The Real... behind the Veil of Appearances
Team Trump – The Real Behind the Veil of Appearances
MATTIAS DESMET, JAN 6
On January 20th, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the United States.
His (re)election is probably the most significant political event since World War II.
What its ultimate significance will be, we do not yet know.
"Life is lived forward but understood backward" (paraphrasing S?ren Kierkegaard).
It is good to learn to endure this uncertainty.
It is not a sign of greatness for a person to always be certain; it is a sign of humanity to remain serene in the presence of uncertainty.
In a certain sense, it is even an ethical duty to embrace uncertainty.
Trump is human, and like all humans, he is complex and dynamic in nature and, as such, intrinsically unpredictable—at least for the human mind.
I am therefore somewhat skeptical of both those who are certain that Trump will save the world and those who are certain that he will destroy it.
That said—Trump has won the election.
And Kamala Harris has lost.
Harris' loss has been interpreted in many ways:
she made tactical errors,
she lacked rhetorical skill,
the "deep state" wanted to push forward someone easily manipulated but it backfired, or
she underestimated Trump’s sophistication and intelligence, and so forth.
Here’s another possible explanation:
Kamala Harris and the people behind her underestimated how much (a segment of) the population is tired of their hollow political rhetoric and hypocrisy.
Clinton, Obama, Biden—a pretty fa?ade masking the opposite of what it pretends to show.
Bill Clinton’s painting dressed as a woman in Jeffrey Epstein's mansion,
Barack Obama pinning the Medal of Freedom on Condoleezza Rice after she turned a blind eye to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq,
Hillary Clinton's juvenile spite and schadenfreude when the life of Gaddafi also marked the end of an unprecedented period of prosperity in Libya,
Joe Biden going after dissident journalists and emprisoning political opponents while portraying himself as a great defender of democracy—the painful parade of grotesque hypocrisies from the Democrats is long, far too long.
Not that Republicans are without blame—they too have skeletons in their closets, and perhaps I’ll write about that another time.
But this is about why the Democrats lost the election.
That many people are no longer impressed when these Democrats present themselves as the great representatives of virtue—who could be surprised?
Al Gore went on a tour to warn the world about rising sea levels but bought a villa near the sea in the same year.
And he didn’t give up his private jets or heated swimming pools out of concern for “the climate” either.
Many people believe we should take better care of nature, but fewer and fewer believe that the globalist climate crusaders are the right people for the job.
Over the past two decades, the American Democrats have become the representatives of the globalist Agenda 2030 ideology, which hardly comes across as very moral.
Their moralizing about inclusivity and gender neutrality mostly seems immoral; the “One Health Policy” of the WHO reads more like a radical threat to health and respect for the population’s right to self-determination.
The economic policy (naturally tied to the climate and inclusivity agenda) was largely written by bankers like Goldman Sachs, who in 2008 perpetrated what is probably the largest heist in history.
Soon, these same oligarchs will push digital identity cards and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) to save the climate and democracy.
“The New Globalist Morality” is a barely concealed performance designed to lead everyone into technocracy and the surveillance state—many people believe.
And, true to Aldous Huxley’s predictions, the New Tyranny sails in under the flag of Ultimate Democracy.
The Democrats have become radical anti-democrats.
They were not defeated electorally because the population is tired of democracy; they were defeated because the population sees them as a threat to democracy.
Trump offers them more hope for democracy—hope that they, as a people, will have some say when it comes to immigration, health, or economic policy.
Whether that hope is justified, we will examine later.
For many, Trump is a relief—not exactly a refined speaker, but a bulldozer crashing through the wall of deception.
Against the caricature created in the mainstream, he has actually shown himself to be made of the right stuff on several occasions.
Take, for instance, the case of Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was imprisoned in 2009.
The man was likely the victim of political retaliation in which Obama played a dubious (and highly undemocratic) role.
Trump—as a Republican—was one of the few who steadfastly supported Blagojevich.
In 2020, he ultimately granted him clemency.
You must credit Trump with something else as well: he shares dialogue with his geopolitical adversaries, including the ever-demonized Putin and Kim Jong-un.
This points to a minimal form of ethical awareness that Biden lacked.
It is widely known that while the world was hurtling toward World War III under Biden’s administration, Biden did not speak with Putin even once. If even the threat of nuclear war does not suffice to walk the path of words, what does?
It wasn’t until Biden completely exposed himself in the debate with Trump that even the ‘mainstream’ turned against him.
Suddenly, you’d read that he had narcissistic tendencies.
And that he was already showing signs of mental decline in 2020.
Personally, I know quite a few people who saw that back in 2020.
It wasn’t so much Kamala Harris who lost the 2024 election; it was the mainstream media.
Personally, I’m not sure what I find worse:
that the mass media turned a blind eye for four years to the highly problematic characteristics of Biden, or
that they are now dropping their former protégé like a stone because they can no longer use him.
Totalitarian systems eventually devour their own children—Hannah Arendt taught us that.
I suspect Biden is starting to realize this himself.
Not that it stops him from continuing down the same path.
He is now rushing to pardon a few hundred people, primarily his son and Anthony Fauci—both almost certainly guilty of criminal acts, one on a larger scale than the other.
The belief that Trump can truly bring about positive change for the first time in a long while is widespread and justified in some respects.
The likelihood that he could end the war in Ukraine with a few conversations with Putin is real—so real, in fact, that some are scrambling to undercut him, urging Zelensky to end the war quickly before Trump can do it.
If the war ends now, it’s Trump who will get the credit.
Anyone who fails to appreciate that should urgently check the state of their heart.
There is indeed a chance that Team Trump will address some real societal problems.
That’s also why they tried to assassinate Trump and why he still faces significant risks today.
The Democrats, through their constant demonization of Trump, are also trying to build support for such an assassination.
Can someone explain to me what’s democratic about a party that massively censors the media (see the Zuckerberg story), prosecutes dissident journalists, imprisoned political opponents (see Biden’s record), and works tirelessly to create public support for assassinations of competing presidential candidates?
