What Hope For India?

From comments to Anatoly Karlin:

* I think that many Westerners have the unfortunate tendency to overstate India’s potential.

We mustn’t forget that the average IQ of India is only 82 and oftentimes the standard of living in India is barely different than that among blacks in Sub-Sahara Africa.

I have lived both in India and Africa (with my parents), and I can safely say that the quality of life in India is only barely better than black Sub-Sahara Africa. I don’t think that many Westerners truly realize how corrupt, dysfunctional and dirty India is. I mean, at our local river we’d actually see dead bodies and feces floating by on a regular basis.

The real potential lies with China, not India.

* By GDP India has significantly fallen behind China.

In 2013, the World Bank estimates for GDP per capita (nominal rather than PPP adjusted) that India had a per capita of 1509 versus a per capita in China of 6959.

In 15 years the gap will grow from 4:1 now to 8:1.

I take into account currency depreciation and appreciation which is routinely left out in discussion about future GDP.

The Indian currency will probably depreciate from 60 to 1 us dollar to 120 us dollar in the future while in the same time period the Chinese currency may appreciate to 4 to 1 us dollar.

This is because of China’s strong export performance. Wages are increasing in China but exports are becoming higher value.

India has a poor export performance with the exception of services in IT and business process outsourcing. Wages are increasing very fast in these sectors but so is the value of service exports. From low level IT customer service work, Indian IT companies are moving into IT consulting.

However, all of IT and BPO in India employs just 3 million workers. This includes even the low level work. With wage increases in the double digits, I think the size of this industry is limited in terms of number of employees but it still has much potential in the complexity of work it can obtain.

Chinese factories employ 120 million workers. Chinese factories have boosted productivity and are maintaining position in low level areas like textiles but also moving into higher value industries like big bulldozers (e.g. long ago Caterpillar lost its top place in construction exports to Russia to Chinese competition)

The smart fraction in India could one day demolish Booz Allen from Bangalore but its service sector employs only 1/40th of China’s manufacturing sector.

Gives you a sense of the magnitude of under performance in India. Can such a small smart fraction pull it off?

Posted in India | Comments Off on What Hope For India?

Is Help On The Way?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Konrad Adenauer and his family would pray every night in Bavaria for the defeat of the Third Reich as the War raged. I’d do my part here, but is there a British or American Army(C.1945) coming our way?

* Expel, deport all Mohammedans.

Why?

Where there are no Moslems, there is no jihad.

ISIS? They’re one faction in a multi-faction Islamic multi-sectarian civil war. So let the Moslems sort themselves out. No U.S. involvement is necessary, let alone is it desirable, as the lamentable regrettable consequences of U.S. meddling in Moslem lands are quite plain for all to see.

It’s. That. Simple.

We needed Moslems here in the U.S. like we needed to release biological warfare agents among ourselves. Importing Moslems into the West has had just one regrettable – and avoidable – consequence: each mosque in the West is another Moslem Sudetenland that gives foreign Moslems and the Moslems in those thousands of Islamic Sudetenlands no end of pretexts to subvert the West from within and from without.

Don’t try to contend that “most Moslems are peaceful,” because the whole point of those “peaceful” or so-called “moderate” Moslems in our midst is to gull us into accepting and submitting to their constant inveighing for imposition upon us evermore, degree by degree, of their sharia. Never forget that Islam’s central doctrine is to impose Islamic rule upon the entire earth, and that’s as true for the “peaceful” Moslems as it is for al Qaida and ISIS, and for the Moslem Brotherhood and all the rest of Islam’s multi-pronged infiltration, migration, subversion, conversion, siege, and assault tentacles.

* Because the Israelis are quite content to stay out of Moslem-on-Moslem internecine sectarian wars, quite content to let the Moslems sort themselves out.

It must also be noted that ISIS has attacked and grabbed only failed, civil war-disrupted, deeply sectarian-tribal-factionalized Moslem states, gone solely after all that low-hanging fruit, and has not dared to attack Israel.

* I would venture to guess that the Israelis are not going to be taking in Syrian refugees anytime soon, unless of course, they are Jews. Why can’t we be led by people who defend our interests like their leaders defend theirs?

* Perhaps (Israel) they’re sitting back enjoying the show. Don’t be surprised if it turns out that they’re doing good business selling weapons and other equipment to the various players including ISIS. After all they shipped weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. War is profitable. If one side is losing then help them; when the tables turn help the other side and drag things out as long as possible. ISIS can destroy a state or two. But is it capable of actually creating, building up and running a real state by itself?

