week, Quintilian entered the fray [2] and offered a reasoned argument for why white nationalists should embrace Christianity. The writer believes that white nationalists have fallen prey to the corrupted image of modern Christianity and fail to see the glory of the traditional faith.
According to Quintilian, Christianity is essential to the creation of an ethnostate and nationalists must strive to restore it to its traditional state. But identitarians should be wary of the possibility that a restored and conservative Christianity would be amenable to our cause.
In fact, this resurgent Christianity may be more inclined to fight against our movement, regardless of however much we profess our devotion to the faith. Quintilian deplores Vatican II as the event that destroyed the historical religion, but the Church was hostile to our beliefs many long before the bishops met in Rome in 1962. Take for instance the tragic tale of the Action Française.[1] [3]
Charles Maurras’s reactionary nationalist movement wanted to restore the monarchy, end the separation of church and state, and uphold France’s traditional Catholic identity. It was firmly opposed to liberalism and many of its economic and political beliefs were firmly in line with Catholic social teaching. Maurras himself was an agnostic, but he argued for the necessity of the Catholic faith and was extremely careful in allaying clerical fears about his irreligion. This should have been a movement the Church fully supported, and in its early years, many clerics did. The movement provided most of the militant activists in Catholic battles against the forces of secularism and liberalism in the first decades of the 20th century.
Yet, many Church intellectuals began to suspect the Action Française of being too militant, too political, too nationalist, and too, hilariously enough, pagan. Clerics began to suspect the nationalists were drawing young Catholics to an ideology not controlled by the Church. Church leaders preferred a safer political outlet that directed the youth to follow the instructions of priests, not pro-Catholic agnostics.
In 1926, the Vatican issued a formal condemnation against the Action Française, put their publications on the index liborum prohibitorum, denied communion to anyone associated with the movement, and purged sympathizers from the clergy.
This was the pre-Vatican II church led by a conservative pope. Unlike any Right-wing movement today, Action Française had plenty of bishops who were willing to vouch for the proper Christianity of Maurras’s newspaper and politics. Right before the condemnation, the movement’s leaders pleaded with Catholic authorities that they were true to the faith. All of this was for naught as the Church happily kneecapped an allied movement that it could not control.
This condemnation was not enacted by liberal modernists who wanted the Church to be more tolerant and heterodox. Maurras was attacked for failing to adhere to traditional dogma and his lack of genuine piety. His movement was seen as dangerous because it made the youth too nationalist and too enamored with classical ideals. Catholic leaders did not oppose the movement because of its anti-liberalism–it was simply because Action wasn’t directly controlled by the Church and its unorthodox ideas were more popular than Church-sanctioned ones.
The Church was also hostile to the Falange for the same reasons it condemned the Action Française, along with the accusation [4] José Antonio Primo de Rivera was a “Bolshevik” for wanting sensible social reforms. Even though the Falange was firmly opposed to liberalism, defended the Church from Left-wing attacks, and emphasized Spain’s traditional Catholic identity, Church authorities did not like the movement because of its ultra-nationalism, alleged crypto-paganism, and masculine values.[2] [5]
This hostility was par for the course for the conservative Pope Pius XI, who served as the vicar of Christ for much of this time period. Pius XI is considered a man who upheld traditional church teachings against the modernists Pope Pius X despised and is altogether a representative of the era Quintilian wishes the West to return to. However, Pius XI’s Christianity was strongly opposed [6] to racialism and nationalism. He spoke out several times against racial thinking, emphasizing that “catholic meant universal” and to divide the world by nationality and race is “contrary to the faith of Christ.” He ordered the drafting of an encyclical that would aggressively condemn racialism and anti-Semitism shortly before he died in 1939. The encyclical was never published, but many of its ideas found their way in the first encyclical of Pius XI’s successor, Pius XII. That work, Summi Pontifactus, [7]claimed there were no real racial differences as we are all part of one human race.
Quintilian blames modernism for the ultimate corruption of the Church, and this may be true when it comes to the god-awful liturgy of modern masses. But modernism is not what made the Church racially egalitarian and hostile toward nationalist movements. It is a feature that has been found in Christianity since the beginning and has only been tempered by the needs of secular society.
