Posted by Dirty Bull on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:41 | #

The French have been here before - they go up to the rink but lack the final courage to vote in the FN to real office, I doubt if this will change.
  With all the sound and fury over the current north African revolution wave, I’ve seen very, very little coverage about Algeria, possibly because the west is shit-scared and wants to keep it quiet.
  Of course, in Algeria (a mass population nation, unlike Libya with a massive diaspora in France) an illegal dictatorship has kept the democratically elected islamist party ‘FIS’ out of power using terror and torture - but not a dicky-bird about this from the ‘west’, (compare how the wanky bleeding hearts coat off Belarus’s Lukashenka at every possible opportunity).
  Of course, a blow-up in Algeria (neighbour to Libya and Tunisia), will be a disaster for France.Algeria itself has been nothing but a disaster for France since colonization began in 1831.
  Another point, the Tunisian strongmen (Ben-whateveritis), was a staunch French ally, stooge and placeman, loyal to Paris to a fault.When his time cane, France rejected his plea for asylum - don’t want to upset the banlieu-beurs, you know.

Posted by Robert on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:28 | #

I haven’t been to France in more than 20 years but when I was there I travelled all over the south of France; Toulon, Nice, Cannes, even Marseilles which is supposed to be a heavy muslim foothold in the country.  I never saw a single North African or black the whole two weeks I was there.  Just how bad has it gotten?  I see so many different estimates of the nonwhite population in the country ranging from 5% all the way to 13%.  It’s very difficult for me to believe that things have deteriorated that much.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:51 | #

Does that look like a class political act to you?  It certainly does to me. (GW)

My French is too poor really to be able to follow the spoken comments, except occasionally. I like that Marine is blonde, however. That is the true French look, unlike that of the swarthy types who seem to predominate in media depictions of the French.

Why can’t the BNP be like this? N-O-R-M-A-L - no Nazi salutes, Holocaust revisionism, Judeo obsessions, predictions of immediate national Armageddon, ugly skinhead looks, funny clothes, etc.

Just nice, “Middle British” people, thoroughly normal and conventional, making the perfectly obvious and reasonable demand to end the Third World invasion, now.

Once that’s done, we start pressing for repatriation. Really very simple. In other words, the BNP should be thoroughly mainstream conservative, perhaps with a little greater tolerance and concern for social welfarism than the Tories, but very ordinary and unthreatening, except that it should constantly harp on the national dangers of immigration.

Why isn’t there a party that does that?

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:55 | #

Who is Aubry, btw? Leftist?

And aren’t there other rightist parties in France besides the FN?

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 15:02 | #

I’m re-posting (part of) this comment from another thread, despite its only general relevance to this story:

... the major issue in racial survival: how can or will we stop our women from miscegenating? In every generation there is a large number of women who do not reproduce (I’ve done no specific research, but I’d like to know the number for women under 50, which I suspect is substantially higher than for women over 70, 80, 90). I think that number has been rising throughout the 20th century, and into this one.

Every gene line whose carrier miscegenates is lost to the white race. For example, unless Tiger Woods’ Swedish supermodel wife divorces him, remarries a white man, and has children with the latter, she will not have passed her racial essence to a new generation. I do not regard miscegenation as a ‘spreading’ of the white racial genotype to other races, but simply as a subtraction from the white race, at least if the miscegenator is female (why this should be so is obvious, but the answer could be given this way: is Obama white or black?).

I think racial extinction is likely because miscegenation will only become more common, at least to the extent that people are allowed sexual and marital freedom. It would have increased even apart from immigration, simply due to expanding wealth and ever easier travel. The internet exponentially increases miscegenation opportunities, and this will only grow in the future (until the pool of possible miscegenators has been soaked up, and only willful non-miscegenators remain - and they will be too few to defend themselves).

What can counter the racial-loss effects of miscegenation? Ultimately, either sexual authoritarianism, long present in the West, esp pre-WW2, but now and for the foreseeable future totally morally and politically discredited, or else something (attitudes, laws, economic changes) which will cause huge fertility increases among the non-miscegenating portion of the white population (to counteract or overwhelm the miscegenators, as it were). The former will not happen in the modern West as presently politically constituted (so we’re back to advocating RaHoWa, and the instantiation of a semi-totalitarian Racial State), and all exogenous trends in society, economics, government parasitism, social dysgenesis, parenting psychologies, even environmental and natural resource conditions, militate against large white families (and the trend almost everywhere is for smaller nonwhite families, too). [Note: the one exception is certain white fundamentalist Christian groups with a family and hyper-reproduction orientation - yet another reason why we need to enlist Christianity on our side, or make it ideologically congruent with racial preservationism, as well as why atheistic forms of nationalism will always prove so, well, sterile.]

The problem with Racial Revolution is that white societies are too wealthy and secure for their peoples to risk death and economic ruin in fomenting it - especially for something as abstract and personally remote as “saving the white race”. Whites will have to become far more miserable than at present before they will pick up guns en masse for revolutionary reasons. Before that level of misery is reached, however, the white peoples will elect conservative parties, who in turn will ameliorate the problems with better government solutions, especially in the economic sphere - and thus further anesthetize their populations in the face of accelerating racial dispossession and “pre-extinction”. By the time whites are so immiserated that they “don’t give a fuck”, as the skins say, they will be too few to wage a credible counter-revolution (see, eg, their condition in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe today - and the lack of white revolutionary activity there).

Whites are going to have to learn to survive as a diasporic people (imagine that: a native born white Englishman a refugee in bloody England itself!!). Will they be able to do so? Will they be allowed to?

Posted by anon on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:15 | #

It’s very difficult for me to believe that things have deteriorated that much.

Croyez-le. Marseilles n’est pas la France.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:22 | #

Yes, Leon, Aubry is a leftist.

The problem with a party of “just nice, “Middle British” people, thoroughly normal and conventional, making the perfectly obvious and reasonable demand to end the Third World invasion, now” is that there are, obviously, many connected issues surrounding that one, and the whole comprises quite a weight - enough to weight down the life of all Europeans throughout the West.  Politically, to begin the process of lifting that weight of our chests involves a great deal more than ending Third World immigration.  It demands ending neoliberalism.  It demands ending equality.  It demands ending hyper-individualism.  It demands ending the debt system.  It demands ending elitism.  And so on.

That’s not a small thing.  Nationalism, as the solution to these demands, implies a complete and revolutionary change.  And it is the radicalism of the revolutionary that divides you from me, no?  You want to retain the essentials and ideals of the Christian-liberal tradition, and I am telling you that won’t cut it, not by a very long way.

Posted by anon on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:23 | #

That is the true French look, unlike that of the swarthy types who seem to predominate in media depictions of the French.

It may be that brunettes predominate in France.

Posted by Robert on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:27 | #

Anon, Habitez-vous en France? Si oui, quel pourcentage de la population ne sont pas les Européens?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 16:50 | #

Le gouvernement français l’a rendu illégal il y a de nombreuses années pour rassembler des données au sujet d’origine raciale.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:45 | #

LH: “My French is too poor really to be able to follow the spoken comments”

It isn’t really interesting. The cow just said: mooh!
The real question is: Who’s decided to allow Marine Le Pen in the Judeo-French media.

DB: “The French have been here before - they go up to the rink but lack the final courage to vote in the FN to real office”

If Marine Le Pen beats Sarkozy in the first round, the second round will probably be between her and Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK). I expect that half the voters who chose Sarkozy in the first round will choose DSK in the second round, and DSK will become the next president. By the way, I wish she could win the election. It would certainly be useful. But even if she does, her party still won’t have any deputies in the French parliament, due to the first past the post system. It means that Sarkozy or DSK will get to choose the prime minister and the government.

DSK is said to support the expansion of the European Union not only to Turkey, but also to North Africa, where he spent his childhood and has a house. His wife is well-known Jewish television journalist Anne Sinclair, born in New York, formerly married to Ivan Levaï, another Jewish nationalist journalist (and member of the sinister government-subsidized anti-white Jewish activist group LICRA). I just read on Wikipedia that Ivan Levaï has remarried to a woman who is the secretary of the president of the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel, an institution that oversees the French radio and television. It’s a small Jewish world.

A DSK quote (during his 1993 election campaign in Sarcelles) : “Je mets mon engagement de Juif avant toute autre préoccupation politique”. = “I put my commitment as a Jew before any other political consideration.”

Another quote :

“Je considère que tout Juif dans la diaspora, et donc c’est vrai en France, doit partout où il le peut apporter son aide à Israël. C’est pour ça d’ailleurs qu’il est important que les Juifs prennent des responsabilités politiques. Tout le monde ne pense pas la même chose dans la Communauté juive, mais je crois que c’est nécessaire. Car, on ne peut pas à la fois se plaindre qu’un pays comme la France, par exemple, ait dans le passé et peut-être encore aujourd’hui, une politique par trop pro-arabe et ne pas essayer de l’infléchir par des individus qui pensent différemment en leur permettant de prendre le plus grand nombre de responsabilités. En somme, dans mes fonctions et dans ma vie de tous les jours, au travers de l’ensemble de mes actions, j’essaie de faire en sorte que ma modeste pierre soit apportée à la construction de la terre d’Israël.” (Propos recueillis par Emille Malet, Passages n°35, février-mars 1991).

= “I believe that every Jew in the diaspora, and therefore it is true in France, must help Israel wherever he can. In fact, that’s why it is important that Jews should assume political responsibilities. Not everyone has the same opinion in the Jewish community, but I think it is still necessary. Because we can not at the same time complain that a country like France, for example, has in the past and maybe still today, had an overly pro-Arab policy, and not try to have it altered by individuals who think differently, by allowing them to assume as many responsibilities as they can. In other words, in my duties and in my everyday life, through all my actions, I try to contribute my modest stone to build the land of Israel.”

Another one he is supposed to have said:
(supposedly reported by the weekly magazine La Vie - 11 avril 1991)

“Quand je me lève le matin, ma première pensée va à Israël”
= When I get up in the morning, my first thought is for Israel.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 18:02 | #

GuessedFrog: “the French government made it illegal to gather racial statistics”

The Constitutional Council said it was anti-constitutional.

I will republish what I have written about that on another forum.

Here is what I found on wikipedia (my translation) :

In 2007, the bill pertaining to the control of immigration, integration and asylum had a clause allowing to count members of ethnic groups. The clause met heavy opposition. In October 2007, more than 60 members of Parliament and more than 60 members of the Senate referred the matter to the Constitutional Council. In its decision of November 2007, the CC ruled that article 63 was not consistent with the French Constitution [. . .] . On the substance of the case, the Council added that, even if procedures that are used to study and measure diversity, discrimination and integration may deal with objective data, they cannot rely on race or ethnic origin, without breaching the principle stated in article one of the Constitution.

And here is article 1 of the French Constitution: “France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion.”

The idea that article 1 forbids the collecting of ethnic statistics is absurd, and is a very recent idea. I think it is another case of Jewish influence and misinterpretation. The Constitutional Council is made up of 9 members. In 2007, 3 of them were Jewish: Jean-Louis Debré (the president), Dominique Schnapper, and Pierre Joxe. Two other ones (Canivet and Pezant) were appointed by Debré. Pezant, used to write for the magazine “Pouvoirs”, which is clearly linked to Jewish circles. (As former presidents of France, Chirac and Giscard are also members of the Council. I don’t suppose they take part in the debates, but maybe they are still allowed to vote.)

Posted by Robert on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:53 | #

Guessedworker, dans votre propre estimation, à l’extérieur de la métropole parisienne, comment est-il fréquent de voir des gens qui ne sont pas les Européens?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:59 | #

Robert, mon ami, la dernière fois où j’étais dans les sud de la France était 2003, et juste avant celui j’étais deux fois dans le nord-est. Tellement aucuns secteurs vraiment importants de population. Quoi qu’il en soit, je dois dire que je ne suis jamais allé aux endroits où les étrangers sont recueillis, et mon impression est qu’ils habitent beaucoup plus séparément qu’en Grande-Bretagne. Elle pourrait être en raison de l’Islam, et de sa ségrégation culturelle.

Posted by A. Pauled on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 22:50 | #

= “I believe that every Jew in the diaspora, and therefore it is true in France, must help Israel wherever he can. In fact, that’s why it is important that Jews should assume political responsibilities. Not everyone has the same opinion in the Jewish community, but I think it is still necessary. Because we can not at the same time complain that a country like France, for example, has in the past and maybe still today, had an overly pro-Arab policy, and not try to have it altered by individuals who think differently, by allowing them to assume as many responsibilities as they can. In other words, in my duties and in my everyday life, through all my actions, I try to contribute my modest stone to build the land of Israel.”

What the fuck, nobody catching a one way El Al flight and working on a kibbutz or joining the IDF?!

Posted by Kai Mayora on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:21 | #

Off topic, but NOT.

Here is a very powerful tool for dissident activists.  Use it.

http://www.whiterabbitradio.net/audio/ridingshotgun6.mp3

Posted by anon on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 01:46 | #

Robert, in my experience, Marseilles must be over 50% non-white, which is a conservative number. From where I was standing - in the street, where “le peuple” live - it was the usual dizzying melange of maghrebis, blacks, whites, and deposits of asian students. Despite this I was astounded one night to hear at a cafe, behind me, a Bolivian woman chatting with a friend, looking affluent despite her fully indigenous race and comportment. How in the world was she in southern France enjoying a more expensive cup of coffee than myself? Probably a prostitute, the answer.

