Part 3 of 8

Race has been called the American Problem. It is, and yet it isn't. That is, race certainly is a problem in America, her biggest problem, but there is nothing uniquely American about either race as a problem or the forms the problem takes in the U.S. In fact, as cross-cultural explorer nonpareil Thomas Sowell has discovered in his scholarly peregrinations, racial strife is a problem in almost every corner of the globe. What is truly remarkable is the similarity of the racial problems faced by white majority countries from Australia to France to Canada to the United States. I would go so far as to say that, because of the world media culture, they are merely different faces of the same problem. I have, so far, shown the extraordinary decline in civilization that is omnipresent where blacks or browns dominate, whether in Zimbabwe, South Africa or East St. Louis or Washington, D.C. What is even scarier and more portentous is the way the same argument chain, the same mode and methods of argumentation are used in every formerly all white country across the globe to persuade the white majority that loss of racial pride and homogeneity is both a good and inevitable thing. Many of you aren't going to like what I say about the connection between Jews and the world media and the white world's racial problems, and for that specific reason I want you to pay very close attention to the examples I am going to draw on shortly. For if we see the same -- exactly same -- forces and alignments at work in countries as diametrically diverse as France and Australia, it certainly hints at coordination among our multiculturalist opponents, doesn't it? I ask only that you think, and I demand that you not take what I say on faith. This section will consist of a world tour, with cultural temperature taking in the white-majority areas. The point is to show that the same forces that confront us in America with regard to race are present, down to the jot and tittle, everywhere else. We can easily see our America in the recent experiences of Australia, France, Germany, Britain, the European Union and Canada. We can see that the problems we face are being faced elsewhere, and we can learn from the way our foreign equivalents are addressing their opponents. In France and Australia -- two countries with far smaller (by percentage) non-white populations than the U.S. -- people just like you and me have started political parties explicity to protect white or nativist interest. We need the same in America.

We'll begin our little world tour in Australia, a huge land, mostly barren, with a California's worth of population on a thin Eastern coastal strip. Today the white descendants of the prisoners that made up the original White population are having trouble with the aboriginal Indians. Not being Americans, the powers that be haven't hit on the solution of giving the Abs race-exclusive rights to build gambling casinos. Here's a summary of the state of White-Ab relations in mid 1996:

``We have no understanding of race relations in this country,'' Charles Perkins told the Foreign Correspondents Association Tuesday.

``If things carry on as they are I think we are heading for major demonstrations and disruptions (during the Olympics),'' he added.

Perkins, former head of the Aboriginal Affairs Department [said:] ``In about 200 years the white people have whittled us down to where we are today: a scattered, demoralized, cringing part of Australian society, kept in our place all the time by frequent attacks from the media, politicians and vested interests .. ,'' Perkins said.

[He added that] Australians were quick to champion the human rights of people in Southeast Asia and South Africa, but ignored the rights of their own indigenous people. ``Right on their own doorstep they have their own apartheid,'' said Perkins, citing a litany of health statistics which condemn aboriginal men and women to a life expectancy 10 to 15 years less than other Australians.

... Perkins said a lack of aboriginal studies in schools, coupled with cliched media images of Aborigines as incompetent, lazy drunks had left Australians ignorant of the indigenous people and eroded aboriginal pride. [5/7/96, Reuters (Michael Perry)]

Note 1) the Jesse-Jacksonian threat to racially harass the Olympics; 2) the writer's animism: statistics condemn (not Aboriginal qualities or choices). Did whites also force aboriginies to eat grubs and prevent them from developing written language? What lifespans did Aborigines have pre-white man? I'll bet you A$20,000 they were shorter. Stepping back a pace, could anything sound more American than this article? This article went out under the Reuters label. Reuters is one of the two chief international news services, the British-based counterpart to America's Associated Press. There's not a dime's worth of difference in the editorial tone of the two services: both are predictably liberal in the American sense. Take some time and examine your local paper some day and count up the articles that weren't written by AP (and Reuters): probably fewer than half. Reuters, and to a greater extent the AP, is a huge force in shaping the American newspaper reader's view of the world outside America, which is to say the vast majority of the globe. That is something you always want to keep in mind. As you will see from the Australian examples alone, AP reports are predictably skewed to the left, so blatantly in fact that it is very difficult to imagine anyone being hired at the service who didn't camouflage his non-P.C. views.