We can see this secular temperance in Poland and Hungary, the two exemplars of the Christian nationalism Quintilian envisions. The relationship between the Church and Eastern European nationalists isn’t as harmonious as one would imagine, but the Church restrains itself on their disagreements due to the demands of secular society. Poland’s leading Catholic bishops have long urged [8] the country to take in non-white migrants and to cease its efforts to purge communists from the judiciary. Some Catholic leaders in the country have gone as far as to deride [9] the immigration policies of the ruling government as “un-Christian.”
The Church hierarchy in Hungary is slightly better as they have argued [10] with Pope Francis over the pontiff’s aggressively pro-migrant stance. But even there, prominent Church leaders still urge [11] for more liberal immigration policies, albeit in more mild tones than that of their western colleagues.
The reason the Church is more muted in its criticism of nationalism in Poland and Hungary has less to do with them finding identitarian arguments in Thomas Aquinas than in their fear of alienating the flock. The vast majority of Poles and Hungarians want to keep their countries white, regardless of whether that desire comports to church teaching. Throughout the centuries, the Church has adapted its teachings and tone to reach the widest audience. Secular liberalism’s domination of Western Europe and America makes the Church try to sound nicer on LGBT issues and pitch God as your personal therapist.
In a society where nationalists control the discourse, the Church would similarly adapt to those circumstances, as Greg Johnson has pointed out [12]. But you first must gain power and dramatically change the culture to see this effect. A white nationalist-driven “restoration” of Christianity outside of a seizure of power is not going to happen. Institutional Christianity will continue to oppose us until that day comes, regardless of how Christian we appear today. Just ask Italy’s Lega, which seeks to put crucifixes back in classrooms and claims the Gospel as its foundation. The nationalist party receives only hostility [13] from the Church.
The resurgence of a more traditionalist Christianity wouldn’t necessarily help our cause. It would see us as an enemy and likely be as hostile to us as the corrupt institutions we face right now. As seen in the example of the Action Française, when you define yourself as a Christian movement, you become beholden to the opinions of priests and pastors. The clergy would want strict adherence to Christian dogma and would not broker “innovative” racialist readings of scripture and tradition. It would prefer we focus on side issues like banning contraceptives rather than protecting our people from demographic replacement. It would tells us African and Latin American Christians are our brothers and that there is no good reason to bar them from our countries.
To oppose these measures would risk condemnation and the deflation of our movement.
Identitarians must appeal to Christians in order to gain victory, but we mustn’t let ourselves be defined by Christianity. Our best arguments are secular and should appeal to Europeans regardless of whether they are Christian, pagan, or atheist. There is only so much energy and political capital we have and we must choose our battles wisely. To waste our limited energy on restoring Christianity to its pre-20th century state would be a serious error with no real rewards.
Notes
[1] [14] Eugen Weber, Action Francaise: Royalism and Reaction in Twentieth Century France.
[2] [15] Stanley G. Payne, Fascism in Spain: 1923-1977.
Such an apology and a reform (or series of reforms) the real revolutionaries mightily feared. Never had they actually sought reform of French society, whatever their claims and protestations. Instead, from the moment they began the revolution in 1789, they wanted to destroy and overturn all that opposed them and to do so utterly and completely, leaving no remnant and no possible opposition. To destroy as violently and wholly as possible, they needed to make a caricature of the aristocrat and the monarch. They needed to take the particular evils of each and make the average person believe them the universal and norm of each. Rather than examining the human condition, the true revolutionaries exaggerated its faults as manifested in the elites of society. They, Burke claimed in true Aristotelian and Thomistic fashion, redefined the thing, claiming its accidents to be its essence. Being revolutionaries, they could not create, they could only mock and pervert. Though the revolutionaries claimed to hate the violence and errors of the aristocracy, they submitted themselves to the very same evils, creating excuses for their own sins, as if necessary to expiate all of those of the past.
" Malgré les nombreuses études qui lui ont été consacrées, une période cruciale de la vie de Julius Evola restait encore dans l’ombre, d’autant plus que l’intéressé, discret jusqu’à la réticence au sujet de lui-même, en avait très peu parlé : les années 1943-1951, qui furent celles de l’attitude à adopter face à la grande crise du régime fasciste et à la fondation de la République sociale italienne (rsi), puis de l’accident survenu à Vienne début 1945 qui le laissa paralysé des membres inférieurs, du véritable « chemin de croix » médical qui suivit entre l’Autriche, la Hongrie et l’Italie, enfin du retour définitif à Rome au printemps de 1951.
