HERNANDO ARCE: Washington has paid millions of dollars to third countries like Cameroon to accept migrants.

I voted for this. https://t.co/eoss0VryLp

— Andrew Branca Show (@TheBrancaShow) February 22, 2026

from Hernando Arce,

Breaking News: On January 14, 2026, at least 9 South American asylum seekers were reportedly flown from Louisiana to Cameroon.

The United States has begun deporting migrants fleeing “war or persecution” to Cameroon, even though none of them are Cameroonian nationals. Detainees say they are being held in a state-run facility in Cameroon and can leave ONLY if they agree to return to the countries they originally fled from like Venezuela. A recent U.S. Senate oversight report disclosed that Washington has paid millions of dollars to third countries like Cameroon to accept migrants.

PETER SWEDEN: 23 year old Quentin was beaten to death by antifa while he was protecting women activists protesting for women's rights.

The far-left just committed a terror attack and you probably never even heard about it on the news.

23 year old Quentin was beaten to death by antifa while he was protecting women activists protesting for women's rights.

— PeterSweden (@PeterSweden7) February 13, 2026

It was determined activists like these, who made sure a thuggish murder could not be swept under the carpet. https://t.co/cfeUU5CHvx

— Jared Taylor (@RealJarTaylor) February 21, 2026

We are Quentin, Quentin Deranque.

🇫🇷⚡️- He has officially passed away.

Quentin was a 23 years old catholic man. He was murdered by antifas belonging to the Young Guard as he was protecting Némésis, a right-wing feminist group, during an activist action. https://t.co/rwpk9IGSeh

— Rerum Novarum // Intel, Breaking News, and Alerts (@officialrnintel) February 13, 2026

Across the world, we wanted to pay tribute to Quentin, lynched by the far left.

Today, his name resonates far beyond France, in Germany, Austria, Spain, the US, the Czech Republic, England, and even Orania, at the far end of Africa. Everywhere we are. 

Polish nationalists just dropped a powerful tribute to Quentin, murdered by Antifa scum. Europe is uniting. Game on. 🇵🇱🔥 pic.twitter.com/xb5HJImUhh

— RobLogic (@RobLogicX) February 21, 2026

DR. ANTHONY CHAFFEE: Two things that prove that humans were not meant to eat carbohydrates.

2:45  Two things that prove that humans were not meant to eat carbohydrates.  First is insulin.  Do you know that we have the wrong type of insulin for carbohydrates?  Think about it.  When we eat carbohydrates, our blood sugar spikes, insulin goes up but then blood sugar drops down too low because insulin keeps going, so we have to keep eating more carbs and more insulin.  We keep having this balance throughout the day, and we can't get our blood sugar right as a result.  Did you know that we had to reinvent insulin for Type 1 Diabetics and Type 2 Diabetics who require insulin? So instead of just giving   

DR. THOMAS FLEMING: The 1960s set in motion the destruction of the American middle class.

Dr. Thomas Fleming. 

Dr. Thomas Fleming: The 1960s set in motion the destruction of the American middle class. pic.twitter.com/yDn4H63yM9

— Pol Atreides (@Aliathewhite) February 21, 2026

Yeah, it kind of gives a whole new meaning to the lyrics by Kris Kristofferson in the 1970 song, "Me and Bobby McGee," released posthumously in 1971, of "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

     

00:00  I think that what we did in the '60s and '70s was largely to make war on all the little communities in America, to make war on local government, to make war on state government, to make war on the churches, to make war on the family, and the name of this game is "Personal Liberation."  So, for example, we had easy, "No fault" divorce, 1969 [in American; 1917 in Soviet Union].  That was the big revolution in the 60s and 70s.  And, of course, it turns out that women . . . this has been disastrous for women, because the man goes on with his high status income and women and their dependent children are left with nothing.  And I think that's a metaphor for a lot of what is, in fact, going on, and we have created a greater dependency of families and communities and individuals upon the national government, and I think all of that has been very bad.  I think it's not just that the 1980s are more liberal and accepting of things like drugs and social pathology, it's also that all of the places, where wholeness is created, where health and vitality are created, things like the family, things like local County governments, these have been eroded and torn apart and, in some cases, destroyed, including black community participation.  One of the things the Civil Rights Movement did unintentionally was to destroy the old black communal leadership in the United States and we see the price of that in the Inner City in Chicago and Detroit.

1:43.  You know there was no real conservative opposition in the 1960s.  The conservatives I knew then were obsessed with economics and getting out the vote and they didn't understand that the impulses behind the '60s revolution were as much reactionary impulses as they were leftist impulses.  The desire to restore Community, concern for the environment, a return to the isolationism, for example, of the pre-World War II period.  These were all hallmarks of American conservatism. Even something like folk music, which was so big in the 60s.  What could be more, ah, more reactionary, more conservative than a desire to resurrect the music of Appalachia, the music of our forefathers? People started wearing what they thought were old fashioned clothes.  They wanted to recapture they said they wanted to recapture the sense of frontier life and rural life.  And these are all very conservative impulses, but then you meet atypical conservative and all he wants is a house in the suburbs and two cars.  And they were the enemy.  So by not being conservative, by being nothing but cold, free-market Cold Warriors, they missed a great chance, and it's not going to come again.

3:05.  The labels Liberal and Conservative used to mean something fairly clear.  A liberal used to mean somebody who believed in the individual, who believed in the free market, who believed that you should break down all the barriers toward individual self-expression . . . this meant destroying the church or weakening the power of parents within their family, destroying social classes, all sorts of conventions, this is what liberals were in favor of.  