Although Americans who haven't been there are tempted to think of it as resembling the Wild West, the land down under is more of a socialist P.C. haven than most places. It has a somewhat slower business style than the U.S., and the regnant mentality is different. Where the American spirit is 'I can do whatever I want,' and 'I'm as good as anyone else,' the Australian spirit is more of a pull-down: "You're no better than I am," or "Chop down the tall poppy," as it has been variously put, perhaps a legacy of groveling penal colonists. Still there seems to be a bit less fear on the part of the Aussies to speak openly on racial issues than among the Americans. Here's a bit from the British Nationalist Party's (BNP) website:

Bill Hayden, the recently retired Australian Governor-General, has accused Asian countries of racism. In a radio interview, he described the Chinese as 'racial supremacists' and the Japanese as 'racial exclusivists'. He added that Malaysia discriminated against Chinese and Indians, who were 'dirt poor'.Mr. Hayden should learn the golden rule of political correctness - all white people are evil racists, while everyone else is a victim of evil white racists. (4/7/96)

It is unlikely an American pol of similar stature would so opine, even in retirement.

Australia's racial problems are twofold: the aboriginal remnant, the problems of which track with the American Indians (and Canadian Indians, for that matter); and the incorporation of Asian racial minorities. Australia's immigration policies have followed a similar path to America's: each country liberalized formerly white-favoring policies between 1965 and 1975, with a large resulting influx of minorities. Today, white Australians, just like white Americans, are urged by the media and political elite to give in to the Multicultural World of tomorrow. It is, as here, presented as not only good and necessary but inevitable. Yes, admitting millions of Asian foreigners and changing the very nature of the nation is pitched as inevitably necessary to secure trade relations with Asian giants like China and Japan who would otherwise reject trade with them as "racist." You get all the same garbage about how "looking like the world" is going to improve profits and make the Aussies world beaters. Only people interested in logic and evidence would point out that Japan, for example, is at once, arguably, the most xenophobic, most homogenous and most successful foreign trader in the world. By every measure the Muliculturalists and the media hold dear Japan comes out on the bottom. Why is it, then, that the country is such a conspicuous success? Why are its people so happy and healthy -- literally growing bigger, on average, with each passing year -- and its products so various and wonderful and cheap? How is that possible, all this success, on a handful of nasty rocks in the middle of an angry ocean? Is Japanese culture, perhaps, something the Japanese are wise to protect? Might not Australian culture be likewise?

Obviously, the answer is yes. But trying to get that yes into print is no easier in Australia than in the U.S. Here is how one white male non-leftist was treated -- (my nomination for the funniest and most telling story of the year!). It is a story that will speak volumes to historians of our times:

Australia's literary establishment was embarrassed and angered by the March 13 revelation that "My Own Sweet Time" -- believed to be the autobiography of Wanda Koolmatrie -- was written by Leon Carmen, a 47-year-old white man living in Sydney. When released in 1995, the book won critical acclaim and a national literary award as the best first work by an Australian female writer. "As we now discover, it is a pack of lies because it is actually a fiction and not autobiographical, which I think immediately devalues its literary merit," said Lydia Miller, director of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board. ... The disclosure was the second such hoax to rock the arts community in a week. Aborigines and some museum curators and gallery owners were angered to learn that acclaimed Aboriginal painter Eddie Burrup is really an 82-year-old woman of Irish descent, Elizabeth Durack. Mr. Carmen...said he wrote under the pen break into the Australian literary scene. Expressing a claim made by some other white, male writers, Mr. Carmen said politically correct publishers and awards judges discriminate against white men in favor of female, Aboriginal and immigrant-descended writers. "I created a character and breathed life into her. I can't get published, but Wanda can..." Mr. Carmen's book hoodwinked the critics, who hailed it as a masterpiece of a comic Aboriginal autobiography. "This is the lively, gutsy story of an urban Aboriginal girl making it in the tough city counterculture of the mid-'60s," author and reviewer Dorothy Hewitt said. "This heart-warming comic odyssey cries out for a sequel. It could be the start of a new genre." [3/30/97, AP (Peter James Spielmann)]