* This ISIS hysteria is getting out of hand. I was listening to New Zealand talk radio the other day, and people were ringing up genuinely concerned that ISIS might launch an attack on NZ. For some reason westerners seem to be assuming this rag-tag army of 30, 000 militants now has a global monopoly on Islamic terrorism and can strike anywhere at will.

* 1. ISIS is almost completely inward-looking and has neither the desire nor ability to engage in mass terror in the West. The isolated and poorly-planned recent ISISite attacks, which have a low body count, are often frustrated ISIS supporters who their governments have blocked from traveling to Syria.
2. While the West-targeting Al Qaeda goes to pains to gain assets in the West, ISIS calls its Western assets to come to their caliphate in Syria and Iraq permanently
3. ISIS is more hostile to other Muslims than to the West. Shiites deserve immediate death for apostasy, but the model of Mohammad requires that Christian populations be merely subjugated.

Posted in America, Islam | Comments Off on Is Help On The Way?

White People Waste Their Money On College Degrees When They Could Get Fancy Rims

A lot of whites totally waste their money getting college degrees when instead they could get a suped-up car stereo with major woofers and fancy rims. When you stop at a light, as so many white people do, do their college degrees flash around as much as fancy rims? No.

Posted in Whites | Comments Off on White People Waste Their Money On College Degrees When They Could Get Fancy Rims

Call It Translaughter?

If Bruce Jenner was at fault in the accident that led to the death of the woman in the car he pushed out into traffic, perhaps he will be charged criminally. However, all the web sites refer to the alleged crime as “manslaughter.” Wouldn’t it more properly be called: “translaughter?”

Posted in Trans | Comments Off on Call It Translaughter?

What About The Ethnic Cleansing Of Germans After WWII?

I wonder if in the next 50 years, or later, historians will look back at the forced dispossession of ethnic Germans from eastern and central Europe after WWII as a crime against humanity?

Christoph Donnellan: “What was done to ethnic Germans from the east after the end of WWII by Czech, Polish, and Soviet communist regimes was one ugly atrocity but no one seems to care about Germans, even women and children. Even Germans today don’t like to discuss the matter publicly or take their own side. In contrast, Jews make a federal case oout of every single historical sleight, real or exaggerated.”

From Metapedia: As for the period from the end of the Second World War to 1955 at least 8,800,000 Germans were killed by genocidal actions. Since 1955 new menaces exist which can turn into renewed genocide actions.

From Wikipedia: An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945 (ISBN 978-0465042142) is a book by John Sack, which states that some Jews in Eastern Europe took revenge on their former captors while overseeing over 1,000 concentration camps in Poland for German civilians. The book provides details of the imprisonment of 200,000 Germans “many of them starved, beaten and tortured” and estimates that “more than 60,000 died at the hands of a largely Jewish-run security organisation.” A professor of Jewish history at Brandeis University, Antony Polonsky, said that his “research appears to be sound”,[1] but he and other reviewers have questioned the “extent of Jewish persecution of Germans”, in Sack’s book.

PAUL JOHNSON WRITES IN MODERN TIMES:

Yet the end of 1938 marked the watershed in Hitler’s career, not least with the German people. He overestimated their will to power. They supported overwhelmingly his policy of German irridentism. They applauded the Anschluss: plebiscites showed 99 per cent approval in Germany and 99.75 per cent in Austria. 54 They wanted the Sudetenland back. But there is no evidence that they ever wanted to absorb large populations of non-Germans. There is ample evidence that most Germans did not want war. When on 27 September 1938 Hitler deliberately ordered the 2nd Motorized Division to pass through Berlin on its way to the Czech border, less than two hundred people came out to watch him review it from the Reichskanzlerplatz. He marched back into the building disgusted. Thereafter, his brutal moves on the European chessboard, however successful or even triumphant, evoked no spontaneous applause
from the German public. There was a total lack of elation when German troops marched into Prague.

Hitler sensed this vacuum in German hearts. But he no longer sought to fill it. He would go forward with or without their enthusiasm. All he insisted on was their obedience. From 1939 he ceased to play the politician, the orator, the demagogue. He became a militarist, working from army headquarters, and by means of secret gangster-pacts. His methods of government began to approximate to Stalin’s, losing their public dimension of approbation and leadership. He ceased to woo: he now sought only to force and terrorize. His speech to the Reichstag on 1 September 1939, justifying his war on Poland, was short and flat; the streets were deserted as he drove to make it. Nor did the crowds turn out when the troops returned victorious. As George Kennan noted from the American embassy, the Berliners refused to cheer or even give the Nazi salute: ‘Not even the most frantic efforts of professional Nazi agitators could provoke them to demonstrations of elation or approval.’ It was the same even when the German troops took Paris.