Trump is indeed not safe yet.
Just like other members of his team, by the way.
Robert Kennedy Junior will—if he gets past Congress, that is—take on Big Pharma and the food industry.
This is unprecedented, without a doubt a revolution of historical proportions.
There is indeed something fundamentally wrong with those industries.
While the amounts invested in medical research and healthcare have spectacularly increased, public health has declined just as spectacularly every year.
The work of Casey and Calley Means is recommended in this regard.
The mentioned industries are undoubtedly a disgrace to humanity, most likely responsible for an unprecedented decline in public health over the past 50 years and for millions of victims.
There are two culprits in this: Big Pharma itself and the population that keeps going along with their stories and continues to buy into the idea that the pains of the human condition can be solved with a pill.
It will be hot days for RFK.
The biggest problem will likely be the academic-medical world, largely sponsored and brainwashed by Big Pharma and Big Food.
There is a good chance they will produce one study after another, using highly sophisticated statistics to "prove" that RFK's policies are a disaster for public health.
He will be responsible for the loss of numerous lives, you know!
Turning the truth upside down is a characteristic of the New Lie that has taken control of our rationalist society.
Fortunately, Trump has nominated Professor Jay Bhattacharya as the future head of the NIH to assist Kennedy, a man with a warm heart and a sharp intellect, a rare combination of qualities.
A man who also took responsibility during the coronavirus crisis and, with the Great Barrington Declaration, put his intellectual weight in the balance to protect the population from the destructiveness of (among others) Big Pharma.
He paid the price of a mud-slinging campaign in the media.
I’ve talked about it with him—he’s only become a more beautiful soul because of it.
Whether Kennedy and Bhattacharya succeed or not, for my part, I am sure they will make a sincere and downright heroic attempt.
Team Trump is also going to take on one of the greatest scourges of Enlightenment culture:
the burgeoning bureaucracy.
Elon Musk—the most prominent member of Team Trump—should prepare for that (and who knows, maybe Mark Zuckerberg too, the world is going crazy these days).
This too could become a revolution unlike any in modern history.
And if anyone is capable of actually pushing this through, it is Musk.
When he arrived at Twitter, he fired 80% of the staff and it ran better than before.
I assume the numbers could be even more spectacular at the state apparatus level.
Musk is a special case.
On one hand, he opposes the ideology of the malleable human, especially since his son is tired of being male and wants to become female, and he encountered a few people in his environment who—let’s put it mildly—didn’t feel too healthy after the COVID vaccine.
As an energetic entrepreneur, he doesn't sit idly by.
He declared war on transgenderism and woke ideology, and he bought Twitter to provide a haven for the stifling contemporary censorship.
On the other hand, he is a technophile and a prototypical example of someone who is sensitive to the arrogance of human intellect.
With his SpaceX project, he aims to conquer Mars, with his Starlink project, he is laying the foundation for a radical digitalization of society, and with his Neuralink brain chip, he plans to ensure that people can communicate flawlessly with each other without words or language.
In this sense, he is a pioneer of the malleable human idea, the practical implementer of Harari’s transhumanism, and the "internet-of-bodies" society.
Musk is indeed advocating for a far-reaching digitalization of society.
For instance, he announces that soon almost all cars will be self-driving.
No need to limit your alcohol consumption anymore, no more problems with Sunday drivers—Big Computer will deliver you to your destination perfectly via its digital signal, just like a package.
Can you object to that?
Maybe, yes.
Every further digitalization and automation of society may initially seem to make our lives easier.
But it exacts a barely visible yet very real toll on a psychological level.
Take digital conversations as an example:
they connect us in terms of information exchange, but they also disconnect us in another way.
When people talk to each other, they don’t just exchange information.
Their embodied bodies also resonate with one another.
This is clearly observable on a physical level.
When someone talks to another person, there is an inner imitation of muscle tensions, facial expressions, and brain activity.
On a psychological level, this is accompanied by a spontaneous feeling of empathy and unity, and the person realizes their primal longing: fusion with the Other.
It is this fusion with the Other that forms the basis of all ethical awareness.
Replace real conversation with digital communication, and society will also lose the last remnants of ethical awareness (except for a small group of people).
The unrestrained pursuit of ‘convenience’ through digitalization and the technologization of humanity and society is ultimately incredibly naive and shortsighted.
As soon as you view humans as embodied beings, you see that the digitalization of humanity and society is strangling the human Soul.
Humans are becoming more and more passive, soulless cogs in a vast technological machine.
This kind of progress optimism aligns with a mechanistic view of the human being:
the human is a machine that can be technologically optimized.
Elon Musk is one of the leaders of this idea.
With Neuralink, he takes it to its ultimate consequence:
the human, the quintessential speaking being, will no longer have to speak.
They will exchange information perfectly via a brain chip.
As much as I appreciate Musk on certain levels, and as much as I understand that he is ‘searching for hyper-intelligent people’ to help him clean up bureaucracy, I would still like to ask him:
how much will you consider the Soul in this world?
Even Joe Rogan—member of Team Trump and, in many ways, a man with the right heart—ultimately shows himself to be a believer in transhumanism.
He explains in this podcast that the Neuralink chip can create the paradisiacal experience that arises when you take certain psychedelics:
the intense pleasure one experiences from viewing certain colors and forms,
the experience of unity with other people and with the whole cosmos,
the experience of intense love for everything that Is, and so on.
The Neuralink chip will thus open the long-closed door to paradise.
The machines want the code to Zion, they’re sick of the matrix—something like that.
Joe Rogan sees a brain chip as the way to eliminate lies and manipulation from the world.
We will finally transcend our ‘violent monkey’ past.
Natural evolution is too slow for that.
With the chip, communication will be flawless in a universal language.
Every form of lying and deception will be immediately detected and eliminated by A.I.
Everyone will be able to see instantly, via the brain-chip interface, whether the other is driven by hate, anger, greed, or malice.
