* At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is very significant that almost all of the so-called “non-toxic” voices for “French patriotism” and against immigration are Jewish (Éric Zemmour, Alain Finkielkraut, Élisabeth Lévy . . .), mostly of Polish and North African origin.
Gentiles seem to only be allowed to have this position and express it on television if they are a member of the Front National (which is allowed to express itself on TV, but is otherwise politically quarantined). No mainstream journalist/pundit is allowed to be pro-FN. Renaud Camus for example is not considered “respectable” and is not given one tenth of the media access of Zemmour or Finkielkraut.
I don’t know what the point of Onfray is. The French media seem to like to organize “pseudo-battles” (known as “clash“) between such and such pundit and the government, to make some buzz. Everyone involved is puffed up as a “philosophe” and “intellectuel.” The Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls has gotten into arguments with center-left intellectuals like Onfray and Emmanuel Todd, which speaks to the fact that he has nothing better to do. (On a similar note, Minister for Industrial Renewal Arnaud Montebourg left government, after using his office mostly to get media attention, after impregnating Minister for Culture Aurélie Filippetti, who is Thomas Piketty’s ex- and claims to have been beaten up by the mild-mannered economist. It’s a small world!) Onfray previously wrote a book pointing out (a bit late) that Freud was a fraud and was surprised at the push-back he got, leading him to plead that he was “just a northern goy.”
It’s a very strange situation. It’s a bit like if the only people in Israel allowed to advocate and define “Israeli nationalism” were Christians.
* Or, as an Israeli Jewish Arab chick assured me after telling me the most racist things possible about the Palestinians, while flirting with me(!), ‘I am not racist when I say that, look at me, I’m an Arab too.’
* Jews are bad when they support reaction, because they’re taking over the movement. Except when they oppose reaction, because they’re trying to destroy Western culture.
You guys remind me of the feminists who say when women marry men who make more money, it’s sexism, and when women marry men who make less money, the men are slacking off. Or the black activists who get angry when white people make 1950s parties, because they’re looking back to a white time, or when they make hip-hop parties, because they’re appropriating blackness.
* From Wikipedia: In his Diary of 1994 (published in 2000 under the title La campagne de France), Renaud Camus commented on the fact that the membership of a regular panel of literary critics supposed to cover a broad range of literary genres in a programme series (“Panorama”) run by the French national radio (France Culture) comprised a majority of persons of Jewish descent who tended to exclusively focus discussions on Jewish authors and community-centered issues. This comment, often misquoted in the French media at that time, caused widespread controversy and drew much criticism from observers like the noted French journalist Jean Daniel,[3] who described Camus’ remarks as anti-Semitic. Ironically, Renaud Camus was warmly supported by several prominent Jewish intellectuals, including French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut during the entire controversy, the latter underscoring Renaud Camus’ unflinching support for Israel. In 2012, he supported Marine Le Pen in the French presidential elections.[1]
Subsequently, and on several occasions, Renaud Camus was given the opportunity to clarify this comment of 2000, including in the studios of that very radio station : He never objected to any community-oriented programmes to be broadcast by that radio network, let alone any programme giving prime of place to the literary production of any Jewish community or being exclusively dedicated to Jewish culture ; his comment was meant to draw the attention of his readers to a literary programme run by a Governmental radio network which had narrowed its original scope to one almost exclusively dedicated to the literary production of one community, under the biased influence of some members of the panel in question.
* Rich white gentiles have important college football weight room donations to make, so they can hardly be bothered with who is going to be president or who is paying for the think tanks that set the Overton Window.
* If HBD follows the logic of ‘where does culture come from?’, and considers Jewishness to be an endogamous pool, then there should be a Jewish cultural influence distinct from European culture and it should be possible for that to be described and discussed as a cultural influence?
* So is Trump reading Sailer?
I wouldn’t put it past him.
