');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersGuillaume Durocher Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

I recently wrote on the role of inspiration and perspiration in men’s careers. I also gave the example of Charles de Gaulle, who definitely hewed closer to the side of perspiration. Through the occasional bold move and the blessings of Fortune, the Frenchman’s decades of labor were rewarded with great moments of glory. Adolf Hitler and the evolution of the Third Reich provide another and very different example of political leadership. With Hitler we have an example of a man who, for the life of him, could not hold down a day job and who was forever possessed by and ran after his passions.

People have no idea just how artistic, Bohemian, and indeed feckless Hitler was by temperament. This is something which all those who frequented Hitler knew and which all the historians of the period know but which is scarcely mentioned in the documentaries and Hollywood films which shape public consciousness. Hitler was, in effect, a lifelong NEET (Not in [formal] Education, Employment, or Training). The Third Reich seems quite unique in having such a dictator at the helm.

In one of Mein Kampf’s more relateable passages, Hitler explains that when he was young he couldn’t bear the idea of spending his whole life in a pre-defined social and professional box, going back and forth from the office, as was the case of his father, a customs official. He later told his press secretary, a despairing Otto Dietrich, that a moment’s inspired idea contributed more to the world than a lifetime’s worth of office work.

Young Hitler (on whom, see Brigitte Hamann’s excellent Hitler’s Vienna) was obsessed with art, architecture, and politics, passions which would never leave him. He was an insatiable bookworm and incorrigible loudmouth. He could produce professional architectural sketches and decent touristic paintings. He would draw sketches, read books, and talk politics and art with whoever would listen (in this case, his youthful friend August Kubizek) into the wee hours of the morning. This set the pattern for the rest of his life: most of the time he was thoroughly incapable of going to bed at a reasonable time. He certainly wasn’t interested in finding a job. As a result, when Hitler’s family savings ran out he ended up a homeless vagrant.

Hitler’s service in the German Army during the First World War seems to have done him a lot of good. After the war, he thrived not by buckling down doing some anonymous job, but by “finding his voice”: in the scandalous conditions of postwar Germany, with a defective Weimar Republic manifestly incapable of challenging the iniquities of the Treaty of Versailles, there was finally a ready audience for his scathing political analyses. In truth, his time in Vienna – in which he witnessed the farce of multiethnic democratic politics first-hand – had prepared him well. Once Hitler found his “calling,” he of course had his spectacular and erratic career, featuring prison, mastery of Germany and Europe, and total oblivion.

One cannot understand the rise of Hitlerism and its tremendous socio-cultural (and not merely political) transformation of Germany without watching Hitler’s speeches and trying understand the mindset of those who were enraptured by him. Hitler relentlessly chased after those things which emotionally resonated with him: national honor, power, and a certain aesthetic, within the framework of the Right-wing fin-de-siècle German-speaking culture which he had imbibed as a youth (let us say that Darwin, Nietzsche, and Drumont were permeating the air). Hitler presented a vision for Germany’s rebirth under a zealous nationalist elite, according to scientific principles, which resonated with a critical mass of Germans. Nationalism was all the more compelling in Germany, a nation which, unlike most, was objectively one of both great accomplishment and potential.

I must say, the stories of the Third Reich’s various bureaucratic problems make me more sympathetic toward today’s bureaucrats and officialdom with their little miserable problems.

I have not seen a good overall assessment of how Hitler’s erratic management style affected German government and the war effort. Certainly, it drove his civil servants mad. Chancellor Hitler was only able to stick to regular office hours while President Paul von Hindenburg was alive, evidently trying to make a good impression. Later, he would stay up until three or four or five in the morning every night, meaning that important decisions often could not be taken before 11AM.

After 1937, incredibly, there were virtually no cabinet meetings at all, a situation which reinforced Hitler’s own position at the center of the political system, but left his ministers and their bureaucracies in the dark regarding each other’s activities. There was no well-defined way of taking decisions, Hitler would simply send out “Führer Orders” according to his mood and whatever issues people around him raised. This system also gave tremendous power to the man who controlled access to Hitler: his secretary, Martin Bormann. This was known as the arbitrary and fickle “politics of the antechamber.”[1]

All this is strikingly at odds with Hitler’s image at the time.[2]

On other hand, the Third Reich was by some indicators notoriously well-organized, far better than either the Weimar Republic or the Western democracies, notably in terms of social welfare and unity, economic recovery, military preparedness, and mass participation. Hitler, being an artist at the head of a gifted country, would generally stick to his areas of interest and was often wise enough to let his subordinates take care of the details. The country’s staying power in the face of adverse military conditions was simply remarkable, although obviously ultimately vain.

The bureaucrats of course found ways around Hitler’s management quirks. Senior civil servants would send circulars around the ministries to discuss important topics of shared interest, so as to come to common conclusions on necessary action to be presented to the Führer. Interest groups within the Reich – women, corporations, youth, workers . . . – were organized and had representation in various Party bureaucracies, which then provided their input to government. These practices in many ways foreshadow the various “consultation” procedures and perpetual “advocacy” of interest groups that we find in advanced states today, democratic or not.

Hitler had a habit of creating ad-hoc positions to address a particular problem and not following up. The result was a plethora of officials and bureaucracies competing for influence. Some of these officials, lacking a well-defined mandate, would complain that they had little to do but show up at the sites of bombings in German cities and give consolatory speeches.

One wonders if the Reich would have been more successful if there had been more regular modes of decision-making. Certainly a cabinet, with the bureaucrats behind them, would tend to avoid overly ideological and impractical schemes. It also seems that isolated bureaucracies, operating more or less independently from their peers, would be more likely to engage in creeping radicalization, according to their own internal logic.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Hitler, Nazi Germany 
🔊 Listen RSS

When, sooner or later, one must pass away,
When one has more or less lived, suffered, loved
There remains nothing left of us than the children we leave behind
And the field of Effort which we have sown.

– Charles de Gaulle[1]

Charles de Gaulle remains the most celebrated French statesman of the twentieth century. Whatever you think of his legacy – and this is open to legitimate debate[2] – he was, among democratic politicians, a truly epic figure. He would prove a source of inspiration for the more thoughtful American statesmen, such as Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, the latter eagerly reading de Gaulle’s powerful youthful opuscule on leadership, The Edge of the Sword.

