Posted by Matra on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:00 | #

In the days before the election I kept reading of a collapse in Sarko’s support possibly leading to a Royal-Bayrou runoff. Perhaps that scared the softer Le Pen supporters.  Sarko’s people probably planned it that way.

It should have been so beforehand really, since its corollary - the rank hatred from the “anyone but Sarko” camp - certainly was.

Similar to what Bush-bots call Bush Derangement Syndrome in the US. Conservative American whites who should be appalled by Bush’s policies ended up embracing the man in reaction to the Left’s often hysterical attacks on him.

Philippe de Villiers, the philo-semitic nationalist, got only 2.5%.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:32 | #

“The softening of Jean-Marie’s language under the guidance of his youngest daughter, Marine, has benefitted it nothing.”

I don’t know how many times national racialists have seen that happen. You would think that this lesson has been assimilated by now. I remember many years ago listening to a brilliant (and I mean BRILLIANT) speech give by John Tyndal on this very same issue. Dilluting the message for respectability’s sake never works. On the contrary, your voters tend to simply stay home or vote for a system candidate. Le Pen’s daughter is FN’s greatest liability. She’s a loser. http://www.spearhead.com/index.html

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:00 | #

But there is a silver lining to a Sarkozy victory:-

With a smile on his face, flip-flops on his feet and a cannabis joint in his hand, Jean-François Charmand wandered up to the polling station at Buffle Primary School in Grigny, south of Paris.

“I’m not going to tell you who I’m going to vote for,” said the 38-year-old painter decorator. “But I’ll tell you who I’m going to vote against - Nicolas Sarkozy.”

Amongst the largely immigrant population on Grigny’s infamous Grande Borne estate - scene of riots in 2005 and again last year - Mr Charmand’s opinion was widely shared.

“If Sarkozy’s elected, it’s going to be chaos,’ he said

... In the centre of the bleak 1970s council estate - where only 44 per cent of adults are employed - Koné Jaoussou, 28, was waiting with a friend, Zair Issa, 18, after voting for the Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal.

“I just hopes she gets in because if Sarkozy wins, this place is going to explode again,” he said. “There’ll be riots here in the suburbs all over France.”

... “What I like about him is that he speaks clearly and tells the truth,” said Lucien Sarrazin, a 38-year-old factory worker with a gold earring and dreadlocks.

He went on: “Someone’s got to restore order in this country. The kids around here are completely out of control and the parents can do nothing about it.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:08 | #

I think the issue of respectability is more complex than that, Friedrich.  You cannot demand overnight that the population walks towards where you are standing.  You must appeal to the popular comprehension of the world, but do so in such a way as to make the doubts that are always there somewhere into keyholes to another ideological universe.  That’s a process - a journey - that, as we all know, takes time.

Marine’s problem is that she has now been trumped by the centre-right, and for the moment the aforementioned doubts are being answered cheaply - that is, without demanding that the doubter looks beyond his own comfortable assumptions.

So unless the centre-right everywhere learns this trick, “respectability” per se isn’t the issue outside France.

At this very early stage, I think all the French nationalists can do is to wait for the Sarko approach to be falsified, and present themselves as the true believers.  I don’t think they will get anywhere by withdrawing to a position where they demand everything at once.

What a problem they have.

Posted by A Casual Observer on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:16 | #

I personally hold strong doubts about the ability of the right-wing in France to win anytime soon. Let us not forget: this is the country where the first national-level socialist revolution took place (ie, the French Revolution) and whose population strongly supports the motto, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” In comparison, right-wing parties holding views to the right of Sarkozy’s and, in many cases, Le Pen’s, hold power in Eastern European countries who have no history that bears any similarity to France’s. I think history is working against the French right.

Posted by JB on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:14 | #

What a disappointment. It looks like either the French are hopelessly masochistic or extremely naive because Sarkozy isn’t at all a rightwinger or a conservative and his tough guy image is simply an image.

“If Sarkozy’s elected, it’s going to be chaos,’ he said

the more chaos the better, those french fools haven’t suffered enough and unfortunately that’s probably the only thing that will wake them up

GW,
it’s not so much that Marine’s stategy didn’t work it’s much more the effectiveness of the media to create this duel between the kosher left and the kosher right. It was Sarkozy VS Royal every day for more than a year before the election. Remember what the editor of french TV network LCI said a year and a half ago ?

