Is the National Front Still the “Far Right” in France?

Posted on November 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: French politics are important in a symbolic sense because French political history probably ranks with American and British political history as the best known in the world, and perhaps the best known for ideological purposes. The current move to the right in France is thus worth paying attention to…

So it looks like the next presidential election will pit Marine Le Pen vs. a Rick Santorum-like Catholic conservative, putting the National Front to the left of the Republicans on traditional class economic issues and not all that far to the right on cultural / identity issues. The usual history in France, projected into the future in Houellebecq’s Submission, is for the left to submit to the right to defeat the National Front, as in 2002. But maybe in the very long run the National Front will become the center-left party in France?

COMMENTS: The National Front has never been “far-right” on economic/provider state matters–it’s appeal has been ethno-centrist My suspicion about François Fillon is that, while he talks tough on immigration, he did little while prime minister to change the situation, and would defer action indefinitely while he tries his economic reform agenda, which will likely fail. I know that the French president has much more power, but the prime minister is not without influence and I don’t think that he used it in the cause of limiting immigration. But even the National Front is emerging more as a Euroskeptic Party than an ethno-nationalist party since the replacement of its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, with his daughter, Marine Le Pen.

A genuine far-right French party would probably favor the restoration of the Bourbons in a constitutional monarchy, reinstitution of the Catholic Church as the state church, and an abndonment of the ideal of laicité.

* Don’t be fooled — Fillon is the more-of-the-same candidate. The French Republicans may be slightly less tone-deaf than the American variety (non-Trump) when it comes to acknowledging people’s real concerns, but it’s an act. Their actual agenda, as always, is making the world safe for Davos.

* Fillon is your typical cuckservative. Mentioning religious items here and there in between talks of open borders and tea between you and me.

And how should I presume?

Look at the financial times/Rotschild Economist…they’re calling him a ‘free-market’ guerilla revolutionary….

I think that sums up what he brings to the table.

Another George Bush/Tony Blair/Hilary Clinton/Angela Merkel neoliberal nation state leveraged buyout professional (salesman).

* BBC were describing Fillon this morning as a Thatcherite. I’m sure France is looking forward to the financialisation of the economy, the destruction of trades unionism and manufacturing, and the introduction of what the Economist calls a “flexible labour market”. French productivity is still higher than the UKs – despite the stricter employment laws or because of them?

I remember Sarkozy introduced Sunday trading into France – one of Thatcher’s first acts of cultural destruction – but when I was last there (admittedly in darkest Languedoc) 18 months back nothing seemed to have changed and nearly all shops were still shut by noon.

(Incidentally Fillon’s wife Penny is a Welsh girl – albeit from the solicitor rather than coalminer class – and his brother married her sister Jane).

Posted in France | Comments Off on Is the National Front Still the “Far Right” in France?

Nena Cherry aka Dawn Anderson

Posted on November 28, 2016 by Luke Ford

Geoff* emails: Came across your article you wrote in 2008 about her death. I met Dawn in the 1990’s by way of a mutual friend at a small bar in west Houston. I did not know who she was at the time. Not too long after that, she turned up working at my wife’s bar as a waitress. I did recognize her then, she was sporting her blond hair and I recognized her tattoos from having seen some of her videos.

She did have a website, which we asked her to take down as condition of her employment, since our bar was turning into Nena Cherry Central: guys bringing in videos for her to autograph. She was up to her old tricks taking multiple staff members home for sexual encounters. I guess she just could not get the wild life out of her system.

Having followed your online jousting with her, I knew enough to stay clear of her.

My wife was bipolar and when I asked her why the fuck she hired her, she said that Nena needed help, and if I understood my wife, she saw a kindred spirit in her. My Ex was like that, collecting broken birds so to speak. Her employment did not last long, she was too undependable. She lost her house, her marriage, yeah, she married some guy she met in a bar.

Fast forward to 2002 or so, I stumbled on to her on line advertising as an escort. I called her up and she remembered me. I took her out for lunch, just to say hi. I always liked her, even though she was bat shit crazy. I met her at a public park in NW Houston and we went out to a bar for a drink and something to eat. She was living with some guys, bikers, and seemed to be moving from one crash pad to another. We talked a while then went to another bar, and she introduced me to some of the guys with whom she was currently crashing.

According to her she hung out at a number of biker bars on the west side of town. At the time she still seemed in good health and did not look to have a full blown case of HIV yet.

We parted ways and I wished her well.