Within France, De Gaulle “saved France’s honor” during the Second World War, securing a place among the victor nations, including an occupation zone in Germany and a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Returning to power in 1958, he established the presidential Fifth Republic – an unusually stable regime by French standards – extricated France from Algeria, and armed the country with nuclear weapons. His foreign policy of relative independence from the United States and an independent path in the Third World, notably Africa and the Middle East, would become the consensus view among French politicians and diplomats for a generation. His vetoing of British entry of the then-European Economic Community (EEC), not once but twice, will seem rather prescient in light of Brexit. This was occurring as France was experiencing an unprecedented demographic and economic renewal.

Today, De Gaulle remains the supreme political reference among the center-right and many patriots in France, with countless village squares named after him, as well as a Parisian airport and an aircraft carrier. Whatever one makes of De Gaulle’s historical legacy, we can all learn from his personality as a man and his personal career. And this turns out to be a rather humbling undertaking.

Learning about De Gaulle always seemed to me to be a rather forbidding enterprise, like approaching some misty, unconquerable mountain: who knows what mysteries and hidden strengths there were! Certainly, again among democratic politicians, he appeared as a titan of modern times, a man of rare depth and will. He always seems in control and undoubting, with an uncanny understanding of things.

We must scrape away at this Gaullist mythology, which the man himself did so much to create. If we look at the detail of his life, one realizes just how extraordinarily humble his beginnings were and how precarious his position almost always was. This makes his achievements all the more impressive.

That is to say, throughout his life, De Gaulle’s position was often extremely insecure, facing setback after setback. And yet, through all this, he unbelievably persistent, always bouncing back, always trying again and again. He, again and again, had every reason to be discouraged or lose confidence, but he never gave up.

De Gaulle as as a POW in German-controlled Lithuania, 1916 or 1917.
De Gaulle as as a POW in German-controlled Lithuania, 1916 or 1917.

In World War I, De Gaulle did not play the heroic role of liberator against the German foe which he had dreamed of as a youth. He fought bravely, was wounded several times, and was captured by the Germans. As a POW, he tried to escape five times. The means he used were worthy of cartoons: tearing up bedsheets to make rope to escape by the window, hiding in piles of laundry, wearing a fake moustache . . . He was recaptured every time. One has to imagine this gaunt, skinny, dirty, half-starved, and very tall Frenchman striding across the German countryside.

In the interwar years, his career did not progress particularly fast. He advised and trained the officers of the newly-formed Polish army. He lectured on history at the French military academy of Saint-Cyr. He served as nègre (ghostwriter) for Marshal Philippe Pétain, the famous hero of the Battle of Verdun, but soon fell out with him, unhappy about the edits his staff wished to bring to their shared book:

“Style makes the man.” One may comment on a man’s work, ask him to change his work in this or that respect, but above all let him make the changes himself, otherwise the edits will have the effect of removing everything personal from the work, that is to say everything vigorous. They will turn book into a university thesis, turning the style into a drafting [rédaction], which may be of interest in its way, but which will have no soul and die as soon as it is read.”[3] 332

How neatly De Gaulle has summed up my distaste for the products of committees!

In the 1930s, De Gaulle constantly wrote and lobbied for France to have a professional army (rather than conscripts) and dedicated tank divisions (rather than having support tanks sprinkled among infantry divisions). One sees these efforts in the seemingly innumerable letters he wrote in support of politicians who wanted to modernize France’s military.

While De Gaulle was frustrated by the French Republic’s conservative and defensive approach to military matters, General Heinz Guderian, the German officer promoting a similar tank strategy, enjoyed ample support from Adolf Hitler in favor of tank warfare. The results were visible in May-June 1940, when the famous German Blitzkrieg tanks steamrolled the Anglo-French forces through their astoundingly superior mobility. De Gaulle’s own tank battalion fared well at the battle of Abbeville, but this scarcely enough to turn the tide.

At this point, as a very junior general and undersecretary in the government, just shy of fifty years old, De Gaulle in effect defected to the British. As leader of the “Free French” in London, De Gaulle’s experience was also extremely humbling. Scarcely anyone or any territories joined him (namely the colony of Chad, a huge expanse of Central African desert under the black governor Félix Éboué). He had to accept the British bombing of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir – killing 1,300 French sailors – which Winston Churchill feared would fall to the Germans.

The Free French attack on Dakar to claim French West Africa was a total failure: the local French colonial and military authorities preferred to remain loyal to the (legal and effective) government of Vichy. When the British and Free French conquered French Syria, scarcely any of the French soldiers serving Vichy joined De Gaulle. The Americans excluded him from the liberation of French North Africa and the D-Day landings in Normandy in 1944. After that however, De Gaulle was able to rapidly form significant forces and be recognized as the leader of France. Thus did De Gaulle secure France’s seat at the victor’s table: all through pigheaded determination and never giving up, despite remarkably humble beginnings and repeated humiliations. Fake it till you make it!

And then fickle the French rejected him as early as 1946. Then begins the “Crossing of the Desert” (la traversée du désert), a quiet period during which De Gaulle wrote his memoirs and agitated against the Fourth Republic and its feckless parliamentary politicians.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Charles De Gaulle, France 
🔊 Listen RSS

“Wow, you sure know your Nietzsche and FBI crime statistics. Your future employers will be super impressed by your general knowledge!”

It seems that more and more young Western men are finding it difficult to find their place in the world. In the United States, men’s wages have stagnated over the last four decades, while women have been closing the gap. Perhaps not coincidentally, there has been a steady increase in both male and female involuntary celibacy (“incels)”, with a growing percentage of childless and never-married Americans. Half of Americans are either single, divorced, or never married.

The media helpfully observes that, with the economic decline of men, women are less and less able to find a man who meets their financial expectations. Simple observation would suggest that men have evolved to provide and women have evolved to care (or, as Schopenhauer and Gandhi pointed out, to spend). As a result forced economic equality between two different, to not say unequal, sexes translates into sexual and romantic misery for more and more Americans.

So much for the overall trends, but let’s not worry about them too much. The question is: How can you make the most of your personal situation and thus, improve both that situation and the society’s?

Personally, I had no understanding of the realities of professional life growing up. I hope this article can help at least a few men on their career paths.

First of all, forget the idea that your “education” is in any way supposed to prepare you for life or the workplace. Personally, I lean towards Michel Houellebecq and Ed West’s view that the schools need to be emptied and child labor reinstituted. The best thing would be to shut down most of the universities and, even, senior high schools, using the savings to provide tax cuts for companies hiring young people.

Do not think your academic (under)performance reflects anything of any relevance to the professional world. Study only as much as you like: either passionately because you find the subject to be of intrinsic value or just as much as is necessary to get any rubber-stamp diploma you might need. Either is fine.

