M. Le Pen has a new spokesperson

Posted by Guessedworker on June 03, 2006, 01:27 PM | #

“The Left has long underestimated the crime problem

No, the left has always denied human difference in its adherence to the dogma of equality.  The left will never relinquish egalitarianism, which is its very soul.  So the left will never be remotely competent in its address of racial issues.

Posted by Amalek on June 03, 2006, 03:20 PM | #

Women usually eat up the special case, the humane exception, the just-this-once. Feminised politics has become a congeries of narrow interest groups grinding axes.

Before and for a while after working men in Britain first got the vote, quite a few took it seriously, poring over long columns of Parliamentary reporting, walking miles to hear speeches, forming debating societies, getting up petitions, subscribing to subsidise MPs before they were paid.

But the push for female suffrage was almost entirely a bourgeois and aristocratic movement garnished with a few token proles such as Annie Kenney. And when votes for women were granted, none of the activity which had inspired and which followed the enfranchisement of working men was replicated. The ladies just sat back at home and waited to be canvassed, easily falling for a toff who promised they’d be looked after: rent control, family allowances, schools and hospitals, with the old man’s wages soaked via PAYE to pay for these goodies.

Bidding higher and higher for the female pork-barrel vote, politics became emptied of national-interest questions. The primary business of government, waging war to protect the country and foreign policy, was relegated—it made the girls furrow their brows and turn off—while ‘bread and butter’ trivia were foregrounded.  MPs turned into welfare officers instead of presenting large issues to their constituents. Electioneering was eventually transformed into a set of emotional appeals to the couch potato who cannot cope with abstractions, and is now a byword for insults to the intelligence.

The elite has reason to be grateful to the suffragettes. They made Britain safe for Tory rule for most of the 20th century, since lower-class womenfolk nullified their husbands’ socialist votes; and by narrowing and making frivolous the areas of political controversy, the female electorate prevented the nation’s wealth being equitably apportioned or its borders safeguarded against those poor deserving immigrants, who are ever so nice really… when they’ve settled down and you get to know them. Apart from the violent ones, that is, but our MP says he’ll put more police on the streets so that’s all right, and is it already time for The X Factor?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 19, 2008, 09:53 AM | #

Here are a couple of items to make French speakers rue the day they ever learned to understand French.  Watch this YouTube video in which Segolene Royal’s press spokesman, a Jew named Julien Dray, tells about how Frenchmen have to accept that their future is to be mixed-race and how this truth must be inculcated into the minds of Frenchmen at all levels and in all ways possible.  This Jew actually comes right out and says all of that, in plain language.

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=RkYnWk7YnUc

Then read, in his Wikipedia bio, how he’s had led a life typical of the so-called “extreme radical-left activist” Jew,

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Dray ,

with particular attention to the sub-heading labeled, “Controverses.”

All commentators looking at the situation we’re in who avoid the Jewish question, and that includes giants such as James Kalb, are doing themselves and truth a grave disservice by attempting to ignore the 800 sextillion pound gorilla in the living room.  I’m sorry, but it’s that simple.

Posted by Dasein on December 19, 2008, 10:24 AM | #

What a vile creature.  I had to laugh, he kept repeating the ‘Chance pour la France’ that Armor mentioned.  Towards the end of the clip, the guy to Dray’s right picked something out of his ear and flicked it towards him.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 19, 2008, 10:59 AM | #

The other element combining to make our extremely difficult situation a “perfect storm” is the advent of women’s suffrage (see Amalek’s comment above).  Women haven’t a clue as to what race and nation are and therefore will NEVER vote to preserve them unless they’re happily married and sense that’s what their husbands would prefer, and even then they may remain highly sceptical and need convincing.  The cause of the XXth Century’s flushing all of Western Civilization and the white race down the toilet is the combination of women’s suffrage and the Jews.  Can you permit women’s suffrage?  Yes but only with iron-clad safeguards against the frivolous dismantling of whole races and civilizations.  Can you permit Jews to live among Euros?  I’ll answer that with another question:  Can you permit termites to live among the supporting beams of houses?