Posted in Germany | Comments Off on What About The Ethnic Cleansing Of Germans After WWII?

Modern Times

Paul Johnson writes: When they broke into Freud’s flat in Vienna, his wife put her housekeeping money on the table: ‘Won’t the gentlemen help themselves?’ It required intervention by Roosevelt and Mussolini – and a ransom of 250,000 Austrian schillings – to get the old man permission to leave. He had to sign a statement testifying he had been well-treated, to which he appended the words ‘I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone.’ The Germans were delighted. The bitter joke was beyond them. So was pity. Freud’s four aged sisters chose not to move: all died in the gas-ovens later.

Posted in Nazi | Comments Off on Modern Times

The Six Million Ukrainians Vs The Six Million Jews

Is there an important difference between the number of Jews killed by Nazis in WWII (around 6 million) and the number of non-Jews (20 million in the Soviet Union) killed by Jews under Josef Stalin?

Stalin starved about six million Ukrainians in the 1930s. How come this does not get 1/100th of the attention of the Jewish Holocaust?

Tom Sunic writes for Arutz Sheva:

It was in the name of antifascist victimology and their real and surreal fear of the resurrection of the anticipated fascist Croatia, that local Serbs staged a bloody rebellion in Croatia in 1991. It was in the name of their own post -WWII victims, killed by the victorious Communists on the killing fields of Bleiburg in Austria in May 1945, that Croats, forty-five years thereafter, began their war of secession from the Yugoslav grip. The Ukrainians still nourish the memory of Holodomor, the Poles nurture their memories of Kaytn, the Cossacks commemorate their victims in Linz, the Russians have their numerous Kolymas, the Germans their Dresdens — locations standing not only as memorial sites, but also as symbols of just retribution in the eyes of the Other.

Crimes committed by the Communists in Eastern Europe during and after World War II were not just Allied collateral damage, or a freak, unintended accident, but a planned effort to remove millions of undesirables.

Almost by definition this raises time again the painful symbolism of Auschwitz, a locality standing not only for a specific historic and clear-cut site of large-scale dying, but also as a didactic location designated for teaching the world the meaning of worldwide tolerance. Of course, the liberation of the Auschwitz camp by the lauded Soviet troops, raises a side question regarding their previous itinerary, especially if one considers that millions of East European and ethnic German civilians were either displaced or killed by the very same Soviet troops on their way to Auschwitz in January 1945.

How genuine were the tears of European statesmen and politicians at the recent commemoration event for the Auschwitz dead will remain a matter of wide speculation and wild guesses. Suffice it to note that if one were to take a peek into the recent history of France, in 1940 the entire Communist and left-leaning intelligentsia sided with the pro-fascist Vichy regime. Of course, in the aftermath of WWII it became politically expedient for the French intellectuals to posture as ardent philo-Semites and learn hastily the antifascist vulgate.

Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich, Stalin’s assistant, probably murdered more people than any other Jew in history.

According to Wikipedia:

Kaganovich (together with Vyacheslav Molotov) participated with the All-Ukrainian Party Conference of 1930 and were given the task of implementation of the collectivization policy that caused a catastrophic 1932–33 famine (known as the Holodomor in Ukraine). He also personally oversaw grain confiscations during the same time periods. Similar policies also inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan, the Kuban region, Crimea, the lower Volga region, and other parts of the Soviet Union. As an emissary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Kaganovich traveled to Ukraine, the central regions of the USSR, the Northern Caucasus, and Siberia demanding the acceleration of collectivization and repressions against the Kulaks, who were generally blamed for the slow progress of collectivization. Attorney Rafael Lemkin in his work The Soviet Genocide in Ukraine tried to present the fact of Holodomor to the Nuremberg trials as a genocide of a totalitarian regime.[2]

On January 13, 2010, Kiev Appellate Court posthumously found Kaganovich, Postyshev, Kosior and other Soviet Communist Party functionaries guilty of genocide against Ukrainians during the catastrophic Holodomor famine.

Posted in Genocide, Holocaust | Comments Off on The Six Million Ukrainians Vs The Six Million Jews

NPR Fresh Air Host Terry Gross Is A Terrible Interviewer

I was listening to her tonight interview David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker. Here is how she began.