I am not making this up: A.I. is considered no less than God, the God who will undo the reign of lies and sin.
Musk is a human being, and as such, he is a divided being, as we all are.
In his case, the contrasts may be even sharper.
He believes in freedom of speech and enterprise, but he also fanatically strives for technological control of the human condition.
This tension extends to his loyalties:
on one hand, he opposes globalist institutions and, by extension, the entire establishment and the ‘deep state’; but
on the other hand, he owes much of his success as a tech entrepreneur to his connections with the ‘deep state’ and the military-industrial complex.
You don’t just send 6,000 satellites in an orbit around mother earth.
Undoubtedly, Elon Musk will energetically and decisively tackle over-bureaucratization and rid the world of injustices arising from hypocrisy, sentimentality, and cronyism.
But what will he do about the tech world and the military-industrial complex?
And how does he actually see the future of humanity?
Will all children in his worldview soon have some kind of license plate sign as their name?
The core issue is actually here:
however much Team Trump may address some real problems, to the extent that they seek solutions within the same rationalistic worldview as their predecessors, they will ultimately reinforce the problems inherent in that worldview and may even make them (much) worse.
As far as I can assess, the origin of the avalanche of crises, both individual and collective, of our time indeed lies in our rationalistic and mechanistic worldview.
If one considers the universe as a large machine and humans as small machines trapped within that great machine, one will ultimately always reach for more control as the solution. And for more technocracy.
From the rationalistic-mechanistic worldview, the technocratic surveillance state is the ultimate societal model.
Joe Rogan sees a brain chip as the way to eliminate lies and manipulation from the world.
We will finally transcend our ‘violent monkey’ past.
Natural evolution is too slow for that.
With the chip, communication will be flawless in a universal language.
Every form of lying and deception will be immediately detected and eliminated by A.I.
Everyone will be able to see instantly, via the brain-chip interface, whether the other is driven by hate, anger, greed, or malice.
I am not making this up: A.I. is considered no less than God, the God who will undo the reign of lies and sin.
There is a non-negligible (but not absolute) chance that the Trump-Musk duo will ultimately opt for radical technocracy.
Here’s a possible scenario: Trump and Musk will initially be a true breath of fresh air.
They will decisively address real issues, make the state system more efficient, end the war in Ukraine, and so on.
But what will they do once addressing these issues makes them extraordinarily popular?
After the Walmart shooting in 2019, where a gunman killed 23 people and injured 22, Trump sent a few messages to the world urging that profiling via social media should be urgently implemented.
This would allow algorithms to predict when someone might resort to violence.
With Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, Trump certainly has the right connections for this.
My two-cents opinion: such ‘profiling’ is just a step further towards a digital surveillance state, which is not the solution to but rather the cause of the ever-growing aggression in society.
Will Trump be able to resist the temptation of seeking the solution to the problems of human living together through increasingly extensive control and surveillance?
What will prevail in Musk: the non-conformist and free-thinker, or the technocratic control freak?
The temptation to choose control and ultimately coercion will be great.
Especially since the alternative solution asks the most difficult thing of humanity: to accept that humans ultimately do not have control and are, in a sense, always dependent on a grace that comes from outside themselves.
I am going to make a strong historical comparison, not to demonize Trump—those who do usually have more reason to demonize themselves—but to teach us through history.
Mussolini and Hitler became extraordinarily popular and acquired a savior status by decisively tackling real societal issues.
But they ultimately succumbed to the temptations of power and ideological fanaticism and created problems that were (much) worse than the ones they had solved.
There were several parties equally responsible for this: those before them who had created the problems, themselves, and the part of the population that supported them.
I hope that Trump and Musk are aware of this danger and truly learn from history.
A real solution to the current profound crisis of humanity does not lie in more surveillance and control;
it lies in the steadfast and humanly compassionate application of the law and in reducing bureaucratic rules and surveillance.
Such a solution requires, among other things, breaking free from a worldview other than the rationalistic-materialistic one within a sufficiently large group of people.
Only under those conditions can a Leader with a capital 'L' truly achieve something.
I will add a reflection on Truth.
Trump won the election because he is less hypocritical than Harris and the political culture that pushed her onto the stage.
Does his direct and unpretentious way of speaking make Trump a truth-teller?
In one respect, yes: Trump occasionally reveals something that others keep hidden behind a wall of appearances.
Truth shatters illusions and the fa?ade.
But for example, the ancient Greeks didn’t consider that enough to regard someone’s words as Truth – in Greek, Parrhesia.
There must also be something like a unifying intention.
The Parrhesiast speaks his words for the common good; he speaks from a concern for the well-being of everyone, including all minorities in the 'polis.'
As the French philosopher Tocqueville rightly pointed out, a democracy is not just a form of government where the majority rules; it is a form of government where the majority rules with respect for the fundamental rights of minorities.
So here we encounter an important question:
Will Trump use his popularity to grow into a decisive but also unifying leader, or will he continue to try to increase it by appealing to the lowest sentiments of his base and making minorities and the weak into scapegoats?
And in the same vein: will Musk ultimately prioritize the free speaker in himself over the techno-control freak?
I could go on, but I’ll conclude.
Quite a few people – myself included – had had enough of the false discourse of the Democrats.
Behind their constant whining about democracy, they were feeding the most undemocratic of all forms of government:
a globalist technocracy run by a group of oligarchs and their ‘experts.’ That is the Real hidden behind the curtain of the fa?ade of the 'democratic' discourse.
But to the extent that Trump and Musk themselves are caught in the grip of the mechanistic and rationalist worldview, their spectacular rise could turn into this:
the open appearance of the Real behind the curtain of democratic appearance.
It is this point that will be decisive in determining whether Team Trump places a negative or positive mark on the complex formula of his historical démarche.
Mattias Desmet is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
He made the announcement on Jan. 6 after weeks of turmoil within the Liberal caucus and amid declining poll numbers
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced he will resign as prime minister and Liberal leader after a replacement is chosen. He also asked Gov. Gen. Mary Simon to prorogue Parliament until March 24, a request Simon granted.