Posted by Armor on December 19, 2008, 09:36 PM | #

Here are a couple of items to make French speakers rue the day they ever learned to understand French. (—Fred Scrooby)

I have found better. Try this video of Sarkozy in a speech he made last Wednesday. He comes all out in favor of miscegenation.

Here are a few excerpts (my translation would need a few improvements) :

“the objective is to take up the challenge of miscegenation. (...) By the way, it has always been consanguinity that brought about the end of civilizations and societies. France has always been, along the centuries, racially mixed. (...) Ladies and gentlemen, it is our last chance: if this republican voluntarism would not work, Ze-Republik would then have to resort to even more coercive methods. But we don’t have a choice: Diversity in our country’s grass roots must be mirrored by diversity at the top of our country. (...) We cannot do otherwise, we would be faced with considerable problems. We must change, so we are going to change.”

Posted by Captainchaos on December 19, 2008, 10:16 PM | #

Armor, you live in France, what is your take on the general French attitude towards mudcegenation?  Do they give a damn if they are mongrelized out of existence?

Posted by silver on December 19, 2008, 11:15 PM | #

The cause of the XXth Century’s flushing all of Western Civilization and the white race down the toilet is the combination of women’s suffrage and the Jews.  Can you permit women’s suffrage?  Yes but only with iron-clad safeguards against the frivolous dismantling of whole races and civilizations.  Can you permit Jews to live among Euros?  I’ll answer that with another question:  Can you permit termites to live among the supporting beams of houses?

Those are some original thoughts there, Scrooby.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard this line of reasoning before.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2008, 09:33 AM | #

But I left off the Island of Dr. Moreau and mystery meat, Silver!  I did that just for you!  You mean you’re not pleased??

Posted by Armor on December 20, 2008, 09:36 AM | #

“Do they give a damn if they are mongrelized out of existence?”

I don’t know. It’s hard to ask people to take their heads out of the sand for a minute and honestly say how they feel about that.

Posted by Captainchaos on December 20, 2008, 12:00 PM | #

Armor: “I don’t know. It’s hard to ask people to take their heads out of the sand for a minute and honestly say how they feel about that.”

Back when I was commenting at the Brussels Journal I tried to warn to lemmings there that Sarconzy was nothing but a filthy piece genocialist gutter refuse (in more toned down language of course - HaHa!).  Now Sarcoozey openly admits that he wants to turn our beautiful race into a bunch of greasy wogs and mudlattos.  Liberal dumbocrazy is nothing but organized dysgenics and genocide.  If Shitcozy has the stones to institute his crack down I say go for it.  The more contradictions in the official lies become manifest the more likely it is that the lemmings will wake up, I think.  Part of our job is to ceaselessly harangue about said right in the funny faces of the lemmings to speed the day of their awakening.  Sensationalism is no vice in pursuit of the virtue of combating our genocide (also a Mutt and Jeff, good cop and bad cop approach can be effective).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 21, 2008, 03:16 PM | #

A couple of the French-speakers here have seen this incredible video:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=RkYnWk7YnUc

For English-speakers I’ll transcribe what Julien Dray says in French, then I’ll translate into English below.  Julien Dray, a Socialist Party Congressmen in the French House of Representatives, was Segolene Royal’s Press Secretary during the last presidential election campaign in which President Sarcoma was elected.

Here’s Dray speaking in the video:
__________________

D’abord je vais vous dire moi, dans cette situation, quand je vois Fari j’ai mal.  J’ai mal parce que je me dis que c’est une chance pour la France, une chance énorme de disposer d’un jeune qui a fait tous ses efforts pour arriver là où il est arrivé.  Et c’est un crime contre la République, c’est un terrible crime pour la République, contre la République, de le voir dans cette situation.  Et si on avait changé le discours depuis vingt ans — si au lieu, en permanence, de désigner les immigrés comme responsables de tous les maux de cette société — si on s’était dit une fois pour toute que c’est une chance, peut-être tout n’est pas formidable mais que c’est une formidable chance pour la France de disposer de jeunes comme lui — il y en a des milliers qui ont fait tous ces efforts — et bien, peut-être les choses seraient différentes.  Et depuis vingt ans on a passé son temps à essayer de les sortir de la communauté nationale, et même quand ils avaient fait tous les efforts pour y arriver, et on vient de le voir encore ce soir, c’est terrible, on leur dit encore mais non [or, maintenant?], tu n’es pas totalement français encore, et ça c’est insupportable, et ça c’est insupportable,