Here you have all the world in a single story: Leftist hypocrisy and oppression and the brilliance and courage that oppression creates among the tough few; that plus a perfect example of leftists devaluing an esteemed work solely because the author is a white male. Note too the writer Spielmann's "some" other white, male writers -- no need for the 'some,' it does nothing that 'other' doesn't do; he put it there to imply they are only a few, and probably a small, unhappy, weird minority. Using "other" alone would imply that a substantial, respectable and possibly growing number of white male writers agrees with Carmen, and that his view is at the very least not infrequently voiced. You may find it hard to squeeze so much meaning out of a single word, but this is what Spielmann intended by his formulation. The Carmen incident -- plus the example of the painter Durack -- shows just how politicized the world of arts and letters has become. The leftists select which books are to be published, write the reviews, give out the awards and teach the new generation of students. Thus are ideas, attitudes and opinions propagated or fumigated. The leftists stand outside the door of "respectability" and determine, like Dr. Mengele at Auschwitz, which ideas will live -- those which advance Multiculturalism and liberal Jewish interests -- and those which will be gassed -- white cultural and racial nationalism. It's a loaded simile, but this is a deadly serious business they are about: debasing, denaturing and ultimately destroying white culture. There's damned little reason and no humor left when the leftists are done their work. Their humorlessness and intolerance take other, more threatening forms:

An anti-racism protest in Australia turned ugly...when demonstrators tried to break through a police barricade and storm a bookstore run by a right-wing political group.

Police on horseback were called in to keep the 500 protesters at bay... Protesters threw glass bottles, sticks and eggs at the store run by National Action, accusing the group of being a neo-Nazi organization trying to foment racial hatred in an economically depressed area of the city.... The protest included representatives of Jewish, trade union and homosexual groups... They marched on the store after rallying in a nearby park to object to the what they called racist, anti-migration and homophobic messages promoted by National Action. ... National Action spokesman Michael Brander defended the group against the charges of racism but said his organization did not share the protesters' views.

``We don't want an Asian future, no,'' he told reporters.... ``We certainly don't want a homosexual future, as they want, and we don't want an internationalist future, and we don't want the government to continue to use left-wing scum to try and silence freedom of speech.'' The rowdy demonstration comes as opinion polls show an anti-immigration backlash led by maverick politician Pauline Hanson is widely supported. Hanson wants a freeze on immigration, arguing Australia risks being ``swamped'' by Asians.
[3/15/97, Reuters]

Have you noticed that no one hates like the anti-haters? That few are as intolerant and hate-filled and violent as the anti-racists? Jews, queers and hoffas can have interests and fight to advance them, but Jews, queers and hoffas will use violence to prevent whites from organizing to protect theirs. In any society outside Israel, israelites, sodomites and labourites are no more than a small percentage of the population. How comes it to be, then, that they are so comfortable attacking others? The answer is that the media has created a context, tacitly accepted by a demurring majority, that Jewish/queer/liberal is normal and to be normal is abnormal. The media is a Jewish pressure group. (If I were Jewish, I would say that the media is a Jewish hate group.) Where are the AP wirephotos of Jewish Aussie faces, twisted with hate, attempting to beat down a working class woman's free speech? Where are the halftones of pierced anorexic homosexuals puling their hatred of normalcy? Who defines Pauline Hanson as the hateful head of a racist hate group? The answer, unfortunately, is that Australian Rules Media, just like American Rules Media, is basically a Jewish industry, and liberal Jews are portrayed as tolerant, good people, while anyone they oppose is deemed an evil hater. Pauline Hanson is worth lingering on a bit, before we turn to other areas of the globe. Hanson, called 'the fish-and-chips bitch from Ipswich' by the peace-and-love-spreading liberals, founded the political party One Nation mentioned above. It is not clear to me whether the party is openly racist, although it is certainly opposed to Asian immigrations for cultural reasons. One Nation, begun very recently, appears to be gaining strength even as its political opponents begin the push to outlaw it. It is a party worth watching. We will see in France, with Le Pen's National Front, one possible path for Hanson's One Nation.

If you believe in free speech and free politics, you aren't a member of the French Left, a member of the European Left, or a member of the inchoate-but-coming-on-strong European superstate. Do I lie? Do I falsify? Do I even merely exaggerate? Is it possible that the continent that gave birth to the idea of giving the other fellow his 'props' when it comes to speaking his mind is now backtracking? Consider these examples -- (as with all my examples, taken from the recent press):

A Roman Catholic priest who champions France's poor and homeless came under fire Saturday for backing the author of a book that claims Hitler's killings of the Jews did not rank as genocide.

Abbe Pierre, 83 and regularly shown by opinion polls to be the most popular person in France, defended author Roger Garaudy as an ``honest man'' despite a storm about his new book ``The Founding Myths of Israeli Policy.'