“Politics in France is heading to the right and I don’t want rightwing politicians back in second, or even first place because we showed burning cars on television,” Mr Dassier told an audience of broadcasters at the News Xchange conference in Amsterdam today.
Jean-Claude Dassier, head of LCI

there you go, that’s the explanation. The media has been campaigning against the FN ever since the last election. They have the kept the cover on so many stories and have kept the people focused on the immediate the newsflash the latest quote. For them it was anybody but Le Pen and it worked or so it seems.

Perhaps a lot of the FN voters of the last time voted for Sarkozy because they didn’t want to see Royal elected and I can understand why because she’s the dumbest leftist political c-nt I have ever heard, it’s painful to hear her talk she speaks to people as if she was speaking to retards - I kid you not -, Hilary Clinton sounds like a nobel prize winner compared to her. The legislative elections are in a month or two and we’ll see then if the phony conservative has really taken a chunk of the FN electorate.

And I may be wrong - I don’t have the exact numbers - but I don’t think the FN vote actually decreased it’s the participation rate that has increased this time around. 84 % is about 10 percentage points higher than the last time (that’s what I heard on radio) so either those riots didn’t have much of an effect on the french voters or as I wrote perhaps a rather big chunk of those who would have voted FN voted for Sarkozy because they didn’t thought Le Pen could win against Royal and Royal being the worst candidate for France they chose the lesser of the two evils, the so-called conservatice candidate.

You can bet that as the BNP grows the system will pull out a phony tough-on-immigration tough-on-crime Tory out of its hat and put a very leftist and very unconservative woman at the head of the Labour Party to try to scare the BNP voters into voting for the system’s so-called conservatives and the media will promote the Liberal Democrats to the rank of political rebels outside of the system which will probably fool a lot of people and raise the overall participation rate and therefore dilute the BNP vote even more.

Posted by JB on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:23 | #

In any other country Sarkozy would be called a leftist and that’s what he is, a leftist who hates the nation as much as the other leftists but in France the country is so ethnomasochistic and so leftist that only holding a few reasonable positions makes you a rightwinger or an extreme rightwinger.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 02:44 | #

GW,  I don’t disagree with what you have said but I take note that your position or strategy doesn’t seem to translate at the polls. On the contrary, the militants, your bread and butter, feel abandoned and (rightly or wrongly) think that the party has “sold out”.

Here’s what one of the good guys and a personal hero of mine (John Tyndall) had to say on those questions:

...

I am pledged to maintain the BNP as a party of 100 per cent racial nationalism. That is to say that our aim must be an all-white Britain, with a population of British stock, varied only by the mingling of people of compatible and assimilable European ethnic groups.

This, it will not need stating, will involve a massive transfer of non-European populations to their ethnic homelands in the Third World. As far as possible, this should be achieved by negotiation, including the provision of generous financial aid and incentives to resettlement. This means that the process would start on a voluntary basis. However, it would be essential to hold in reserve the option of alternative means of resettlement, employing the force of law, should the first policy prove inadequate. This is in accordance with the terms on which I agreed to a change in the BNP’s repatriation programme in 1999, and which were set out in Chapter 15 of my book The Eleventh Hour. In effect, and despite all protestations to the contrary, the change was merely one of presentation, not of substance.

Contrary to what Mr. Griffin has claimed, I do not believe that the distinction between voluntary or obligatory repatriation is of concern to the average voter. My experience of doorstep canvassing certainly confirms me in this view. For this very reason I do not believe that the party should go out of its way to ‘talk up’ the repatriation issue, either to emphasise the first (voluntary) phase or the contingency policy of enforcement by law if this fails. There will be times when we will be obliged by media questioning to address the issue, in which case we should stress the first as the first option, while not denying the second if asked but stressing it as being, at the moment, hypothetical.

What we must certainly not do is speak, as Mr. Griffin has done, of an all-white Britain being an unrealistic ‘utopia’ or of non-white immigration being “the salt in the soup”, in other words a little is OK but not too much. This wins no friends in the media or among the public, while it demoralises many in our own party.

This principle of a White Britain is laid down as the core belief of our party entirely without hatred. We would continue, as in the past, to express our racial convictions reasonably, moderately and with strict avoidance of insults or abuse towards other ethnic groups, though maintaining the right to speak critically of these groups, or sections thereof, where called for and within the law.