[here Marine Le Pen interrupts several times] Marine Le Pen speaking:  I never said that Monsieur Dray.  I never said that.  [Here she and he disagree a bit over what she had said previously, not all their words completely clear in the video]

[Back to Dray; there are a few more interruptions before the end, which I couldn’t make out so well, so didn’t try to transcribe] ....alors .... alors .... Il faut qu’il change de prénom, voilà ce que vous avez dit ... Non, la vérité c’est qu’il faut qu’il change de prénom, c’est qu’il coupe ses racines, et moi je ne suis pas d’accord avec ça.  Je pense qu’il peut venir en France comme il est, et je l’accepte comme tel .. alors je vais finir, alors je vais finir, alors je vais finir, la première chose qu’il faut faire, c’est que la lutte contre les discriminations doit devenir une cause nationale — elle doit devenir une grosse cause nationale, parce qu’il faut faire cette éducation du pays pour qu’il apprenne que désormais son avenir c’est le métissage. [More interruptions] Je vais finir:  premièrement, l’éducation:  apprendre à la France à se regarder telle qu’elle est dans sa diversité.  Ça c’est très important:  le faire à la télévision, le faire dans les écoles, le faire régulièrement par les campagnes d’information, le faire dans les entreprises — valoriser cela.  Et donc nous devons commencer par le faire, nous, en politique, ça veut dire qu’il faut que l’assemblée nationale soit à l’image de cette diversité, et qu’il faut qu’il y ait un certain nombre de circonscriptions [electoral precincts; constituent districts] qui soient réservés à ces jeunes pour qu’ils servent d’exemple.  Il faut le faire — on a commencé à le faire [word here unclear:  au journal?] il faudra le faire comme ça [unclear stuff] y compris en quelques grands media ... Mais c’est ça qui est fort pédagogique qu’il faut faire là — et il faut aussi — parce que, je m’excuse de le dire, il faut que la loi soit appliquée, parce que le point aujourd’hui c’est qu’il y a effectivement une grande autorité mais qu’elle n’applique pas la loi, or quand il y a constat qu’il y a discrimination il faut qu’il y ait sanction parce qu’en ce moment-là ils sont [word here unclear].

Je ne suis pas d’accord de réduire la France à son origine chrétienne.  Les choses sont beaucoup plus compliquées dans son histoire, et je pense que ce n’est pas comme ça qu’on éduque.  D’abord, [premièrement, la République?] ne doit pas avoir peur de l’Islam ...  [End of video transcription]
_____________________

Here’s the English translation:
_____________________

First I’m going to say that in this situation, when I look at Fari, I’m hurt.  I’m hurt because I say to myself, What an opportunity for France, what an enormous opportunity to benefit from a young man who’s made every effort to get as far as he’s gotten.  And it’s a crime against France, a terrible crime against France, to see him in this situation.  And if we’d only begun twenty years ago to change the terms of debate — if instead of always blaming immigrants for everything that’s gone wrong in society — if we’d said once and for all, What an opportunity, maybe not everything about immigrants is rosy but what a great opportunity for France, a chance to make use of young people like him — there are thousands who’ve made every effort — perhaps things would be different.  And for twenty years we’ve spent our time trying to expel them from the national community, even when they’ve made every effort to succeed, and we’ve just seen it again tonight, it’s awful, they’re still being told, You aren’t completely French yet, and that’s intolerable, it’s intolerable

[here Marine Le Pen interrupts several times]  [Marine Le Pen speaking]:  I never said that Monsieur Dray.  I never said that.  [Here she and he disagree a bit over what she had said previously; not all their words are completely clear in the video so I don’t try to sort them out]