On finding a job: get the necessary qualifications for whatever field you are looking into, be willing to move (ideally to somewhere where you have some relatives, family friend, or potential mentor, this can help enormously, both socially and professionally, or simply in terms of feeling at home), and go out and meet people. Find the people and organizations with money!

On actual professional advice, I tell everyone the same thing: read Hagakure. This book of samurai savoir-vivre has all you need. In short, never complain, criticize only to improve others or rectify a situation (never to injure), serve, and listen. Your little sacrifices and good faith will radiate to others, leading them to in turn listen to you, serve you, and promote you.

Try to join a field or company which is booming, the sooner you get in the faster you will rise. Don’t be afraid to “game” the system. It took me a long time to understand that professional success has little to do with merit or actual economic productivity. A promotion is often a question of being in the right place at the right time. In politics and bureaucracies, everyone is just waiting for their superior to die off or be taken down by a scandal.

If I were to sum up how I think a man’s career progresses, much boils down to two factors: Inspiration perspiration. By inspiration, I mean sincere and spontaneous pursuit of a goal of intrinsic worth, one which interests us as such, about which we are passionate, regardless of any immediate economic gain. By perspiration, I mean something more prosaic: reliability, serving others, hopefully having a useful skill, without any particular bells and whistles.

A “traditional” career path is realized through perspiration, game-changing is achieved through inspiration. Most people, being uninspired, will rise up either as useful practitioners or boring (“reliable”) bureaucrats. A few – a Jeff Bezos, a Julian Assange, a Donald Trump – will take the chance and change the game altogether. All really successful careers, ones that don’t immediately burn out in a glorious blaze, will in fact have episodes of exhilarating inspiration and longer periods of more humdrum perspiration.

My instinct is to tell young men to follow their inspiration as much as possible, but there is something to be said for a more straightforward career path, especially if one gets in on things early. This is ideal if you have a family tradition or a mentor in the field in question. It makes sense to study to be a doctor or an engineer if you have some spontaneous attraction to the field. You must enjoy what you do on some level.

I understand that if a young American joins the U.S. military at 16 or 21, he may retire with a pension at 36 or 41: certainly twenty years of service in the world’s most powerful fighting force (or its bureaucracy) will provide a man with character and insight into the ways of the world, and leave him the bulk of his life, if he so wishes, with the leisure to engage in patriotic politics.

I know people who managed to get their PhD immediately, secured a professorship, and produced three children before the age of 35, all the while providing copious, meticulous, and erudite written work for Western identitarian publications.

Then there is government, a career path long promoted by noted twitterati Second City Bureaucrat. In France, securing a senior post in the civil service is a preferred route, making one virtually unfireable. French civil servants are furthermore free to engage in politics and seek elected office: so long as they do nothing illegal (e.g. “hate speech”), their job will always be waiting for them at the end of their political sabbatical. Jean-Yves Le Gallou, Henry de Lesquen, and Florian Philippot all took this route, their civil service position giving them a secure base to work for the Front National or other nationalist parties, or indeed to setup an identitarian think-tank.

Similarly, the international civil servant Anne Kling works for the Council of Europe (not a body of the European Union), all the while producing important Judeo-critical and nationalist books (I have reviewed and summarized Kling’s work on Jewish lobbies in France at The Occidental Observer). Anyone who gets into the EU bureaucracy at a young age will soon be rolling in dough – paying virtually no taxes – if he is not bored to death in the meantime.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Careers, Employment, Feminism 
🔊 Listen RSS

The speed of social change in the modern era, and in particular in the contemporary West, is so rapid that we all are liable to feel a bit lost.

A recent example of this was provided by none other than Hillary Clinton, that most “progressive” representative of global oligarchy. You see, the 71-year-old Clinton, whose presidential campaign was premised on making history as the first female presidency, still believes in biological sex:

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

Hillary’s squirming on the topic caused visible glee in the foul-mouthed comic artists at The Daily Stormer. Meanwhile her daughter Chelsea also believes that men claiming to be women have a human right to play in women’s sports.

There’s something truly surreal about these kinds of developments. One wonders where to start.

This sort of insanity has been a long time coming. The truth is that Western civilization has been steadily feminizing for at least the last two centuries. The decline of men has become a topic of conversation on the outer edges of the mainstream media. Men’s decline has been at once biological, economic, social, and moral.

Witness the testosterone levels:

Sperm counts:

Income:

In Western Europe, the decline of men has been systematized through the use of quotas in favor of women. In June 2000, France voted a law requiring political parties to have 50% female candidates. Today, the European Commission has a stated objective of having at least 40% female managers, an objective that can only be reached by systematically discriminating against men in promotions. The EU wants to impose a similar legal quota for publicly-traded European companies, to have 40% women on all corporate boards. This would also apply to fields, such as tech and sciences, where there are few female applicants to begin with.

At the risk of discouraging people, and I think we should always be realistic, I believe the decline of men has not bottomed out yet. In Western Europe certainly, the process of evicting excess “white males above 50” – a common phrase in France – has not been completed. While there are certain protections in the United States, I suspect that “woke capital” and pious H.R. departments will become more aggressive in discriminating against men, in the name of equal outcomes between the genders, itself tendentiously equated with equal opportunities.

The predominance of women is not without consequence for liberty and excellence. A 2015 Pew poll found that women were almost 50% more likely to support government censorship of “statements that are offensive to minority groups” than were men. Women, particularly left-wing women, are more politically intolerant: one survey found that 30% of Democratic women had blocked, unfriended or stopped following someone online for their politics, as against only 8% of Republican men. The London Times reported in May 2016 that female students overwhelmingly supported censorship of university publications if these were “considered offensive to certain groups.”

Naturally, any number of truthful statements may be painful or “considered offensive to certain groups.” Most pointedly, any suggestion that men and women have meaningful biological and psychological differences, and therefore to some degree should have different social roles, will be considered “offensive.”

This highlights the self-reinforcing nature of the Western societies’ feminization.

Any rational and fact-based discussion about gender equality and the right roles for the sexes is impossible in our society. It is impossible because we cannot even bring ourselves to recognize the reality of biological sex – hence the increasingly-widespread insanity of allowing male-to-female transsexuals participate in, and thereby dominate, women’s sports. In the face of such insanity, all our ancestral wisdom and modern science – not to mention my own scribblings – are quite useless: there’s no helping people who are too dishonest or cowardly to see what is in front of their own nose.

However, for the sake of our young white boys – who are already being scapegoated for the inevitable failures to achieve equality and who need to take up their place in society as proud and confident men – I will provide a brief account of sex differences and what gender relations might look like in a healthy society.

