Featured Articles

France’s Zionist Prime Minister: A Review of Emmanuel Ratier’s “Le Vrai Visage de Manuel Valls” — Part 2

/38 Comments/in , /by

Valls planting a “peace tree” in Évry dedicated to Palestine.

Valls planting a “peace tree” in Évry dedicated to Palestine—before becoming a fanatical Zionist.

Go go Part 1.

Valls’ Early Career: A Neoliberal with an “Ethnic” Rotten Borough

Valls calls himself a “Blairite” and a “Clintonian.” This is appropriate. He indeed represents that “right-wing” edge of the Socialist Party, the part that wants “modernize” the left by jettisoning the White working class in favor of unabashedly conforming to globalism and indeed even changing the name of the party. The globalist paradigm — with unlimited open borders for immigrants and corporations — is incompatible with traditional left-wing goals, such as effectively taxing the rich, regulating finance, maintaining the welfare state, or protecting jobs and wages. Thus, Valls wants a “New Left” which abandons the old dream of socialism, while still claiming to be in some sense of the left. He represents both the Left’s selling out to global plutocracy and a kind of realism as to what can be achieved under the constraints of open borders.

An early case in his political life illustrates this well. In December 1980, Valls and Bauer attacked the Communist mayor of Vitry-sur-Seine’s for a plan to remove immigrants from the town. Valls was almost kicked out of the Socialist Party for this, as it was then allied with the Communists. This limited opposition to immigration dissipated in the Socialist Party as (often Jewish) Trotskyites and “anti-racists” rose in the organization, and the alliance with the (effectively Stalinist) Communists was dissolved and. (Can we ever emphasize enough, from a nationalist point of view, the moral superiority of Stalinists over Trotskyites?) As Vice Mayor of Argenteuil, Valls promoted illegal immigration with a “republican baptism” of illegals at the town hall in which supporters committed to help the lawbreakers to remain in France (32).

Valls then rose with the “modernizing” wing of the Socialist Party represented by Michel Rocard. During Jospin’s term as prime minister, Valls was in charge of relations with the media, acquiring a reputation for intimidating journalists who asked the wrong questions. A magazine reported:  “The methods of this Catalan of origin are sometimes brutal: fits, threats against journalists [. . .] charged with following day by day the head of government’s action, the Homeric rages of the young Socialist are well-known” (32).

Valls reaped the benefits of the French ruling class’ steady replacement of the indigenous French population when he was elected in 2000 as mayor of Évry, which his authorized biographers describe as “a mosaic city, where the [ethnic] communities, numerous, have gradually become ghettoized” (39). He thus enjoyed a kind of rotten borough through the Socialists’ appeal to ethnic blocs of voters eager to benefit from wealth transfers from the native French majority and allergic to the conservatives’ symbolic Islam-baiting. Valls urged public subsidies for mosques and allowing all foreigners resident in France to vote in municipal elections. (More recently as prime minister, Valls has suggested giving up on reforming the Constitution to allow non-EU foreigners to vote in municipal elections as too divisive and unpopular, and instead wants to “concentrate [. . .] on naturalizations.”[12]) In 2008, he was reelected as mayor of Évry with over 70% of the vote and a staggering abstention rate of 63%. Ratier reports that 45% of residents benefit from social housing.

Valls himself however is rather cynical about the Africans and Muslims in his “multicultural” city. He lives in an upper-middle class White area. Like a Potemkin village, graffiti sprayed by urban youths are hastily removed when out-of-town notables visit. In a June 2009 TV appearance, Valls, apparently unaware he was being filmed in the streets of the city, commented sarcastically with open scorn on the overwhelmingly non-White crowd around him: “a fine image of the city of Évry. . . . Could you put me a few Whites, a few Whites [in English], a few Blancos?” (40). Valls went strangely unpunished for the remark. It goes without saying that no nationalist politician would be allowed to make such a statement without being required to atone profusely or be excluded from “democratic politics.”

Valls’ short temper was also notorious at Évry. One municipal councilor said: “[Valls’ staff] are scared as hell. [. . .] Manuel has a fascistic side. He is a real dominant male who has a certain brutality. The guys obey. Sit! Don’t move [i.e. like ordering a dog]” (66). Read more

France’s Zionist Prime Minister: A Review of Emmanuel Ratier’s “Le Vrai Visage de Manuel Valls” — Part 1

/31 Comments/in , , /by

 

Valls

Le Vrai Visage de Manuel Valls (The True Face of Manuel Valls)
by Emmanuel Ratier
Paris: Éditions Facta, 2014.