“Last night over dinner, I told my kids about the decision that I’m sharing with you today. I intend to resign as party leader, as prime minister, after the party selects its next leader through a robust, nationwide, competitive process. Last night, I asked the president of the Liberal Party to begin that process,” Trudeau said on Jan. 6.
Trudeau made the announcement after weeks of turmoil within the Liberal caucus, with many MPs publicly calling for his resignation amid declining poll numbers.
Trudeau said he wanted to stay on for the next election, which will be held this year, to compete against Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives who have been surging in the polls, but said the internal conflict in the Liberal Party has made it impossible for him to continue as leader.
“I am not someone who backs away from a fight, particularly when a fight is as important as this one is, but I have always been driven by my love for Canada,” he said.
“Canadians deserve a real choice in the next election, and it has become obvious to me with the internal battles that I cannot be the one to carry the Liberal standard into the next election.”
领英推荐
In reviewing his tenure as prime minister since 2015, Trudeau mentioned the economy and trade with the United States, governing the country through the pandemic, working on indigenous reconciliation, support for Ukraine, and climate-change policies.
“Since 2015 I’ve fought for this country, for you, to strengthen and grow the middle class. ... We rallied to support each other through the pandemic, to advance reconciliation, to defend free trade on this continent, to stand strong with Ukraine and our democracy, and to fight climate change and get our economy ready for the future,” he said.
Trudeau said he will stay a “part of a progressive movement that will seek out a better future for Canadians,” and that the next leader chosen by the party will carry “the progressive Liberal standard” into the next election.
Proroguing Parliament
When asked why he isn’t calling an election immediately as requested by opposition parties, Trudeau said he decided to ask the governor general to prorogue Parliament until March 24 because he wanted to both reset the Parliament after it had been “paralyzed for months,” and to also reduce “polarization” by his resignation announcement.
The Conservatives led a filibuster of House of Commons proceedings during the fall sitting over the government not fully complying with a House order to hand over all federal green fund scandal documents to the RCMP. The Liberals cite privacy concerns for their refusal to hand over the fully unredacted documents.
“The reset that we have is actually two parts. One is the prorogation, but the other part is recognizing that removing me from the equation as the leader who will fight the next election for the Liberal Party should also decrease the level of polarization that we’re seeing right now,” Trudeau said.
The Conservatives have been critical of Trudeau proroguing the Parliament, saying it’s meant to give the Liberals a chance to organize for a leadership race instead of having an earlier election triggered by a vote of non-confidence after Parliament resumes on Jan. 27.
“A lame duck, Liberal insider selected Prime Minister would be tasked with addressing multiple crises of unaffordability, crime, and tariffs,” Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said in an online post.
The next federal election has to take place on or before Oct. 20.
Low Polling, Turmoil
Calls for Trudeau’s resignation had escalated after the high-profile resignation of Chrystia Freeland as deputy prime minister and minister of finance on Dec. 16. Freeland resigned after Trudeau had informed her that she would be shuffled to another cabinet position. In her resignation letter, she raised concerns about government expenditures at a time of financial challenges faced by the country.
The public calls from within caucus for Trudeau’s ouster first began to surface over the summer after the Liberals lost the longtime stronghold of Toronto-St.Paul’s to the Conservatives in a byelection, as support in the polls for the Liberals had been waning for months.
The byelection defeats in previously Liberal-held seats were repeated in Montreal’s LaSalle-émard-Verdun riding in September, where the Bloc Québécois won, and in B.C.’s Cloverdale-Langley City byelection in December, where the Conservatives won in a landslide.
The defeats came as the Conservatives have been holding a double-digit advantage over the Liberals in the polls in the past year. A Jan. 3 survey by Angus Reid showed that support for the Liberals with Trudeau as leader has plunged to 13 percent.
Trudeau had said he’d take time over the holidays to reflect and decide on his future.
Leadership Contenders
Among leadership contenders considered in the Angus Reid survey, support for the Liberals rose to 21 percent if Freeland were to become the leader.
Others whose names have been mentioned as possible leadership contenders include Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, Transportation Minister Anita Anand, Industry Minister Fran?ois-Philippe Champagne, former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor Mark Carney, and former B.C. Premier Christy Clark.
The developments come as incoming U.S. President Donald Trump has said he’ll impose 25 percent tariffs on Canadian imports unless the country takes action to secure the border to stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants to the United States.
Meanwhile, following Freeland’s resignation from cabinet, the NDP has joined the other opposition parties in saying it intends to bring down the minority Liberal government in a vote of non-confidence.
The NDP previously had a supply-and-confidence agreement with the Liberals, under which it supported the Liberals on key votes in exchange for certain legislation such as national dental care and pharmacare programs. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh broke the agreement in September, but the party continued to vote with the Liberals on confidence motions.
Prime Minister Since 2015
Trudeau, the 53-year-old scion of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, studied literature at McGill University, graduating in 1994, and education at the University of British Columbia, graduating in 1998.
He worked as a teacher for several years before following in his father’s footsteps to enter politics, becoming a Liberal MP in 2008 and representing the riding of Papineau in Montreal.
Trudeau became Liberal leader in 2013, and went on to revive the party from third place to forming government in 2015, winning a majority against the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.
His majority government was reduced to a minority in the 2019 election, and remained more or less the same after the pandemic election of 2021.
With nine years at the helm, Trudeau is one of Canada’s longer-serving prime ministers in terms of time in office, ranking seventh so far among the 23 who have held office since 1867.
BRITAIN’S PRIME MINISTER KEIR STARMER DURING A MEETING AT 10 DOWNING STREET ON DECEMBER 12, 2024, IN LONDON. STARMER HAS COME UNDER FIRE THIS WEEK FOR HIS ROLE IN AN ALLEGED COVER-UP OF A SERIAL RAPE SCANDAL. (BENJAMIN CREMEL VIA GETTY IMAGES) By Dominic Green
LONDON — The grooming and serial rape of thousands of English girls by men of mostly Pakistani Muslim background over several decades is the biggest peacetime crime in the history of modern Europe. It went on for many years. It is still going on. And there has been no justice for the vast majority of the victims.