And the truth is, the same rot in many cities of the south. For whatever the numbers, psychologically it is perceived presence that counts here, so that a handful is as upsetting as a hundred-thousands, not of course not as acute and still avoidable. And by perceived presence I mean my perception as a European, and theirs as a foreigner, which is typically hostile, invariably so with young males. A ville may house 5000, of whom but 100 are maghrebi, but of those 100 a majority will be young males, who will, naturally, make themselves known in one unwholesome way or another. I’ve been challenged to fight at random in train depots, waiting for buses, buying bread, as ever minding my own business, as white men do. And this in towns or cities without overwhelming non-white populations.

Let me put it this way. It should be given that Paris and Marseilles are absolutely lost to recivilization. These cities may or mayn’t be “majority non-white”; more direly, the total urban population in both cases is so great that a “minority non-white” population is already millions. At those numbers, the exact ratio is meaningless, politically. But to return to my experience of it, I bring you to a quite small mountain-top commune not far from Saint-Geniez-ô-Merle, in the Corrèze. Lovely spot, the whole. This commune is home to, at most, a hundred French retirees and Britons. Yet there I was on an evening stroll, my companion pointing out to me the British expats’ homes, the mairie‘s building, the old graveyard, etc., when a coal-black child popped out from behind hillock to chase after a kickball. My companion and his wife were an old retired couple, he a former FN functionary in the region, so I was able to give vent to my dumbstruck surprise and incomprehension, really, that that little thing gets to live in the pretty French village, and not me. Outright habitat invasion. We see it all the time in the cities, but to see it there, in the ancient heart of European civilization, isolated and accepted, was a most surreal experience.

I cannot guess at the total numbers, again. I can say with certainty where they yet haven’t penetrated—the north, the western coast, the Pyrenees, hardscrabble rural departments like Ardèche, probably most of Corsica. But you know ... are those France?

Posted by Nobody on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 04:35 | #

Posted by anon on March 07, 2011, 12:46 AM | #

Just out of curiosity, what are the firearm laws in France?

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:05 | #

It may be that brunettes predominate in France.

Certainly. Brigitte Bardot, for example, was born a brunette.

I really think Leon is getting the French confused with another ethnicity, like the Germans or Swedes.

Also I don’t think the French are portrayed as swarthy, merely as somewhat less fair on average than Germans.

That’s merely a reflection of reality.

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:18 | #

If Marine Le Pen beats Sarkozy in the first round, the second round will probably be between her and Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK). I expect that half the voters who chose Sarkozy in the first round will choose DSK in the second round, and DSK will become the next president.

You may be right, but could you try to be a bit less defeatist?

The latest poll shows Marine Le Pen ahead of the Sarkozy and the Socialist.

Is this Dominique Strauss-Kahn really so much more popular than Aubry?

Also I think a lot of Sarkozy voters are to the right of the Hungarian midget, and it’s quite possible that a majority of them will prefer Marine Le Pen over some Socialist who wants to have Libya and Tunisa in the European Union.

If Marine is smart enough to make an issue of just how radical a leftist DSK is, I think there’s a good chance of Marine winning.

The key is for Marine to keep or expand the level she currently enjoys.

But even if she does, her party still won’t have any deputies in the French parliament, due to the first past the post system. It means that Sarkozy or DSK will get to choose the prime minister and the government.

Are you sure the parliament gets to choose the whole government? I they get veto power over Prime Minister, but what about the other positions?

In any event, the President of France has significant powers.

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:27 | #

Note that in calling the current President of France a Hungarian midget, I in no way intend disrespect to Hungarians.

I know Sarkozy is actually half Jewish, and doesn’t reflect the typical viewpoint of Hungarians.

At the same time it’s somewhat fun to call Sarkozy a Hungarian midget because it takes advantage of the fact that it’s a hell of a lot more politically correct to imply the President of France shouldn’t be a non-French European, than it is to imply the President of France shouldn’t be part Jewish.

Attacking Sarkozy for being Jewish would probably be counterproductive given the pro-Jew and anti-European sensibilities of our age and should most likely be avoided by Marin Le Pen’s supporters.

We can’t let that rotten misruler be portrayed as the victim, or as some sort of De Gaulle fighting against the wannabe Nazi death camp operators.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:59 | #

I bet in the time of Charlemagne most Franks were blonde. Maybe today the modal Frenchman is a brunette, but note that France has been invaded by lots of non-Franks in recent centuries, not just the nonwhites of the past 40 years. Look at old French paintings- lots of blondes. In movies, though, French are often depicted as very Mediterranean, almost like Sicilians or Jews.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:16 | #

anon,

Are you French?

It saddens me to see all this. As a child, I lived in Paris for a year in the mid-70s. I distinctly remember how few nonwhites there were as compared to my home city of LA. When we went on trips in other parts, Brittany, the Loire, Bordeaux, the Alps, often without my father, there were NO minorities that I can recall. (In fairness, I do not recall if we made it as far south as Marseilles). I thought how wonderful it was not to have minorities (esp blacks) around. I don’t even know about the Islamic presence. It must have been there already, but my parents, esp mother, are fierce Catholics, and they/she would have said something about encountering mosques, either then or at some more recent point. I don’t remember any complaints, though maybe I was too young to notice.

When I returned in the early 90s as a race conscious adult, I was disgusted at the multiracial presence. But I was even more disgusted at the race-treason and sheer stupidity of most of the whites I met. I kept inquiring as to why they were unnecessarily importing America’s racial problems. Some French were opposed to the invasion, but most were more worried about ‘racisme’.

What losers! (the final epitaph of the white man)

Does anyone here think we will restore our control over our historic lands without violence at some point?

Does anyone actually think we will restore our control?

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:59 | #

Maybe today the modal Frenchman is a brunette, but note that France has been invaded by lots of non-Franks in recent centuries…

If I remember history correctly you have it exactly backwards.

The Franks were a Germanic tribe, possibly majority blonde, who invaded what it now France.

The French of today are descended partly from the pre-Frankish peoples, and partly from the more recent Frankish invaders.

I bet in the time of Charlemagne most Franks were blonde.

Franks are a different category from the French. The Franks were a Germanic tribe who invaded Gaul after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

If you went back to the time of Charlemagne and only looked at the 100% Frankish people in France, maybe they were majority blonde.

But even by that time there was certainly lots of interbreeding between the Franks and non-Germanic/more brunette natives, so I doubt your statement would be correct even if you only looked at French people from that time period with actual Frankish ancestry.

Look at old French paintings- lots of blondes.

There are lots of blondes in France now, it just is that a strong majority are brunettes. Also the old French paintings were probably more of the Aristocracy.

It stands to reason that the Aristocracy would’ve been more descended from the Frankish conquerors than the average Frenchman or woman.

It’s like what happened in England where for a while after 1066 the Aristocrats were more descended from the Normans than most of the population.

Ivanhoe has some information on that time period and how the Aristocracy was more descended from the conquerors than most of the population.

In movies, though, French are often depicted as very Mediterranean, almost like Sicilians or Jews.

What movies? Mostly the French are seen in actual French movies starring actual French people.

In genetics the French are significantly more similar to Sicilians and other Mediterranean people than Germans are.

So maybe that real (relative) similarity is what you’re picking up on.

Posted by RS on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:32 | #

Armor,
Having looked it up, I understand that #1 and #2 only advance to round two, unless #1 gets an majority (not just a plurality) in round one.

But, why is this Strauss-Kahn not in the newspaper poll? A number of other candidates are mentioned in the newspaper text, going down to 7% support in the poll or below, but he is not mentioned. Is this another inscrutable nicety of the French for which I am simply too gauche?

At any rate I’m very pleased by the news.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:33 | #

The problem with a party of “just nice, “Middle British” people, thoroughly normal and conventional, making the perfectly obvious and reasonable demand to end the Third World invasion, now” is that there are, obviously, many connected issues surrounding that one, and the whole comprises quite a weight - enough to weight down the life of all Europeans throughout the West.  Politically, to begin the process of lifting that weight of our chests involves a great deal more than ending Third World immigration.  It demands ending neoliberalism.  It demands ending equality.  It demands ending hyper-individualism.  It demands ending the debt system.  It demands ending elitism.  And so on.

That’s not a small thing.  Nationalism, as the solution to these demands, implies a complete and revolutionary change.  And it is the radicalism of the revolutionary that divides you from me, no?  You want to retain the essentials and ideals of the Christian-liberal tradition, and I am telling you that won’t cut it, not by a very long way. (GW)

No, it’s not a small thing. And ending the invasion may not be the whole of the race-preservationist agenda, but we can surely agree that it is both the first step, as well as the sine qua non of it. You can end neo-liberalism, debt, etc, but if you don’t stop immigration, it’s all lost. On the other hand, if we stop immigration, then we can move on to other areas, as I mentioned.

Do you think you are going to effectuate your whole comprehensive agenda all at once? Or is it more likely that the nationalist agenda will be implemented piecemeal (I ask at a time when we can’t get elected ‘dogcatcher’!)?

GW, for all your alleged or ostensible realism about, well, reality (metaphysics, consciousness, the Self, evolution, race, etc), you are strangely unrealistic about the prospects for radical political change. Ending immigration in itself would constitute a titanic nationalist victory. But how as things stand at present will that be achieved? By developing a whole new and therefore highly controversial and probably contestable blueprint for the life and consciousness of Western man? Or by pursuing victory on what is at once the most important aspect of the agenda, as well as the most popular and easily understandable? 

I say again: nationalists everywhere should be largely single issue anti-immigrationists. That issue cuts through other real conflicts over taxes and redistribution, not to mention moral values, and indeed every other policy. What issue on the right is more popular in Britain, France, etc than ending immigration (that is not rhetorical: in the US we have many, unfortunately, from taxes to budgets to union power to abortion to crime policies, etc)? What issue is simultaneously more important?

People in politically stable democracies do not opt for “complete and revolutionary change”, except in ways that seem to be associated with the Left, and generally have to do with stealing other people’s money legally through the state, or else increasing social permissiveness. Getting rid of hyper-individualism will require, outside of internal fascist conquest, people to vote for greater social authoritarianism. Has this ever happened?

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:50 | #

I posted this earlier on the white genocide thread, but it seems apposite to my response to GW on this one, re the issue of nationalist “complete and revolutionary change”:

I am as radical as anyone here in my commitment to preserving the white race and the civilization it alone created and can alone sustain. I do not think there is virtue, however, in theoretical radicalism merely for its own sake. What matters is that we adopt above all a ruthless commitment to seeing our situation clearly. Yes, that means calling attention to dangers, but not exaggerating them.

It also means tailoring our messages properly for public consumption. For example, most people here mock my essential (but NOT fundamentalist) Christianity. I understand their position. I’ve read books by any number of atheists, and am not close minded in religious matters. My theologic-political views, which I intend to elaborate in future scholarship (I’m still reading about the issues, and formulating my final thoughts), are very unusual. I am Catholic modernist / liberal in theology, with a thoroughly non-literalist approach to Scripture, yet Hard (Racial) Right ideologically. That is a rare combination, which needs its spokesman.

But even if all forms of supernaturalism are finally, empirically false, it is a truth to which we must adapt our rhetoric that, as I’ve pointed out in the past, most white Americans are Christians, and the vast bulk of conservative white Americans are real Christians. Take immigration. In the US, it is a fact of empirical political science that self-identified white Christians are more opposed to it than any other large demographic. It is also a fact that white atheists are much more likely a) to be leftists, and b) to be pro-immigration. I cannot explain why that should be so (my own sense is that most white atheists should be against immigration, and most other aspects of the Left’s white-dispossessionist agenda), but given that it is, does it make any strategic sense to associate white preservationism with atheism? That is insane; indeed, only marginally less so than associating our just cause with Nazism, as the Jewish Left cunningly has done.

The trick in democracies is that one usually can only change the electorate in gradualist fashion. What is more successful is the Aristotelian “revolution within the form”, whereby the outer garb of the regime is preserved, even while it essence is hollowed out (the Augustan revolution being history’s most prominent example: Rome changed from a republic to an empire, but the outward institutional signs of Republican Rome were not discarded, being instead transmogrified into imperial appendages which nevertheless allowed for the maintenance of the image of historical continuity), as opposed to radical calls for wholesale change, which invariably inertial voters normally, sagely reject.

So let no one confuse calls for rhetorical moderation with abandonment of core values. One often catches more flies with honey than vinegar, after all! And, I would add, politics in democracies is a game of addition, not subtraction.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:54 | #

Small point: how the hell is it possible for France to (likely) get two Jewish Presidents, Sarkozy, Strauss-Kahn, in a row?! Please explain. I thought the French had a lot of anti-Semitism, and not just among Muslims.

Why don’t “Middle French” vote for their own?

Posted by Armor on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:19 | #

RS wrote: “why is this Strauss-Kahn not in the newspaper poll? “

The candidate for the Socialist Party will be Aubry, or Strauss-Kahn, or someone else. Strauss-Kahn isn’t saying yet that he will be a candidate because he is still at the IMF, in Washington.

From the blog of a Le Monde’s journalist (my translation) :
March 6, 2011 - Marine Le Pen in the lead: Harris Interactive will do a new survey, testing DSK and François Hollande

The earthquake caused by the “Harris Interactive” poll for Le Parisien, giving Marine Le Pen ahead in the first round of presidential elections, has people shaken, including at “Harris Interactive”. The head of its opinion department, Jean-Daniel Levy, tells us he is going to repeat the survey, and will also test the nominations of Dominique Strauss-Kahn and François Hollande, to see if the choice of the first secretary of the Socialist Party has an effect on the results. The new survey must be made today and tomorrow Monday. “We are not doing it at the request of the Commission on Polls,” says Levy, who does not know yet if the results will be published.

—
I suppose if DSK has a better score than Aubry in this new survey, it will be an argument for the Socialist Party to choose him.

Posted by RS on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:11 | #

Aha. Many thanks for that explanation.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:39 | #

Hamish: “Are you sure the parliament gets to choose the whole government? I they get veto power over Prime Minister, but what about the other positions? / In any event, the President of France has significant powers.”