Posted in Pornography | Comments Off on Nena Cherry aka Dawn Anderson

The Roman Salute

Posted on November 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Goy: I think if they insist on calling it a Roman salute, it’s a good idea. Play the role of obstinate fool. But that’s hard to organize… only smart people could keep that up. The doom of the alt-right will be that it can’t keep 51% of Americans on board without dumbing down, and if it dumbs down, it ain’t worth winning.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Roman Salute

How Trump, With No Mandate, Could Change Washington More Than Reagan Did

Posted on November 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

I thought this was a great article by Jeff Greenfield:

It was one of the most definitive “realigning” elections ever. The challenger defeated an incumbent president by 10 percentage points, winning 44 states and 489 electoral votes. His coattails brought 12 new members of his party into the United States Senate, giving it control of the chamber for the first time in 26 years, and gained 33 House seats, yielding an “ideological majority.” Moreover, he had won with a clear call for political change, a frontal challenge to consensus liberalism encapsulated in a line from his inaugural address that “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Yet after eight years in office that included a reelection in which he had won an 18-point popular vote majority, 49 states and 525 electoral votes, Ronald Reagan left office as a president whose impact on the structure and size of the federal government was, in the words of Ev Dirksen, “as a snowflake is on the bosom of the Potomac.” Not a single Cabinet department had been abolished; not a single significant Great Society program had been eradicated; the budget deficits he had identified as a “threat to our future and our children’s future” had reached peacetime records.

On an array of other fronts, the terrain was largely unchanged. Two of Reagan’s Supreme Court appointees—Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy—consistently voted to ratify the core of Roe v. Wade, making abortion a constitutional right. As president, he had supported and signed a law granting amnesty to an estimated 3 million to 4 million immigrants here illegally. He had worked with Democrats in Congress to strengthen Social Security with a compromise that tempered benefit increases but also made higher incomes subject to the tax. His tax reforms lowered marginal rates but put capital gains—the province of the affluent—on the same footing as ordinary income.

What makes this history so relevant—even startling—is that we are now looking at an election in which an incoming president, who lost the popular vote by a margin that may well exceed 2 million votes, who won the Electoral College by, in effect, drawing to an inside straight with three hairbreadth victories in three key states, may well preside over the most significant changes in public policy since the New Deal.

Donald Trump, and the Republican majorities in the Senate, are poised to wipe out the signature victories of his predecessor in areas ranging from health care to the environment. He will enter office as the first explicitly anti-free trade president since Herbert Hoover, committed to unraveling a series of agreements that underpin the root assumptions of global commerce. His list of potential Supreme Court nominees include judges who reject not simply the jurisprudence that led to the gay marriage and abortion decisions, but the arguments that led the Court to uphold New Deal legislation some 80 years ago and to bind states to the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Posted in America | Comments Off on How Trump, With No Mandate, Could Change Washington More Than Reagan Did

Transparent

Posted on November 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

A goy professor says to me:

I was thinking about Jews again last night cuz I watched an episode of Transparent with my wife, about the tranny. The whole family went to Shabbat at a liberal reform temple. And even then, the rabbi let everyone eat tacos or whatever but then she still gave a nice little talk and everyone felt “together” and I thought, I sure would like something like that. But then that phrase–a people that shall dwell alone–came to mind. And I thought maybe that could apply to me, as a pariah–“a person who shall dwell alone.”

The rabbi’s sermon was about the 36 righteous people who hold all things together in any given generation. I’d put my money in you as one of them, brother.

I was fantasizing about how you spend Shabbat last night. Go to shul, then just, take it easy? Amazing!

When I was in grad school, all the Rhetoric “scholars” were postmodernists, so they would say they were all about persuasion–they were experts in that. I asked them how they decide which cause to argue for. They would dodge. But once in a while they would say, “Look, maybe the true sophist can show a kid who wants to write a gay-bashing paper how to do it better and more effectively.” But then, none of them ever did. Same goes for that Richard Spencer post about reaching the eternal normie. Why can my Rhetoric friends just help us figure out a way to reach that audience and persuade them more effectively? Morality is a construct, right?

I can’t remember how I was first programmed to react negatively upon hearing the words “David Duke.” I must’ve been very young.

I think we need to tell people the law, at least in this day & age. Was trying to explain to Dad the other day… he’s a liberal Protestant after childhood SDA. He thinks he’s so magnanimous for being okay with gays. You can tell. It’s a kind of self righteousness to not insist that sodomy is a sin.

I told him, “look, you don’t have to stone them to death, but they should know that they’re lucky to not be stoned to death… and feel that they deserve it.”

Luke: Being Jewish in America is a lovely way to lead a life, you get the best of both worlds. You have your own state of Israel on the side. You are full Americans and entitled to lobby as hard as you like for the Jewish state and for Jewish interests. And you have the advantages of ethnic solidarity.

For me, however, the best thing about being Jewish is that I can live by the commands of the God of the Torah, but that sounds boring, I know.

Morality is a construct. For objective morality, there has to be faith in a transcendent Law Giver, though it does seem that certain moral laws are written into our DNA, such as the prohibition against incest. In no society can you kill anyone you want without consequence or sleep with anyone you want without consequence.

It seems like nobody can talk about life for long without referencing good and evil.

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off on Transparent