About 75 percent of what Trump says makes perfect sense to me, and I, like Trump-analyst Scott Adams, suspect that a lot of the other stuff he says is strictly for future negotiation.
By the way, Adams keeps talking about what a brilliant guy Trump is and how cleverly he’s positioning himself, but always adds “not that I would ever vote for him” or “not that I agree with his immigration policy.” I’ve begun to suspect that this is Adams using one of the influence techniques he talks about on his blog. In this case he knows that if he were to praise Trump’s performance and say, “This man has my vote,” all the Trump haters would tune out everything else he has to say. On the other hand, saying, “I’m not going to vote for this guy, but notice how clever his position is on this issue” causes the listener to think, “Wait a minute, you don’t even like the guy but you’re blown away by how shrewd he is. How much more sincere could praise be? You’ve convinced me the guy is a genius, but you never explained why I shouldn’t vote for him.”
* Remember the famous quote from Howell Heflin? Democrats biggest contributors were, “Jews, lawyers, and unions”. He said it in reference as to why the Dem party could never support tort reform. The WSJ put it in a lead editorial in the 90′s and I cut it out and put it on my wall so people could read it for banter and laughter when visiting.
* Somewhere along the line, probably in the mid-70s, before the savings and loan crisis, all the little private banks were gobbled up in a very short period by the big investment banking multinationals (the Citis, JP Morgans, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanleys, etc.). The little banks just couldn’t compete with their degree of automation, size/assets, and, apparently, freedom of investment. The ironic thing seems to be that the investment banks were able to do all this because they were less regulated than the ‘traditional’ banks. The traditional banks were heavily regulated coming out of the Great Depression, but the investment banks, doing a lot of their business overseas and not nearly as large and automated as they are today, received less attention and regulation. So in a few decades the investment banks were able to run wild and put all the ‘little old ladies’ out of business. (Well, buy them out, to the same effect.)
Was it an improvement? I really don’t know. But the interesting thing is that, far from being an exercise in pure, blind capitalism, it seems to depend in large degree on narrow specifics of how laws get written. Market-design, a complex problem that often determines who gets really rich.
* “I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country…”
Marine Le Pen? Nope, that was Bridget Bardot in 2008 denouncing Muslims for the ritualistic slaughter of sheep and other animals to ‘celebrate’ Eid. The comment resulted in her 5th prosecution for inciting racial hatred. Old age may have finally shut Bridget up but the French people are realizing it hasn’t been their lying eyes deceiving them but their government. That with every year that goes by their country becomes less and less France and more and more an Islamic nation.
* I’ve been eager to read more from Finkielkraut on multiculturalism and immigration. His books are either quite old or in French and not translated. Even though “The Defeat of the Mind” dates from 1995, I do plan to read that one. I wish it was in e-book format though.
Also, for all the complaining about Jews that this crowd does, take note of this guy: outrageously Jewish and one of the best and most devoted defenders of French and European culture on the planet.
* Lots of people criticize multiculturalism and immigration. Few can do so like Finkielkraut in such an academic, intellectual, intelligent manner with full top tier academic credentials and background.
And many are absolutely calling Finkielkraut toxic and far right. He’s done a better job of fighting that off and persisting.
Most of this has nothing to do with being Jewish or not. Finkielkraut said in a 2013 interview:
“I can speak and write more openly than others precisely because I am not a hereditary Frenchman. The natives easily allow themselves to be unnerved by the prevailing discourse. I don’t have such complexes.”
* “Their detractors warn they are fuelling a dangerous atmosphere harking back to the extreme rightwing ideas of France in the 1930s.”
Yes, it always goes back to the 1930s for these people. The best thing the “alt-right” should continue to do is disassociate itself with 1930′s fascism. The media is trying harder and harder to make that label stick to prevent politically incorrect views going mainstream. One of the best anti mass immigration rallies I saw had participants carrying placards that said: “Nazism No, Patriotism Yes”. I believe it was in Australia.