' The anti-racist group MRAP expressed dismay at Abbe Pierre's support for Garaudy, a long-time friend, and said it would seek to take Garaudy to court on charges of illegal revisionism about Nazi crimes in World War II. ... ``The worst can render to a cause is to give it exaggerated arguments,''
[Pierre] said. [(4/96), Reuters]

A magistrate launched a probe on Thursday into a French historian on allegations he illegally trivialised the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews in World War Two. Author Roger Garaudy said he had ``done nothing wrong'' in his work ``The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics.'' ... Garaudy has argued that Hitler's killing of Jews amounted to ``pogroms'' or ``massacres'' but that it was an exaggeration to call the Nazi crimes ``genocide'' or a ``Holocaust.'' He denies the commonly-accepted belief that six million Jews were killed.

His lawyer, Jacques Verges, said that he had been placed under investigation by magistrate Herve Stephan, a process that can lead to a trial but is short of a formal indictment. Casting doubt on crimes against humanity is illegal in France.

Pierre Guillaume, head of the Vielle Taupe publishers which printed Garaudy's work in December, has also been targeted by groups representing deportees and an anti-racist organisation.
[4/25/96, Reuters]

When the government and the private 'anti-racism' folks get together, no one's freedom is safe. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that freedom of the press, in France and virtually all Europe, is quite narrowly circumscribed: racist or nationalist ideas -- or alternative views about anything the left shoves under the Holocaust (patent pending) umbrella are quite simply illegal. That's right: illegal. It is not legal to cast doubt on crimes against humanity, whatever that means. It is not legal to "trivialize" the "Holocaust," whatever either of those means. In practice, again, in France as in Germany, Sweden, Britain, Denmark, etc., as we shall see, the practical meaning of these speech controls is that you can be sued for saying anything leftists don't like. In this case, we see the left eating one of its own: Garaudy was the former 'official philosopher' for the French communist party. But he's far from the only victim of hate-filled leftists: the country's most famous movie star, Brigitte Bardot, has been scored and sued by the hate-filled left for having the temerity to say that filling the country with Muslims and black Africans is bad policy. Do I joke? Read on:

A French anti-racist group threatened Friday to take Brigitte Bardot to court after the former sex icon said she might be forced to emigrate because France had too many Muslim immigrants. Bardot, a film star turned campaigner for animals' rights, wrote in unusually virulent terms in a column in the conservative newspaper Le Figaro in pursuit of her long campaign against the Muslim ritual slaughter of sheep. Labelling herself ``a Frenchwoman of old stock,'' the star pointed to the battles of her grandfather and father against German invaders in two world wars, and to her own rejection of lucrative Hollywood offers during her ``cinematic glory.'' ``And now my country, France, my homeland, my land, is with the blessing of successive governments again invaded by a foreign, especially Muslim, over-population to which we pay allegiance,'' she wrote. ``We have to submit against our will to this Muslim overflow. From year to year, we see mosques flourish across France, while our churchbells fall silent because of a lack of priests,'' added Bardot, who is married to a supporter of the extreme-right National Front which campaigns on an anti-immigrant platform. ``Could I be forced in the near future to flee my country which has turned into a bloody and violent country, to turn expatriate, to try and find elsewhere, by myself becoming an emigrant, the respect and esteem which we are alas refused daily?.'' The Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples (MRAP) called her statement ``genuine incitement to racial hatred,'' an offence under French law. ``We have a right to wonder if this woman animal defender could be ill, not with the 'mad cow' disease, but with the lethal disease that is called racism,'' it said. It said it was considering taking her to court. [(1996) Reuters]

Some observations: When society is as feminized as it is today, it is an odd paradox that manly courage tends to come out of women.... Why does France exist if it's not better than the alternative? Pro-white, pro-French views are "racism," and racism is a "disease..." She's not just your opponent; she doesn't just disagree with you -- she is mentally ill, she has a disease. The same tactic a Podhoretz-scared Bill Buckley used in firing Joe Sobran, (ostensibly for anti-Semitism): the medicalization of political disagreement. What debate coach taught young Bill and the "anti-racist" groups to respond to "You are wrong" with "You are mentally ill"? If "racism" is a disease, what do you suppose is the cure? Take a couple lagers and call me in the morning?

Again, in France as in Australia, note that the all-important power to define belongs to the media. The Jewish-dominated media defines who and what is normal, and who and what is diseased and abnormal; defines who are the haters and who are the unjust victims of persecution. And again I repeat that in every country, mirabile dictu, the mad, evil, diseased haters are the people who want to keep the nice old people and the nice old ways, and the tolerant, change-embracing good people are the leftist internationalists, the people who don't believe in racial or political borders or any other border except the border between evil nationalist haters and themselves, the elect, the chosen. Still another example:

A leader of the extreme-right National Front party Sunday denied telling a U.S. newspaper that immigrants ``pollute'' French identity -- a remark that outraged anti-racism groups.