3:30.  What conservatives were interested in doing we're preserving a kind of cultural order, preserving a tradition, preserving a sense of sacredness; even if they weren't particularly religious themselves, they had to preserve that sense of the sacred.  And what happened in the 1940s and 50s was that conservatism got defined as . . . well, as what used to be called Liberal.  In other words, the free market is everything, the individual is everything, forget family, forget everything essentially but the marketplace and the defense of the nation, you know, because the old liberals were also great colonialists. And the people who called themselves liberals were, in fact, socialists, or worse.  What was somebody with something like a conservative worldview going to do?  There was no place.  [Besides being no place for Conservatives, there was already a Betrayal of the American Right in earlier years.]  There was no label.  There was no party.  There was no movement.  And it's like conservative environmentalist today.  The greatest environmental thinker, the most powerful philosopher of conservation today is Wendell Berry, 1934-_____, who is a conservative.  He lives off in his little farm in rural Kentucky.  He writes these books about how about managing his own little family farm.  He's a Christian. He's a traditionalist, but he's on the board of the Sierra Club.  Why?  Because there's no conservative organization that would welcome Wendell Berry. They think he's the devil incarnate, and that in a nutshell is the failure of American conservatism.  Not to make a place for the real social and cultural and moral conservatives who have surfaced from time to time.  Jack Kerouac, 1922-1969, was a conservative, and nobody knew that.

Why?

Why was he a conservative?  He thought of himself as a man of the right.  He was a patriot.  He was a rugged old-fashioned individualist, but he loved America.  He hated all this rise of America bashing of the '60s, and he's quite an interesting person. Obviously he was a moral anarchist in some sense, but way down deep he had these kind of impulses of a Baudelaire, 1821-1867, who is also a conservative . . . .

ADAM JOHNSON: What that means is that we're robbing other countries, emerging countries, 3rd world countries of their best and their brightest. And that is a terrible thing to do because you will keep them impoverished. the right thing to do would be to stop doing that.

If you need people to work in tech, things like that, they can do that in their own country.  They don't have to do that here.  Use the internet.  We all use that. There's no reason for them to be here.  --Adam Johnson

ADAM JOHNSON @lecternleader - Denaturalization, H1B Migration, and the IQ Argument pic.twitter.com/00WPsNufga

— Andrew Branca Show (@TheBrancaShow) February 20, 2026

There's a reason the judicial branch is the third branch of government.  it's supposed to be the least powerful.  Now the only reason we don't require them to run for election is because they're supposed to be the least powerful, apolitical, dealing only with cases and controversies in front of them, not making public policy calls, but, of course, that's exactly what they're doing.  And we have to get rid of them.  I mean just like that we have on the immigration front, of course, we have to . . . all the illegal migrants have to go, but we've allowed a lot of legal migrants into the country who are not really culturally American.  They're not interested in actually assimilating.  They're just here to treat America as an economic zone.  But somehow they secured an H-1B, and then a green card, and they became a naturalized citizen, but they're not cultural Americans, however technical their American citizenship is.  We have to denaturalize those people and send them all home and we have to do the same with many of these judges. They're not acting as good faith legitimate judges and they should be impeached or removed for not serving during good behavior.

1:03.  I completely agree.  Even from the, from an empathy standpoint, right, when we talk about the denaturalizing people, when we talk about sending people back, if the argument exists, let's just take it at face value that we're bringing over the best and brightest.  What that means is that we're robbing other countries, you know, emerging countries, third world countries of their best and their brightest.  And that is a terrible thing to do because you will keep them impoverished.  You'll keep them.  So if you believe that we are bringing over the best and brightest at its face value, the right thing to do would be to stop doing that. If you need people to work in tech, things like that, they can do that in their own country.  They don't have to do that here.  Use the internet.  We all use that. There's no reason for them to be here.

1:42.  The way I like to put it is when we import these people, we're actually making both countries dumber.  So, I mean the average IQ in America is about 100, right?  The average IQ in India is about 75, which is prethity grim.  I mean mentally retarded is 75.  And you take an Indian person with a 90 IQ and you bring him to America, well you've made America dumber because you're lowering our average below 100, and you've made India dumber because you've actually taken one of their brighter citizens.  And no one needs bright Indians more than India.  I mean if you've ever been there, it's a train wreck.

2:14.  Absolutely.  I mean that is the message that I really do think that sending people back is a good cause. I think it is a good cause for those countries if you truly are someone who is altruistic, you should consider that.  Like you are keeping these countries impoverished by keeping them here.  And, you know, I don't think that what they're adding is a net benefit to our country.  I've heard arguments where, you know, we need people who can work in data centers who understand these things.  We need people to fill up our colleges. But again the . . . it's kind of like Florida schools, right?  Would we have to do things like having, you know, students that come into our migrant worker have to learn a second language, they bringing their kids with them.  Their kids also have to learn a second language. You are putting the rest of the classes, the ESL classes, like at a slower rate of education, which means that our kids are . . . our actual citizens, children, are not getting an education they deserve because they're being slowed by the influx of migrants that are here as well.  It is completely altruistic to say that we need to just cut off the faucet.  We need to get our country under control.  Send them all back and maybe we can redress the issue in 50 years when we've passed through two more generations that speak out against communism and get our school education back where it's supposed to be.