I know little about French political history, laws and the constitution, but what we get from specialists is usually rubbish. My opinion is that the French constitution cannot be enforced because it is a joke. It doesn’t say clearly if the real boss is the president or the prime minister.

Article 8: “The President of the Republic shall appoint the Prime Minister. (...) On the recommendation of the Prime Minister, he shall appoint the other members of the Government and terminate their appointments.”

It doesn’t say that the Parliament must tell the President who to appoint as Prime Minister. The constitution was adopted in 1958, and De Gaulle became the first president. At the time, there was no doubt that he was the strong man, although, as he became older, he probably was a less and less active president. Until 1981, the right remained in power and the president chose whoever he liked as prime minister. For example, in 1976, Giscard chose Raymond Barre to replace Chirac. Barre was a teacher of economics and was unknown in French politics.

The funny thing is that presidential elections took place every 7 years, and parliament elections took place every 5 years.

In 1981, the socialist Mitterrand was elected for 7 years, and after 5 years, in 1986, the socialist party lost the elections in parliament. What happened is that Mitterrand named the “right-wing” Chirac as Prime Minister. I don’t know how it happened. I don’t think there was a vote in Parliament.

In 1988, people were fed up with the right, and Mitterrand was reelected for more 7 years. The socialist party also won the elections in parliament. So, Mitterrand could choose whoever he liked as his prime minister. He tried several ones: Rocard, Cresson, Bérégovoy. But in 1993, the socialist party lost the elections in parliament. So, Mitterrand had to choose a right-wing Prime Minister. This time, Chirac refused to become the new Prime Minister. His ambition was to become president. He thought it was better to wait for two years in the wings, so voters would not grow fed up with him as happened the previous time. So, Chirac, as chief of the main “right-wing” political party, told President Mitterrand to take Balladur as Prime Minister. But the real boss was more Chirac than Balladur.

In 1995, Chirac was finally elected president and chose Juppé as his prime minister. But he complained that the right-wing majority was not big enough in parliament. On the advice of his secrete pollsters, he decided to call for new parliament elections in 1997. His plan went awry and the socialist party won the election. The socialist party told him to choose the socialist Jospin as his new prime minister for the next five years.

So, what happens is that if Parliament and the President belong to the same political party, power rests entirely with the President. And if they are not on the same side, the president is practically powerless. But the constitution does not say it should be like that. On the other hand, I think no one knows exactly what the constitution means. In 2000, a referendum shortened the presidential term from seven years to five years. The idea was to stop the possibility of what they call “cohabitation”. But it is still possible for the president and the majority in parliament to belong to different political parties. In the unlikely case where Marine Le Pen becomes president, I suppose the parliament would try to ignore her. They don’t care about the constitution anyway.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:51 | #

Hamish: “Mostly the French are seen in actual French movies starring actual French people.”

Together with an awful lot of Jews.
An example (although they are not officially Jewish).

“Franks are a different category from the French.”

I suppose the real descendants of the Franks are the Flemish and the Dutch. Maybe also the Germans. The North-East border of France is Germanic. Alsace and Lorraine should be part of Germany. Dunkirk and Lille should be with the rest of Flanders. The Southern half of France has little to do with the Northern half. And Paris should really be in Black Africa.

In order to see what parts of France have been hit the hardest by third-world immigration, a useful website is GeoPatronyme.com.

For every given family name, it lists the French departments with the number of births with that name for 4 different periods :
1891-1915 / 1916-1940 / 1941-1965 / 1966-1990
It shows that most immigrants used to arrive in France through Paris or Marseilles.
Of course, this is no longer true.

A few examples : Abdelkader,  Cohen, Touré

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:27 | #

Together with an awful lot of Jews.
An example (although they are not officially Jewish).

Is there really any more Jews in French film than in English film?

The Southern half of France has little to do with the Northern half.

What’s your basis for saying this?

I think there’s reason to think that a significant amount of Frankish blood made its way to the south of France, while there’s every reason to think that in almost all the north of France the Franks intermixed heavily with the Gaulish population.

Those two things would strongly tie the north and south of France together in terms of their genetics.

Alsace and Lorraine should be part of Germany.

Have there been any genetic studies on the natives in those areas?

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:30 | #

An example

I’m not sure the significance of those performers.

Are they certain to be Jewish?

If they aren’t, couldn’t you have picked someone certain to be Jewish as an example?

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:39 | #

I just noticed that according to the Gene Map of Europe, the French are much more similar to Southern Germans than Northern Germans.

There’s surprisingly little overlap between the northern and southern German populations, with the Northern Germans clustering with the Danish, Dutch and Swedes; while the Southern Germans cluster more with the French, Austrians, and Swiss.

Does anyone know if the Franks came from Southern Germany?

Posted by Armor on Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:58 | #

“Are they certain to be Jewish?”

I wouldn’t be sure that Clavier is Jewish, if not for the fact that he was cast to play Asterix in the movie Asterix the Gaul. This is the definitive proof. Another Asterix movie is scheduled to come out next year, with Jewish actor Edouard Baer in the role of Asterix.

- “The Southern half of France has little to do with the Northern half.”
- “What’s your basis for saying this?”

They do not have the same looks, the same way of being and speaking, the same sensibility, the same cultural tastes… They do not write the same books, or have the same cuisine. In the same way as the French are different from the English or the Italians, the Northern French are different from the Southern French.

“I think there’s reason to think that a significant amount of Frankish blood made its way to the south of France”

It’s older than that. I think the populations were different before the Roman conquest and have remained different.

“Have there been any genetic studies on the natives in those areas?”

No need to do that. When you hear their heavy Germanic accent, what can they be, but Germans!

Posted by Aquila on Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:18 | #

They redid the poll using Strauss-Kahn (Jewish FMI president and probably the next socialist representative for France, they want to unite all leftist forces behind him) as the opponent.

Marine would still win with 24%.
23% to DSK and 21% to Sarkozy.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:15 | #

Does anyone know if the Franks came from Southern Germany?

According to Henri de Boulainvilliers this has long been an issue with the French.

Indeed, Boulainvilliers’ writings are characterized by an extravagant admiration of the feudal system and bitter opposition to absolute monarchy, which he deemed a decadence that had started with the Crusades and the Direct Capetians, whom had allowed the original aristocracy to be diluted through miscegenation with the Third Estate. Boulainvilliers was thus an aristocrat of the most pronounced type, attacking absolute monarchy on the one hand and popular government on the other. He was at great pains to prove the pretensions of his own family to ancient nobility, and maintained that the government should be entrusted solely to men of his class.

According to him, the nation was divided on one hand into the aristocracy, whom he called the Français, who were the descendants of the Franks, a Nordic race, and dominated France by right of conquest; and on the other hand into the Third Estate, who were considered to be an almagation of the indigenous Gaul people and their previous Roman overlords. Opposing himself to the alliance of the throne with the people, he considered that the earlier Gallo-Roman population had been subordinated by the Franks through conquest and inheritance on one side and replacement of the Roman elite through treaty and agreement on the other.

As such the Third Estate had no legitimate role in government, and that the aristocracy constituted not only a separate class, and not only the sole legitimate class by virtue of history, but a distinct and superior “race”. True Frankish policy demanded unconditional acceptance of the rights of aristocracy to rule over their feudal domains and to participate in the councils of the nation. The Absolutist rule of Louis XIV had undermined these traditions by concentrating power in the state and encouraging the rise of meritocrats from the lower classes to serve the monarchical state. Such people had been granted the status of nobles (the noblesse de robe) but could not lay proper claim to it because they were not of true Frankish ancestry. Although, Boulainvilliers thus opposed the Nordic race to the Latin race, his concept of “race” predated and did not specify anything to do with the biologized concept used by 19th century’s “scientific racism”.

Posted by Matra on Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:05 | #

in 1986, the socialist party lost the elections in parliament. What happened is that Mitterrand named the “right-wing” Chirac as Prime Minister. I don’t know how it happened. I don’t think there was a vote in Parliament.

Mitterand rejected calls to appoint a ‘consensus Prime Minister’ from the Right and went with Chirac because his party (the RPR) was the largest within the Right’s coalition. (Though Mitterand was probably also thinking about the next presidential election).

if Parliament and the President belong to the same political party, power rests entirely with the President. And if they are not on the same side, the president is practically powerless. But the constitution does not say it should be like that.

According to Article 5 the President is the “guarantor of national independence, territorial integrity and due respect for Treaties”. Mitterand took that to mean he would retain control of defence and foreign policy.  He vetoed Chirac’s original appointee for Minister of Defence and eventually someone from Giscard’s old government who was considered more of a technocrat got the job. Another non-party affiliated person got the Foreign Ministry’s top post.  All the other cabinet posts went to members of the RPR or their allies, the UDF.  Perhaps at the time Chirac, who was more interested in the economy and (supposedly) crime, was content enough to let Mitterand have more influence over defence and foreign policy. I don’t know if that counts as some kind of precedent for ‘cohabitation’ but even if it did I’m sure if Marine Le Pen got elected such precedents would be ignored. Chirac refusing a televised debate (highly unusual) with her father in 2002 comes to mind.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:59 | #

It demands ending equality.

[...]

It demands ending elitism.

How does one simultaneously end equality and elitism?  It seems one must choose one or the other. 

Single deadly combat might be one way wherein a dog catching gets to challenge the prime minister for say over what is to be done with the country’s nuclear arsenal.  Of course we all know that is shit crazy.  Or at least those of us who are not shit crazy.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 08 Mar 2011 12:10 | #

That should read: “dog catcher”

P.S. Yup, the only way we can avoid “dysgenics” is by launching nuclear weapons on the basis of single deadly combat.  The most prudent judgement would certainly prevail then.  LOL!

Posted by Armor on Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:12 | #

erratum: I wrote that France has a first past the post system for the parliament elections. What I meant is that there is no proportional representation: only one politician has to be elected in each voting district. It means that it is difficult for third-party candidates to get elected. But in fact, it isn’t a first past the post system as in England, since it happens in two rounds. The second round takes place between the candidates who, in the first round, got the votes of more that 12.5% of the people who have their names on the electoral rolls. For example, if only half the voters turn out to vote, it means you must get 25% of the vote to be allowed into the second round. An exception is made when no candidate, or only one candidate makes it past the threshold.

The result is basically the same as in Britain. There is effectively an alliance between the leaders of the two main political parties to shut out the competition. Only the candidates who are vetted and nominated by the direction of the two main parties have a real chance to be elected. Just before the 1986 election, Mitterrand broke the alliance as polls predicted a landslide for the right. He changed the electoral law to proportional representation so the Front National would get seats in Parliament and Chirac’s party would be weakened. He told his Jewish media friends to allow JM Le Pen on television, and he simultaneously let them organize a campaign to demonize Le Pen and any conservative politician who would strike an alliance with him. The Front National got 35 seats. But as soon as the right won the election, Chirac became prime minister and had the proportional representation system abolished. The Front National currently has zero seat.

By the way, Chirac is on trial this week for creating phony jobs at the Paris city hall in order to channel the bogus salaries to his political party in the 1980s and 1990s. As chief of the Constitutional Council, the socialist crook Roland Dumas decided a few years ago that Chirac enjoyed immunity from prosecution as long as he was president. (wikipedia: In May 2007, Dumas received a 12-month suspended sentence for embezzlement). Chirac is now 78. The prosecutor (!) is pushing for a dismissal of the case. Last news: “A French court on Tuesday postponed the trial of former President Jacques Chirac over misuse of public funds while it seeks advice on a constitutional challenge that will hold the case up for months.”

Posted by wesley on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 01:44 | #

I don’t know about a dog catcher challenging the prime minister for say over what to do with a country’s nuclear arsenal, but what I do know is that Bowery would probably challenge you to single combat to the death for your cowardly mockery and misrepresentation of his views. And if you refused, you’d have to be killed. We can disagree about the merits of his proposal but it is an Aryan, noble concept, and your snide, jewy tone smacks of the typical Jewish reception to such concepts.

Posted by Armor on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:36 | #

Here is Anne Kling’s opinion. She runs a website critical of Jewish political activists.
(any translation mistakes are strictly Google Translate’s fault).

08.03.2011
Marine Le Pen crowned by the Jewish community

It didn’t take long. The system had already opened a royal road for Le Pen’s daughter who had carefully made the right gestures by repeatedly distancing herself from Dad’s statements. And by miserably abandoning Gollnisch when he was in trouble in Lyons. Thanks to which, newspaper and magazine columns, radio and TV stations, and so on, had become wide open and had largely contributed to her advertising, and consequently to her victory [in the campaign to become her father’s successor at the head of the Front National]. Since we are told that, in order to win, what matters is the form, and no longer the substance.

Will she soon visit Yad Vashem? Let me reassure you: it’s on track. Very well on track, in fact: she’s invited next Sunday, March 13 at the community radio station “Radio J”. As Le Monde rightly says: “For Marine Le Pen, this invitation is a very big step in her so-called “de-demonization strategy”. In plain language, it means that according to Radio J, Marine Le Pen’s Front National is no longer perceived as anti-Semitic.”

“Marine Le Pen’s Front National is no longer perceived as anti-Semitic.” This sentence justifies that we should pause and wonder once more about the meaning of the word “antisemitic”, currently among the most often used in the French language.

“Anti-Semite” refers to whoever is perplexed by Zionism, critical of Israel’s arrogance, and, - like Jews who only see an event from the angle of “Is it good for Jews?” -, whoever wonders : “Is it good for the French?” In other words, the unconditional support for Israel and all that has to go with it, most notably the expensive, frantic repentance, never to be extinguished on account of the shoah…, is it a good thing for our country?