Terry: “Of all the magazines in America, the New Yorker is probably the one with the most traditions that are cherished by its readers. The cover illustrations, the cartoons, Talk of the Town, the long profiles, the investigative pieces, the listings, its fiction, its humor pieces, movie theater music, reviews, readers want those traditions left in tact. But on the other hand, I bet that unless you really updated things in some ways, that readers really wouldn’t read it. You know what I mean? I mean, I think there is sometime this disconnect between what people insist that they want and what they’ll actually read in changing times?”

So one minute and forty five seconds into the interview, David gets a chance to say something, but what can he say? Terry Gross has boxed him in with her lengthy opinions posing as a question. Any time you ask a long rambling question that contains a lot of statements and expressions of your own opinions, filled with value judgments, and then you have to say, “You know what I mean?”, that indicates you asked a lousy question. And Terry knows it, because she follows up with another “I mean.” If she knew what she was doing, she’d ask a question in fewer words.

Terry Gross, here are some tips on interviewing.

David’s answer to Terry’s first question is shorter than her question itself.

Terry’s second question is horrendous: “One of the things you’ve done is bring The New Yorker into the digital age. And umm one of the things about digital media is that you can actually measure how many people are reading each article, each page of each article, is that a mixed blessing or is that just you know an out and out good thing for you? The reason why I ask is, it is sometimes depressing to see what gets the most hits, what gets the most clicks, sometimes it’s the thing with the most recipes, not that there’s anything wrong with recipes, but you know, you’ll do a really important piece about something and that doesn’t get nearly as much attention as the recipes are going to get. How much do you let that guide you in terms of what you want, a publication or radio or TV show to be? What are your thoughts about that?”

David Remnick tries several times to answer but she runs over him each time. Her second question took over 40 seconds to pose.

Any time an interviewer has to explain, “The reason why I ask,” he’s usually in deep trouble.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on NPR Fresh Air Host Terry Gross Is A Terrible Interviewer

Jewish Eugenics

Amazon.com: “The topic of Jewish eugenics has been systematically suppressed and is only now being timidly taken up by a handful of Israeli and American scholars. John Glad lays bare the deepest roots of the Middle East political standoff – roots that are little known even to experts in that field. Even discounting the topic’s Jewish aspects, Glad’s study stands alone as a unique narrative history and essential reference tool on the entire historical and current eugenics movement. The author, himself an early participant in the Holocaust Memorial Movement, argues that the ubiquitous presentation of eugenics as ‘anti-Semitic’ is a distortion of reality and that both religious and secular Jewish culture have always been eugenic in thrust – beginning with Biblical times and continuing up to the present day. Citing a mountain of cross-indexed sources, he shows that Jews have been welcome members of the eugenics movement, often even its leaders. Glad’s dispassionate biopolitical opus is the first to systematically document the incredible disconnect between eugenics and its depiction in the popular media. And he explains how the ongoing assault on eugenics poses an existential threat to Jewry itself.”

Within the forward: “For all its excesses, eugenics has been an astounding, indeed an existential success for Jews, molding them into a uniquely resourceful and intelligent people, and the current assault on eugenics by an understandably emotion-driven minority Jewish faction represents a frontal assault on the very essence of Jewry.”

* For 700 years, the Library of Alexandria in Egypt housed scrolls from all over the world. The library also made room for proto-scientific experiments, whose results were handwritten on the ever-mounting stacks of scrolls. By 415 A.D., the Library of Alexandria had almost one million scrolls. All the human knowledge of the ancient West–physics, mathematics, literature, astronomy, and the arts–was encased inside those walls. The Roman Empire, however, was on the verge of collapse, and the growing Christian Church was revving up its campaign against paganism. Long kept ignorant about the treasures of the library, local mobs burned it down. Very few copies of ancient works survived, and the Dark Ages followed suit.

Viewed through the lens of metaphor, Jewish people are akin to the Library of Alexandria–the genes that Jews carry being the equivalent of the ancient scrolls. Just like that ancient library was destroyed in stages, Jews have been persecuted, tortured, and killed through much of their 4,000-year-old history. As John Glad, retired professor of Russian studies at the University of Maryland, argues in his second book Jewish Eugenics, Jews carry in their very blood genes for high intelligence, high creativity, and high culture. Though a mere 1 percent to 3 percent of the population of the typical country–outside Israel–Jews have historically been the bulk of world leaders in a range of fields, Glad contends. These fields include literature, engineering, music, art, business, and statesmanship. Jewish contributors to human knowledge, for example, include Sigmund Freud, Franz Boas, and Karl Marx, writes Glad in Jewish Eugenics. What exactly is it about Jewish genes that has made Jews the “nobility of the human race”? According to Glad, de facto Jewish eugenics, the selective breeding of Jews with Jews for millennia due to their social segregation, ghetto culture, and Judaic prohibition of intermarriage with Gentiles. In Glad’s words, “Eugenics–inadvertent and explicit, historical and current–lies at the very core of Jewish identity” (64).