[Back to Dray now, and there are a few more interruptions before the end, which I couldn’t make out so well, so didn’t try to transcribe them]  ... and ... and ... He’s obliged to change his first name, that’s what you said [he’s addressing Marine Le Pen here]  ... No, the truth is he must change his first name, he must sever his roots, and I disagree with that.  I say he can come to France as he is, and I’ll accept him that way. [more interruptions] And I’ll finish ... and I’ll finish ... and I’ll finish ... The first thing that needs to be done is make the battle against discrimination into a national cause:  it must become a major national cause, because the country must be given this education so that it will learn that henceforth its future is to be mixed-race. [more interruptions]  I’ll finish:  first, education:  educate France to see itself as it is in its diversity.  That’s very important:  do it with television, do it through the schools, do it with regular information campaigns, do it in the workplace:  present this as something very positive.  And therefore we in politics must begin by doing it, which means the National Assembly [France’s House of Representatives, or House of Commons] must reflect this diversity, and therefore that a certain number of electoral precincts [or constituents’ districts, something like that] must be reserved for these young people, to serve as an example [in “reserved for these young people” Dray seems to mean North African or other non-white immigrants, and he appears to be saying there should somehow be be a guarantee that a certain number of members of France’s legislature be non-white, which of course can be accomplished only by gerrymandering or by the explicit setting aside of a certain number of seats for non-white candidates only, during elections].  It must be done.  The beginnings of it have been carried out  [word here unclear:  “in the newspaper”?] it must be done in that way [unclear stuff] including in a few major media ... But that’s something that must be done which will be highly educational.  And what’s also necessary is — because, pardon me for saying it, the [anti-discrimination] law must be carried out, because what happens today is there’s this great state authority in place but it doesn’t carry out the law — now, when there is a solid case of discrimination it must be punished according to the law because at that stage they are [word here unclear].

I disagree with reducing France to its Christian origin.  Things are way more complicated in its history, and I think it’s not like that that we must educate pupils.  First, [“the country”? — he seems to say, “the Republic,” meaning “France”] must not be afraid of Islam ... [video ends here in mid-sentence]  [End of English translation of Dray’s statements on video]
_____________________________

Dray’s Wikipedia bio,

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Dray ,

describes a lifetime of strikingly energetic, aggressive engagement in every variety of extreme radical left-wing cause known to man or even imaginable:  everything that could conceivably harm France and the French is pushed by this man with every ounce of strength he possesses, judging by the Wiki entry describing his life work.  I’ve rarely if ever seen a leftist radical’s bio so jam-packed with anti-national, pro-communist, anti-white-race activity:  this specimen has lived the equivalent of ten lifetimes of the average radical leftist’s agitation and commitment.  So, that gives an idea of “where this guy is coming from politically.”

Now read the part of the bio further down, sub-headed “Controverses.”  Here it is in English:
______________

Julien Dray is known as a great lover of expensive wristwatches.  He owns several high-end Patek Philippes and a Richard Mille.  He’s already had a few run-ins with the law in this regard.  On January 28, 2000, an investigation into Julien Dray’s purchase of a deluxe wristwatch was closed without making a determination.  This purchase had been made in a way that was irregular, mainly through payment of part of the sum of FF 250,000 in cash [before the switch to the euro, if memory serves there were about eight French francs to the dollar, so this watch cost something over $30,000 at the time], in the amount of 150,000 francs (over 22,000 euros), raising a question as to the money’s origin.

Julien Dray was under suspicion and was questioned in the MNEF scandal, in regard to fictional employees and personal enrichment on the part of the directors of the French National Student Health Insurance Mutual.  [Scroob note:  Part of the funds illegally amassed were diverted to his organization, the Jewish-founded SOS-Racisme, a watchdog organization serving the role in France that similar Jewish organizations serve in the States (the ADL, the AJC, the ACLU, the SPLC), that of aggressively countering any move by the traditional peoples of the nation to protest their own race-replacement.]