Bruno Megret, deputy to Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, said his remarks had been mistranslated.

The New York Times quoted him on Feb. 12 as saying the party wanted to send Arabs, Africans and Asians home ``because they pollute our national identity and take our jobs." ... Megret's wife Catherine became the fourth National Front mayor last month by winning municipal elections in the southern town of Vitrolles.

Last week, the French League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) said it was taking legal action against Megret for racial defamation over his comments in the
New York Times, also printed in the International Herald Tribune. [3/23/97, Reuters]

Again we see that where the traditional liberal remedy for speech it dislikes is more speech, the new leftist remedy is legal suppression. Leftists since Marx have had a weak spot for state power, and now that they've got control of bureaucracies and courthouses from Manitoba to Manchester to Marseilles to Munich, they have trouble remembering why their opponents have any right at all to speak or vote against the glorious multicultural future. The left doesn't see why any Frenchman should be free to observe that France might not be improved by the addition of millions more Muslims, blocking streets with their butt-up prayers, and teeming housing blocks of black Africans sowing wild oats, drugs and other disorder. Do you realize that the last sentence would probably subject me to legal action, were it printed in France?; that it is illegal to publicly speak or write against open borders in the old country?

One sure thing about the international left: it's about ends, not means. The left recognizes no morality but the morality of the future. Anything that advances the glorious dawn is legit: Thus Hillary and Ira Magaziner break every law in the book in their secretive attempts to nationalize one-seventh of the American economy; only years later do they face a few mild taps on the wrist for their illegal prosecution of a war they very nearly won. This, again, is direct from Marx, who spoke of iron laws and historical inevitabilities but left hints that, although history proceeds inevitably, it could be helped along by the clever few. The international left, the multicultural left could almost be defined as the side that pursues bad ends by any means. The really cool thing about being a leftist, though, is that you can always flip back to traditional morals when your opponents copy your means to try to keep up with you. And the heartlanders, the losers who vote Republican, will always go along with you, being decent folk who can't conceive how indecent hard-core politics really is, that it is the sport without rules.

Integral to leftist strategy to neutralize the right is to keep alive the spectre of naziism. And all right-wingers except the Kemp-style delusionaries (who've conceded the essential part, that the Multicultural world of tomorrow is good and necessary and inevitable) are believed to be potential nazis, at heart. This is largely because the media, the group that defines what happens to us for us, is Jewish -- and to Jews, to put it crudely and truly, there is, in the end, only one definition of anti-Semite: non-Jew. This belief comes straight from God and, after all, who are we to doubt him? Thus, the Jewish media is forever printing stories promoting the Holocaust (tm) and turning every borderline-plausible event into a portent of resurgent Hitlerism. Have you ever noticed that in almost every paper every day -- whether you live in Salt Lake City, Washington, D.C., St. Louis or Minneapolis -- there is an article relating to the Holocaust? The Jewish media wouldn't be turning the Holocaust (Ltd.) to political advantage would it? If it is illegal to question the Holocaust (Inc.), as it is in most European countries, is it illegal to question, say, state funds used to build memorials to dead foreign Jews? They say the Holocaust (c) is unique, but the really remarkable thing about it is its fungibility. It's like political money. Today the lesson is Don't kill Jews because they are Jews. Tomorrow the lesson is, don't kill anyone because of his religion. Then it's, Don't make any untoward (i.e., any unacceptable-to-leftists) observations about racial differences. In practice, the only way to "never forget" what happened to the Jews of yesteryear is to unquestioningly obey the left-wing Jews of today. Otherwise, you're just another Nazi. Pretty soon the normal right white is fighting with two hands behind its back. The public cons tacitly accept these premises and that's why the right hasn't won a victory in sixty years. You might think to yourself, What has killing Jews in a foreign country fifty years ago got to do with opposing unlimited immigration from Mexico? or with noting the link between low black IQs and their criminality and social destructiveness? Such is the power of the Jewish industry -- the media -- that it is able to forge these links, to solder them indissolubly in the public mind; such is their cleverness that they are able to do it without most of you noticing. And such is their calculation that, whether having noticed or been made aware of it, you will lack the courage or the ability to do anything about it. Again, I ask you: Among which groups is hate more strongly pronounced: The racists? Or the anti-racists? The Jews? Or the people they hate (the 'anti-Semites')? By their fruits ye shall know them. French fruits:

VITROLLES, France (AP) -- A group angered by the election of a far-right mayor set fire to cars and broke windows in a late-night rampage, prompting police to step up patrols today in this southern French town. Catherine Megret of the anti-immigrant National Front was elected mayor of Vitrolles on Sunday, despite a united effort by the governing conservatives and opposition Socialists to defeat her. The National Front, often accused of racism and anti-Semitism, blames North African immigrants for France's postwar record 12.7 percent unemployment.