These are eminently political questions, and as such, they must be mentioned during the campaign. More than simply mentioned, actually, as they end up occupying a central place in the country’s domestic and foreign policy. The candidates must take a clear position on this.

Just as the FN did nothing to become “demonized”, it did nothing to become “de-demonized” either. This is by no means a “strategy” on its part. Those policy decisions only depend on what are the interests of the manipulators of that party. They have engaged in the manipulation for thirty years. This is not new.

In the past, the left - as well as the “community”, which then was massively left wing - had an interest in demonizing the FN to death, so as to gain power by neutralizing its vote. Indeed the right was forbidden - on the highly moral grounds that we know - to agree in any way with the FN.

Today, things have changed. Left, right, it’s become the same. The two faces of the same system made of money and oppression. So, de-demonization takes place because the new improved FN can still come handy: renamed “voice of the alternative”, it will offer a excellent safety valve by allowing disgruntled fools to dump their resentment and imagine they are damaging vested interests. So, the FN lite is allowed to parade in the media, and rant to his heart’s content against Islam and Muslims. It used to be strictly forbidden to do so, but now it’s allowed. Actually, it is recommended.

Instead of being a “voice of the alternative”, Marine Le Pen is no more than Her Master’s Voice. She is allowed to talk as much as she wants and to show her mug everywhere on TV on a single but imperative condition: above all, no embarrassing questions and no challenging of the system’s sacred cows.

She’s been given a perimeter, she must stay there. Muslims, as much as she wants. But nothing else, eh? No spilling over the sides, and no investigating the whys and hows of a situation that was deliberately intended. That is the price of being allowed to climb in the polls. For if she’s climbing, remember that it is mainly thanks to the system that has been inviting her in its mass media, in the morning, noon and night…

-and who believes it will still be time, once the safety valve has fulfilled its mission, to put everybody back in their place.

(I will add for naïve people who already see Le Pen’s daughter in the Elysée, a surreal speculation, that she would be the first one to be embarrassed: the FN lite is lite in every sense of the term. It is little more than a shell, now practically empty, there are no longer any worthy executives, no longer many elected officials, and very few contact organizations. Le Pen senior did a good job of breaking the tool. After him the deluge… He used to say so, actually. The system knows this perfectly well and knows there is no great risk. If a powerful political organization loomed behind, then things would be different. It would think twice before it played at frightening itself.)

(Caption of the cartoon at the bottom:
Should people be afraid of Marine Le Pen? )

Posted by Armor on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:55 | #

Posted by Rollory on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:27 | #

Northern France is definitely more blond than other parts of the country.

The people there also tend to have larger families, but I don’t know how long that will last.

One thing that has started happening in some places is that the ethnic French refer to themselves as “Gauls”, because French citizenship can mean just anything.  The population of Gaul at the time of the Frankish takeover was of course the Gallo-Romans, that’s where a lot of the dark hair and Mediterranean traits come from.  The nobility was blond.

I am hopeful for the first time in a long time.  Sarkozy is pretty strongly discredited on all the issues he got elected on.  The last time something like this happened, when le Pen the father got to the second round, the situation wasn’t anywhere near so visibly critical.  Now they have all the uproar in North Africa, the boats dumping people by the thousands on their shores, Raspail is in the news again, Sarrazin was in the news with his book last summer, it is blatantly obvious that the North Africans can’t feed themselves and equally obvious what the result of letting “refugees” in “temporarily”, there’s the protests in front of the Tunisian embassy telling them to stay home, the recent poll showing a clear majority opposing any refugee influx (IIRC something like 12% thought it would be reasonble and good), and everybody knows what sort of people cause insecurity and disorder and violence, and just about everybody is sick of it.

I am not a fan of democracy but in this case it might be possible for it to produce the right answer.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:49 | #

Wesley, it is apparent to me that you have not thought the matter through other than to say that single deadly combat appeals to you on the basis of some nebulous idealization of what it means to be Aryan and that you think it ruthlessly uncompromising.  That is not the stuff of serious political philosophy, or serious anything, in truth.  Although it may be the mindset best disposed to enjoying a comic book, I’ll confess.  Perhaps it would be fitting to leave the thinking to those that can think before embarrassing yourself by opening your piehole.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:41 | #

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2011/02/clueless-conservatives-and-marriage.html#c6440445581499143937

It appears JB is pretty much resigned to adopting Islam.

In Western civilization there is no going back to the age of females giving up their individual sovereignty to their mates, so Western civilization is ending and we are left with two choices:

Figure out how to legitimize formal individual combat to the death between males, or adopt Islam.

That’s a true dilemma.

Posted by wesley on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:26 | #

Captainchaos, it sounds like you would back down from such a challenge and what you’re basically saying is “leave the thinking to the cowards.”

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:44 | #

I fail to see how killing Bowery would aid the cause of White preservation.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:06 | #

Apparently German statesman Prince Otto von Bismarck

once became so incensed at the criticism of a professor that he challenged him to a duel. Protocol had it that the one challenged was to have the choice of weapons.

The professor made his choice…sausages! He sent word to Bismarck, along with a pair of sausages, that one sausage was safe to eat. The other had been poisoned with trichinae, which would cause a slow and lingering death, or at least long invalidism. He informed the prince that he should choose which sausage to eat and said he would eat the other one.

Bismarck reasoned that a man might die with some sort of honour on a duelling field, but never by food poisoning. He sent the message back, “His highness has destroyed the sausages and asks that you be his guest at dinner this evening. After due consideration he feels he may have been slightly in error. He believes an agreement can be reached.”

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:11 | #

Why is it that so many of our vaunted “creative intelligences” get butthurt at the slightest criticism of their demonstrably loopy ideas and decide to take their ball and go home?  I mean, seriously. 

“No, no.  I won’t stay unless a special editorially policy per commenting is erected to protect my ego.  We’d be tough enough to beat the Jews if you all would just listen and not talk back.” 

LOL!

Jesus, grow up.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:40 | #

If one’s ideas do not find swift resonance with a racially conscious audience then they are most likely inarticulately formulated, assuming those ideas are not bullshit.  If one’s ideas cannot stand up to vigorous criticism, which forces the hand to formulate them more crisply, then they probably are bullshit.

So, what then?  Back to the drawing board to help the race.  Unless it was about ego gratification all along.

Yup, this is what passes for “leadership” these days, just telling people shit they should know from jump street.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:41 | #

Leon,

I think blogging is a more effective medium for communicating our ideas than the production of boring tomes.  What must come to pass is a mass movement explicitly predicated on achieving racially exclusive living space.  There is no substitute.  Look to the success of a streamlined and radical message in upsetting political power in the Middle East.  Yes, it did really happen.  And can again, here. (CC)

Yes, but ...

We are in a very different situation from the Arabs. They are/were living under obvious tyrannies, often pitting one sub-nation (“tribe”) against another. That superficially sounds like our situation, but obviously isn’t. For one thing, we have the vote (or its illusion), they have not.

Our situation is that our people need to be convinced of their dispossession, and eventual extinction - and of the moral rightness of doing something to stop it. Or, at least a substantial and vigorous enough minority of them. That’s where the totality of our work comes in. We need everything - from academic works, to journalism, to political organizing, to ideological activism, to mass media, to street activism - all working to fulfill some “nationalist minimum”, like ending immigration. We are a long way from there, unfortunately.

I would add to this here, wrt this particular post on Marine Le Pen, that France already illustrates a point I keep reiterating; to wit, that whites in many of our home countries, and soon in all of them, will no longer be able even to maintain the illusion that we can muster majorities if only we could break through the Jewish media monopoly. I think that would have been possible maybe as late as 1970 or even (pushing it) 1980 (eg, when Reagan was elected, the US was nearly 84% white, though that number did include at least Jews, and maybe Arabs, too - though there weren’t too many of the latter back then).

But today we are approaching the democratic limits of those of our people who are able to be awakened from their obvious racial false consciousness. What I mean is that, even if all potentially “awakenable” people (ie, normal patriotic white folks throughout the West) were in fact racially awakened, would they still be able to muster even 50% + 1 presidential/prime ministerial/parliamentary majorities? I’m not so sure.

I was very disheartened by both the Le Pen fiasco in 2002, as well as the BNP in 2010 (not to mention disappointing rightist showings in smaller countries, like Benelux, Switzerland, etc). The British and especially the French did indeed have a choice, and look what they did with it. Even if we make excuses over the BNP, the 02 FN defeat was much worse, psychologically. Le Pen was a seasoned and well-established figure, unlike Griffin, and he offered a clear choice at the highest level (and there were no “Conservatives” to divide the rightist vote). 02 was a clear up/down vote for French national survival. Not even quite one fifth voted to preserve the French nation. How many whites would that have been in percentage terms? Perhaps ARMOR can help here. I don’t know how many non-Aryans can vote in France. But in 2002 I suspect at least 75% or more of those voting in the presidential race were non-Jewish whites. Thus, a decisive majority of French whites could not vote FN, even though Le Pen had softened FN’s rhetoric over the previous decade, which had also seen unprecedented immigration inundation, as well as spiraling crime rates equivalent to the crime rate increases experienced in the US during the 60s and 70s.

By the time we awaken enough of our people to their racial danger, we will not be able to muster democratic majorities in our own countries, at least in Western Europe and the Anglosphere. Hence, to repeat my own strategic calculus, our only options for ultimate racial survival are 1) violent revolution to reconquer our homeland(s), or to carve out ethnostates within some portion of them; 2) peaceful foreign conquest through convergent white immigration to an existent, sovereign polity; or 3) the “Jewish strategy” of trying to ensure endogamy (which the Jews themselves are failing at today), and ethnocultural preservation as universal minorities.

Posted by Hamish on Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:45 | #

It appears JB is pretty much resigned to adopting Islam.

Of course we all hope he’s wrong, with the exception of Jimmy Marr and Ivan the Caucasian from the Caucasus, but do we really have anything more than hope?

I guess Jimbo is saying we need to put the European woman back in her place, but are too emasculated to do so unless something comes along to give us back the strength of men.

Now I think his idea of giving men their strength back with single deadly combat was fucking crazy, and isn’t something we should associate with WN if we can bloody well help it.

But if not single deadly combat, and if not Islam, then what exactly?

I dunno, maybe Jimbo is wrong to assume that a reassertion of Patriarchy is needed to revive the West.

Posted by anonymographer on Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:51 | #

Look to the success of a streamlined and radical message in upsetting political power in the Middle East.  Yes, it did really happen.  And can again, here.

“It” happened there because the people of those states hadn’t, thitherto, the means to organize demonstrations provided by Facebook and Twitter, with the right catalyst. For us those organs rather keep everyone in place in a political landscape bereft of revolutionary opportunity to start. And those states are home to racially uniform cultures, which we (Americans) are not even without Jews, blacks and so on. And the political goals are of vastly different orders; we don’t want merely to overthrown a head of state, impossible anyhow, but to overhaul the entire zeitgeist. Facebook can’t make that happen. There is no analogy.

Our situation is that our people need to be convinced of their dispossession, and eventual extinction - and of the moral rightness of doing something to stop it.

And that means, as I think “uh” used to say, waking them to the reality of alienation—making them extremely uncomfortable, which no one, no living thing, does willingly. That can’t be our goal, for it’d be an ugly and foolish one. We have to wait for something to happen, at best.

Posted by Rollory on Sat, 12 Mar 2011 02:52 | #

“then what exactly?”

The same thing that put her in her place in the first place.  Sexual desire by average ordinary men, extending into desire for family and stability by those same men.  Game.  Charisma.  The crimson arts.  And the fact that men who exercise these techniques to become and stay attractive to their chosen woman are exactly the force that powered European civilization to its greatest heights in the first place. 

Average, ordinary, beta males, allied with each other to achieve exclusive sexual relationships and guaranteed paternity, are and always have been the driving force of European society.  It results in motivation to produce, to cooperate, to exert effort far beyond the results of any other society. 

It is only because the basic nature of men and women was forgotten or increasingly obscured by myths and wishful thinking that this was lost.  Having regained it - regained it in an explicit, defined, studied form, as opposed to the simple cultural habits it once was - it will be harder to re-lose.

Posted by Hail on Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:21 | #

Leon Haller wrote:
I like that Marine is blonde, however. That is the true French look, unlike that of the swarthy types who seem to predominate in media depictions of the French.
...
Maybe today the modal Frenchman is a brunette, but note that France has been invaded by lots of non-Franks in recent centuries

This has been written about a lot by Racialists.

One was Alfred Rosenberg, in “The Myth of the 20th Century” (published 1930). He comes back in the book again and again to France. He echoes the general racialist position of the previous generations, and goes at great length to mourn the pathetic decline of France into decadence.

He insinuates that France’s plunge into internationalism is tied to its becoming progressively darker, shorter, rounder-faced (Alpine elements), and coarser-featured. He does not celebrate this, but mourns it as the potential harbinger of the End of European Mankind. (Rosenberg was not a Nationalist in this sense, but a Racialist. He would be probably most critical of modern Germans, were he alive today.)

The basic Celtic and Germanic-Nordic racial stock of France was suppressed for a long while. It often tried to reassert itself, with varying degrees of success, which is what he attributes to France’s regular episodes of violent instability.

The FN is a clear torch-bearer in this ongoing struggle of the Celtic-Germanic racial strains of France to reassert itself. (Son-of-Israel Sarkozy represents the long-dominant supremacy of other racial strains in France).

It is interesting here to note that Jean Marie Le Pen himself is from Breton, and spoke only the local Celtic language until he entered school at age 5.

Posted by Hamish on Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:06 | #

This has been written about a lot by Racialists.

Who didn’t know what they were talking about. As I explained before, the original French type was the mostly brunette look of the Gallo-Romans.

It was the more blonde Germanic Franks who were the invaders.