Biological sex differences beyond the mere reproductive apparatus, known as sexual dimorphism, is the norm in much the Animal Kingdom. This reflects the differing evolutionary strategies of males and females. Almost every difference imaginable is possible, according to that particular species’ differing evolutionary strategies for males and females. Typically, while females carry and (where applicable) nurture offspring by default, males are more competitive and have to prove themselves in some way to get the female’s approval; whether this means rams battering their horns against one another or birds preparing elegant nests or showing off their spectacular plumage. (On which see David Attenborough’s innumerable nature documentaries, which typically boil down to animals struggling to get food, not get eaten, and find a mate.)

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Feminism, Political Correctness 
🔊 Listen RSS

After decades of piously reciting neoliberal orthodoxy, extolling a ‘post-political’ borderless world, the European Union seems finally to be turning away from free trade. Numerous factors are working in this direction: a decades-late reaction to China’s mercantilist trade policies which have gutted European industry, the threat of trade wars with America under President Donald Trump, the withdrawal of free-trading Britain from the EU, the rise of Big Tech everywhere but Europe, and ordinary Europeans’ angry reaction to policies which have destroyed their jobs only to enrich footloose capitalists and tax havens.

I have been struck by a rather marked changed of tone among eurocrats in recent months, both among the incoming administration of future Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the éminences grises of EU think-thanks. Von der Leyen herself has said she will “introduce a Carbon Border Tax” in order “to ensure our companies can compete on a level playing field.” This would presumably be a tariff according to amount of carbon that went into producing a product, hitting China and other industrial exporters most. A carbon tariff has been a long-time ask for protectionist-leaning French politicians.

Von der Leyen, a conservative German politician, has rather implausibly promised a “Green New Deal” for Europe. As such we can expect any-and-all government initiatives these days to be justified by some vague reference to the environment, under the sign of Saint Greta. (Seriously, why has Greta not been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize yet? Why has that doddering old Pope Francis not canonized her? Surely the dying and two confirmed miracles requirements are mere formalities at this point.) It is almost as if human rights’ claim of a sacrosanct private sphere of individual choice fails to recognize the basic interdependence of all things. Ho hum.

The influential think-tank Bruegel – which is run by former top European officials – has been moving away from the EU’s traditional neoliberal trade policies and laissez-faire attitude. Bruegel published a recent paper making “the case for industrial policy”:

The Chinese authorities . . . have cleverly used state subsidies to promote AI and support domestic firms. To help counter this challenge, Germany and Europe should respond with their own subsidies to knowledge-based sectors. Europe’s automotive industry is an obvious candidate for such support. This is why Altmaier’s plan to develop European battery production for electric cars make sense, and may even accelerate an industrial renaissance across the continent.

Whatever one thinks of such arguments, it certainly marks a significant shift in EU thinking.

There has also been talk of restoring Europe’s “economic sovereignty,” which has never really recovered since the Second World War. Since then, Europe has been dependent on Mideastern oil, U.S. economic aid, military support, and tech companies, and Chinese industrial prowess. European companies have been increasingly vulnerable to being bought up by foreign capital.

In France, there has been a longstanding critique of the EU’s economic policies and a demand to implement a protectionnisme européen (“European protectionism”), most notably voiced by the euroskeptic demographer Emmanuel Todd. This was long a pious wish, but with Britain on the way out and Germany itself churning out its own industrial policy, it looks like things may be changing. Not only France, but also much of southern and eastern Europe, are basically protectionist in outlook, leaving the free-trading Dutch and Nords rather isolated.

It’s easy to mock the EU as fake and gay – rightly so in certain areas, such as foreign policy – and prone to perpetual gridlock. But if there’s one area where the EU has real power, it’s on economic matters: namely market regulation, trade, and antitrust.

EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager has been making a name for herself in recent years by inflicting billions of euros in fines on American tech giants, mostly for unpaid taxes. Hervé Juvin – a prominent environmentalist intellectual who has been elected to the European Parliament as a candidate of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally – recently asked Vestager:

Madam Vestager, complements on your past actions . . . You express with great conviction your faith in the [EU] single market. I however observe that Europe is not in the lead concerning IT and AI. I also observe that in economic history never has a country caught up in a given sector except by protecting it behind demanding tariff and non-tariff barriers. My question is then: How can you help Europe catch up in the IT and artificial intelligence fields without abandoning the dogma of freed trade . . . without building up an effective external border for the single market, as our Chinese and Russian rivals have been able to do?

Certainly, the EU easily has the capacity – that is to say the human capital – to produce indigenous tech giants, as China and Russia do. The trend so far has been for American companies to hoover up any promising European start-ups or for them to become marginal over time, as their dominance of any given national market proves to be totally insufficient to rival a company dominant in the far larger U.S. market.

In addition to these factors, one can also sense demand among the metropolitan classes for a more powerful EU as America and Britain have moved to their own more-or-less vapid brands of nativist populism. As Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times recently argued in an article tellingly entitled “The EU needs to be a power project”: “The EU once dreamt that the whole world would move towards a law-based system, similar to the EU method. But a world order, shaped by Xi Jinping’s China and Trump’s America, will be based on power rather than rules.”

All roads lead to Carl Schmitt, it seems.

Whether the metropolitan classes – at once privileged and ineffectual, contemptuous of the very nations and states through which mass action is actually possible and power actually exercised – can actualize their dreams for the EU is another question.

Open borders, in the absence of a cross-border regulator, of course means a kind of lawlessness. But, as it turns out, opening up borders is a lot easier than instituting some kind of common “governance” across borders. Hence, if Europeans wish to preserve their way of life and govern their own space, they will have to reinstate an effective external border, the crossing of which occurs only occurring to the will and interests of the European peoples.

I would love Europe to be a well-regulated, sovereign, and European space. Self-sufficient, open to fruitful economic and cultural exchanges of the world, but maintaining its identity and character in perpetuity. I can imagine Europe as a beautiful garden. Is that too much to ask?

Only with these:

May you keep these:

 
• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: EU, Free Trade 
🔊 Listen RSS

Some people seem hell-bent on acting out anti-Semitic stereotypes. If Bernard-Henri Lévy embodies a caricatural warmongering supremacist Zionist, Jacques Attali has become the poster child for the anti-national globalist. The French civic-nationalist and anti-Zionist website Égalité & Réconciliation aptly sums up Attali as “the French embodiment of social-democratic Zionism, of soft Zionism, or of pro-EU globalist immigrationism, the eulogist of a miscegenated France [une France métisée]. Open to all (southern) winds and to all religions.”