About 30 young men from Vitrolles' immigrant neighborhoods rioted briefly near the city center just before 10 p.m. Monday. Police arrested 10 men found to be carrying knives. Several of the men, of North African origin or descent, said they would organize a protest march against the Front later today.

With the election, the National Front now controls four French city halls: Vitrolles, Toulon, Orange and Marignane -- all mid-sized southern cities with large immigrant populations -- but it holds no seats in the French parliament.

And again:

France's political left took to the a show of force against the National Front, seeing the far-right party's gathering [in Strasbourg] as a chance to rally its own troops for elections.

As many as 50,000 people came from across France to march as the Front opened an annual congress with its 2,200 delegates.

Protesters threw confetti, beat on drums, played reggae music and waved banners reading: ``To vote for the FN (National Front) is to vote for hatred.''

While the protest was largely peaceful, about 200 demonstrators tore up cobblestones and flung them at police, injuring three and damaging a number of cars, France Info radio reported.

``The National Front is a danger for democracy. France is on its way to turning toward fascism,'' said Katherine Vayne, an office administrator in Paris. ...
[3/29/97, AP (Joseph Schuman)]

The ironies here are almost funny: The danger to democracy comes from the tiny gathering of people advocating traditional France and tried French ways -- not from the twenty-five-times larger crowd slandering the minority as "haters" and physically attacking it. You've got to love probably-Jewish Joe Schuman's largely peaceful: Hell, except for a couple hundred people throwing cobblestones and attacking the police and smashing up cars, the rally was entirely peaceful. Probably-Jewish Joe on Lincoln's night out: largely peaceful, except for a gunshot...

If you are skeptical about what you read in the newspaper, I urge you to treat your skepticism skeptically. It is not enough to quibble over hidden biases and factual discrepancies within individual stories; you need to step back a level and see that all paper and radio and TV news is, in a sense, scripted. That is, reality is not allowed to leap the bounds of the ideological framework; rather, it is fitted to it. The big picture (the media are a global, Jewish-dominated industry purveying or recasting reality with the goal of creating a common mental atmosphere hospitable to the Jew) is more important than the little picture (biased article or slanted newscast). If you read and listen to and watch the media regularly, you absorb the fundamental outlook of the Jewish industry, whether you realize it or not. You instinctively recognize what is acceptable and what isn't to The Definers. If you have a TV in your home -- as do 99% of Americans, more than have phones -- how could you not? After listening to this liberal Jew's lectures for seven hours a day, 365 days a year, as most of you do, how could you possibly remain unaffected by his arguments? No matter your private views, you know that homosexuals are good and liberals/Jews are good and lesbians are good and abortion is good and a constitutional right, and that Germans are evil and closet Nazis, pro-lifers are evil and women-haters, gun owners are evil and nuts, and that Catholic priests are evil and boy-rapers, and evangelicals are evil and in it for the money, and businessmen are evil and crooks. Can you recall a single, negative screen portrayal of a liberal Jew? A sitcom that treated a liberal Jew as someone who needed to have his consciousness raised, to be enlightened by his moral superiors? A liberal Jewish Archie Bunker?. . . . Why is that? Again I ask you: Who is more vicious and hateful and oppressive, the racists or the anti-racists? the Jews or the people they hate? The French answer seems pretty clear, doesn't it? If the lesson needs to be made any clearer, try this on for size:

The low-key literary commerce of the annual Paris book fair erupted in ugly shouting and overturned furniture today as angry protesters demolished a display of books sponsored by the right-wing French National Front party and drove its exhibitors from the fair. "The National Front and its ideas have no place here," declared a manifesto from Ras l'Front, a group fighting the anti-immigrant party. ... "There is no liberty for the enemies of liberty," said novelist Don Franck. ... Surrounding the half-dozen representatives of the book concern, the protesters threw coffee at them, knocked their books to the floor and finally kicked over the display tables... Neither police nor security personnel at the exposition hall appeared. The beleaguered publishers made a hasty exit through a nearby emergency door. [3/15/97, Washington Post (Charles Trueheart)]

Again, chant with me: the Right is intolerant, hate-filled, mean-spirited, violent... Just as in Australia, where the Jews, laborites and queers are trying to shut down -- throught violence and courts -- a political party solely because they object to its ideas, the left shows its true colors in France: intolerant of and violent toward different ideas. The normal right-wing white people have to run for cover, evicted by hateful and violent Jews (I'm guessing) such as Don Franck and company. How can that be, in a country where, as the following poll shows, the ideas that inspire the National Front are commonly held:

[A survey for France's National Consultative Commission on Human Rights found]: ...61 percent of French people...felt there were too many Arabs, 58 percent thought there were too many Muslims and 38 percent said there were too many blacks in France. [79%] said the behavior of some immigrants justified racist reactions.... Thirty percent of the participants [1049 adults over 18] felt there were too many Asians and 20 percent answered there were too many Jews... [3/22/97, Reuters]

The following may account for some of the resistance to non-French:

The measures include free tuition in speaking French, help in homework for children of non-French speaking parents, aid in finding jobs and cutting down the time needed for naturalisation, seen as the key to integration. President Jacques Chirac wants to cut the time to a minimum six years instead of seven.

There were also moves to close some hostels for single foreign workers, which police say are sometimes hotbeds of Islamic militancy or centres for drug trafficking.

... Current immigration is mostly from Africa and Asia, including many Moslems whose lifestyles often clash with those of secular French society at large.
[3/26/97, Reuters (Bernard Edinger)]

Does this remind you of any other country? To get back to the question, how is it that racist and anti-immigrant opinions are so widely held yet so dangerous to voice? Is there another answer besides: the media is in the grip of a powerful, like-minded few who use every tool at their disposal to persuade you, the normal white, that there is something dangerous and unhealthy and potentially legally actionable about your beliefs -- and that, furthermore, only a very very few feel the way you do, and they are an weird, bunch of evil, maladjusted nuts? Is it not true that the media -- along with the government and education system -- are society's attitude factory, knowingly pushing a destructive, defective multiculturalism on a general population that does not want it? Here's the French "in" crowd in action:

Tens of thousands of people marched through Paris on Saturday in a star-studded show of opposition against an immigration law they say is dangerous.

Although prompted by a bill to curb illegal immigration, the protest was equally against the influence of the far-right National Front and a perceived anti-immigrant tendency in French politics.

``This is against a state of mind that says immigrants are automatically guilty of the problems in our society,'' French director Bertrand Tavernier said. ...

When the march ended, about 300 illegal immigrants, mainly from Asia, occupied a church in eastern Paris. They demanded negotiations to obtain residency permits. ...

``French, Immigrants, Solidarity,'' chanted the crowd, which included people of all ages and races.

Police said 33,000 people took part in the protest. The participants included Danielle Mitterrand, wife of the late Socialist President Francois Mitterrand; actress Emmanuelle Beart; theater director Ariane Mnouchkine; and British singer and actress Jane Birkin.

Smaller marches occurred in several other cities, including Lyon and Marseille.
[02-22-97 The Associated Press, By MATTHEW GLEDHILL, PARIS]

Although there are individuals who go their own way, Bardot for one, the vast majority of those that form the government-education-media (GEM) trident see their interest in the international-leftist direction, no matter the country. But just like the Clintons' kid went to a private school, you can bet that none of the French elite, marching along as smug and self-satisfied as Cybil Shepard at an abortion rally, would dream of living next door to a bunch of Africans or Arabs, or sending their kids to school with them. That's for the hoi polloi. Another example:

The French stars of a new film about the resistance of some of their countrymen to the Nazis during World War II said Thursday the story served to warn against resurgent right-wing, racist politics -- not least in France.

French director Claude Berri...said no one was equating Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front with Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, but his film's message applied in many countries.

Berri and members of the ``Lucie Aubrac'' cast spoke to reporters during a news conference following the premiere of the movie at the 47th annual Berlin film festival.

Carole Bouquet, who played the title role in the film, about a woman who risks her life to save her resistance-fighter husband, said there was still ``a need to resist.''

``Many in France ignored the rise of Hitler and Mussolini until it affected them. Now there are four cities run by the National Front in France,'' she said, referring to the party's recent election gains on an anti-immigration platform.

``In France some people say they (National Front) represent a few idiots, but perhaps we should take this more seriously,'' said Bouquet, whose face is well-known for countless Chanel perfume advertisements. Her remarks received strong applause.
[By Fiona Fleck BERLIN (Reuter)]

A general rule is that if the film community supports something, it's a bad idea. There are few better counterindicators than the entertainment crowd. As in Australia, where the politicized literary community went after a prize-winning author for being a white male, in France the politicized entertainment/film community goes after a pro-French right-wing party, all but openly calling it a Nazi party.