There is a rather surreal quality to most Western governments today. There is little pretense of actually defending the interests of their citizens, but much blithe conforming to a smug and self-destructive egalitarian ideology (see: Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau . . .).

In this regard, France is no different. But senior French politicians are unusual in their eagerness to make ever-more Judeocentric statements, a truly bizarre phenomenon. Nicolas Sarkozy, who seeks to be reelected as President of the Republic, has said “Israel’s right to security [. . .] is the struggle of my life” and that humanity has “contracted towards the Jewish people a debt which cannot be extinguished.”[1]

You would think such declarations of fealty to foreign interests would disqualify someone from seriously participating in French politics. In fact, such statements are increasingly common. The center right Sarkozy has real competition in this regard with the Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls. Here are some of Valls’ statements in recent years:

  • “I am by my wife eternally bound to the Jewish community and to Israel. Come on!” — Responding to Jewish critics on Radio Judaïca Strasbourg on June 17, 2011.
  • “The Shoah, the extermination of the Jews, the genocide, must be sacralized, sacred.” — On French television in February 2014 explaining why the government was more sensitive to anti-Semitism than to anti-Islamic or anti-Catholic actions.
  • “Anti-Zionism is the open door to anti-Semitism [. . .]. The Jews of France are more than ever the Frenchmen at the vanguard of the Republic and of our values.” — Speech at an event organized by the CRIF (the official Jewish lobby)[2] held on March 19, 2014. Valls was flanked by CRIF President Roger Cuckierman and Bernard-Henri Lévy. The event was attended by the Jewish Defense League (an organization banned for terrorism in the United States of America and Israel.)
  • “So madame [Marion Maréchal-Le Pen], until the end, I will campaign to stigmatize you and to tell you that you are neither the Republic nor France.” — Response in the National Assembly to the young Le Pen, on March 10, 2015.
  • “Why this particular bond [between France and] Israel? This bond is unique. Because we are two sister nations.” — In a speech of January 25, 2016, at an event dedicated to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

These are not exceptional statements. The French prime minister constantly broaches these themes, always with the same message: Jewish ethno-nationalism is supremely good and must be supported, French (ethno-)nationalism is supremely evil and must be opposed. Again and again in innumerable speeches and television or radio appearances. Such comments are also representative of an official policy of enthusiastic support for the Jewish ethnostate of Israel despite its crimes and of organizing the replacement of the indigenous French population with African and Islamic settlers. Valls has also taken the lead in excluding nationalist parties like the Front National from participating in democratic politics and persecuting critics of Jewish ethnocentrism like Alain Soral and Dieudonné M’Bala M’bala. He has justified all this by publicly affirming on numerous occasions, perhaps more explicitly than any other French politician, the “sacred” status of the Shoah as the de facto state religion of France (the Jewish journalist Éric Zemmour has called the Shoah “the official religion of the French Republic”). Read more

Rape Jihad: Dark Days for Europe (Part 2 of 2)

/90 Comments/in , /by

Part 1

Part 2

refugees

“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”  – Retired General Wesley Clark 

Here are a few disquieting facts and figures that tell their own tale.

Going on the available 2009 figures—the figures are far higher now in 2016—the total number of foreign citizens living in Europe is roughly 32 millions. More than half of these (16.8 million) live in three European countries: Germany, Spain and the UK. Germany comes out top of the list with 7.2 million, yet the out-of-touch Angela Merkel is happy to take in more, seemingly impervious to logic and facts. The horrific sexual assaults of over 600 German women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve has left Merkel seemingly unmoved. Spain is second in Europe’s Top of the Pops for foreign citizens flooding in, with 5.6 million immigrants, and the UK comes in third with just over 4 million. (See here)

LONDON, ‘THE CITY OF DREADFUL NIGHT’

As for the UK, London, the nation’s bustling capital city of 8.6 million people, contains only 44.9 percent White Britons. Another 14.9 percent here are classified as ‘Other Whites’, with large numbers from Poland, Hungary, Rumania and elsewhere. 44 per cent of Londoners are now Black or of some other non-White ethnic origin. Almost every face you see in Oxford Street, London, is non-White. Occasionally a white face will pop into view, a face generally looking flustered and alarmed. In 15 years’ time, by 2031, the number of foreigners is set to outnumber the native Brits in London. Read more

Rape Jihad: Dark Days for Europe (Part 1 of 2)

/76 Comments/in , , /by

PART 1

Consider these questions:

Do you help to solve the migrant rape crisis in Europe by eating pork, growing beards, and parading round the streets in miniskirts when you’re a man? Does it make sense to give “flirtation lessons” to the same migrants who are sexually assaulting European women in ever increasing numbers? Is it wise to help hostile migrants to “integrate” by giving them target-practice training, turning them into first-class snipers?