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, John Glad writes, Jewish scholars, activists, and especially, Zionists became deeply involved with the new science, founded by Francis Galton, of eugenics (the artificial selection of humans). Why did so many Jews–ranging from sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld to anarchist Emma Goldman–join the eugenics movement? According to Glad, because the standard view then was that Jews were physically weak and prone to feeblemindedness (e.g., the madness of genius). Jewish eugenicists like Max Nordau proposed the creation of a Jewish state (not necessarily Palestine). This, Glad types, was to be a land where the ghettoized Jews of the world could immigrate to in order to practice agriculture. The agrarian way, Glad continues, was seen as the antidote to the “effete” Jew. Why? Because as eugenicists like Nordau believed, hard work in the fields would, over time, create “muscle Jews” (illustrated in the cover of Glad’s book). In addition, Glad writes, Zionists wanted a place of refuge for Jews from the Diaspora. In this Jewish state, Jews would no longer face the threat of intermarriage with Gentiles, assimilation into non-Jewish culture, and persecution. As Glad argues, Zionism (the ideology espousing a Jewish state) and Jewish eugenic concerns (the preservation and improvement of the Jewish gene pool) emerged as two faces of the same coin. Put another way, Lamarckism (the belief that changing the environment will alter heritable characteristics in future generations) shaped Zionism. Zionism, in turn, led to the founding of Israel in 1948, Glad contends. To this day, Glad writes, Israel continues to practice compassionate eugenics. For example, Glad continues, genes for Tay-Sachs are screened in Israel because this disease has, till recently, been high among Ashkenazi Jews. Due to abortion, birth control, and even sterilization, Jews with the genes for Tay-Sachs are no longer passing along this mortal disease, Glad writes. Although Israelis use terms other than “eugenics,” Glad contends, eugenics is nonetheless what Israel has been openly endorsing, with amazing results.

All of the above facts, John Glad argues in Jewish Eugenics, contradict the myth–popular among the public and scholars since the late 1960s–that eugenics was “the ideology of the Holocaust.” On the contrary, Glad contends, Hitler’s Final Solution was the very anti-thesis of eugenics, for it was an attempt by the Nazis to exterminate a high class of human beings. The Holocaust, Glad concludes, was not eugenic but dysgenic.

For John Glad, the problem facing humanity in the 21st century is that “Whereas previous human evolution occurred thanks to genetic selection via differential mortality, current selection operates via differential fertility: … [emphases mine]” (12). Simply put, Jews everywhere are either leaving no offspring in order to pursue careers or are having less than the 2.1 children per couple required to keep a population stable. To make matters worse, Glad writes, intermarriage rates of Jews with Gentiles are about 50 percent nowadays. These trends, Glad postulates, are not merely dysgenic (lowering the frequency of good genes in a population); these trends are a “Silent Holocaust” in the making (22). Genocide, after all, means destruction of genes. The Holocaust Memorial Movement, Glad laments, has given a cold shoulder to this reality.

The book Jewish Eugenics could become an earthquake in the Jewish community–both in academia and in the laity. For John Glad not merely touches but plucks the strings of a lute that few people–Jew or Gentile–want to hear these days. To be sure, Glad’s efforts to educate the public and academics about the ongoing demographic crash of Jews vis-à-vis the loss of this genetic treasure is commendable. Someone, after all, needs to scream this to a sleepwalking public!

Unfortunately, John Glad sidesteps the bigger picture. It is not just Jews who are facing extinction as a distinct group of people–regardless of whether one defines Jews in genetic, racial, religious, cultural, or secular terms. In country after country, non-Jewish Caucasians are facing demographic collapse as well over the next few decades, while non-Caucasians and interracial peoples are multiplying. As Glad writes in a section titled, “To Be or Not to Be”: “Modern society is in self-destruct mode, but biology-blind models hold sway over biological explanations [of human diversity]” (19). This gets to the gist of the problem. Since the late 1960s, hereditarian models (arguing for biological differences between the human races) have been downplayed or eliminated altogether in both academia and civil society in favor of cultural determinism (calling for Lamarckian color-blindness). Any talk of race, genetic differences between ethnic groups, variations in IQ between human populations, and, thorniest of all these topics, the possible link between human biology and human intelligence have become no-nos in postmodern society. Any mention of these subjects, and one is quickly labeled “racist.”