It’s not difficult to understand why, however, given that for a long time, Traditionalists have been operating under the guise of being purely concerned with religion and mysticism, remaining silent about the fact that Traditionalism in its complete form is one of the most – if not the most – reactionary current of thought that exists in the postmodern world. This is of course a consequence of the fact that most Traditionalist thinkers today have opted for the safety of academic careers (something which Evola noted already in the 1950s and for which he expressed his contempt), and thus want to avoid being called fascists. Their cover has been somewhat blown, however, as a result of Steve Bannon’s claim that Guénon was a crucial influence on him, which has in turn led to some superficial and ill-informed propaganda from journalists using Traditionalism as a branding iron with which to mark both Bannon and Trump (by association) as fascists, by bringing attention to the connection between Evola and Guénon. (And Evola had the audacity to call himself a “superfascist,” so by the logic of the average half-witted journalist of today, that makes Bannon and Trump really fascist!) It remains to be seen what the long-term consequences of this will be in terms of Traditionalism’s reception in the mainstream, although I’ve noticed that it’s become harder to find Evola and Guénon’s books on bookstore shelves these days. It may have the beneficial effect of forcing Traditionalists out of the realm of pure scholasticism and into putting their beliefs into practice, if academia ultimately becomes a hostile environment for them – which it inevitably will, if present trends continue. Time will tell.
Ook de transportcorridor door Pakistan heeft met dergelijke destabilisaties te kampen. In deze regio strekken veel bevolkingsgroepen zich uit over de grens tussen Afghanistan en Pakistan, zodat instabiliteit in Afghanistan ook uitstraalt naar Pakistaanse regio’s.
Nog groter is het potentieel van de zogeheten 
De Noordoostelijke Doorvaart biedt dus veel voordelen ten opzichte van de nu gangbare route. Het gebied rond het Suez-kanaal is momenteel immers bepaald instabiel. De Straat van Bab el Mandeb, die vanuit de Golf van Aden toegang geeft tot de Rode Zee en het Suezkanaal, ligt immers tussen Jemen enerzijds en Eritrea/Djibouti anderzijds. In Jemen voert een Arabische coalitie onder leiding van Saoedi-Arabië en met ondersteuning van de VS, het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Frankrijk een 
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
The paper was PM, and for the first two years of its existence (1940-42), it exulted in damning Father Coughlin as a seditionist, a yellow-journalist, a Nazi mouthpiece, and an impious opponent of democracy. PM began with a long series of articles in the summer of 1940. “Nazi Propagandist Coughlin Faithless to Church and Country: Hatred and Bigotry Spread Throughout the Nation by Priest,” screamed one headline. After American entry into the war, histrionic, full-page editorials by Editor Ingersoll became a regular feature; e.g., one titled “Has Charles Coughlin Lied Again?”
From the start, PM was renowned for its crankiness and an eagerness to print facts and speculation side-by-side, journalistic taste be damned. For example, in 1941 New Yorker editor Harold Ross discovered that his male secretary had embezzled about a hundred thousand dollars from him over the years. Ross wanted to keep the story hushed up, especially after the greedy amanuensis gassed himself in his Brooklyn apartment and was revealed to be a homosexual who squandered the dough on boyfriends, the turf club, and maybe a blackmailer. This was Harold Ross’ nightmare idea of a scandal. Most of his friends in the press were happy to help him bury the lurid tale. Not PM, though, which printed the murky details of the kitchen suicide, as well as the disarray of Ross’ personal finances.
Fr. Coughlin lived until 1979, seldom remarked upon or remembered. Since that time, the smear campaign has begun anew, as though taken straight from the pages of the 1942 PM. All the trite pejoratives get leveled at him: fascist, pro-Nazi, conspiracy-thinker. And, of course, “anti-Semite.” The website of Washington, DC’s Holocaust Museum even has a page dedicated to him, and it’s filled with every sort of twist and innuendo in the cliché barrel. For example, after Germany’s Kristallnacht made the headlines in November 1938, the priest gave a radio talk explaining the background to the news. This is spun as Coughlin “defend[ing] the state-sponsored violence of the Nazi regime,” although he did not, in fact, endorse violence, window-breaking, or persecution of Jews. From sites such as this, you might get the impression that Fr. Coughlin was a sort of Julius Streicher in a Roman collar.