This question aside, I see no reason for any substantial change in the party’s political objectives as defined in Section 1 of the present Constitution, though I believe that some modifications of wording should be made in Sub-section (b) so as to make clear the objectives of an all-white Britain as previously outlined; and in Sub-section (c) so as to avoid the impression that the party is fully committed to a programme of Distributism, as defined in the doctrines of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc.

...

Contrary to widespread belief, fostered within the party by Mr. Griffin and his allies and outside it by some sections of the mass media, I am every bit as concerned and committed as he claims to be to maintain the best possible public image for the BNP, so as to achieve for it the maximum electability.

This was my policy before Mr. Griffin took over the party and it will be my policy in the future.

I am as strongly opposed as is anyone to the use of language, slogans, visual images or campaign tactics that connect the party with movements and ideologies rightly or wrongly considered alien by the majority of the British public. At the same time, I do not think it sensible or right to try to dictate to members what their private opinions should be on such matters.

I want to do more than has been done in the past to project for the BNP an image of smartness, tidiness, cleanliness, good behaviour and overall efficiency. I am committed never to permit again the appalling public relations failures that occurred in the making of the TV documentary Young, Nazi and Proud, broadcast in November 2002 - some of which could have been avoided by stricter supervision of interviewers and camera teams. I would introduce more rigid rules as to which members should be permitted to speak to media reporters, whether of press, TV or radio.

At the same time, I am opposed to the numerous gimmicks that have been employed by the Griffin leadership to convey an image of ‘liberalisation’ in the party. I include here: the selection of Jewish election candidates (who would not be permitted membership anyway); the featuring of ethnic minority group members on TV broadcasts and as writers of regular columns in party publications; and news items in these publications which might be taken to glorify racial intermarriage and cross-breeding. I oppose these things because they are utterly contrary to our principles as a party of racial nationalism; but I also oppose them for essentially practical reasons. I do not believe that they make an iota of difference to our support among the voters, while at the same time they cause a great deal of internal division, demoralisation and unrest. It seems that Mr. Griffin has yet to understand that a party’s internal solidarity and morale are every bit as important as its external popularity.

...

http://www.spearhead.com/0409-jt2.html

Posted by JB on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:08 | #

btw I’m reading french blogs right now and they’re saying the FN has <u>gained a million more votes</u> compared to the last presidential election. Its proportion of the total vote decreased however because the minor candidates got very few votes and a lot of people voted for the third major candidate, the Centrist. What’s a centrist you ask? Good question.

This François Bayrou is a leftist, perhaps even more so than Royal but he made a big deal out of being supposedly a Centrist, meaning he was neither Left nor Right. And he won almost 20 % of the vote. He presented himself as an outsider, someone opposed to the system. It’s not true but it seems like he fooled a lot of people. Needless to say the media was pushing him a lot and you have to be dumb or french to believe that if the media presents someone as being an independent outsider that is willing to bring ‘change’ he’s undoubtedly the opposite, a cog of the system dressed up to play the role of the rebel.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:51 | #

In the final analysis, I am at heart a democrat.
My position will always be thus; I can warn and write until I’m blue in the face, but if amajority of the French (or British for that matter) people volutarily and democratically decide through electoral votes that they wish to proceed with heir genetic extinction - then they are perfectly entitled to take that course of action.
In the world of individuals we allow hardened gamblers, alcoholics and drug addicts the ‘freedom’ to continue their spiral into death and destruction on the good and incontrovertible grounds of ‘individual resposibility and liberty’, I merely suggest that we should look upon the fate of nations in the same way.
  Isn’t this just the Darwinin paradigm ‘the survival of the fittest’ taken at the ultimate group level and taking ‘fitness to live’ as being ‘psychological fitness’ rather than ‘physical fitness’?

Posted by Maguire on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:18 | #

I have some questions to ask in the interest of general education, especially for the Americans among us.

1.  How does the FN in France organize itself?  How much strength and presence does it have at the neighborhood and street levels?

2.  What political tactics does the FN use during elections?  How does it spread its message at that time?

3.  What does the FN do between elections, and particularly at the local level?  Does it do anything that affects the day to day lives of its members or citizens who come into contact with it?  Or is FN purely oriented on electoral politics and activities directly designed to maximize election turnouts for its candidates?

4.  I’ve seen it stated that Marine Le Pen has been running a youth group called “Generations Le Pen” since 2002.  Is this entity alive in the real world, or does it mainly exist as press releases and websites? 

BNPers are very welcome to pitch in and educate us about this on their end, too.