What John Glad could explore in future works is the following: Why have mass emotions–both in academia and in the public at large–become so volatile in the post-1970 era? And not just about eugenics but also about other topics. Glad, for example, writes, “By 1982 emotions [about the controversial new field of sociobiology] had become so intense that he [sociobiologist E.O. Wilson] had to have a police escort to deliver a lecture on `the coevolution of biology and culture'” (77). That same year, mass emotions were running high on a host of other issues–child abuse and incest. Like the Holocaust Memorial Movement, these other social movements use the term “survivor.” These, of course, are legitimate issues of protest and grievance. But what is it about the post-1960s epoch that has turned much of the public into a frenzy of irrationality, one that, instead of peaking, continues to escalate to the point where any rational attempts to discuss and deal with these issues–including the subject of genetic decline–are met with hysteria?

Despite its shortcomings, Jewish Eugenics tackles the core question that has plagued not just Jews but all minorities for time immemorial. That crucible has always been whether to assimilate or separate. Sources in John Glad’s book include editorials from newspapers; quotes from magazines, journals, and books; speeches from meetings, conferences, and congresses of eugenicists; and statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau. Part II is a macro-chronology and micro-chronology of quotes from eugenicists and their critics, dating from the 19th century to the present. A works cited section, a glossary, and an index wrap up the book.

Posted in Eugenics, Jews | Comments Off on Jewish Eugenics

To Be French

Above, a reassuring video produced by Polémia that reminds Frenchmen of what makes them unique. The video stands in stark contrast to government propaganda that hammers away at their pride, reducing them to guilt-ridden eloi of a ruthless centralized State, bent on changing the nature of the white, European, Christian civilization praised by Charles de Gaulle.

A reader was kind enough to work out an English translation.

A cartoon appears at the beginning:

Cartoon title: “Everyone is French”

Martian 1:

“And are we French too?”

Martian 2:

“But of course, everyone is French!”

Narrator:

No, no, dear Martian friends, everyone is not French!

To be French implies a marvelous alchemy:

To be French is to speak the French language,

The French language which is our mother

And the marvelous tool for the exercise of our intelligence

And the discovery of the Humanities.

A Frenchman is a European of French culture.

To be French is to belong to a bloodline

That comes from the depth of the Ages;

The French people remain as the heirs of the Gallo-Romans.

According to the great demographer Jacques Dupâquier,

The ethnic composition of the national territory

Stayed virtually unchanged until the beginning of the 1970’s.

To be French is to belong to a civilization,

The European and Christian civilization.

To be French is to share the memory of the Homeric poems,

Of the Celtic legends, of Roman heritage, of the medieval imagination, of courtly love.

Whether one is Christian or not, the Christian values of the world

Are an element of the French identity.

To be French is to share a history, a memory.

To be French is to share the pride of the great, national saga;

Of the Monarchy, of the Empire, and of the Republic.

The motherland is the land and the fallen.

To be French is to share the love of a land, of its different regions,

Of its varied landscapes, of its marvelous high terrains.

To be French is to share music and sounds, from the lyre to the bagpipe,

From the piano to the guitar, from the accordion to the symphony orchestra.

To be French is to share flavors and scents;

To be French is to share moments of happiness at the dinner table.

To be French is to share the desire to live together,

To have common glories of the past, a common will in the present,

Having done great things together, and wanting to do new ones.

Those are the essential conditions to be a people, according to Renan. (Ernest Renan)

To be French is to join together strength with the Arts.

Today it has succeeded in the synthesis between technical performance

And a certain art of living that leaves room for the beautiful, the elegant, and the sensuous.

It is that voice which today is being followed by French managers and engineers all over the world.

To be French is a singular identity which gives sense amidst the great noise of the world.

“It is very well that there are yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen – it shows

that France is open to all races, and that she has a universal role, but only as long as they

remain a small minority. Otherwise, France will no longer be France. We are after all, before

anything else, a European people of white race, of Greek and Latin culture, and of Christian religion.” – Charles De Gaulle.

Let us also listen to Renan: “The Spartan Song – ‘We are what you were; we will be what you are’ – is, in its simplicity, the abridged hymn of every patrie.”

Posted in France | Comments Off on To Be French