Dans le monde arabe, à la défaite militaire s’ajoute la défaite symbolique. Il y a bien évidemment l’humiliation de l’occupation : le Sinaï égyptien (qui sera récupéré par le président Sadate), le Golan syrien (annexé en 1981), les fermes libanaises de Chebaa et les territoires palestiniens de Gaza et de Cisjordanie (dont Jérusalem-Est), administrés auparavant par l’Égypte et la Jordanie. Il y a aussi la spoliation du peuple palestinien, qui se retrouve occupé et malmené pendant des décennies par une puissance étrangère. Mais il y a aussi l’échec du nationalisme arabe qui en annoncera bien d’autres. Cet échec de trois grandes armées arabes encouragera le réveil de la résistance palestinienne. Dans les années 1970, l’Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP) jouera un rôle analogue à celui de Nasser, décédé en 1970. En Jordanie comme au Liban, Yasser Arafat apparaîtra comme une figure tutélaire à son tour, stimulé par quelques succès militaires dont les grandes armées arabes ont été incapables. On retrouvera ce phénomène avec le Hezbollah libanais. Un peu plus de dix ans après cette guerre, à la cause arabe contre Israël se substituera une cause nouvelle, nourrie par la montée du wahhabisme à la faveur des pétrodollars, celle de la guerre d’Afghanistan (1979). Tandis que l’Égypte vient de signer un traité de paix avec Israël (ce que la Jordanie fera en 1994), des milliers de combattants venus du monde arabe se retrouveront ainsi plongés dans un conflit lointain au nom d’une appartenance religieuse, encouragés par les Américains et contre l’ennemi « impie » tout désigné : l’Union soviétique.
Voici les propos qu’on lui prête :
Selon ce grandiose Calgacus, on est là aussi pour être rincés par les impôts qui n’ont jamais été aussi élevés (France, Allemagne, USA) pour les couches faibles et moyennes dans ce monde pourtant si libéral :
Nach der Rückehr König Ferdinands (VII.) aus dem unfreiwilligen französischen Exil (1814) baten dieselben „Servilen“ ihn in einer später als „Manifest der Perser“ (Manifiesto de los Persas) berühmt gewordenen Schrift, die revolutionären Neuerungen zu verwerfen. Der seltsame Name rührt von einer Bezugnahme auf die alten Perserkönige zurück, welche der Überlieferung zufolge die Pflicht hatten, mit ihrem Thronantritt die alte Ordnung wiederherzustellen.
Französische Befreier
«i cavalieri liberi del barone Ungern von Sternberg, che sognava di ricostituire in Asia l’impero di Gengis Khan. Un giorno salì a cavallo e disse ai suoi: “Vado su Alpha Centauri”. Nessuno lo vide mai più».
Lors du référendum de Maastricht de 1992, il appelle à un « oui » critique au nom de l’intérêt de l’Europe, car Michel Jobert est très européen. « L’Europe, si elle nous tient à cœur, n’aura de visage, d’identité, que si elle est capable d’assurer elle-même sa sécurité, au lieu de faire semblant de ne pas voir que, au-dessus d’elle, le parapluie nucléaire américain est troué depuis des années et que les États-Unis se replient d’Europe, à l’évidence (dans L’aveuglement du monde occidental. Chroniques de politique internationale 1993 – 1996, Albin Michel, 1997, p. 334). » Parfois désabusé, il estime par exemple que « la fameuse trilogie – monnaie unique, politique étrangère commune, défense commune – est, malgré les étapes et les dates fixées dans l’accord de Maastricht, du domaine de l’imaginaire ou de l’approximation (op. cit., p. 25) ». 