Attali recently came to my attention with a perfectly self-explanatory tweet:

“Sovereignism is nothing but the new name of anti-Semitism. Jews and Muslims, who are both threatened by it, must unite against the fantasies of the great replacement.”

Thus, Attali equates the fight for national and popular sovereignty – a founding principle of the American and French revolutions – with one of the worst evils imaginable: the centuries-old and wholly irrational hatred of the Jews. Gentile sovereignty must therefore be oppose, as should, quite tellingly, any mention of European demographic substitution through mass immigration.

This is remarkable insofar as “sovereignism” (souverainisme) is in fact merely a form of civic nationalism: it wishes to restore the formal sovereignty of the French nation-state. Sovereignists are typically critical of the European Union but often open to “assimilated” Africans and Muslims. Identitarians tend to be critical or indifferent towards sovereignism insofar as it distracts French patriots from the more fundamental and challenging problem: the demographic decline and replacement of indigenous Europeans.

Attali is a Jew born in Algeria. His attack on gentile sovereignty and his call for a Jewish-Muslim alliance of course would be a particularly brazen example of the behavior documented by Professor Kevin MacDonald in his celebrated Culture of Critique series.

Attali’s tweet promotes a recent article of his which in fact is somewhat more nuanced. Instead of a blanket condemnation of sovereignism, the article points out that “often” sovereignism is a mere cover for an opposition to Muslim and African immigration as such, a form of dog-whistling. This is actually true. Perhaps the tweet is a troll to get attention.

Attali wrote the piece to criticize fellow Jews who have been critical of immigration or defended some form of French identity. These include Éric Zemmour, William Goldnadel, and Alain Finkielkraut. Attali writes:

In particular, it is sad to see the descendants of Algerian Jews forget the magnificent role played by Muslim Algerians in supporting and protecting their parents, during the horrible days of triumphant anti-Semitism in France proper and even more so in Algeria, under Vichy, under Giraud, and even under De Gaulle.

We see that even De Gaulle, who staked his entire career on opposing Hitlerism, is thrown under the bus. I am not aware of Muslims having been particularly friendly to the Jews during this period (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem notoriously supported Hitler and Bosnian Muslims joined the Waffen-SS). It is true that Vichy’s anti-Semitic legislation was not immediately abrogated upon Giraud and De Gaulle’s taking charge during the Libération.

Attali furthermore argues that if Jews support indigenous Europeans in opposing Afro-Muslim immigration, this “[w]ould be to fall in the trap of those who would like to import in Europe the tragic conflict in the Middle East.” Of course, the simplest and best way to avoid ethno-religious conflict between Arabs/Muslims and other groups in France would simply be to oppose immigration and maintain France’s ethnic homogeneity. The basic insight that ethno-cultural identity is a factor for solidarity and social peace was of course understood by ancient Greek thinkers like Aristotle and by the American Founding Fathers, but this is now considered taboo in the West.

The article is full of the usual tropes: “First of all, this discourse [on immigration] is false. There is no invasion of France by Islam or by Africa.” He points out that annual non-European immigration amounts to “only” 0.5% of the total population. Of course if such a rate, which has been very roughly in place since the 1960s, were continued for a century, that alone would be enough to reduce the indigenous French population to a minority; not to mention the fact that the first generation of Afro-Muslim immigrants tend to have a much higher birthrate than the natives. Currently, non-whites are estimated to make up a third of births in France and the country will probably become majority non-white in the 2060s.

Thus, by Attali’s own admission, demographic replacement of native French population is indeed occurring, something without precedent in our history. Even the so-called Barbarian Invasions by the Germanic Tribes during the fall of the Roman Empire do not even come close in scale.

Attali argues that “99% of them [Afro-Muslims] integrate themselves perfectly into the nation.” This is obviously hyperbole. Without getting bogged down into details, many Afro-Muslims (particularly Maghrebis) can be perfectly functional members of society and the immigrants are, to a great extent, assimilating to a rather shallow modern “French culture,” namely the French language, pop culture (rap . . .), and the realities of a social-democratic consumer society. However, there are also significant ethnic ghettos in all major French cities and increasingly even in the villages.

While ethnic realities are to some extent masked by the lack of relevant statistics, the fact is that everyone can observe that stratification and fragmentation of French society along ethnic, racial, and religious lines. This is commented upon by mainstream sociologists and by the top politicians, if only in private. In the best case scenario, the new France black-blanc-beur (black-white-Arab France) so praised by Attali will have ethno-racial realities similar to those of Brazil or, in the worst case, Lebanon.

Attali’s shameless retconning of French history is not even worth rebutting:

Islam is not a threat to France; it is a component since the eighth century. It is through it, and through Jewish philosophers, that Greek thought arrived in France at the turn of the first millennium. And never has the world been better off than when Judaism, Christianity, and Islam worked together to make reason triumph over obscurantism.

For Attali: “France cannot be summed in an often unbearable past, not an often criticizable history. France cannot be accepted en bloc and venerated as such.” I have never heard Attali express similar criticism of Jewish history and Jewry, though he has written at length on the topic.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Anti-Semitism, France, Immigration, Jews, Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

“How dare you?”

Eight centuries ago, during the Middle Ages, some European children were seized by visions. Jesus Christ appeared to them, urging them to redeem their people by marching to the Holy Land and peacefully converting the Muslims to Christianity. Their preaching inspired tens of thousands of idealistic European youth, who undertook the arduous journey to the Levant. The great majority died on the way – whether of starvation or disease – and most of the remaining gave up and chose to return home. A few managed to reach the Mediterranean sea, perhaps hoping to walk across, as did Moses and Jesus, but in the event were sold into slavery, ending up miserably in Tunisia. Meanwhile back in Germany, angry parents whose children had died following these boy-preachers arranged for one of their fathers to be arrested and hanged. Thus ended that most idealistic adventure known as the Children’s Crusade.

Today, we are expected to follow the preaching of another child-wonder: Greta Thunberg, a sixteen-year-old Swedish girl who has become a global sensation among the media/UN/NGO establishment through her apocalyptic warnings about climate change. A sample of her pronouncements:

“I want you to feel the fear that I feel.”

“I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. Yet, I am one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying.”

“You are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.”

“We will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. Change is coming whether you like it or not.”

But who is Greta Thunberg? Is she a modern-day Joan of Arc, that teenage maiden who by her visions inspired the French to rally against the English invaders and found the French nation? Or is she Nongqawuse, the fifteen-year-old African prophetess who warned that a divine disaster could only be averted by slaughtering all of her tribe’s cattle? (Spoiler: her Xhosa tribesmen slaughtered cattle and slaughtered yet more cattle when the prophecy failed to materialize, resulting in the deaths of 400,000 bovine and 40,000 Africans.)