Posted by JB on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:29 | #

one thing that was predictable though is that immigrants wouldn’t vote for the FN in any case and that’s what happened. The departments with high levels of immigrés voted for the Socialist Party, the FN got between 5 and 10 % and it’s probably the whites who are stuck in there. The immigrants vote for those who will give them a bigger piece of the pie. Trying to win over their vote by appealing to their reason in an effort to get into power is completely futile.

It’s like the Republicans trying to take latino votes from the Democrats. It will never happen unless perhaps there’s a mexican candidate wearing a GOP pin VS a white candidate for the democrats.

Posted by JB on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:02 | #

for the americans who want to understand in a nutshell what happened : imagine if you had the choice between Hilary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani. Royal is sort of like Hilary but worse (if you can imagine that) because she wants to bring the whole of the third world into France and Sarkozy is sort of like Giuliani, someone who hates the nation and want to sacrifice it on the altar of globalism but who doesn’t sound or look as bad as the leftist opponent because first he’s a man and second he has said a thing or two against illegal immigrants.

Faced with that choice a lof of whites chose Sarkozy and of course the immigrés chose Royal. 1/5 of the electorate voted for the shallow ‘centrist’ because he was disguised as the ‘man of change’ (whatever that is) and the nationalists who can’t be fooled by the media voted for the FN. Sarkozy will likely win with at least 60 %. The flaming leftist can’t win this one I’m pretty sure

Posted by Calvin on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:43 | #

If one million more people voted for the FN this time around the prospects for growth may not be so bad. Voting for a New-Right party entails the type of mental paradigm shift that is impossible to reverse; I seriously doubt that many these new voters will ever return to the fold of the established political parties. The New-Right is not a party political phenomenon anyway, it is a trans-national ethno-cultural movement.  The growth pattern for European ethno-consciousness will follow a religious model not a political model.

Posted by JB on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 03:00 | #

If I remember right you’re an English Canuck who knows French and keeps up with Frog politics.

a french canuck who keeps up with french politics by visiting various blogs like

http://www.fdesouche.com/

http://voxgalliae.blogspot.com/

and by talking to french nationalists

looks like I got things backwards, the FN lost almost a million votes to Sarkozy and perhaps to Villiers (a catholic traditional conservative candidate who got about a million votes and whose electorate would have certainly voted FN if it had been there on the 2nd round, but he refused to join the FN which lead some to accuse him of being Sarkozy’s submarine).

The media and the leftists tried to demonize Sarkozy making him into a Le Pen light or something but it looks like it made him more popular and also the idea that the Socialist candidate could win the presidentials must have scared a lot of people too. I mean she virtually promised to open borders even more and to give immigrants lots of gifts. It’s unbelievable how such a person could get as far as she did in politics, only in France can almost 30 % of the population support an insane leftist like her. But she did what she was supposed to do, that is to scare the french who aren’t particularly leftists into voting for Sarkozy and therefore scaring a big part of the FN voters into voting for him too. I don’t think those who voted FN the last time voted for Sarkozy because they believe in him, it’s just that the alternative seems so much worse and they didn’t thought Le Pen could beat her on the 2nd round.

Also take into account the fact that the FN got almost no coverage in the year or two prior to the election, it was all about this staged duel. The media did everything they could to sink the FN and one thing that they did a few months before the election was to elevate an unbelievably boring dummy into a political rebel.

look at what the israeli post service did a few months ago : they made a stamp in honor of Sarkozy. France has now to choose between cancer and AIDS

Posted by JB on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 03:26 | #

I’m reading about an ‘expert’ of the “far right”‘s analysis which says that as much as 30 % of the FN vote of five years ago went to Sarkozy and if it’s true it would mean that the FN has possibly gained almost 2 millions new voters.

I don’t know how statisticians and sociologists can calculate all of that but I think my little analysis is true: the Left/Right system made sure that its Left candidate was so bad that the normal frenchmen would swing to “the Right” and that fearing “the Left’s” candidate would rather easily beat the Front National leader on the 2nd round many of those who would have voted FN under normal circumstances voted strategically for the kosher “Right”.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:23 | #

JB,

Presumeably, the “expert” means that Le Pen lost support in, as the Independent put it today, ...

... his “fief” in the Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur region of the Mediterranean coast, where he topped the poll in 2002, M. Le Pen collapsed to fourth place.