Dray’s relations with the Jewish community (of which he is a member) are unclear:  his brother, former member of the extremist [Jewish nationalist] group Betar, who moved to Israel, defends radical [Jewish nationalist] positions in his adoptive country.  Though these positions are the opposite of what Julien Dray pushes for France, Julien Dray has never condemned his brother’s positions.  Although Julien Dray has explicitly and bravely ruled out any attitude of Jewish-community solidarity, his reasons are controversial:  “There’s been a temptation in recent years to adopt the American model [of powerful Jewish lobbies]”; “We have to get away from the idea of lobbies, in favor of behaving like citizens of the Republic.  Because if things go in the direction of a confrontation of lobby against lobby, the Jewish lobby will lose.”

December 19, two days ago, investigators searched the home of Julien Dray, suspected of having received 351,027 euros inappropriately.  Two thirds of this amount are thought to have been diverted from funds of the association SOS-Racisme and the student union FIDL, while another portion is thought to have come from businessmen with headquarters in Essone [Scroob note:  Essone is the district Dray represents in the French Congress], one of them even being granted [“un marché public” — I don’t know what this is or how to translate it; clearly, from the context, it’s some sort of business advantage] with the Ile-de-France Regional Council, of which Julien Dray is vice-president.  “At around this time, Monsieur Dray proceeded to make massive purchases of expensive merchandise.”  In this article it says, “At around this time, Monsieur Dray proceeded to make massive purchases of expensive [‘deluxe’] merchandise.”

______________________________________

Here are Julien Dray and his brother standing before Jerusalem’s Wailing Wall.

Julien Dray wants, in effect, all kinds of non-whites who can manage to gain the borders of France to enter France and be absolutely guaranteed a place in that country socially, economically, scholastically, and careerwise, and for Frenchmen to be strictly forbidden to protest against their own dispossession or to “discriminate” in favor of their own countrymen and racial/ethnocultural brethren of two thousand years standing.  He wants, in other words, the guaranteed disappearance of Frenchmen and their replacement with men of the North African Maghreb and elsewhere that’s not French and not even white.

Is there anyone reading this who supposes Dray wants the corresponding things for Israeli Jews and the nation of Israel?

In the video, Dray said, “I disagree with reducing France to its Christian origin,” and he doesn’t want France’s Christian origin taught to French pupils.  Is there anyone reading his who supposes Dray disagrees with reducing Israel to its Jewish origin and doesn’t want Israel’s Jewish origin taught to Jewish pupils in Israel?

Is there anyone reading this who can believe the absolutely incredible moral leprosy of this man?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 22, 2008, 11:38 AM | #

The title of that Julien Dray video was what first drew me to view it.  It’s MÉTISSE-TOI ET FERME-LA, meaning MISCEGENATE AND SHUT UP! 

Aptly titled.  That’s exactly what Dray is telling Frenchmen.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 25, 2008, 01:43 AM | #

Here’s a statement President Sarkozy made one week ago:  click on video at the link:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/12/24/frances-jewish-president-pleads-in-favor-of-race-mixing-ie-biological-genocide-of-the-autochthonous-population/

Here’s my transcription:

Quel est l’objectif?  Ça va faire parler, mais l’objectif c’est relever le défi du métissage:  défi du métissage que nous addresse le vingt-et-unième siècle.  Le défi du métissage, la France l’a toujours connu — et en relevant le défi du métissage la France est fidèle à son histoire.  D’ailleurs c’est la consanguinité qui a toujours provoqué la fin des civilisations et des sociétés. 

La France a toujours connu au cours des siècles, a toujours été au cours des siècles, métissée.  La France a métissé les cultures, les idées, les histoires.  La France qui a su métisser ses (ou “ces”?) cultures et ses (ou “ces”?) histoires en a construit, produit, un discours universel parce que elle-même, la France, se sent universelle dans la diversité de ses origines. 

Mesdames et Messieurs, c’est la dernière chance:  si ce volontarisme républicain ne fonctionnait pas il faudrait alors que la République passe à des méthodes plus contraignantes encore.  Mais nous n’avons pas le choix:  la diversité à la base du pays doit se trouver illustrée par la diversité à la tête du pays.  Ce n’est pas un choix.  C’est une obligation.  C’est un impératif.  On ne peut pas faire autrement, au risque de nous trouver confrontés à des problèmes considerables.  Nous devons changer, alors nous allons changer.