Two third-worlders and an affluent white woman react to being lectured to at by a class-skipping high-school teenage girl.
Two third-worlders and an affluent white woman react to being lectured to at by a class-skipping high-school teenage girl.

“Greta,” as people like to refer to her, is popular precisely because she polarizes. To the educational-media-UN-climate complex, finally we have a young person saying the truth (regurgitating their own messages, to be precise) to elected officials and business leaders. She is a child. She is a girl. She claims to be autistic (she certainly has weird mannerisms, though she must have learned a great deal from her parents, who appear to be far-left Swedish actors). She is standing up to bullies. And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the ‘left’ in our increasingly feminized and infantilized culture. The triumph of the Left is women screeching “think of the children!” while their menfolk slink into submission their tail between their legs. Rational and self-interested considerations naturally cannot be broached an atmosphere of emotional hysteria and moral blackmail.

All of Greta’s traits naturally annoy right-wingers. Politics, in particular democratic politics in which each faction seeks a dedicated base among the population, rewards polarization and fragmentation. A political tribe thrives and has unity not by what they agree on, but by the people they hate. Thus, the animosity Greta stokes among the mainstream right is precisely what indignantly keeps her supporters behind her.

The same of course can be said of Donald Trump. The one thing that makes me sympathize with the American president is the absolute shamelessness, unfairness, and mendacity of his many enemies in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. Couldn’t they go after Trump citing a legitimate issue? Lord knows there are many to choose from. But no, they must resort to endless lies, hypocrisies, and irrelevancies.

Greta and Trump are mirror images.

Of course, a “child” does not pop out with a fully-fledged political ideology of destroying the economic system and replacing it with some form of Transnational Green Communism (“equity,” “climate justice”). The fact is that children tend to simply regurgitate and radicalize whatever their authority figures tell them. This was the case in the Third Reich, where the youth were urged to overcome the class prejudices and conformist conservatism of their parents’ generation. This resulted in the infamous book-burnings of mostly Marxist, pornographic, and/or Jewish works (which was an initiative of the youth movement and not of the Nazi leadership). It was also the case in Fascist Italy and Mao Zedong’s communist China, the latter resulting in the disastrous Cultural Revolution.

The globalists and mainline environmentalists however are comforted by Greta because, after all, she is right. To those revolted by the emotionally manipulative use of a child to promote their political agenda, I say: All’s fair in love and war. And to those who dislike Greta’s brand of Transnational Green Communism, I say, like Water Sobchack concerning National Socialism: At least it’s an ethos.

As a matter of fact, I would say that Greta and her movement are possessed by a great deal of insight. The very idea of “striking” in order to skip high school attendance is brilliant. The popularity of this measure shows that the youth understand intuitively that sitting on their butts in a classroom is an utterly pointless waste of time. Sure, she may say that she “ought to be in school,” but really the whole strike against school attendance shows that the youth possess a great understanding: that their high school classes are an utterly pointless waste of their time (as Yes Minister! already pointed out decades ago).

Greta herself has personally benefited from skipping school, becoming a global star.

“Education, education, education,” is supposed to be our social panacea – leading to valuable professional “skills” (and therefore, economic growth and universal upward social mobility), while the truth is that these institutions are glorified daycare centers dispensing, at best, what can only be described as a kind of intellectual circus training. This regimented submission to authority, without end, is supposed to foster “empowered individuals” and “critical thinking.” The youth are tired of this and are therefore no longer showing up. The youth also sense the worthlessness of their lives, of this frenetic daily activity, producing so much waste for nothing worthwhile.

The kind of lecturing dispensed by Greta is obviously targeted at Western whites. No other demographic is sensitive to this kind of emotional blackmail and moralistic appeal.

 
He Could Pay Over €170,000 in Fines and Compensation
🔊 Listen RSS

The French civic-nationalist and anti-Zionist intellectual Alain Soral was sentenced to two years prison last week for sharing a rap video entitled “Gilets-Jaunes.”

The music clip (watch it while you still can) is typical of the Yellow Vests in denouncing French media, political, and financial elites, and making a plea for direct democracy, notably the famous proposed Citizen’s Initiative Referendum (Référendum d’Initiative Populaire or RIC).

The video also argues for the abrogation of the banking law of June 1973 – known as the “Pompidou-Rothschild Act,” after the then French president and the investment bank he used to work for. Critics claim the law has reduced France to debt slavery by making her dependent on financial markets for loans rather than self-finance through the national bank.

The video also features a pyre where various figures are symbolically burned: President Emmanuel Macron, various media (TF1, Le Monde, BFMTV . . .), the Rothschild bank, and, most problematically, powerful elite Jews (Jacques Attali, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Patrick Drahi).

The rapper points out: “And if we talk about the media and Macron, we’ll have to talk about Drahi. His bank account is in Israel and he pays no taxes here.” Drahi, a Franco-Israeli-Portuguese oligarch born in Morocco and residing in Switzerland, has bought up large swathes of French media in recent years.

In case the denunciation of Jewish-globalist and Jewish-Zionist power elites in the financial and media spheres were not explicit enough, the video also states: “We’re not talking about a so-called oppressed minority. We’re talking about the deliberately neglected majority [of workers, farmers, and pensioners] . . . France has decided to free itself from the Rothschilds.”

President Macron speaking before the powerless lobby you will be destroyed for criticizing.
President Macron speaking before the powerless lobby you will be destroyed for criticizing.

As the words “so-called oppressed minority” are uttered, images are flashed of the annual dinner of the CRIF – the influential official French Jewish lobbying organization – an event where the crème de la crème of the French politico-media elite regularly come to genuflect.

The rapper lauds the “prolo patriotes” (patriotic workers) who are rising up and denounces the oligarchic “parasites” who are enriching themselves all the while demanding austerity from the masses. The song concludes: “The French are fed up with these parasites. The French are fed up, it ain’t racist. National uprising!” The author is a certain “Rude Goy.”

There are various pro-Arab and pro-Muslim symbols included. Drahi is mentioned while a pro-Palestine hoody is flashed. The rapper wears a fashionable keffiyeh. As a mainstream journalist anxiously warns that the French State is bordering on collapse in the face of the protesters, the rapper answers: “Inshallah” (God willing in Arabic).

The video then artfully interweaves mainstream yellow-vest concerns about French democracy’s subversion by high finance with a denunciation of the specific role of Jewish elite power in this process. There is no blanket anti-Semitism or attack on day-to-day Jews.