One was Alfred Rosenberg, in “The Myth of the 20th Century” (published 1930).

That was one of the most stupid books ever written. The talk about Atlantis was so deranged as to make even Evola seem less insane than he actually was.

He insinuates that France’s plunge into internationalism is tied to its becoming progressively darker, shorter, rounder-faced (Alpine elements), and coarser-featured.

There’s no evidence for any of those assertions.

Maybe the French became somewhat less blonde due to exogamy between more Frankish descended French and more Gallo-Roman descended French.

Blonde hair is recessive so mixing blondes with brunettes produces more brunette phenotypes.

At the same time the genetics of the average Frenchman would’ve stayed the same, neither becoming more blonde or brunette, neither becoming more Frankish or Gallo-Roman.

Only the phenotype would’ve shifted somewhat toward less expression of the blonde genes due to the blonde genes being less concentrated in certain French families.

Rosenberg was not a Nationalist in this sense, but a Racialist. He would be probably most critical of modern Germans, were he alive today.

Why? Because they committed the unforgivable sin of most of them having Alpine features?

I don’t think the Germans are different in any real way from what they were when Rosenberg was a big shot in the Nazi party.

And in terms of the behavior of the Germans, surely the Germans of today are less internationalist than England and many other European countries.

Why would anyone, “racialist” or not, get on their case the most?

The basic Celtic and Germanic-Nordic racial stock of France was suppressed for a long while.

You’re forgetting about the Gallo-Roman element which was there before the Germanics.

And who exactly has been suppressing the Celtic and Germanic element in the ancestry of the French? Have the more Frankish descended French been getting sterilized?

It often tried to reassert itself, with varying degrees of success, which is what he attributes to France’s regular episodes of violent instability.

That is crazy. The violent instability in France came from the non-Aristocratic element of the population rising up against the Aristocratic element.

This non-Aristocratic element would’ve been LESS Germanic than the people they were rebelling against.

Posted by Hail on Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:41 | #

Hamish, from your defensiveness I assume you to be French or of French ancestry. I can understand your pride in wanting to defend your people’s honor. I am not “anti-French”, and of course I hope the Le-Pen-ette does well. I am not interested in a “pissing contest” of the nature of “Your country is no good; No, you’re dumb, my country is great!”.

Without emotionalism: You disagree that France’s racial stock has changed at all over thousands of years? I don’t think that is rational.

Hamish wrote:
the genetics of the average Frenchman would’ve stayed the same, neither becoming more blonde or brunette, neither becoming more Frankish or Gallo-Roman.

Racial stocks are often changing for all kinds of reasons. It is not some kind of crude ethnic attack to state this.

Many German Racialists, e.g. H.F.K.Guenther were dismayed over the dinaricization/alpinization of “the Germans” over the centuries. Was Guenther “anti-German”??

France’s Celtic and Germanic stock has clearly also declined relative to darker elements. There are various reasons. The Huguenot massacres/exoduses alone probably moved France’s “racial average” several points away from Vercingetorix’ and Charlemagne’s blood. No one is saying the ethnic-French became “non-European”, just that different European elements became more predominant.

Hamish wrote:
This non-Aristocratic element would’ve been LESS Germanic than the people they were rebelling against.

This was true in 1789**, but not in the case of France’s centuries-long religious conflicts. The anti-Roman-Catholic movements among the French bourgeois, middle-classes, from the Middle Ages all the way till the tragic revocation of the Edict of Nantes, were seen by many Racialists as expressions of Celtic-Germanic revivalism. (**—Racial undercurrents still played a role in starting the conflict anyway, as you admit, which is the point.).

Note that the emergence of politico-racial anti-Semitism came first in France, as well, in the late 1800s. I would argue that this, too, was the Celto-Germanic spirit trying to revive itself.

Posted by Hail on Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:50 | #

Hamish wrote:
I just noticed that according to the Gene Map of Europe, the French are much more similar to Southern Germans than Northern Germans.

I. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and the Czech Republic [Bohemia], important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland) [The Races of Humanity]

See Also: http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss1.htm#ALPINID

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:03 | #

Hamish:

If I told you all this food for thought goes quite well with Pernod, could I count on you not to telling Allah?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:53 | #

I mean you can tell. Just don’t be too telling.

Posted by Silver on Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:03 | #

I. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and the Czech Republic [Bohemia], important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland) [The Races of Humanity]

See Also: http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/gloss1.htm#ALPINID

Eyeballs can tell you a lot more than numbers or descriptions. 

http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36

In particular the threads by Heraus. 

If you have the “race feeling” you’ll be bound to feel you’ve crossed racial lines by the time you hit southern France.  If you don’t have that feeling you’ll be left wondering just what all the fuss is about.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:02 | #

I regret having started this discussion re the racial composition of the “true French”. At some point, as long as someone is Caucasoid, thoroughly acculturated to a European ethny, and has longstanding ties to a particular piece of European territory, I think it proper that we consider him or her to be white. Biological classification is often messy, and so is race. At some ‘boundary’ point far past visible racial distinctiveness, we have to move from DNA to culture. Our race grows smaller by the day. We don’t need to be artificially shrinking it still faster.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:23 | #

Concerning this original post re Marine:

Yes, it would be nice if she made a better showing in the general. But let’s not fool ourselves. She’s even further from the true Right than her father (who actually is/was pretty good, but never the rightist giant the media made him out to be). She’s also not all that better than Sarkozy, who has at least substantially increased criminal penalties, made alien deportations easier, and tried to inject a tiny bit of market realism into the assinine French regulatory state.

1. She rejects a racial definition, or even component, of “Frenchness”. She explicitly condemns both racism (which of course is publicly defined by the Left), and anti-Semitism.

2. She is not a moral conservative, nor much of a defender of French Catholicism (the restoration of a crusader version of which is all that at this point can power a new (Racial) French Revolution).

3. I have seen nothing suggesting she is any harder line wrt criminals than Sarkozy.

4. Will she even try to accomplish as much as Sarkozy has in attempting to wean the lazy and parasitical French off their totally fiscally unsustainable dirigiste economy and mammoth welfare state? She seems more anti-capitalist than anti-globalist, as concerned about free trade (a problem, not a lethal national threat) as immigration and Islam.

5. Has she called for banning Islam from France (eg, shuttering all mosques on French soil)?

6. Has she called for the expatriation of all nonwhites from French soil?

7. Has she called for army patrols for les banlieues?

8. Has she called for the restoration and routinization of the guillotine for violent, esp Islamic, criminals?

9. Has she called for an end to French special aid to, and relations with, Africa?

Marine may be the best current candidate in France, but if traditional France is still to exist in a century, only a fanatical racial fascism can save it. I doubt Marine supports that, even in her own private thoughts.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:27 | #

Note: my point #2 above should not be seen as contradicting my penultimate sentence. Race (replacing Throne) and Alter must be re-allied, or the West will continue its descent.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:30 | #

This is humiliating. I really tied one on last night with some local Irish-American pals, already anticipating St. Pat’s.

I meant “Race and Altar”.

Posted by Silver on Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:50 | #

I regret having started this discussion re the racial composition of the “true French”.

Don’t bother regretting it.  You can no more stop that kind of talk than you can the waves from rolling in at the beach by holding up your palms.  It’s going to take place no matter what you say. 

At some point, as long as someone is Caucasoid, thoroughly acculturated to a European ethny, and has longstanding ties to a particular piece of European territory, I think it proper that we consider him or her to be white. Biological classification is often messy, and so is race. At some ‘boundary’ point far past visible racial distinctiveness, we have to move from DNA to culture. Our race grows smaller by the day. We don’t need to be artificially shrinking it still faster.

That’s all well and good, but it’s not enough.

Firstly, it’s transparently disingenuous.  No one’s going to believe that that was the initial gut reaction to racial difference of someone who looks like, say, Roger Moore.  Someone like that starts “talking race” everyone’s going to assume he was a fuming, seething, wogs-start-at-calais anglosaxonist from day one. 

Secondly, that’s problematic because, from what I’ve been able to observe, maybe half who make their way to white nationalism do so for “supremacist”  reasons.  Science affirms concepts of human superiority and inferiority and they’re determined to be considered superior.  The suggestion that superiority scales up alongside degrees of whiteness totally unnerves them.  (“You think you’re better than me???”) 

Thirdly, biological classification (as well as a genuine—not faked—sense of biological belonging) moves in chunks.  For example, say you claim that you’re “no purist” and are willing to accept people from classes A to E.  Great.  But then someone in class C says well I’m no purist either, and I’ll accept A to G.  Then someone in class E (perhaps relieved to no longer be the bottom rung) say I’ll accept A to I. Or alternatively, F or G people, who may never have felt they had any reason to consider As and Bs part of their extended group, may feel that if Ds and Es are going to be invited to the party why not them too?  Keep going this way and before you know it you’ve got “Stormfront Tamil Nadu.”  (As’ heads are spinning.)

What is required is something—a cause, an ideal, a set of identifiable solutions to a set of identifiable problems—that can get the ball rolling and keep it rolling until a point of no return is reached, a point at which it becomes clear that whites are going to get some sort of favorable racial political result and everyone else had better adjust to that reality.  Personally, I think people will adjust easily enough.  It’s just human nature to.  As much as they may have wanted to keep heading along the path presently being traveled, as soon as it becomes clear that’s no longer tenable, they’ll make the necessary mental adjustments. 

I’ve certainly done that.  It didn’t happen overnight, of course.  I mean you grow up in a certain place and become accustomed to a certain way of life it’s just perfectly natural you’d expect things to continue that way.  But as it becomes clearer and clearer that things won’t continue that way—there’s no hope in hell they will—well, you have readjust to the new reality. 

Personally, I’ve had mixed feelings about the diminishment of overt racism for quite some time.  On the one hand, it’s nice not to have to hear it when it’s uncalled for.  On the other hand, watching what a pack of fags you’ve turned into since then, totally, totally caving in to muzzies, niggers, gooks etc, makes me long for the days you’d hear, “Ya bloody fuckin’ dago!” for just walking down the street.  That was a tremendous aid to forging bonds between otherwise disparate southern european groups where I grew up.  Now even the wogs are turning into fags and niggerlovers.  So, as initially troubling as it is to think you’ll have to start from scratch again, I’ve come to see it as a no-brainer: I’d a million times rather be rejected by the anglers but end up with a “racial result” that leaves me with group of my own rather than drown alongside them in a sea of africans, hindoos etc (who are not only not necessarily “bad people,” but not even necessarily “repulsive”; it’s just that the benefits of drowning in them don’t cover the costs).

The sort of cultural nationalism that John Barnes is pushing for and that Marine Le Pen essentially stands for can “work”—it’s certainly not “nothing,” certainly no fantasy—but it’s inferior.  It’s an inferior alternative.  It’s a good start, but it’s inferior as a form of—dare I say it—“final solution.”  The “final solution” should be us going our own way (preferably amicably).  That entails being more accommodating to people of other kinds than racialists have heretofore been.  I don’t know whether you’ll hold up your end of the bargain, but it would probably be best to tell yourselves that you will.  That way you can communicate your case more convincingly and help people to see that no one really wins from mindless megamixing.  Your ranks of terminal whiners (the “Hamish”, “Al Ross,” “Desmond Jones” types) won’t be any help there.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:39 | #

Leon Haller: “Sarkozy, who has at least substantially increased criminal penalties, made alien deportations easier”

Not true. Crime is not adequately punished, deportations are almost non-existent, and immigration is up.

Last Saturday, Marine Le Pen said she had been given recent immigration figures by patriotic high-level civil servants. According to her, France granted 23.504 residence permits in January 2011, a 42,1% rise compared to January of last year.

She said that’s 75% percent more than at the time of (socialist Prime Minister) Lionel Jospin. By extrapolation, it would give 300.000 residence permits delivered over the year, a record never reached before. (source)

The French interior ministry reacted with a statement saying that Marine Le Pen’s figures “give a false impression of the reality”. In fact, it’s the government that keeps giving false immigration figures.

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 06:44 | #

Firstly, it’s transparently disingenuous.  No one’s going to believe that that was the initial gut reaction to racial difference of someone who looks like, say, Roger Moore.

So according to you people have to go by their initial gut reaction on racial matters?

My initial gut reaction when it came to Serbs is that since the only Serb I know of if the most noxious and two-faced little piece of vermin known to man, that the Serbs must be a evil ethnic group in need of extermination.

And I guess according to the retard Silverfish, that means it would be disingenuous of me to ever change my mind.

Someone like that starts “talking race” everyone’s going to assume he was a fuming, seething, wogs-start-at-calais anglosaxonist from day one.

I guess according to you, it would be disingenuous not to live up the assumptions people carry around in their heads.

People other than you know better than you what you should think.

Silver knows better than Leon Haller what Leon Haller should think.

You’re like some little parasite seeking to take over the minds of men.

That was a tremendous aid to forging bonds between otherwise disparate southern european groups where I grew up.

Yeah, bonds based on hating and resenting Northern Europeans.

Don’t try to suck the French into your sick game of divide and conquer.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:00 | #

Jewish activists are currently quarreling with one another about Marine Le Pen. They have allowed her into the French media, but not everyone is pleased, as can be seen from this poster advertising a Jewish political meeting in Paris. It reads: “Not a single Jewish vote for the Front National”. The poster features the name of the CRIF, the most powerful Jewish organization in France.

Above, I reproduced an article by blogger Anne Kling. Here’s another one. (source). It isn’t about Marine Le Pen, but about a phony organization allegedly promoting cooperation between Muslims and Jews against European Nazism. In fact, it is led by New York Jews.