These are some of the more surrealistic aspects of the migrant rape crisis in Europe which I hope to cover in this 2-part essay.

MerkelLD

ANGELA MERKEL, dressed in a Muslim headscarf — the woman most often blamed for the migrant crisis in Europe

Consumed with Holocaust guilt and possessed by the demons of pathological altruism, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has handed over her country to the endless hordes of the Third World. “Let them come . . . we can look after them all,” she murmurs serenely, echoing the words of the altruists all over Europe bearing placards that scream: “REFUGEES WELCOME!”

Merkel is an interesting case history: the guilt-ridden, traumatized leader of a deeply traumatized nation. Her way of handling the migrant crisis in Germany is not so much a stupendous example of pathological altruism at work as a symbolic act of self-flagellation on behalf of the German people, all of them engaged in varying degrees of self-flagellation over the Holocaust.

“The culture of the Holocaust is destroying Germany, ” Brenton Sanderson notes in a thought-provoking 3-part article in the Occidental Observer. “Endlessly reinforced over decades by the intellectual and media elite, the notion that Germans and their descendants are responsible for “the single most evil event in human history” has had such a demoralizing effect that millions fully support Angela Merkel’s current attempt to destroy the ethnic basis of their nation.”

To understand  these words is to grasp the root cause of Germany’s suicidal approach to the migrant crisis. Letting Germany be destroyed, the entire ethnic basis of the nation expunged, can be seen for what it is: a collective act of atonement for the Holocaust. Read more

Review: Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem [Part Two of Two]

/80 Comments/in , /by
Friedrich-Nietzsche-und-Richard-Wagner

Nietzsche and Wagner

Go to Part One

Was Nietzsche bold or stupid? As stated above, I don’t think he quite fully grasped the scale of the ethnic conflict subtly playing out in Germany at that time, or the sheer power already enjoyed by Jews. For someone of his (then lowly) position, his 1872 lecture appears to me as a step too soon. Wagner had of course taken even further steps against Jewish influence — but the older man possessed significantly more stature and legitimacy. Nietzsche sent his lecture notes to Wagner on February 4, and the composer replied cautiously. Wagner, who was fully aware of the damage that could be wrought by Jews on lone targets like himself, responded: “I say to you: that’s the way it is. … But I am concerned about you, and wish with my entire heart that you don’t ruin yourself.” Cosima, Wagner’s wife, also wrote to Nietzsche expressing concern. Starting by citing Goethe (‘Everything significant is uncomfortable’), she said that his ‘boldness’ and ‘bluntness’ surprised her. In a later letter she makes her concerns more explicit, stating that she wanted him to take some “maternal” advice so that he should “avoid stirring up a hornet’s nest” :

Do you really understand me? Don’t mention the Jews, and especially not en passant; later, when you want to take up this gruesome fight, in the name of God, but not at the very outset, so that on your path you won’t have all this confusion and upheaval. I hope you don’t misunderstand me: you know that in the depths of my soul I agree with your utterance. But not now and not in this way.

According to Cosima’s diaries, Nietzsche was summoned to a meeting with her and Wagner on February 12 to discuss the lecture. We can only speculate at what precisely was said, but Nietzsche dropped the Jewish reference from the published version of his lecture and nothing similar to it would ever again appear in his speeches or published writings. He would continue to attack the evils of the press, newspapers, financial affairs, the stock exchange, modernity, urban life, and cosmopolitanism — but he would never again mention them in conjunction with Jews or Judaism. Holub argues that the episode taught Nietzsche that he should not mention the Jews by name and certainly not attack them in print. He would thereafter adopt the same ‘cultural code’ that many anti-Jewish intellectuals were forced to utilize as a means of fighting the culture war without being labelled ‘anti-Semitic.’ Read more

Review: Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem [Part One of Two]