The images of Jewish oligarchs and intellectuals being symbolically burned – along side mainstream media and the French president, mind you – angered a certain number of Jewish activist and (mostly Jewish-run) “anti-racist” organizations. I imagine these images felt downright Auschwitzian to them.

The groups sued Soral for “granting enormous visibility to this video by publishing it on his website” and thus promoting the anti-Semitic theory of a “Jewish conspiracy.”

Note Soral did not create the video: he merely shared it on his website, as he did innumerable other yellow-vest videos. One wonders if linking to the video is also considered a criminal act. Probably not, or only if your name is Alain Soral. This tells you something about the legal arbitrariness of these censorious laws and liberticidal ethnic lobbies.

Soral will also be requires to pay a 45,000-euro fine and tens of thousands of euros in “compensation” to the various aggrieved Jewish and/or professional “anti-racist” activist organizations. That’s called good business.

Coincidentally, or not, the bank BNP Paribas simply closed the bank account of Égalité & Réconciliation, Alain Soral’s influential counter-cultural organization.

Presumably the court decision will be appealed. However, the noose is apparently tightening around Soral. Earlier this year, he was also sentenced to a year in jail for sharing a cartoon highlighting various holocaust hoaxes (lampshades, soap, etc).

Soral has always said that true intellectuals must inevitably come up against the authorities sooner or later. An intellectual who really stands up for his ideals “passera par la case prison” (will go to jail, do not pass-go), as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Charles Maurras did.

Whatever happens, more people than ever are being sensitized to a certain certain ethnic group’s considerable power and privilege by the very fact of jailing a French intellectual on their lobbying organizations’ behalf.

 
“I am sad that I was not able to make Europeans love Europe”
🔊 Listen RSS

The retiring president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has been unusually outspoken during his last weeks in office. He recently had a long interview with the Belgian newspaper L’Écho in which he discussed his actions and frustrations as head of the European Union. Juncker has since 2014 presided over the Greek crisis, the migrant crisis, and, most ominously for Eurocrats, the British vote to withdraw from the EU. His comments are highly revealing about the mentality of the EU’s top officials.

Juncker opens with comments on how little Belgium is failing to consolidate as a nation. Belgium is made up of Dutch-speaking Flanders in the north and French-speaking Wallonia in the south. In the east, there is even a small German-speaking community. Meanwhile the capital Brussels – initially Dutch-speaking, then French-speaking – has essentially been handed over to Afro-Islamic migrants, European expats, and Gypsies. The indigenous Belgians form a small minority there.

To Juncker:

I observe, in the 30 years that I have frequented the Belgian Riviera, that tolerance has fallen. Thirty years ago, when I went to the baker’s or the butcher’s, I could order in French; today they no longer accept this. So I speak German – they accept Germans more than they do Francophones. Belgium could be a model of successful cohabitation. Unfortunately it isn’t, something which saddens me. . . .

Belgium is a State, but the communities consider themselves to be nations – I mean Flanders. Wallonia itself does not have a national conception [of itself], whereas Flanders believes itself to be and acts like a nation. And it’s a miracle to see these two entities, so different in the end, live together without live together.

In short, Juncker is essentially agreeing with Nigel Farage’s controversial statement on Belgium made during his legendary rant some years ago against then-EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy: “You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of nation-states – perhaps that’s because you come from Belgium, which of course is pretty much a non-country.” Juncker and Farage have merely pointed out the obvious. Still, the British newspaper The Independent could write at the time with cosmopolitan faux erudition: “There is an old right-wing prejudice in Britain that Belgium does not exist.”

“Who are you? I’d never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever heard of you.”
“Who are you? I’d never heard of you. Nobody in Europe had ever heard of you.”

In multinational states, democratic politics typical encourages centrifugal and secessionist tendencies. Speakers of different languages tend to not socialize with each other, tend to consume their own media catering to their own interests and tastes, and develop a linguistically-delineated common consciousness (one of the characteristics of nationhood). Media and democratic politicians then naturally appeal to these communities and tend to tear them apart. This can be peaceful affair, as in Belgium or Canada, or an extremely bloody one, as when democracy shattered communist Yugoslavia.

In Belgium, Wallonia is a Socialist-voting economic failure, while economically-dynamic Flanders votes overwhelmingly for (pseudo-)nationalist parties. The Walloons want more money from the central government, while the Flemish are tired of forking out money to the Walloons. Neither enjoy being forced to learn the other community’s language, namely French or Dutch, but this is a necessity for many jobs. The Francophones are absurdly intolerant of Flemish’s electoral choices, essentially refusing to give a voice to and demonizing the two biggest Flemish parties.

Juncker insists Belgium’s failure to consolidate as a nation, despite the existence of a Belgian State for almost two centuries, is a “a purely Belgian issue” with no parallel in the EU. But in fact, we see the exact same division between nations in the EU and the same frustrations to the extent these nations are straightjacketed into the same policies (think Germany and Greece in the eurozone). I am perpetually puzzled at the fact that those have who failed to make 10 million Belgians consolidate into a genuine community insist we should perpetually submit to their nagging attempts to do so with 500 million Europeans.

Juncker discusses the migrant crisis, which really marred and defined the latter part of his term, at length. He asks: “First of all: must we protect ourselves against the unfortunate? Must we protect ourselves against those who flee war, torture, rape, and a lack of perspectives for their children?” Well, it is known that German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to let in willy-nilly some 1 million migrants in 2015 predictably led to a massive surge in migrant crime.

Grisly knife- and car-attacks by inbred Islamic terrorists have since become a normal and regular occurrence in Germany. The former German head of intelligence admits that, given there knowing nothing certain about these migrants’ identities, the invasion was “a massive security risk.” In 2016, non-Germans made up 30.5% of all crime suspects in Germany, despite making up only 10% of the population. Murder and manslaughter increased by 14.3% that year, while rape and sexual assault rose by 12.7%. Again that same year, non-German criminals are recorded to have raped or sexually assaulted over 2,500 women in Germany: that is 7 women every single day.

An ordinary Christmas market in the “New Germany.”
An ordinary Christmas market in the “New Germany.”

It is not too much to say that by their irresponsible refusal to police Europe’s borders and enforce Europeans’ immigration laws and preferences, politicians like Juncker and Merkel have the blood of many innocent Europeans on their hands.

Juncker adds, puzzlingly: “I believe that Europe’s honor has always [sic] been to welcome on its soil those who are persecuted for religious, racial, national, and other reasons.” This comment does not make much sense historically.