12.03.2011 - JEWISH AND MUSLIM LEADERS: SAME FIGHT

(excerpts from the official press release are in italics)

Under the headline “Far Right in Europe: Muslim and Jewish leaders become alarmed”, the following was brought to our knowledge :

*** Prominent Muslim and Jewish leaders who gathered in Paris on Monday have “pledged to stand together against the rise of far-right xenophobic and racist parties in Europe”.

In a statement released Monday evening, the Coordinating Committee of European Muslim and Jewish Leaders described “the trivialization of far right parties as unacceptable”, and said it was alarmed by the “growing danger” threatening ethnic and religious minorities across Europe.

The Committee also “expressed (its) concern about the positions recently taken by European leaders including French President (Nicolas) Sarkozy, German Chancellor (Angela) Merkel and British Prime Minister (David) Cameron” about the “failure of multiculturalism.” *** 

Interesting. It seems it didn’t cross their mind that European peoples may disagree and would like to express their disagreement through the ballot box. What is seen as “democratic” is only what suits those shady organizations. We knew that. The obvious failure of multiculturalism everywhere didn’t get them thinking either. Let’s continue straight into the wall since we are told to.

Of course, at this point, we’d like to know a little more about that coordinating committee of Jewish and Muslim leaders that pops up at such the right time. What is it?  Where does it come from? Well, you won’t be surprised to learn that we find the usual people behind the initiative. I can’t help it, it’s not my fault. But judge by yourself :

“The Paris meeting of the committee was initiated by the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding (FFEU), based in New York, the World Muslim Council for Interreligious Relations (WCMIR) and the World Jewish Congress (WJC).”

The FFEU happens to be an American widget created in 1989 by Rabbi Marc Schneier to promote eternal friendship between peoples, as well as racial harmony, etc, etc. Its offices are based in New York. It doesn’t prevent that eminent personage, who is also vice-president of the World Jewish Congress (…) to teach lessons - once more - to Europe. One wonders why he doesn’t mind his own business :

“If Europe wants to remain loyal to its spiritual and ethical foundations, it must be open to people of different cultures, religions and ways of life. Otherwise, Europe will lose its soul.”

Insufferable arrogance. As those people are not strapped for cash, they have already announced a series of public events in European capitals on May 9, Europe Day.

And they must really have lots of cash. Everything really began December 6, 2010 in Brussels: on that day, over fifty Jewish and Muslim leaders from the following countries: Austria, Belgium, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland and the United States met the Brussels big shots to do some lobbying with the so-called European institutions. The aim of course was to intensify the struggle against racism and antisemitism, etc, etc, etc. I won’t draw you a picture. Needless to say they were very well received by Van Rompuy in person.

A revealing detail, the December meeting in Brussels was organized by the FFEU, the World Jewish Congress and the European Jewish Congress. There was no evidence at the time (three months ago) of any Muslim organizers. It is clear that they were added to the Paris meeting so it would seem more credible. After all, Muslims are concerned too. Otherwise, there would be malicious minds saying who knows what…

Anyway, it is still pretty clear who sets the tone.

The Brussels meeting ended with the decision to unite future efforts to obtain the awful European fascists’ capitulation. Rabbi Schneier who was already leading the operation had blandly said at the end of the meeting: “Today, we have hopefully kick-started a movement that will spread across Europe. The recipe really is quite simple: our two communities must focus more on what unites us than what separates us. We also must restrain the radicals within our own ranks and make sure they don’t gain the upper hand”.

This is a case of American Jews clearly barging (and I am being polite [..]) into internal European affairs. Always in the same direction: pulling the undestroyable twin levers of repentance and anti-racism. Harnessing peoples to impose their views on them - while “antiracism” serves as a shield for Israel - and irreparably weakening Europe, already in bad shape.

This should encourage some rethinking from the naive people in our ranks and among similarly minded people who run after the Zionists in the hope of making common cause with them against Islam. Those people are much smarter: they have two irons in the fire. They operate sometimes one of them, and sometimes the other one. Always with a single goal: to protect Israel. The recipe really is quite simple, as the rabbi nicely says.

https://www.ffeu.org/index.htm

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:35 | #

Without emotionalism: You disagree that France’s racial stock has changed at all over thousands of years?

I disagree that France’s racial stock has changed in the way Leon Haller implied. I also disagree that there’s been anything like the degree of change post-Frankish invasion that you implied in your Alfred Rosenberg endorsing comment.

Many German Racialists, e.g. H.F.K.Guenther were dismayed over the dinaricization/alpinization of “the Germans” over the centuries. Was Guenther “anti-German”??

I might be that Guenther was being anti those Germans who were Alpinic in their features if he was dismayed over the process which supposedly created them.

France’s Celtic and Germanic stock has clearly also declined relative to darker elements.

In what time frame?

I guess it’s possible that the more Gallo-Roman French bred more than the more Frankish French, but in spite of your rigid belief in Rosenberg’s dogma, real evidence does not exist.

There are various reasons. The Huguenot massacres/exoduses alone probably moved France’s “racial average” several points away from Vercingetorix’ and Charlemagne’s blood.

I could see France’s average genotype moving a few points in a more Gallo-Roman direction because of the Huguenots being expelled, assuming the Huguenots were less Gallo-Roman than the rest of the population.

No one is saying the ethnic-French became “non-European”, just that different European elements became more predominant.

To some extent you’re probably right.

I don’t think it was a big difference. At any rate, if the French were once a little more Germanic than they are now, it’s also the case that going further back than that the French were once much more Gallo-Roman than they are now.

The Gallo-Roman aspect of French heritage is of great value, importance, and antiquity; as is the Frankish aspect.

The anti-Roman-Catholic movements among the French bourgeois, middle-classes, from the Middle Ages all the way till the tragic revocation of the Edict of Nantes, were seen by many Racialists as expressions of Celtic-Germanic revivalism.

The religious wars were FAR worse in Germany, where a staggering number of people died in a brutal conflict.

The remarkable thing is that Catholics and Protestants got along as well as they did in France, overall.

Perhaps there was some undercurrent relating to more Gallo-Roman French having a conflict with more Frankish French over the issue of which part of Europe to alley with via the mechanism of religion, with the more Gallo-Roman wanting to side with Italian Catholics and the more Frankish wanting to side with some of those kingdoms in northern Europe who were switching over the Protestantism.

(**—Racial undercurrents still played a role in starting the conflict anyway, as you admit, which is the point.).

I think the more Gallo-Roman French resented that specific and small subset of the more Frankish French who had lots of unearned Aristocratic privilege.

It wasn’t driven by some kind of general Gallo-Roman V. Frankish thing at all, and many more Frankish French supported the revolution because they too wanted more of meritocracy.

Note that the emergence of politico-racial anti-Semitism came first in France, as well, in the late 1800s.

All the French are more like each other than they are to Jews. Even a 100% Gallo-Roman French and a 100% Frankish French would’ve been far more like each other than either is to Jews.

And many more Southern European type people have been very anti-Jewish.

It isn’t surprising that the French would’ve at some points in history sought to defend themselves against Jews, though like our relatives to both the north and south they’ve been other times where an overly lax view was taken of them.

I would argue that this, too, was the Celto-Germanic spirit trying to revive itself.

If you have some evidence for the idea that it was northern French who were disproportionately anti-Semitic in the late 1800’s, I’d be willing to consider it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:52 | #

I think the more Gallo-Roman French resented that specific and small subset of the more Frankish French who had lots of unearned Aristocratic privilege.

This is Boulainvilliers’ point. The aristocracy, the Franks, like the Normans in England, claimed dominion over the territory by right of conquest. However, the Germanic Franks believed that a relationship with kings confered no special rank upon the nobility. The Frankish aristocracy were peers. This plays out in Charlemagne’s accustaion of treason against Ganelon for the death of Roland at Roncesvalles. In the Song of Roland “justice is served when Ganelon’s comrade Pinabel is defeated in a trial-by-combat by Thierry, Charlemagne’s champion, showing that Ganelon is a traitor in the eyes of God. Thus Ganelon is torn limb from limb by four fiery horses.”

The kings diminished the power of the French nobles still more by favouring the emancipation of the communes and raising to the ranks of the nobility plebeians whom they entrusted with high offices to which they had no right. Moreover, they admitted to seats in the States General, which should have been composed exclusively of representatives of the French, delegates from among the lower clergy and liberated serfs, and of course this arbitrary measure completed the overthrow of the nobility.

If Boulainvilliers’ discourse is accepted, then a motive is apparent for Hail’s position that the Frankish nobility would support the destruction of the French monarchy, not because they desired meritocracy, but because it served as an opportunity to regain the lost power.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:16 | #

Leon Haller: “Sarkozy, who has at least substantially increased criminal penalties, made alien deportations easier”

Not true. Crime is not adequately punished, deportations are almost non-existent, and immigration is up.

Last Saturday, Marine Le Pen said she had been given recent immigration figures by patriotic high-level civil servants. According to her, France granted 23.504 residence permits in January 2011, a 42,1% rise compared to January of last year.

She said that’s 75% percent more than at the time of (socialist Prime Minister) Lionel Jospin. By extrapolation, it would give 300.000 residence permits delivered over the year, a record never reached before. (source)

The French interior ministry reacted with a statement saying that Marine Le Pen’s figures “give a false impression of the reality”. In fact, it’s the government that keeps giving false immigration figures. (Armor)

———————

Thanks for the info. I’m very sorry to hear this.

I am prepared to defer to your superior knowledge of the French situation. However, what do you make of, for example (I remember others by MSM outlets), the following cover story devoted to Marine in a recent issue of The Weekly Standard (yes, I know the magazine is the veritable Ground Zero of Zionist neoconservatism, but the article is by Christopher Caldwell, who has been pretty relentless in his criticisms of the Islamicization of Europe, done in at least the same vein as Mark Steyn’s excellent book America Alone (of course, I find both writers too leftist, but I can say the same thing about virtually everyone in the MSM))?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/le-pen-mightier_552978.html

Two excerpts from the Caldwell article:

It is not immediately obvious why Sarkozy, who promised a wide-ranging program of reform, should be endangered by an antiestablishment candidate. After all, he has delivered reforms. He toughened criminal penalties for repeat offenders. He fixed France’s labor laws to make it harder for public employee unions to bring the country to a grinding halt with strikes. In the face of massive protests, he stuck to his guns and pushed through a new law that will significantly raise French retirement ages. And he has broadened the so-called “fiscal shield,” a government guarantee to taxpayers that no one will pay the state more than half of what he earns. He brought France back into full membership in NATO, four decades after Charles de Gaulle withdrew from the Western alliance.

and

Sarkozy has sought to promote the offspring of immigrants to cabinet and sub-cabinet positions, angering a lot of loyalists who were passed over. But he has also placed an unprecedented emphasis on law and order. Last July he spoke in Grenoble after two episodes of ethnic violence. The city had just seen three nights of battles between police and rioters in the neighborhood of Villeneuve, and that came on the heels of an attack on the police station in St-Aignan by 50 Roms, or gypsies, armed with axes.

Sarkozy gave a speech that leapt way beyond the usual boundaries of tough-on-crime rhetoric. “We are suffering the consequences of 50 years of immigration, insufficiently regulated, that have led to a failure of assimilation,” he said. He urged the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences of unheard-of severity—30 years for serious attacks on police. And he called for stripping French citizenship from any newly naturalized citizen convicted of such a crime. Sarkozy’s critics on the left quickly pointed out that denationalizations had not been carried out since the dark days of the middle of the last century. It was the sort of policy which the National Front has repeatedly been accused of secretly favoring, and here Sarkozy was espousing it openly.

I of course can spot what is wrong with the Sarkozy approach. We want the invaders deported. No exceptions. Any resisters should be treated as enemy combatants, and shot on sight. Agreed?

But I’m trying to ascertain if you are being strictly fair with Sarkozy. I’ve read elsewhere that he has increased deportations of illegals. Ae you sure that is false?

But are you saying that the article is actually untrue wrt Sarkozy?

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:28 | #

Armor,

I’d like to ask you some further questions. You seem levelheaded and empirically minded, and I’d like sober predictions.

What is your serious view of the French future? Will France truly be “Islamicized”, what do you understand by that term, and how many decades until it happens? Also, what will life be like for the ordinary Frenchman - and do you think at some point there will be mass white emigration, as with Zimbabwe in the 70s and 80s, and South Africa in the 90s and 00s? Or will the ancient French people eventually spawn racial nationalist freedom fighters / “terrorist” organizations, as in WW2, to challenge the occupationist regime? And will the trigger be race/culture, or a threat to secularization by aggressive Islamism?

Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:50 | #

Silver,

I think you may be wasting your efforts debating the likes of Leon Haller. I’m beginning to suspect that he may be just a loquacious troll.

For all his talk of mono-racial bonhomie and the benefits ethnic purity, he’s described himself as a childless 40-something who lives in multi-cult ground-zero and who dates non-white women. And despite his burgher’s paunch and friar’s tonsure, he and the other grizzled old warhorses still saddle up and go “clubbing”, preferring to spend their time chasing a last fleeting whiff of unctuous young fanny rather than engaging in ethno-positive activities or actually setting about the challenging task of making more white people.

For people like him, supporting the “white race” is great in theory, just not in practice. Such as these will curse the brown soup all while their chin whiskers are yet stained with it.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:04 | #

Very informative comments by Armor.

Posted by Dirty Bull on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:20 | #

“Burgher’s paunch”, “Friar’s tonsure” - I just love it - I’ll have to insert those choice Shakespearianlike insults in posts of my own and try to usurp ownership of them.
Isn’t the internet just great?, let a thousand flowers bloom and all that.
Tell me, Randy are those phrases the product of your own fertile imagination, or are they in common cuurency?

Yours Enviously,
                Dirty Bull
(A man who loves prose styling, greatly appreciates it in others, but has the honesty to say he doesn’t have the native wit and talent to do it himself).