British governments, both Conservative and Labour, hoped that they had buried the story after a few symbolic prosecutions in the 2010s. And it looked like they had succeeded—until Elon Musk read some of the court papers and tweeted his disgust and bafflement on X over the new year.
Britain now stands shamed before the world. The public’s suppressed wrath is bubbling to the surface in petitions, calls for a public inquiry, and demands for accountability.
The scandal is already reshaping British politics. It’s not just about the heinous nature of the crimes. It’s that every level of the British system is implicated in the cover-up.
Social workers were intimidated into silence. Local police ignored, excused, and even abetted pedophile rapists across dozens of cities. Senior police and Home Office officials deliberately avoided action in the name of maintaining what they called “community relations.” Local councilors and Members of Parliament rejected pleas for help from the parents of raped children. Charities, NGOs, and Labour MPs accused those who discussed the scandal of racism and Islamophobia. The media mostly ignored or downplayed the biggest story of their lifetimes. Zealous in their incuriosity, much of Britain’s media elite remained barnacled to the bubble of Westminster politics and its self-serving priorities.
They did this to defend a failed model of multiculturalism, and to avoid asking hard questions about failures of immigration policy and assimilation. They did this because they were afraid of being called racist or Islamophobic. They did this because Britain’s traditional class snobbery had fused with the new snobbery of political correctness.
All of which is why no one knows precisely how many thousands of young girls were raped in how many towns across Britain since the 1970s.
What we do know is that the epicenter was the postindustrial mill towns of England’s north and Midlands, where immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh settled in the 1960s. White locals say the grooming and rapes began soon after. In Rotherham, the rundown Yorkshire city where the scandal first broke, local police and councilors were notified about systematic grooming and sex abuse by 2001. The first convictions did not occur until 2010, when five men of Pakistani background were jailed for multiple offenses against girls as young as 12 years of age.
These men targeted the most vulnerable girls—the poor and the fatherless, children in care homes—with candy, food, taxi rides, and drugs. They raped the girls, passed them around family and friendship networks, pimped them into similar networks in other cities, then discarded them as they reached the age of consent.
This pattern was repeated in as many as 50 cities across the country, including in leafy Oxford and liberal Bristol. A 2014 inquiry estimated that 1,400 girls had been serially raped in Rotherham alone.
The details are established beyond doubt in the small number of prosecutions that eventually made it to court. The suffering described in the court papers is sickening to read: The girls were drugged, beaten, sodomized, gang-raped, trafficked, and tortured.
One night in Oldham in 2006, for example, a 12-year-old girl named “Sophie” entered a police station and reported that she had just been molested in a graveyard by a man named “Ali.” A desk officer told her to come back with an adult when she was sober. Two men accosted her in the police station. Joined by a third, they raped her in their car. When they dumped her on the street, she asked a man named Sarwar Ali for directions. He took her to his home, raped her, and gave her money for bus fare home. A man named Shakil Chowdhury pulled up in his car and offered to take her home. He abducted her and took her to a house where he and four other men repeatedly raped her.
Several girls were murdered. In Manchester in 2003, Victoria Agoglia was repeatedly drugged and raped before being given a fatal dose of heroin at the age of 15. In Blackpool that same year, 14-year-old Charlene Downes disappeared—her body was never found.
In Telford, Azhar Ali Mehmood groomed Lucy Lowe from the age of 12 and impregnated her at 14. He burned her alive in her own home with her mother, her disabled sister, and her unborn second child, also fathered by Mehmood. Mehmood was jailed for life in 2001 for murder—not sex crimes.
In the age of “Say Her Name,” no one important thought it worth saying the names of these girls. The girls, their rapists told them, were “white slags,” worthless and expendable. Apart from a few whistleblowers, most of them women, and courageous journalists such as Julie Bindel, Andrew Norfolk, Douglas Murray, and Charlie Peters, the media showed no interest.
Why? Because this was the wrong kind of racially motivated crime, committed by the wrong kind of criminal.
The majority of the victims were white, plus some Sikhs. The majority of their abusers were of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim extraction. The majority of their crimes were committed in cities with a Labour Party–controlled council and a Labour Party MP who needed Muslim votes. This led to institutional racism of the inverted kind, and that enabled the perpetrators to do as they liked.
The system itself became corrupted. Welfare workers admit that they failed to report crimes because the police told them they would be accused as racist. The leader of one rape gang in Oldham, Shabir Ahmed, worked for the local council as a “welfare rights officer” and ran his gang from the council welfare office. Another member was on the Oldham Youth Council.
In multiple cases, local Labour politicians of Pakistani background interfered with police inquiries. In Telford in 2016, 10 members of the Labour council wrote to the Home Secretary, the Conservatives’ Amber Rudd, claiming that allegations of abuse were “sensationalized” and that there was no need for action. Two years later, an investigation by the Sunday Mirror newspaper counted some 1,000 victims. The superintendent of the West Mercia regional police “significantly disputed” the figures and said the Mirror had “sensationalized” the issue.
The police were in no hurry to inquire. Senior police repeatedly denied there was a problem, then denied its obvious racial and religious elements. Government and police agree that, regardless of which party is in power, the peace in multicultural, mass-migration Britain depends on “community relations.” The law-abiding public’s alarm about the consequences of mass immigration is suppressed, stigmatized by the political class and the press as the racism of a chimerical “far right.”
For the Labour Party specifically, “community relations” means cultivating urban Muslim voters. Nazir Afzal, who was Chief Crown Prosecutor for northwestern England between 2011 and 2015, claims that in 2008 the Home Office advised police not to prosecute grooming gang cases, because the girls had “made an informed choice about their sexual behavior.”