Tactically, I think this was made into an election of the centre.  The spectre of Le Pen 2002 and the smoke of those 18 days in the Parisian suburbs hung over the proceedings to a much greater degree that I, for one, realised.  The whole emphasis was on shovelling opinion into the centre, as can be seen from the collapse of the far left and greens down from 13.8% in 2002 to 9%.  The Greens’ vote collapsed to 1.5 per cent.

Sarkozy will be the next president of France.  He will prove divisive.  He will split the country along two, possibly three axes.  His notion of modernisation will be at odds with the stubborn Gaullist heart of the French centre-right.  His inate cosmopolitanism will be at odds with the “tough guy” promises he made to FN supporters and those concerned about the European ethnic and cultural integrity of a future France.  His very presence, regardless of the placatory efforts he will eventually be forced to make, will galvanise les banlieues.

Posted by National Meritocracy on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:38 | #

“look at what the israeli post service did a few months ago : they made a stamp in honor of Sarkozy. France has now to choose between cancer and AIDS”

And the installation of Sarkozy shall follow the election of the US neocon-approved Harper in Canada, Calderon in Mexico, and Merkel in Germany, plus the “color revolution” puppets. (Chretian, Chirac, and Schroeder stood up to Washington at times.)

We are witnessing the internet-speed Judaification of the world’s governments before us.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:33 | #

Yes, perhaps tactically we can manage to salvage some sort of a ‘siver lining’ from this sorry show.
As GW said, Sarkozy will ‘galvanise’ the banlieues.
There isn’t the slightest doubt that blacks and Arabs hate Sarkozy with a passion, perhaps moreso than they hate Le Pen.
As such, his premiership will prove divisive with the threat of continued civil unrest and low-scale insurgency coming from the banlieues.The blacks and Arabs will grow stronger, nastier and cockier as the years pass, paving the way for a polarisation of opinion in France that will force the race issue to the fore.
  As the saying goes ‘Worse is better’.

Posted by gongstar on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:34 | #

Excellent analysis, GW, but your rhetoric let you down at the end:

But only nationalists execute nationalist policy.  And that’s what would save France.

Picture JMLP delivering this:

But only nationalists execute nationalist policy! And only nationalist policy will save France!

Posted by Matra on Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:39 | #

Two of the things I most admired about Le Pen in the past were his lack of concern with being fashionable and his unwillingness to compromise on core issues. Perhaps holding out an olive branch to Muslims and other non-French after decades of talking tough made him look like just another politician to the French. One can understand nationalist movements moderating in countries where they have virtually no support, like Britain, but with nearly 20% on board it would have been better for French whites, though maybe not for Le Pen’s party, to keep pulling the debate rightward as Svigor suggests.

I notice that every observer thinks Bayrou’s supporters will mostly go to Sarkozy. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood his appeal but I thought many of Bayrou’s backers were leftists disillusioned or embarrassed with Sego due to her gaffes.  I thought the idea was to present a stronger alternative to Sarko as they didn’t think Sego could beat him. Now that their candidate hasn’t made the second round and faced with the prospect of Sarko in the Elysee Palace wouldn’t many of these people see Sego as the lesser of two evils?

Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:01 | #

GW,

A year or so ago, I recall telling you that conservatism (by playing the role of a false opposition) was the real enemy.

Posted by Igor Alexander on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:52 | #

“And the installation of Sarkozy shall follow the election of the US neocon-approved Harper in Canada, Calderon in Mexico, and Merkel in Germany, plus the “color revolution” puppets. (Chretian, Chirac, and Schroeder stood up to Washington at times.) “

If I were a believer in global conspiracy theories, I would suspect we were being set up for WWIII.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:08 | #

Daedalus,

The Conservatism you address and the one I try to explicate are rather different.

Posted by Igor Alexander on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:23 | #

“Israel’s coming out with a stamp honoring Sarkozy in the middle of the election campaign is quite bizarre and quite interesting.  (What was the pretext, I wonder?)”

The pretext, I’m sure, is that they’re simply honoring Sarkozy because he’s successful and Jewish.

Not that Jews need even bother with a “pretext” for sticking their hulking proboscises in our affairs. They’re usually pretty brazen about it. I can hardly blame them, since there hasn’t been any effective opposition to their meddling in the Western world since 1945.

“What else is paid for out of that yearly transfer of billions from D.C. to Israel?  Did it pay for behind-the-scenes assistance funneled to pro-Sarkozy, anti-Le Pen, anti-Ségolène electoral forces?”