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:34 | #

Randy Garver,

With all due respect I think you’re allowing your personal situation to blind you to the fact that Leon Haller is doing far more good for his race by advocating an end to immigration into white countries, and the repatriation of non-whites from Europe, then he ever could do by forcing himself to marry and impregnate some white woman out of a joyless sense of duty.

Look at the big picture. All the breeding in the World won’t save Europeans as long as we’re forced to live in countries with large and expanding non-European populations, and as long as some non-trivial number of whites follow your lamentable example when it comes to producing mix -raced children.

The way to stop whites from being bred out of existence by the likes of you is NOT to have some orgy of intra-racial marriage on the part of WNs.

Even if every WN man married a white woman, it wouldn’t make a real difference.

What we need to do is work toward the long term goal of establishing reproductive isolation from non-whites, and Leon is just about the only person on this site to propose something, the repatriation of all non-Europeans other than a small minority of Jews he wants to keep around, which would actually give us that race preserving prize.

But in spite of the crucial important of what Leon talks about to saving our race, you’re against him talking the repatriation issue in respect to non-European gentiles due to the simple fact that you’re married to a non-European gentile.

Who Whom?

Posted by Silver on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:00 | #

Randy,

I don’t know that I’m trying to “debate” him—that sort of thing usually requiring two-way communication etc.  As you’re able to see, Haller and his ilk insist on some God-given right to lay down the law regarding what people are to think about race, and that’s that.  As you can also see, I’m in no mood to play by his arbitrary rules, particularly since there’s no apparently good reason to think his views are better informed or more considered than my own. 

My posts here are essentially a trial balloon.  I think any reasonable observer would agree that the views I’ve expressed (here and elsewhere) constitute a big fat olive branch.  The haughtiness with which its rebuffed is telling.  These people are determined to remain defiant to the bitter end.  On their heads be it.

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:24 | #

It’s very unfortunate that Guessedworker lacks Dennis Mangan’s perceptiveness when it comes to the true nature of Silver.

In the wise words of Dennis Mangan:

silver, you’re a moron. Go troll somewhere else. You haven’t contributed an iota of anything worthwhile ever since you started commenting here…

Seriously, fuck off.

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:40 | #

On their heads be it.

If you’re actually Serbian, then if Leon Haller fails in his quest to protect the West from non-whites, you’ll be in the exact same boat as him.

Whatever happens to his head, the same thing will happen to your head.

And if you’re actually Jewish, which seems the most obvious explanation for your utter perversity (such as your brutal mistreatment of a poor redheaded girl in high school which you disgustingly bragged about on Mangans), then you’ll be in an even less pleasant boat than Leon Haller.

In one of their few true virtues, the Muslims have a special hatred for your kind, Silverfish.

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:12 | #

She’s also not all that better than Sarkozy

I disagree. You seem to be greatly underestimating how bad Sarkozy really is.

He’s a fake “Rightist” just like David Cameron is in England.

, who has at least substantially increased criminal penalties, made alien deportations easier, and tried to inject a tiny bit of market realism into the assinine French regulatory state.

Unfortunately that’s just the propaganda Sarkozy is trying to use to hold off Marine Le Pen. He hasn’t produced any real evidence that deportations have actually increased, and in terms of increased criminal penalties he’s just made tough sounding proposals in speeches that thus far he’s never implemented into actual policy.

In terms of adding a little market realism, sure he’s done that but unfortunately all he’s done by cutting pension benefits is make it so there’s more money to pour down the maw of welfare hungry Muslim neighborhoods.

3. I have seen nothing suggesting she is any harder line wrt criminals than Sarkozy.

Actually Marine wants to bring back the death penalty, something Sarkozy has always opposed.

Will she even try to accomplish as much as Sarkozy has in attempting to wean the lazy and parasitical French off their totally fiscally unsustainable dirigiste economy and mammoth welfare state?

Leon, I share your general preference for smaller government.

At the same time you seem to be failing to look at the big picture here. A lot of the people Marine needs to vote for her are French who are in some way or the other dependant on the state.

Of the issues facing France, trying to wean the French off of statism is a matter of infinitesimal relative importance, and would only serve as a horrible distraction from the more important issue of pulling the French government in a more nationalist position on immigration.

That’s exactly why the scumbag Sarkozy has concentrated on it. He wants the rightist energy in France expended in meaningless American Neoconservative style attacks on big government.

Unless the French government is pulled on a more nationalist position on immigration, and to her great credit Marine Le Pen wants to do exactly that with her support for a total immigration moratorium, there’s absolutely no hope that the non-whites will ever be made to leave.

What’s needed is someone who makes the state work for the French, and not for all these non-white interlopers.

Once the French see the benefits of such a state, things could start to evolve in the direction they ought to.

But Marine Le Pen is the absolutely crucial first step.

No European country was ever going to go straight from voting in pro-immigration politicians to voting in pro-repatriation politicians.

You need anti-immigration politicians as a stepping stone to even make the idea of repatriation thinkable to anything more than a tiny minority of whites.

Posted by Dirty Bull on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:13 | #

Many, many moons ago (and I do mean moons!), I remember when Jean-Marie Le Pen’s former missus, Pierette, posed nude in Playboy.
  In a saucy piece of coquetteness, the still delectable and well preserved Pierette posed in a ‘French maid’s outfit’, complete with feather-duster.
  On ‘full-on rear-shot’ (as the flesh merchants like to term it), still sticks in the mind after all these years - I don’t have a drop of Fench blood in my veins, but, atavistically, I’m 100% Gaullois in these matters.
Oh! Calcutta!, indeed.
Jean-Marie, rue the day when you told Pierette to ‘go out and scrub’!

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:13 | #

Hamish,

Just checking in during lunch on a bad day, saw your comments.

You may be right re Sarkozy v. Marine Le Pen. As I mentioned to Armor, I defer to others on the true ‘facts on the ground’ re France. I only know what I read in the English press, though unlike some less intelligent types, here and of course elsewhere, I do know how to read the MSM; that is, I have a pretty good sense of when they can be believed, and when they are being deliberately misleading.

The positive stuff re Sarkozy may well be propaganda. I’m in no position to judge. I’m the very last person you need to remind that ending the immigration invasion supersedes (and subordinates, I agree with you) all other issues. Surely, in the couple of years I have been commenting on this site I have established my credentials not only as an anti-immigrationist, but as one who puts ending the invasion far above every other nationalist, let alone non-nationalist, concern. So, yes, I, especially as a non-Frenchman who wishes to preserve that vital white nation for overarching collective racial and cultural reasons, but who has no particular concern for the French economy right now, would certainly want Marine to do or say whatever she must on every other issue, including the economy, pensions, etc, in order to gather up the largest possible number of French to defend the racial integrity of la belle France.

[I would counsel the same in the US. Indeed, the specifically American nationalism that I have intermittently advocated on different MR threads would cast off much of contemporary American conservatism (I mean among the authentic parts, not just the neo-liberal crap pawned off as ‘conservatism’) in an effort to build the largest possible coalition to focus on immigration cessation and illegal alien deportation, and then various other measures to help whites as a group. Indeed, I have always been prepared to say that every political issue henceforth must be judged primarily in light of its effects on white racial survival (though my reasons for placing white survival uber alles in the pantheon of political concerns are not simply emotional, as I contend they must be for atheistic WNs; I am seemingly one of the very few persons who argue that not only is white preservationism morally allowable under Christianity properly interpreted, but its advocacy is morally mandatory for white Christians; putting it another way, I think white race treason is specifically sinful, and generally impious - an admittedly unusual argument I am patiently developing ‘off-site’, so to speak).]

But I also read the racial press, and seem to recall a lot of grumbling about Marine’s alleged ‘softening’ of the image of the FN; of her being an advocate of a more ‘inclusive’ (non-racist) FN; of wishing to shift the focus of the FN from defending French racial identity to defending French cultural cohesion and supremacy; and of her nationalist emphasis being at least as much on protecting French political and economic sovereignty (good and necessary things, no doubt!), as protecting French racial integrity.

I’m not per se opposed to a broader nationalist agenda, as long as the primary importance of race is never lost sight of - which, however, it invariably is whenever there is an attempt to ‘soften’ the message ideologically (as opposed to mere tactical silences about the larger agenda; you are correct, and I have certainly said as much here at MR, that we need to move in a directed but piecemeal fashion, working gradually towards ever greater levels of racial radicalization - going ‘whole hog’ as the neo-Nazis do only scares people, and leaves the popular aspects of our agenda perpetually grounded (and, for the record again, I’m not a Nazi, either practically or especially philosophically)).     

As long as any European politician says the following, I am with them:

“I seek to preserve forever my nation and civilization, the foundation of which, that which begins national distinctiveness, is, as for any nation or civilization, race. All European nations are white nations. They are not compatible with nonwhites, who, merely by virtue of their biology, can never be racially, or even culturally, assimilated, except, wrt the latter, superficially and fleetingly. Therefore, as a matter of supreme national security, nonwhite immigration, legal and illegal, must be halted. Achieving this supersedes all other issues. Once an immigration moratorium has been legislated, and the illegals deported, then we must work to find ways to 1) repatriate non-Europeans to their ancestral lands, exactly as Europeans resident in and often born into former Third World colonies were made to return to Europe following the decolonization period of the mid-20th century, and then 2) increase our national fertility to generational replacement levels. We may also need to increase spending for military preparedness in the expected event of nonwhite anger and attempted military/terrorist reprisals.” 

My point is to emphatically reject any sort of “Mosleyist” / European Action-style, or French / Continental New Right, non-racial nationalism. The white race is the foundation of Europe and the West. I will subordinate all of my regular, conservative/libertarian ideological preferences in order to secure a future for that race and civilization. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to embrace a nationalism that is silent about race; that thinks the “threat” of American hamburgers is comparable to Muslim mosques; and that is more wedded to protecting stagnant industries and bloated pensions from neo-liberal globalization and market discipline, than to resurrecting the ancient synthesis of Greco-Roman rationality and Christian metaphysics which defined our civilization for centuries if not millenia, and under which white men and culture reached their greatest efflorescence.

My own “biological Occidentalism” is the correct approach to all these matters.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:19 | #

Silver,

I think you may be wasting your efforts debating the likes of Leon Haller. I’m beginning to suspect that he may be just a loquacious troll.

For all his talk of mono-racial bonhomie and the benefits ethnic purity, he’s described himself as a childless 40-something who lives in multi-cult ground-zero and who dates non-white women. And despite his burgher’s paunch and friar’s tonsure, he and the other grizzled old warhorses still saddle up and go “clubbing”, preferring to spend their time chasing a last fleeting whiff of unctuous young fanny rather than engaging in ethno-positive activities or actually setting about the challenging task of making more white people.

For people like him, supporting the “white race” is great in theory, just not in practice. Such as these will curse the brown soup all while their chin whiskers are yet stained with it. (Randy Garver)

—————————-

This is a propagandistic masterpiece - so full of lies, exaggerations, unwarranted inferences, and poor vocabulary (after searching your Thesaurus for “tonsure”, you should have checked your dictionary for “unctuous”) that it would take pages to deconstruct. But would it be worth a serious man’s time to do so? Not really.

It is strange, however, for a white man who has produced nonwhite children to criticize another white man for his failure to produce white children. Surreal.

I further note that I live/work in “multicult ground-zero” because this is my home, you rootless and deracinated liberal. I was born in Orange County, was educated back East, worked there for a bit, have lived in different parts of California, and subsequently have returned to my native locale. Why the fuck shouldn’t I? Just because millions of unwanted immigrants like your wife have been allowed to invade and colonize my homeland, therefore I, the native son of the soil, have to move out to Utah or Indiana to make room for them and their miscegenator spouses and mongrel offspring?! Why don’t you and yours move to China?

I have dated some nonwhite women. So what? They’re here (and in such damnable droves, which I have been loudly opposing for over 30 years, since grade-school; the part of OC where I grew up was all-white back in the 70s, and even well into the 80s; it still isn’t too nonwhite). I have dated many more white women. Re marriage, I happen to have high standards, morally and intellectually, even more than aesthetically. It’s not easy to find a good white woman around here. Hot, yes, but in terms of solid ideological values, very rare. I also have too much self-respect to do the mail-order bride thing (my Russian minx was already a naturalized American citizen for a couple of years by the time I had met her) .... 

As for my paunch, well, Randy, see how flat your stomach is when you hit your 40s. Of course, again I have high standards. I’ve never been called fat, and for a while after college I did work as a bouncer, albeit at a fairly tame club. It gets ever harder to stay lean as one ages. Let’s be more accurate and say I am “muscular/slightly overweight”, shall we? 20lbs extra out of 6’3”/240lbs isn’t too much. (To give a better perspective, at my gym I use the Cybex chest press, which I think is harder than the bench, pound for pound, for pecs in lieu of benching, so I don’t need to waste time with a spotter; I do higher reps, lower weights than in the past - as one ages, one must gradually become more physically moderate - right now I do reverse pyramids of 12-15 reps with 245-225-215lbs, although I have 36-7 sleeve size.)

And I wouldn’t criticize my looks. What do you look like? What is your ht/wt? body fat %? Twice when I was in my 20s I was approached unsolicitedly by scouts inquiring if I wanted to do some part-time male modeling. One worked for an agency, the other for Macy’s (an American department store chain). I did go for the Macy’s audition, but was not subsequently hired. I also went to the agency, but the staff was so full of queers, some of whom looked like they had AIDS (this was in 1990, when the media were still predicting that AIDS was about to explode into the general population), that I made some excuse about ‘feeding the meter’, and hightailed it out of there.

I’m not young any more, and I would be laughed out of an agency, unless I completely slimmed down and did the shaved head look, but I suspect I could still pick up more “fanny” as you call it (white men who actually ‘get some’ call it ‘pussy’) than you ever could, today or in your prime.