Negli anni Sessanta, in qualità di giovanissimo militante della Giovane Europa, l’organizzazione da lui diretta, ebbi modo di vederlo diverse volte. Lo conobbi a Parma, nel 1964, accanto a un monumento che colpì in maniera particolare la sua sensibilità di “eurafricano”: quello di Vittorio Bottego, l’esploratore del corso del Giuba. Poi lo incontrai in occasione di alcune riunioni della Giovane Europa e in un campeggio sulle Alpi. Nel 1967, alla vigilia dell’aggressione sionista contro l’Egitto e la Siria, fui presente a un’affollata conferenza che egli tenne in una sala di Bologna, dove spiegò perché l’Europa doveva schierarsi a fianco del mondo arabo e contro l’entità sionista. Nel 1968, a Ferrara, partecipai a un convegno di dirigenti della Giovane Europa, nel corso del quale Thiriart sviluppò a tutto campo la linea antimperialista: “Qui in Europa, la sola leva antiamericana è e resterà un nazionalismo europeo ‘di sinistra’ (…) Quello che voglio dire è che all’Europa sarà necessario un nazionalismo di carattere popolare (…) Un nazionalcomunismo europeo avrebbe sollevato un’ondata enorme di entusiasmo. (…) Guevara ha detto che sono necessari molti Vietnam; e aveva ragione. Bisogna trasformare la Palestina in un nuovo Vietnam”. Fu l’ultimo suo discorso che ebbi modo di ascoltare.
All’inizio degli anni Ottanta, Thiriart lavora a un libro che non ha mai visto la luce: L’Empire euro-soviétique de Vladivostok à Dublin. Il piano dell’opera prevede quindici capitoli, ciascuno dei quali si articola in numerosi paragrafi. Come appare evidente dal titolo di quest’opera, la posizione di Thiriart nei confronti dell’Unione Sovietica è notevolmente cambiata. Abbandonata la vecchia parola d’ordine “Né Mosca né Washington”, Thiriart assume ora una posizione che potrebbe essere riassunta così: “Con Mosca contro Washington”. Già tredici anni prima, d’altronde, in un articolo intitolato Prague, l’URSS et l’Europe (“La Nation Européenne”, n. 29, novembre 1968), denunciando gli intrighi sionisti nella cosiddetta “primavera di Praga”, Thiriart aveva espresso una certa soddisfazione per l’intervento sovietico e aveva cominciato a delineare una “strategia dell’attenzione” nei confronti dell’URSS. “Un’Europa occidentale NON AMERICANA – aveva scritto – permetterebbe all’Unione Sovietica di svolgere un ruolo quasi antagonista degli USA. Un’Europa occidentale alleata, o un’Europa occidentale AGGREGATA all’URSS sarebbe la fine dell’imperialismo americano (…) Se i Russi vogliono staccare gli Europei dall’America – e a lungo termine essi devono necessariamente lavorare per questo scopo – bisogna che ci offrano, in cambio della SCHIAVITU’ DORATA americana, la possibilità di costruire un’entità politica europea. Se la temono, il modo migliore di scongiurarla consiste nell’integrarvisi”.
Apparso nel 1964 in lingua francese, nel giro di due anni Un Empire de 400 millions d’hommes: l’Europe vide la luce in altre sei lingue europee. La traduzione italiana venne eseguita da Massimo Costanzo, (all’epoca redattore di “Europa Combattente”, organo italofono della Giovane Europa), il quale presentò l’opera con queste parole: “Il libro di Jean Thiriart è destinato a suscitare, per la sua profondità e per la sua chiarezza, un forte interesse. Ma da dove deriva questa chiarezza? Da un fatto molto semplice: l’autore ha usato un linguaggio essenzialmente politico, lontano dai fumi dell’ideologia e dalle costruzioni astratte o pseudometafisiche. Dopo una lettura attenta, nel libro si possono anche trovare impostazioni ideologiche, ma queste traspaiono dalle tesi politiche e non il contrario, come fino ad oggi è avvenuto nel campo nazionaleuropeo”. Nonostante le riserve che alcune “impostazioni ideologiche” dell’Autore (eurocentrismo, razionalismo, giacobinismo ecc.) potranno suscitare, il lettore di questa seconda edizione italiana probabilmente concorderà con quanto scriveva Massimo Costanzo quarant’anni or sono; anzi, si renderà conto che questo libro, senza dubbio il più famoso dei testi redatti da Thiriart
Acabo de consultar la web de Siruela y veo que ya va por la 18ª edición, y el número de reseñas y entrevistas a la autora se multiplica desde su salida. Si escribo esta breve reseña no es por otro motivo que el de compartir sensaciones y reflexiones, animar a su lectura, recomendar el estudio serio y objetivo de la Historia, la de España y la del mundo, y cerrar el paso a toda suerte de racismo.