There are some odd paradoxes about leftism, French and otherwise, that this clip brings into focus. First, the leftists hate Nazis more than anything, yet they are the ones verbally and physically beating down divergent opinion. If you don't toe their line, ipso facto you are branded a "hater" and your party labelled a "hate group." If you seek to argue from your streetcorner soapbox in favor of French nationalism, you are a candidate for a beating and a lawsuit. In leftist eyes, there is no such thing as legitimate opposition. It is fair to say that there nothing liberal about today's leftists -- nothing liberal and much that might be described as budding totalitarian. Another paradox about the left is that by delegitimating opposition that is by any measure democratic, the left does much to breed an angry, hardcore underground movement that in all likelihood will not be democratic when it erupts. The hate that hate produced, so to speak. Indeed, because they see all their opponents as Nazis and because they use street-thug tactics themselves, the leftists may be bringing their worst fears to life. To take recourse in a concept of one of the most unfortunate influences on this century, it is almost as though the left 'unconsciously' desires a fourth Reich, albeit a leftist Reich. As the French say, you only look under the bed you hide under. Personally I think the leftists' fears are more desires; in a way they look up to the Nazis because they were better practitioners of Ultimate Politics. If you look at the Jewish-led reds the brownshirts beat out in the waning days of Weimar, you won't find much difference in tactics. It's one of those little things your local history teacher doesn't tell you.

Turning from what the French political scene tells us about the left, let's examine what it tells us about the right. First of all consider this Reuters report:

The number two leader in France's extreme-right National Front, Bruno Megret, has called for a tax on companies that employ foreign workers to force them out of their jobs, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The newspaper quoted Megret, whose wife was elected mayor of the southern town of Vitrolles last Sunday, as saying the Front wanted to send Arabs, Africans and Asians "back to where they came from...not because we hate them (but) because they pollute our national identity and take our jobs.

"When we have power, we will organise their return. We will stop renewing their residence cards, and we will force companies to pay a tax on foreign workers that will eventually lead to the foreigners losing their positions," he said.

Despite capturing a fourth southern town in a municipal election, the Front, which also advocates reserving public jobs, housing and welfare benefits for French nationals, is far from achieving power. Its biggest national score was the 15 percent which its leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, won in the 1995 presidential election. Recent opinion polls suggest support for the party has barely increased since then.
[PARIS, Feb 12 (Reuter)]

Reuters hastens to assure us that the National Front isn't growing, but it's interesting at the least that this "extremist" party already has 15% of the national vote -- up to 40% in certain areas -- and has won four mayoralties. All this against violent opposition and because of its principled, courageous advocacy of French nationalism in the face of legal and physical abuse. American ladies and gentlemen take note: there is a not-so-small and growing market for political courage in other sectors of the white world. We think of America as the land of the free, but who among our poltroonish pols would be caught dead saying: When we have the power, we will organise their return. We will stop renewing their residence cards, and we will force companies to pay a tax on foreign workers that will eventually lead to the foreigners losing their position. ... [We intend to send back Arabs, Africans and Asians because they] "pollute [if indeed he really said this] our national identity and take our jobs. Let me again be as clear as possible: We need an openly pro-white party like National Front in France or National Action in Australia in the United States. The left laughs at or applauds people like Jack Kemp; the left vituperates and beats up people like Pauline Hanson and Jean-Marie Le Pen. Do you think the left is mistaken about its real enemy? Wrong about which people and parties pose the real political and cultural threat to its hegemony? Here's a general rule you can trust: Where the right tends to be realistic about life, the left tends to be realistic, in the Machiavellian sense, about politics. By this rule, the leftists, beat up and sue and denounce and defame and distort the positions and words of and slander and vituperate and lie about National Front and One Nation because those parties have found the key to opposing the left: race. These parties are on the right path, and the left knows it. They are real, not spurious, opponents because they honestly understand what the left is up to and straightforwardly oppose it. There is a message for the American Right here. Not for the public cons and Republicans, they've already decided that for pro-white nationalists, "the exits are clearly marked," as one of their losers put it (the guy last seen on Jay Leno proferring a would-be presidential sock to a youthful collector of "toejam"). Anybody for forming a Real Right, a Serious Right, a non-Beanbag Right -- a White Nationalist right? I have an idea, and we'll get to it in awhile. But first our tour must continue, for there are many exciting things to see. For now, keep in mind Le Pen's words after his party's recent triumph: "Who can say that the National Front is not capable of becoming France's first party? If you judge from the Vitrolles microcosm, you realise that it's possible."

Go to Part 4

Back to VNN Main Page

Click Here!