Juncker doubles down on the EU’s adoption by a super-majority of states, at the Commission’s suggestion, of a forced migrant redistribution program. Predictably then: “others [namely Hungary, Poland, Slovakia . . .], who were not part of this qualified majority, refused to apply it.” Who could have predicted such measures would prove unpopular and unenforceable, and backfire?

He then says on “this populism and this far-right tendency which would have us say no to the arrival of those different from ourselves”:

I remain disconcerted by the fact that those in Europe, who claim to be Christian-Democrats, are incapable of showing a minimum of solidarity. The Christian spirit which they claim should very naturally lead them to not reject those who are different from ourselves. I find that . . . a-historical, a-biblical.

And I find that too stupid and historically-illiterate to further comment on.

 
Meanwhile, Open Borders Lawbreaker Walks Scott-Free
🔊 Listen RSS

The pro-European and anti-immigration movement Generation Identity (GI) has achieved a worldwide notoriety through its often spectacular actions, whether by occupying EU and government buildings or manning their own ship to halt migrant smugglers in the Mediterranean. Such actions are not without risk however.

In spring 2018, French GI activists – frustrated by the French government’s inability or unwillingness to get the migrant crisis under control and prevent illegal immigration into their country – decided to take matters into their own hands with symbolic but effective nonviolent action.

GI blocked the Col de l’Échelle, an Alpine mountain pass near the border with Italy, through which migrant crossings were known to occur. The activists deployed banners, fences, and even helicopters to prevent the migrants from entering France.

One activist explained that the goal was “to show the public authorities that, with a bit of will and fairly modest means, it is possible to regain control of our borders and prevent the illegals from entering our country.” The action succeeded in receiving substantial media coverage and putting pressure on the French government to fulfill its responsibilities.

GI anti-illegal immigration operation at the Col de l’Échelle
GI anti-illegal immigration operation at the Col de l’Échelle

GI argues that Europe needs to embrace the “No Way” Australian model against illegal immigration: that anyone who tries to illegally go to Australia by sea will simply be sent back. As General Angus Campbell, Commander of Operation Sovereign Borders, explained: “There are no exceptions . . . If you come to Australia illegally by boat, there is no way you will make Australia home.”

Such a policy, GI argues, is the only way in which illegal migrant crossings, and the tragic deaths associated with them, can be eliminated. By contrast, the European Union adopted an insane policy whereby migrant boats “rescued” just off the shores of Libya and Tunisia would be ferried directly to European ports. That sure made the people smugglers’ job easier.

The nominal “French State” however is not kind to those Frenchmen who still have the strength and will to defend their homeland. Last week, three GI leaders – Damien Lefèvre, Clément Galant, and Romain Espino – were sentenced to six months in prison and 2000 euros in fines for this action. The three men will also be deprived of civic rights for five years. The GI organization itself will have to pay 75,000 euros.

According to the judges, GI usurped the public authorities’ responsibilities and “exercised an activity in conditions such as to create a confusion in public opinion concerning a governmental function.” Thus, the Frenchmen will be punished for symbolically and nonviolently doing what the French government was failing to do.

Galant was unfazed, declaring in a video in front of dozens of GI supporters: “This sentencing in no way affects our determination. We are ready to face all the risks, to take all the blows, to save our people and our civilization.” Numerous nationalist and even conservative politicians have condemned the court’s decision.

For Michel Rousseau, spokesman for the open-borders activist organization Tous Migrant (“[We Are] All Migrants”), the punishment was not sufficiently severe however. He stated to the press: “The prosecutor did not prosecute the suspects on other grounds too: What about endangering others? What about incitement of racial hated?” Lord knows how symbolically enforcing one’s immigration laws is “incitement of racial hatred.”

The decision is all the more shocking in that the French State has punished actual, practical – not symbolic – illegal immigration enablers with less severity. Cédric Herrou is an olive farmer who has reached superstardom among the globalist left for helping 150 immigrants illegally cross the Italian border.

The glamorous life of an open-borders lawbreaker: Cédric Herrou and a trophy migrant on the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival. (You may enjoy other tragicomic pictures by searching for “Cédric Herrou” on Google Images.)
The glamorous life of an open-borders lawbreaker: Cédric Herrou and a trophy migrant on the red carpet at the Cannes Film Festival. (You may enjoy other tragicomic pictures by searching for “Cédric Herrou” on Google Images.)

Herrou was prosecuted and in August 2018 received a mere suspended sentence of four months in prison, meaning he will serve no jail time unless found guilty of further illegal activity. Despite helping more people illegally enter the country since then, he continues to walk free. Instead, Herrou has enjoyed soft-ball interviews on the country’s State-owned TV channels and was invited to the prestigious Cannes Film Festival.

Support for illegal immigration runs deep in certain sectors of French society and the political-cultural elite. Politicians who merely enforce the law are heavily demonized as the television stations broadcast tearful images of illegals sent home. Lawbreakers like Herrou and Carola Rackete – a German sea captain who smuggled illegals into Italy – may face minor legal repercussions, but receive ample financial support and are hailed as heroes by certain sectors of society.

The GI and Herrou cases raise questions about the impartiality the judges and their faithfulness to the law. Jean-Yves Le Gallou, an identitarian think-tanker whom I have previously interviewed for Unz, observed that the court’s presiding judge, Isabelle Defarge, has publicly expressed pro-immigration positions.

For Le Gallou, the French justice’s system extensive support for censorship, soft line against illegal immigrant activists, and hard line against the Gilets-Jaunes are deeply problematic. “More and more, the French feel that ‘justice’ is no longer rendered in their name, but for the sake of ideological and political prejudices, and foreign lobbies,” he says.

Le Gallou explains that there is a structural left-wing and globalist bias in the judiciary: “a pro-immigration judicial or administrative magistrate can participate in and campaign within a pro-immigration organization and continue to act as a judge, even covering these topics. A less politically-correct magistrate must be absolutely quiet and very prudent in his sentences.”

As a result: “Today, in France, one must use the expression ‘justice system’ only with scare quotes.” Is there a solution? Le Gallou suggests an épuration – a purge – of the judiciary may be necessary. The Republic resorted to such actions in 1883 and 1945, firing hundreds of normally independent judges, in order to consolidate ‘republican values.’

Perhaps a patriotic government will have to resort to such actions in the future. In the meantime, it will only be because of the heroic efforts of such brave Frenchmen as Damien Lefèvre, Clément Galant, and Romain Espino, that the French nation and her laws will endure.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: France, Immigration, Political Correctness