And given the quality of my commentary as compared to your own, where do you get off calling me a “troll”? What would that make you - a Viking?

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:18 | #

Leon,

The pattern continues. The most effective, informed, and articulate commenters at MR tend to attract the most criticism. 

When Fred Scrooby was posting here, the usual suspects et al were targeting him just as they’re now targeting you.

Call it an honor to step into Fred’s rather large shoes, so to speak.

I say rock on, Leon. Stick to your guns and keep up the good work.

Posted by Armor on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:21 | #

LH: “What is your serious view of the French future? Will France truly be “Islamicized”

I don’t know what will happen. I think the USA and Western Europe are in similar situations. The real problem is race replacement, not islam. I think a real difference between France and America is that the French judicial system tends to let career criminals on the loose. This is a constant theme on the anti-immigration site FdeSouche.

From the Caldwell article: [Last July in Grenoble] “Sarkozy gave a speech that leapt way beyond the usual boundaries of tough-on-crime rhetoric. “We are suffering the consequences of 50 years of immigration, insufficiently regulated, that have led to a failure of assimilation,” he said. He urged the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences of unheard-of severity—30 years for serious attacks on police. And he called for stripping French citizenship from any newly naturalized citizen convicted of such a crime.”

I don’t think there was any talk of diminishing immigration. The key measure of Sarkozy’s new get-tough attitude was to strip cop killers of their French nationality. That is what French journalists, with tears in their voices, call “the double penalty”: stripping a criminal of his French citizenship and deporting him after he has purged his jail sentence. The so called “Sarkozy law”, adopted when Sarkozy was Chirac’s interior minister in 2003, had made it impossible to strip criminals of their French nationality. This month, it was announced that the UMP (Sarkozy’s party) would no longer try to make an exception in the case of cop killings. (source)

Last year, Sarkozy also decided to get tough on the Gypsies. As a result, a number of Gypsies took a Sarkozy-subsidized vacation in Romania before they came back.

Posted by Randy Garver on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:12 | #

Dirty Bull

Tell me, Randy are those phrases the product of your own fertile imagination, or are they in common cuurency?

The imagery is mine, though I’ve no doubt been inspired by far more talented people in their formulation.

Hamish

With all due respect I think you’re allowing your personal situation to blind you to the fact that Leon Haller is doing far more good for his race by advocating an end to immigration into white countries, and the repatriation of non-whites from Europe, then he ever could do by forcing himself to marry and impregnate some white woman out of a joyless sense of duty.

I suppose that what struck me so pointedly is to someone for whom the continuance of the race is a priority, especially when supposedly threatened as it is, marrying and having children ought not to be a joyless duty at all, but rather the most natural and joyful expression of a man who genuinely adores his people and believes them worthy of propagation.

Also, I’d humbly submit that leaders gain significant social currency by living congruently with their beliefs. What could be more impactful to those around him than the physical embodiment of a strong European family?

Even if every WN man married a white woman, it wouldn’t make a real difference.

For one thing, it would demonstrate that they’re worth marrying. Even the handsome, educated, and urbane Leon himself has struggled to find such a worthy mate, and stated that he’d look overseas if not for matters of pride. If a movement’s leaders won’t take the sour medicine themselves, why should anyone else?

But in spite of the crucial important of what Leon talks about to saving our race, you’re against him talking the repatriation issue in respect to non-European gentiles due to the simple fact that you’re married to a non-European gentile.

I’ve no fear whatsoever that my American citizen wife and native born children are going to be moved anywhere against their will. It’s the implausibility of Leon’s plans which I criticize, and the distracting nature of such fantasy. Invasion of Ecuador? Come on now. That’s just silly.

Silver,

While you and I approach the decline of Western Civilization from different viewpoints, your suggestions seem to be the most reasonable and feasible of any of the racialist proposals I’ve seen.

Posted by Randy Garver on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:39 | #

Leon,

I appreciate the candid reply, though your vocabulary critique is an uncharacteristic misfire. For starters, you might want to ask your favorite Brit about the term “fanny”.

Since you’ve opened up, I’ll do the same. I believe that you have laid out a type of argument which I is nefariously dis-empowering.

Here’s how the general form goes:

1. Our demographic group is under attack.

2. There’s nothing that the rank-and-file can do to resolve the situation. Thus they have no agency (and perhaps more importantly and reassuringly) no responsibility. It’s not their fault that we’re in this predicament and there’s nothing they ought to be doing right now to resolve it.

3. Our only hope is that a distant, implausible, and monumental change in society is manifested.

4. Despite the severity of the situation, as one of the self-styled leading lights of this movement, I should not be expected to significantly sacrifice my own personal priorities for the cause.

By pinning one’s hopes on a fantasy (in your case, the forceful invasion and colonization of a sovereign nation such as Ecuador, followed by the establishment of globally reviled apartheid state), you would consign the members of your demographic to the slumbering acquiescence of a diminished future, stuck in neutral and waiting for some magical dawn to break, instead perhaps of giving each of them a sharp kick in the pants and commanding them to wake up and fulfill the responsibilities of civilization.

Interestingly enough, a very similar argument is used by some popular black leaders to peddle their “It’s all because of racism” meme. History demonstrates the tragic results of this strategy.

As for my comments about your appearance, the point was to illustrate the seeming banality of your actions in the midst of what you unabashedly refer to as a genocide, “diddling” (as it were) as Rome burns.  And if you’re not willing to give up your savory noontime shawarmas and sweet midnight besos, then how can you honestly expect anyone else to?

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:23 | #

I’ve no fear whatsoever that my American citizen wife and native born children are going to be moved anywhere against their will. It’s the implausibility of Leon’s plans which I criticize, and the distracting nature of such fantasy. Invasion of Ecuador? Come on now. That’s just silly. (Randy Garver)

I don’t think you’re wife and kids should be expatriated. America, though built by whites, is not an ancient white nation. While we were under no moral obligation to open our gates to the Third World, it would not be just to deport those who came here lawfully, under our own insane rules, at least if they are not criminals - outside of a context in which whites were in imminent danger of actual extermination, as opposed to our current, merely self-inflicted dispossession, by in-country nonwhite groups (eg, our native blacks), in which case anything goes, and it’s every race for itself.

I’m not pleased about this, and some will plausibly say that I am allowing my essential (if modernist/liberal) Christianity to get in the way. So be it. My fathers were good, Christian men, and at least ethically (if not always in terms of social mores), so am I. I am not positive that God and the soul exist, but I think there is enough of a possibility of such that I err morally on the side of Christian obligation, properly understood - as I believe, and will some day try to demonstrate, I do understand it.

I would not engage in, nor advocate, acts which cannot be justified in light of genuine Christian ethics (which, it must be emphasized, are neither liberal nor suicidal).

My impression is that Hamish is from Europe, and there the situation is completely different, morally as well as historically. Europe is not a New World, a sparsely inhabited frontier continent. It has been settled by Aryans, and no other human race, since pre-history. It is the moral property of whites, and theirs alone (especially as it also produced a high civilization, unlike blacks in Africa, or Amerindians in America). That millions of nonwhites were encouraged by domestic elites to enter the white homelands, and then were forcibly integrated with / imposed on disempowered historic ethnonations, is itself an act of near-genocide; certainly, of world historical treason. It is perfectly morally acceptable to demand the return of the historic status quo; that those whose very presence is racially, socially and culturally destructive return to their real countries forthwith, regardless of naturalization or even birth status. 

Nonwhites in Europe are colonizers, no different from the British in India, or the French in Indochina, in earlier periods. Many Brits at one time had been born in India, but no one thought them Indian. And they and all other Europeans were made to go ‘home’; ie, what we all knew were their real national homes, even if some of them, eg, Rhodesians, had been born and lived their entire lives ‘overseas’. Europe has a moral right (I’d add ‘duty’) to survive, and that survival requires apartheid.

Of course, the race aliens should be allowed the option of unmolested departure, and even removal of personal property. But any who resist their removal reveal themselves as the conquerors they in fact are, and should then be treated as enemy soldiers, and disposed of accordingly.

As to the alleged implausibility of my plans, which you have again misstated, they are in fact the likely only game in town. I’m not happy about that. I want Europeans to rise up in nationalist rebellions, hang their traitors, and then move for mass deportations. I think that such rebellions either won’t happen, or will take place under such weakened conditions as to fail. How then will our race endure if we have been reduced to national minorities in all countries? We won’t. We will disappear either through mass exterminations, or, more likely, miscegenationist pressures (followed by extermination of the racially recalcitrant whites left at the end).

Our only option is a white (and even WN) majority state. A sovereign polity for our people, to ensure their survival. What is so silly about that? There is a country which perfectly fits that description today. It is Israel, the Jewish homeland. In 50 years, what nation will be the “white Israel”? There won’t be one, unless it, too, shall be artificially, self-consciously created (again, as with Israel). That is what I am proposing.

So then the only issue is what country can serve as the white Zion. I’m not going to rehash my arguments here. Suffice it to say, we will have to ‘conquer’ one, exactly as the Arabs are conquering France, through demographics. Racially conscious whites will have to ‘in-gather’ somewhere small enough in current population to have an impact, but still a sovereign nation (so that we can militarize ourselves appropriately). I have proposed Australia as first choice, Uruguay (not Ecuador, fool!) as second. What is our alternative? Every WN over-reproduce? That is silly! As Hamish points out, the numbers just aren’t there.

Whites must have a majority polity. Possibly we could try to adopt the Jewish diasporic strategy (what an amazing historical irony that would be !!!!!!!), but I don’t think whites have sufficient group clannishness to prevent miscegenation over thousands of years. Plus, I think we will eventually be forced to miscegenate (ie, nonwhites will forcibly marry white women, either by means of sub-legal threats, or perhaps majoritarian political coercion).

Don’t confuse empirical predictions with personal preferences. I hope France gets to be French again, instead of a future colony of the Maghreb. But I’m not hopeful that will come to pass.

Finally, on this subject of marriage that you brought up, when did I ever say I opposed getting married myself? I would like to get married someday. I’ve just been taking my time about it, as have so many persons across the West (the more who effectively decide to delay marriage, the harder for someone who wants to marry young to do so). Plus, it’s been very difficult for me to find the right partner, obviously. You can never blame someone for being unmarried or childless unless you know that person’s special circumstances.

Anyway, I may ultimately be far more valuable to the white cause as a childless scholar/writer/activist, than as someone tied down to a family.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:00 | #

Randy,

Our comments crossed each other.

Please note that I never originally condemned you for marrying exogamously (go check past threads). I save my ire for those who created the conditions within which exogamy becomes more likely. At the individual level, you should marry whomever you fall for. Life’s short.

Your argument that I am implicitly hypocritical for not being a white man with children fails unless it could be shown that I had reasonable options for this, but declined them in order to chase nonwhite females. That is all so untrue in my case. I did not even think about marriage before my early 30s (almost none of my friends and peers did; that’s just my generation and younger of white, urban Californians). In the past dozen years I have literally not been able to find a woman who was: merely average looking (or better); white; highly intelligent (I’ve dated mentally mediocre girls; I could not marry one, for basic psychological reasons); and at least politically conservative (racialist is too much to hope for). I am not shallow. I am totally willing to sacrifice on female looks, which isn’t easy, as I have a more than ordinary attachment to good-looking women, and have dated several (which tends to deflate still further the less attractive ones). But I cannot sacrifice on brains and ideology - I would be too unhappy (and divorce would not be good for any kids).

As for my colonization, last-ditch option, what is your better idea? Embark on massive pro-white natalist campaigns? By all means, I encourage it. But it is infinitely easier to wake people up on immigration, than to get them to change their most personal behaviors for some rarefied cause like saving the white race. Really, who’s the fantasist?

Posted by anon on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:08 | #

How then will our race endure if we have been reduced to national minorities in all countries? We won’t. We will disappear either through mass exterminations, or, more likely, miscegenationist pressures (followed by extermination of the racially recalcitrant whites left at the end).

The other side of low-class miscegeny is upper-class breeding for more docile whites, as occurs in urban liberal strongholds (Brooklyn, Asheville, pockets of Cali, the Portlands, New England). The “SWPL"s do breed a lot. The remaining whites will be largely these docile joyous abettors of dispossession, negrified rural meatheads and naive Christians, and the ghetto half-castes. Will be? Are.

Posted by anon on Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:15 | #

My point though was to present the recent SWPL craze for breeding as a great selective program producing many serviceable high-end whites, while ghettoization produces the corn syrup-dependent mooks which the former patronize. All political correctness amounts to a massive corralling effect of the most racially desirable whites who, because they are racially sound, are most susceptible to shaming rituals and altruistic punishment, which selects for the most compliant behavior.

Doomed, we’re.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:28 | #

Thorn,

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I comment to blow off some quick steam. What I really want to do is get myself to a professional situation where I can write full-time on these and related matters from a much more scholarly perspective. Though the ‘nationalist minimum’ - stopping immigration - is obvious to everyone, I think the paradigm as a matter of philosophy (metaphysics, ethics, politics) is in need of a great deal of theoretical development, and would ultimately prefer to work on that end. Someday ...

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:14 | #

Doomed, we’re.

Is that you, GT?  I do recall you and your partner in crime, er, microcommunities expressing your conjecture that a good deal of the White population had undergone of late selective pressures disposing them to “docility”.  It would not surprise me.  I’ve been exposed before to the idea by certain individuals that the increasingly trying times for our race which lie ahead are to be used as grounds for the extermination of portions of our race they personally deem undesirable.  Needless to say, my own personal reaction to that is that those who promote such ideas deserve nothing less than a bullet in the head were they to attempt to actualize such anti-White revenge fantasies.