In late December 2024, Jess Phillips, the Home Office’s Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, refused requests from the Oldham city council for a government-led inquiry into the institutional failure and corruption that had made the Oldham cases possible. The only thing Phillips is safeguarding is her seat.
The Conservatives were not much better. In 2019, shortly before he became Conservative leader and prime minister, Boris Johnsoncomplained that money spent on investigating historic child abuse crimes was money “spaffed up a wall.” (Spaffing is English slang for ejaculation.) In 2020, Johnson’s Home Office suppressed the Conservatives’ own research on grooming gangs. Releasing it, they said, was not in “the national interest.”
Elon Musk has changed the Conservatives’ political interest, so their new leader, Kemi Badenoch, is now calling for an inquiry. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is caught between his party, his voters, and—should he find them—his principles. As director of the Crown Prosecution Service, or CPS, between 2008 and 2013, Starmer secured some successful convictions against the rape gangs. But Starmer and his lawyers also failed to bring other major cases to court.
In 2009, the Starmer-led CPS dropped its prosecution of a grooming and rape gang in Rochdale, despite having DNA evidence and hours of testimony on video. When Nazir Afzal started working as a Crown prosecutor in 2011, one of his first actions was to reopen the case and reverse the CPS’s decision. In 2012, Afzal secured the convictions of nine men, eight of them of Pakistani background and one of Afghan background.
Afterward, Afzal said that “white professionals’ oversensitivity to political correctness and fear of appearing racist may well have contributed to justice being stalled.”
Starmer admitted that “particularly in cases involving groups, there’s clearly an issue of ethnicity that has to be understood and addressed.” But he insisted that the failure to prosecute had been caused by “a lack of understanding” about the victims: a “credibility issue.”
It is now Starmer who has a credibility issue. Maggie Oliver, the Manchester-based detective who helped to expose the abuse in Rochdale, says that Starmer is “as guilty as anyone I know” for the institutional failure to protect some of Britain’s most vulnerable children.
Starmer has yet to address the Labour Party’s historic role in this mess, or his own record of triangulating complicity. He has yet to say whether he agrees with his minister Jess Phillips that there should be no national inquiry. But now that Musk has said the unsayable about the unspeakable, there is no going back.
Starmer’s lawyerly equivocations look like what they are: covering the party’s backside at the expense of justice for the victims. Announcing another inquiry will not be enough to pacify the British public. Nor will it reduce the popularity of Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party. Their main appeal is that they say what no one else dares to: The entire British system has become morally bankrupt. Ironically enough, Musk’s call for Farage to step down—Farage, Musk says, “doesn’t have what it takes”—is likely to take the pressure off Starmer.
“No justice, no peace” is a common slogan among the activist class that chose not to act against the rape gangs. There will be no peace in Britain until the full truth is known, the law is restored, the bureaucracies are held to account, and rule by “community relations” is reversed. The Labour government will do its utmost to do its least.
Pressure from Musk has already done what the outrage of the beaten-down British people cannot do. Musk has shamed the British government into explaining itself. Next, it must be forced to act.
For more on the threat of radical Islam, read our editorial, “‘Globalize the Intifada’ Comes to New Orleans.”
Dominic Green is a Wall Street Journal contributor, a Washington Examiner columnist, and the author of five books. Follow him on X @DrDominicGreen.
January 6th in History
Harold II’s Coronation: A Short-Lived Reign That Set the Stage for the Battle of Hastings
On January 6th, 1066, Harold II was crowned King of England following the death of Edward the Confessor. His coronation marked a pivotal moment in English history, but Harold’s reign would be short-lived. The events that followed his ascent to the throne would soon plunge England into one of its most significant and turbulent battles—the Battle of Hastings—ultimately changing the course of English history forever. Harold’s rise to power was fraught with challenges, and the aftermath of his reign shaped the future of the English monarchy and the kingdom itself.
Harold II, the son of Earl Godwin of Wessex, was a powerful noble in England, known for his military prowess and political influence. Upon the death of Edward the Confessor on January 5th, 1066, Harold was quickly crowned king. Edward had died without an heir, leaving the English throne open to competition. Although Edward had no direct successor, it was widely believed that Harold had been promised the throne by Edward on his deathbed. Additionally, Harold’s claim was supported by the English nobles, who saw him as the most viable candidate to maintain stability in England.
However, Harold’s claim was contested by other powerful figures. Notably, William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, also claimed that Edward had promised him the throne during a visit to England years earlier. This rivalry over the throne set the stage for a year of intense conflict. Harold’s coronation, therefore, marked the beginning of a struggle for power that would culminate in the pivotal Battle of Hastings later that same year.
Harold’s reign as king was filled with immediate challenges, both internal and external. After being crowned, Harold had to quickly consolidate his power and deal with immediate threats. One of the most pressing dangers came from the north, where Harald Hardrada, the King of Norway, laid claim to the English throne. Hardrada, with the support of Tostig Godwinson, Harold’s estranged brother, launched an invasion in the north of England.
Harold II’s military prowess was put to the test when he swiftly marched his forces north and defeated the Norwegians at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on September 25th, 1066. However, this victory came at a great cost, as many of Harold’s troops were exhausted and battle-weary. As he dealt with the Norwegian threat, Harold received news that William of Normandy was preparing to invade England from the south, claiming his right to the throne. Harold’s forces, though weakened, marched south to face this new challenge, setting the stage for the Battle of Hastings.
The Battle of Hastings and Its Aftermath
On October 14th, 1066, Harold II and his army faced William the Conqueror’s invading forces at the Battle of Hastings. The battle was a decisive turning point in English history. Despite his previous victory over Hardrada, Harold’s army was not in the best condition to confront William’s well-organized forces. The battle ended in a crushing defeat for Harold, who was killed during the fighting, marking the end of his reign. William’s victory at Hastings made him the first Norman king of England, and his subsequent coronation marked the beginning of a new era in English history.
The Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest fundamentally altered the social, political, and cultural landscape of England. With William’s victory, the Anglo-Saxon elite was displaced by Norman rulers, leading to significant changes in land ownership, law, and governance. The Norman Conquest also had lasting effects on the English language, as French became the language of the ruling class, influencing the development of the English language over the centuries.
Harold II’s brief reign, beginning with his coronation on January 6th, 1066, set in motion a series of events that would dramatically alter the future of England. His death at the Battle of Hastings marked the end of Anglo-Saxon rule and the beginning of Norman dominance. The Norman Conquest left a lasting imprint on English culture, language, and governance, shaping the nation for centuries to come. While Harold’s reign was short, it was a pivotal moment in history that led to one of the most significant transitions in England’s history.
On January 6th, 1838, Samuel Morse demonstrated his telegraph for the first time, marking a groundbreaking moment in the history of communication. The telegraph, a device that allowed messages to be sent over long distances using electrical signals, would revolutionize the way people communicated, shaping the future of global interaction. Morse’s invention set the stage for a new era of connectivity, influencing not only the development of communication technologies but also the structure of modern society.
Samuel Morse, an artist by training, became fascinated with the idea of long-distance communication after hearing about the electromagnetic experiments of scientists like Michael Faraday and Hans Christian ?rsted. In the early 1830s, Morse began to develop the concept of using electrical signals to transmit messages over a wire. The key breakthrough came when he, alongside his collaborators, created a system of dots and dashes to represent letters and numbers—what would become the Morse code.
Morse’s invention faced early challenges, including skepticism from the public and difficulties in securing funding. However, his perseverance paid off, and by 1837, he had built a working model of the telegraph. On January 6th, 1838, Morse and his assistant, Alfred Vail, conducted the first successful demonstration of the telegraph at the Speedwell Ironworks in Morristown, New Jersey. During the demonstration, Morse sent a simple message: “A patient waiter is no loser.” This marked the first successful use of electrical telegraphy to transmit information over a distance.
The telegraph revolutionized communication by overcoming the limitations of traditional methods, such as messengers on horseback or written letters. Prior to the telegraph, messages could take days, weeks, or even months to travel over long distances. With the invention of the telegraph, messages could be sent almost instantaneously over vast distances, fundamentally changing the way people and businesses communicated.
The telegraph’s impact on society was far-reaching. It enabled faster communication across countries and continents, making it possible for governments, businesses, and individuals to stay informed in ways that had previously been unimaginable. The telegraph played a crucial role in the development of the news industry, with newspapers relying on telegraphy to quickly receive updates from reporters in distant locations. It also had a profound impact on global trade and diplomacy, enabling more efficient coordination between countries and regions.
The Legacy of Morse’s Invention
Samuel Morse’s invention of the telegraph paved the way for a range of other innovations in communication technology. The telegraph was the precursor to later inventions like the telephone and the internet, all of which relied on the ability to transmit information quickly and efficiently over long distances. In fact, Morse’s work laid the groundwork for the global communications infrastructure we rely on today.
In addition to its technical legacy, the telegraph also had a lasting cultural impact. The advent of instant communication helped shrink the world, making it feel smaller and more interconnected. People could now exchange information in real-time, fostering greater global awareness and collaboration. While modern communication technologies have advanced far beyond the telegraph, the fundamental concept of connecting people across vast distances remains as relevant today as it was in 1838.
Samuel Morse’s demonstration of the telegraph on January 6th, 1838, marked a transformative moment in human history, revolutionizing long-distance communication and forever altering the way people connected with one another. The telegraph’s impact reached far beyond its initial demonstration, changing the course of business, government, and culture. Today, Morse’s legacy lives on through the continued advancements in communication technologies that have shaped the modern world, underscoring the enduring importance of innovation in connecting people across time and space.
On January 6th, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his historic “Four Freedoms” speech during his State of the Union address. The speech, delivered at a time when the world was engulfed in World War II, outlined the fundamental freedoms that, according to Roosevelt, should be universally accessible to all people. His vision for a world founded on freedom, democracy, and human dignity became one of the defining moments of his presidency and shaped American foreign policy for years to come.
In his speech, Roosevelt presented the “Four Freedoms” as essential human rights that should be enjoyed by everyone, everywhere in the world. These freedoms were:
Roosevelt argued that these freedoms were not only the foundation of American democracy but also essential to the global struggle against fascism and tyranny. He made the case that securing these freedoms was necessary to build a lasting peace, and that the United States had a moral obligation to champion these values worldwide.
Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech came at a critical juncture in world history. While the United States had not yet entered World War II, the conflict was already raging in Europe and Asia. Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, had expanded its control over much of Europe, while Imperial Japan was making aggressive moves in Asia. In the United States, isolationist sentiment was still strong, with many Americans wanting to avoid direct involvement in the conflict.
However, Roosevelt believed that the United States could not stand by while dictatorships spread and threatened global stability. By framing the war as a fight to defend the “Four Freedoms,” Roosevelt sought to rally public support for increased aid to Allied nations and, eventually, for American entry into the war. The speech highlighted the moral and ethical imperatives behind the U.S. involvement, rather than focusing solely on strategic or military concerns.
The “Four Freedoms” speech had a lasting impact, not only on U.S. foreign policy but also on the global order. Roosevelt’s vision helped lay the groundwork for the post-war world, including the creation of international institutions like the United Nations, which was founded on the principles of peace, human rights, and international cooperation. The Four Freedoms became a rallying cry for democratic nations and influenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948.
At home, the speech reinforced Roosevelt’s commitment to social and economic reforms. He argued that securing freedom from want was just as important as securing freedom of speech or worship, calling for policies that would address poverty, unemployment, and inequality. The speech also inspired movements for civil rights and social justice in the decades that followed, as Americans worked toward making Roosevelt’s vision a reality for all citizens.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech on January 6th, 1941, remains one of the most important addresses in American history. It articulated a vision of a world where basic human rights were universally guaranteed, and where freedom, democracy, and security were accessible to all. The ideals Roosevelt outlined continue to resonate today, serving as a foundation for global human rights advocacy and as a reminder of the enduring struggle to secure and protect these freedoms for people everywhere.