Luteranos y calvinistas no fueron mejores en su intolerancia, como demuestra la señora Roca, antes bien, fueron especialmente fanáticos en sus orígenes, y traidores a la civilización en la que se insertaron, aliándose con los turcos y prefiriendo el yugo de éstos, al yugo suave del Imperio carolino. La historia les juzgará, pues ahora son justamente esos países intolerantes y catolicofóbicos los que han hecho de la "tolerancia" su religión o sucedáneo de religión. Y ahora sí, deshecho ese Imperio universal que extendiera una civilización católica, tienen al "turco", o algún análogo suyo, metido dentro, destrozándoles en sus entrañas.
Catherine Nixey’s The Darkening Age is a powerful and highly readable account of the Christian destruction of classical antiquity. It is certainly not without flaws, but it offers hard-hitting and concise rebuttals to widespread myths surrounding the history of early Christianity.
The destruction of the Serapeum was celebrated by Christian chroniclers. “And that was the end of the vain superstition and ancient error of Serapis,” one concluded. Serapis was described as a “decrepit dotard.”
Celsus observed that “slaves, women and little children” and “the foolish, dishonorable and stupid” were those most receptive to the Christian message, which is not surprising in light of the Christians’ contempt for the wise, the strong, and the honorable.
Constantine’s son banned pagan sacrifices in 341, declaring that “superstition shall cease.” In 356, the worship of pagan images became a capital crime. He also ordered the closure of temples. Following the brief reign of Julian “the Apostate” (361-363), Rome was ruled by Christian emperors until the end. Julian was succeeded by Jovian, who ordered the destruction of the Royal Library of Antioch and reinstated the death penalty for those who worshiped pagan gods. Nicene Christianity was declared the official religion of the Empire in 380, during the reign of Theodosius I. From 389 to 392, Theodosius issued a series of decrees banning pagan sacrifices and other rituals, closing pagan temples, and abolishing pagan holidays. He declared,”No person shall be granted the right to perform sacrifices; no person shall go around the temples; no person shall revere the shrines.” He also disbanded the Vestal Virgins and the Olympic Games. In 399, he passed a decree authorizing temple destruction, announcing that “if there should be any temples in the country districts, they shall be torn down without disturbance or tumult. For when they are torn down and removed, the material basis for all superstition will be destroyed.”
It is possible that Nixey decided to downplay Christianity’s Jewish roots in order to avoid potential accusations of anti-Semitism. If this is the case, it is a testament to the fact that, two thousand years after the Jewish-Roman Wars, Jewish subversion is still a very real phenomenon.
En 1625, une proclamation officielle ordonna aux prisonniers irlandais d’être rassemblés et vendus comme esclaves aux planteurs anglais. Entre 1629 et 1632, un grand nombre d’Irlandais, hommes et femmes, furent envoyés en Guyane, à Antiqua et à Montserrat. En 1637, environ 69 % de la population de Montserrat était constituée d’esclaves irlandais. Il fallait acheter de nouveaux esclaves, de 20 à 50 livres sterling, des esclaves irlandais capturés et vendus pour 900 livres de coton. Les Irlandais sont devenus la plus grande source d’esclaves pour les marchands d’esclaves anglais.
De 1600 à 1699, peu de gens comprennent que plus d’Irlandais étaient vendus comme esclaves que d’Africains.
Dès 1857, la Valachie parvient à stabiliser une production de pétrole de 250 tonnes. C’est évidemment très modeste. En comparaison, la Russie produit 1863 t et, juste derrière elle, les Etats-Unis en produisent 1859. La même année, Bucarest devient la première ville au monde à avoir un éclairage public grâce à des lanternes au pétrole. L’inventeur de la lampe à pétrole est, dit-on, le pharmacien Ignaz Lukasiewicz, natif de Polanka en Galicie occidentale. Ce maître en sciences pharmaceutiques construisit en 1850 un récipient de cuivre, dans lequel il épure et distille le pétrole brut et l’amène à la combustion. 
L’opération « Tidal Wave » du dimanche 1 août 1943 s’est avérée un fiasco complet pour les 178 bombardiers américains de la 9ième Flotte aérienne, partis de Benghazi en Libye. Une partie des escadres s’égare en direction de Bucarest. Les appareils sont repérés très rapidement, si bien qu’ils perdent l’effet de surprise sur lequel ils comptaient.