Here it is in English:

What is the goal?  This will be controversial, but the goal is to take up the challenge of race-mixing (or “of becoming mixed-race”) which the XXIst Century urges upon us.  The challenge of race-mixing (or “of becoming mixed-race”) is something France has always been acquainted with:  in taking up the challenge of becoming mixed-race, France is being faithful to its history.  Furthermore, it is consanguinity which has always brought about the end of civilizations and societies. 

Through the centuries France has always known, through the centuries France has always been, mixed-race.  France has taken cultures, ideas, and histories and mixed them.  Thanks to her ability to mix her (or “these”?) cultures and her (or “these”?) histories France has built, has produced, a universal discourse because she herself, France, feels universal in the diversity of her origins. 

Ladies and gentlemen:  this is your last chance.  If this can’t be done in a voluntary spirit of citizenship it will be necessary for the government to resort to more forceful methods.  [Scroob note:  that shocking sentence being an important one, I’ll translate it another way that’s more awkward but more “literal,” in order to leave as little doubt as possible in regard to what is being said:  “If this republican voluntarism were to fail to function, it would be necessary for the Republic to resort to even more forceful (or ‘even more constraining’) methods.”]  We have no choice:  the diversity at the country’s base must be reflected in diversity at the country’s head.  There is no alternative!  It is an obligation and it cannot be ignored!  We cannot do otherwise, lest we find ourselves facing major problems!  We must change; therefore we shall change!

We saw Julien Dray’s comments in the other video (discussed in this thread above) insisting the French nation have drilled into its head that its future is to become mixed-race, and now the supposedly “right-wing” French persident says the same thing.  Are there any doubters of my oft-made claim that race-mixing of the Euro nations is being explicitly planned behind the scenes and consciously pushed?

Posted by Armor on December 25, 2008, 02:14 AM | #

Sarkozy was elected president last year thanks to the anti-immigration vote. He had been presented by the media as an anti-immigrant semi-nazi! Many former Le Pen voters even gave their votes to Sarko in the first round of the election to be sure he would make it to the second round. One of his first decisions after he was elected was to give himself a pay rise.

Posted by Sloane Durham on December 25, 2008, 09:58 AM | #

This is pretty amazing stuff. I say if the French power elites are going to institute official anti-White policies and impose race-mixing on the indigenous population, then we are moving a few large steps closer to a justified resistance, backed by muscle and force. JD, I would say, should watch his back. The situation is escalating.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 25, 2008, 10:54 AM | #

Armor and Sloane, the thing is, as Steven Palese pointed out, something’s blocking the democratic process.  What the people clearly want is being blocked in a concealed way at some behind-the-scenes level.  We’re experiencing the same blockage here in the States as they are in France:  whom did we get as presidential candidates?  A Negro race-replacement advocate and a white man who’s an even bigger race-replacement advocate than the Negro, both backed by Jews (Jews belonging to different factions of Jewry but factions not differing in wanting race-replacement, which all Jewish factions want:  some Jews have this or that opinion on Israel, some this or that opinion on communism, some even on abortion, homosexual “marriage,” etc., but all Jews have the same uniform, monolithic opinion on race-replacement, to wit, all Jewish factions favor it and not only favor it, but do so with a fanaticism that’s amazing to behold, almost as if their lives depended on it:  all Jewish factions will fight tooth-and-nail to see race-replacement of Euros carried to completion; all behave as if the failure to get Euros totally race-replaced would be the biggest disappointment for Jewry in two thousand years).  In the U.K. it’s no different:  no sooner was David Cameron in position to lead the Tory Party than he began (surely in order to ensure Jewish campaign funds would continue to flow) spouting all the pro-race-replacement rhetoric, stuff about how there were too many white faces in parliament, and so on, and began making it crystal-clear he fully supported open borders and the overall policy regimen currently in place that literally guarantees Brits will be race-replaced and made into a minority within two or three decades.  The question is, What’s blocking the democratic process?  I say the Jews.  How do they block it?  Mainly through the power of the purse:  use your imagination.  You displease your benefactor, he cuts off your funds, leaving you hanging out to dry.  It’s as simple as that:  don’t displease him.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 25, 2008, 10:57 AM | #