/70 Comments/in , /by

 nietzsches-jewish-problem

‘Wagner himself asserts about Nietzsche that a flower could have come from this bulb. Now only the bulb remains, really a loathsome thing.’
Cosima Wagner, 1878.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s puzzling stance on Jews and Judaism has perplexed me for the better part of a decade, so I was intrigued and optimistic about Princeton University Press’s 2015 publication of Robert Holub’s Nietzsche’s Jewish Problem: Between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism. Broadly speaking, I’m sympathetic to certain elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly its rejection of equality and the concept of the ‘will to power.’ However, I can’t say I ever came close to describing myself as a ‘Nietzschean’ in the same way that the late Jonathan Bowden was fond of doing. One of the reasons for my hesitation in claiming affinity with Nietzsche’s worldview was that I couldn’t escape the impression that its nihilism was often destructive ‘for the sake of it,’ a quality that has endeared it to the Left, past and present. Then there was Nietzsche’s, to my mind unforgivable, habit of lauding the Hebrew over the German. More importantly though, I couldn’t perceive any true coherence or solidity in Nietzsche’s writing beyond his celebrated aphorisms. Taken as a whole, the philosophy of Nietzsche was apt to strike me as too intentionally fluid; too deliberately open to interpretation. Nowhere was this non-committal stance more apparent than in Nietzsche’s sparse, vague, contradictory and often quite opportunistic references to Jews and Judaism.

As one might expect of a philosopher as enigmatic as Nietzsche, his work has been approached awkwardly and suspiciously by scholars and ideologues alike. His attitudes towards Jews, in particular, have been debated, discussed and fought over from the very beginning of his public career. Nowhere, and at no time, was a consensus ever reached. During the Third Reich he was both ‘recruited for the cause’ by some, and rejected outright by others. His foundational place in the National Socialist philosophical canon was thus never assured, primarily because of his nihilism, his hostility towards Nationalism, and his ambivalence regarding Jews. Confusion still reigns. Modern scholarship has been divided between those who condemn Nietzsche outright as a ‘racist’ reactionary and a proto-Fascist, and those who highlight his vocal opposition to political anti-Semitism as thus seek his social exoneration and academic rehabilitation. As noted above, elements of Nietzsche remain strongly attractive to the Left. Therefore, where total exoneration of anti-Semitism has been found difficult, blame for ‘corrupting’ Nietzsche and shaping him as an ‘anti-Semite’ has been attributed variously to his one-time guru, Richard Wagner, or his sister Elisabeth, who married Bernhard Förster, perhaps the leading figure in nineteenth-century political anti-Semitism. The result of these battles has not been a clarification of the historical record, but an ever-thickening web of biased interpretations, white-washing, and pseudo-history. Read more

Kouchner’s Rage: Portrait of a Warmonger and Immigrationist

/45 Comments/in , /by

 

koushner-kosovo

Kouchner laughs when questioned about reports of organ trafficking under his watch in Kosovo.

Bernard Kouchner is a senior French politician and has for decades been a common face in the media, typically promoting this or that “humanitarian intervention” in some part of the world. He served as France’s foreign minister between 2007 and 2010.

I was tremendously struck by a passage in Paul-Éric Blanrue’s book on Sarkozy and the Jews[1] in which he mentions Kouchner’s hysterical reaction to one of his friends mentioning “the Jewish lobby.” Numerous senior figures, including President François Mitterrand and Prime Minister Raymond Barre, have noted that the lobby is a major player in French political and cultural life.[2] Blanrue’s book more generally uses Sarkozy’s career to explore the secular trend in France of the steady replacement of vestigial Gaullist elites, still vaguely committed to French independence, by neoconservative and globalist elites.

Jacques Séguéla, a wealthy French advertising man, recounts that he was on a cruise with Kouchner and his wife Christine Ockrent (then the head of France’s international state media, including Radio France International and TV station France24):

I incidentally mentioned, I no longer remember in what context, without any racist intent, the expression “Jewish lobby.” What had I said? Bernard jumped up at once and locked himself in his cabin. Christine [Ockrent, wife, DG of France Monde, TV5 Monde, France 24, RFI], went in as a scout, she came back bearing a Kouchnerian diktat: “I will leave this anti-Semitic boat first thing in the morning!” I didn’t sleep the entire night. At the crack of dawn, I broke into apologies without really knowing what had been my sin.[3]

This episode, I believe, will resonate strongly with many people who have had to interact with strongly-identified Jews whenever their perceived core interests are stake. Kouchner displays astounding emotional intensity and a sense that he is entitled to engage in unrestricted emotional blackmail against a friend for the smallest unintentional slight. But what is more terrifying, for a Jew, than the sight of goyim pointing out that Jews have a disproportional influence, or even form a “lobby,” in goyishe lands? Read more