The Four Freedoms Speech Video:
The Four Freedoms Speech Video:
Full Speech: Franklin Delano Roosevelt The Four Freedoms
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, 1941 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS “THE FOUR FREEDOMS” (6 JANUARY 1941)
[1] Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress:
[2] I address you, the Members of the members of this new Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the Union. I use the word “unprecedented,” because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.
[3] Since the permanent formation of our Government under the Constitution, in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And fortunately, only one of these–the four-year War Between the States–ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, one hundred and thirty million Americans, in forty-eight States, have forgotten points of the compass in our national unity.
[4] It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often had been disturbed by events in other Continents. We had even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific for the maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence.
[5] What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained opposition, clear, definite opposition, to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas.
[6] That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, in the early days during the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution.
[7] While the Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United States because of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain, nor any other nation, was aiming at domination of the whole world.
[8] And in like fashion from 1815 to 1914–ninety-nine years–no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation.
[9] Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this Hemisphere; and the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly strength. It is still a friendly strength.
[10] Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only small threat of danger to our own American future. But, as time went on, as we remember, the American people began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own democracy.
[11] We need not overemphasize imperfections in the Peace of Versailles. We need not harp on failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should remember that the Peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of “pacification” which began even before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks to spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set their faces against that tyranny.
[12] I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world–assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.
[13] During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.
[14]Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to “give to the Congress information of the state of the Union,” I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.
[15] Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, and Asia, and Africa and Australasia will be dominated by conquerors. And let us remember that the total of those populations in those four continents, the total of those populations and their resources greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere–yes, many times over.
[16] In times like these it is immature–and incidentally, untrue–for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.
[17] No realistic American can expect from a dictator’s peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion–or even good business.
[18] Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. “Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
[19] As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed.
[20] We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the “ism” of appeasement.
[21] We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.
[22] I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this war.
[23] There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate.
[24] But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe-particularly the lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a series of years.
[25] The first phase of the invasion of this Hemisphere would not be the landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and by their dupes- and great numbers of them are already here, and in Latin America.
[26] As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they-not we–will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.
[27] And that is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger.
[28] That is why this Annual Message to the Congress is unique in our history.
[29] That is why every member of the Executive Branch of the Government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility and great accountability.
[30] The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily–almost exclusively–to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.
[31] Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all of our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.
[32] Our national policy is this:
[33] First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.
[34] Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere. By this support, we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail; and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.
[35] Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people’s freedom.
[36] In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the American electorate. And today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger.
[37] Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production.
[38] Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time; in some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays; and in some cases–and I am sorry to say very important cases–we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of our plans.
[39] The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual experience is improving and speeding up our methods of production with every passing day. And today’s best is not good enough for tomorrow.
[40] I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program represent the best in training, in ability, and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.
[41] No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, our objective is quicker and better results.
[43] We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes; we are working day and night to solve the innumerable problems and to catch up.
[44] We are ahead of schedule in building warships but we are working to get even further ahead of that schedule.
[45] To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task. And the greatest difficulty comes at the beginning of the program, when new tools, new plant facilities, new assembly lines, and new ship ways must first be constructed before the actual materiel begins to flow steadily and speedily from them.
[46] The Congress, of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the program. However, there is certain information, as the Congress itself will readily recognize, which, in the interests of our own security and those of the nations that we are supporting, must of needs be kept in confidence.
[47] New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. I shall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we have begun.
[48] I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations.
[49] Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need man power, but they do need billions of dollars worth of the weapons of defense.
[50] The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in ready cash. We cannot, and we will not, tell them that they must surrender, merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we know they must have.
[51] I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to pay for these weapons–a loan to be repaid in dollars.
[52] I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to continue to obtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into our own program. And nearly all of their materiel would, if the time ever came, be useful in our own defense.
[53] Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering what is best for our own security, we are free to decide how much should be kept here and how much should be sent abroad to our friends who by their determined and heroic resistance are giving us time in which to make ready our own defense.
[54] For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid, repaid within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, repaid in similar materials, or, at our option, in other goods of many kinds, which they can produce and which we need.
[55] Let us say to the democracies: “We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you, in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge.”
[56] In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid . . . such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be.
[57] And when the dictators, if the dictators, are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part. They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an act of war.
[58] Their only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its observance, and, therefore, becomes an instrument of oppression.
[59] The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend upon how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The Nation’s hands must not be tied when the Nation’s life is in danger.
[60] Yes, and we must all prepare–all of us prepare–to make the sacrifices that the emergency– almost as serious as war itself–demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense–in defense preparations of any kind–must give way to the national need.
[61] A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. A free nation has the right to look to the leaders of business, of labor, and of agriculture to take the lead in stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their own groups.
[62] The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and, if that fails, to use the sovereignty of government to save government.
[63] As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses, and those behind them who build our defenses, must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all things the worth fighting for.
[64] The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.
[65] Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world.
[66] For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:
[67] Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
[68] Jobs for those who can work.
[69] Security for those who need it.
[70] The ending of special privilege for the few.
[71] The preservation of civil liberties for all.
[72] The enjoyment . . . the enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
[73] These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.
[74] Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement.
[75] As examples:
[76] We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.
[77] We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.
[78] We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.
[79] I have called for personal sacrifice. And I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call.
[80] A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my Budget Message I will recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying for today. No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of the program; and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.
[81] If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotism ahead of pocketbooks, will give you their applause.
[82] In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
[83] The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.
[84] The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.
[85] The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.
86] The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.
[87] That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
[88] To that new order we oppose the greater conception–the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
[89] Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change–in a perpetual peaceful revolution–a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions–without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
[90] This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.
[91] To that high concept there can be no end save victory.