Jews have a well-earned reputation of always betting on both sides, so if this scenario turned out to be true, I’d say they were bankrolling Ségolène in addition to Sarkozy, just like they have their fingers in both the Democratic and Republican pies in the U.S. (though their instinctual preference, it goes without saying, is for the left). While we’re speculating about this, could the CIA, which, as I understand, has a strong Jewish faction, have been involved in tampering with French elections, as they have often done in the Third World?

“(They’re mistaken in imagining it’s going to be “good for the Jews” once brought about, but I understand why they fanatically want it.)”

I stopped looking for a rational reason for why Jews want to exterminate the white race a long time ago. All that matters is that they’re doing it.

“Can anyone here say if Israel wants all people of European race worldwide changed into Negroes, as the Jewish diaspora wants? If so, why?”

Jews are Jews regardless of where they live, and that’s what Jews are hard-wired to do. “It is their nature,” as the fable goes.

That’s a tough pill for most people to swallow, but it’s the truth.

People looking at strictly religious/cultural or conspiratorial explanations for Jewish behavior are barking up the wrong tree (though it’s quite clear that Jews routinely engage in behavior that can only be described as conspiratorial).

Regarding the wanting “all people of European race worldwide changed into Negroes”: they’d prefer it if you would just die (e.g. be murdered by hostile non-whites, become a homosexual or a perpetual adolescent, put your career ahead of having a family). Miscegenation is merely a subtler form of murder to them. Their objective is the destruction of the white race through miscegenation, not the creation of a mongrelized population as an end in itself. We’ve all seen them promoting the blonde female-black male combination, but keen media observers will also have noticed that they’ve been pushing the white male-Asian female combo just as hard; the bottom line is that they want us gone, no matter how it’s done, not just “changed into Negroes.”

Posted by Igor Alexander on Tue, 01 May 2007 02:20 | #

“Is all that’s wrong with today’s Rhodesia its failure to tinker with tax or trade policy?  Is that all that’s the matter with today’s South Africa or Morocco or the other countries of the Maghreb:  is that all that’s keeping them from being just like us?  All that’s keeping them from advancing?”

The media is controlled, friend. You will never see an issue framed in explicitly racial terms in any mainstream publication (except when framing it that way makes whites out to be the bad guys; then it’s commonplace).

I saw a French magazine on newsstands a few months ago with a cover story about South Africa. “The economy is booming, democracy is working fabulously,” it proclaimed. Not a word about the rate of murder in South Africa, which is the highest in the world. Not a word about the epidemic of rape and armed robbery. Not a word about people having to live in gated, guarded communities (that is, those who can afford it). Nothing about the rampant political corruption, the deterioration of roads and public utilities, the lack of qualified personnel to maintain military ships and aircraft. Nada.

It’s like something straight out of 1984.

Posted by Igor Alexander on Tue, 01 May 2007 02:30 | #

“Sarkozy is Catholic.”

Do you have a source on this?

I heard his mother was a French Jewess.

It’s puzzling that his likeness would appear on an Israeli postage stamp if what you say is true.

Though with a Jewish grandfather, it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say he was of Jewish descent.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 01 May 2007 03:19 | #

Sarkozy is Jewish enough to land in Israel tomorrw and get instant Israeli citizenship.

Posted by Igor Alexander on Tue, 01 May 2007 05:37 | #

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 01 May 2007 10:31 | #

Christianity has poisoned our culture with its universalist ideal of glorifying the poor, weak, and sick. It is a major problem, but not the only one. I agree with you that race-replacement is the pressing concern. I have been arguing on various atheist websites in favor of excluding potential immigrants on religious grounds. I have found that many atheists agree with me that facilitating the spread of religious ignorance in our society through liberal immigration laws is undesirable. Similarly, I have been attacking “Christian atheism” - atheists who embrace the Christian virtue of charity. It’s not much, but spreading such memes here and there doesn’t hurt.

Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 01 May 2007 10:40 | #

GW,

I am well aware of that. The recent demoralizing mushiness of the FN + the great faux conservative hope Sarko has proven fatal for racialism at the polls in France. We are getting set up for the same racket here in the U.S. in 2008.

Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 01 May 2007 10:42 | #

“Sarkozy is Jewish enough to land in Israel tomorrw and get instant Israeli citizenship.”

Isn’t he some kind of neocon?