Or if you have no benefactor and are looking for one, you know what things you have to say in order to get one.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 25, 2008, 10:59 AM | #

I didn’t say exclusively through the power of the purse, I said mainly.  They strongly influence and coerce in other ways as well, of course.

Posted by Captainchaos on December 25, 2008, 02:43 PM | #

Sloane Durham: “I say if the French power elites are going to institute official anti-White policies and impose race-mixing on the indigenous population, then we are moving a few large steps closer to a justified resistance, backed by muscle and force.”

Damn straight.  Now you know why I was so unrelenting in my war on the faileocon false-opposition filth:  I knew the truth, and the faileocons were complicit in keeping the truth from all the loyal little lemmings at Takislag.  And what do the faileocons give their lemmings as a reward for their loyalty?  They throw them out in the cold by cutting off commenting.  What pure, unadulterated scum!  I blame Jew Gottfried and his queer protege, the lisping limp-wrister Spencer.  Faileoconservatism is a false opposition that drains off real struggle for our people into impotence - death to faileoconservatism!

The time is nigh to dispense with the judeocommunistantiwhitegenocidemachine.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 27, 2008, 10:39 AM | #

When you carefully read Julien Dray’s comments, those which I “bolded” (in the thread above), you see they are not the comments of a man who wishes for “racial-harmony-leading-if-need-be-to-a-mixed-race-population” as a (supposedly) “unavoidable accompaniment” to some other necessary societal goal or undertaking, they are instead the comments of a man who 1) wishes a mixed-race population and 2) subordinates other policy to the achievement of that goal. 

Everyone see the difference?

(And in precisely this regard it is of course no coincidence he’s Jewish.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 27, 2008, 07:21 PM | #

It’s only just now dawned on me that Armor’s comment of Dec. 20 1:36 AM cited the same shocking Sarkozy video I cited later in the thread (I cited after seeing it over at Friedrich’s), thinking I was discovering it for the first time, not recalling Armor had already pointed it out.  I did read Armor’s comment, and I think I did click on his link but temporarily couldn’t get through to the Fdesouche.com site or something, then I promptly got distracted by something and forgot about Armor’s comment until re-reading it just now.

On the Fdesouche.com page which Armor links are two videos, one being the Sarko video in question, the other a video citing pro-race-mixing statements by both Sarko and Ségolène during the campaign.  I’ll transcribe and translate the second video (the reason I transcribe it in the original French first is in case there’s some dispute as to my translation):
______

Sarko:  … à cette différence cependant, pour que les [? word not clear:  “chances” = ”opportunities”?] soit fécond(es?), pour que du métissage des cultures naissent des idées neuves, des créations inédites, des combinaisons inattendues, des inventions; que ceux-là rencontrent le mélange et la diversité [final words unclear here]

… but with this difference, in order that the [word here unclear:  possibly “opportunities”?  Armor, feel free to help here and in other spots] are full of potential, in order that from the mixing of cultures will come fresh ideas, novel creations, unexpected combinations, inventions; may all these encounter the mixing of diversity [the final words that follow here are unclear]

Ségolène:  Et la France précédente [not certain of the word “précédente” there] est une France métisée, fière de sa diversité!  C’est une chance dans le monde actuel, et je veux que tout le monde le comprenne et le mette en pratique!

And France hitherto has been a race-mixed France proud of its diversity!  It’s an opportunity in today’s world, and I want everyone to understand that [i.e., that race-mixing is “an opportunity”] and put it into practice!

Sarko:  Plus encore, peut-être, qu’il est [word unclear?] demain sera dans le mélange, l’essaimage, et — le mot ne me fait pas peur — le métissage.

Still more, perhaps, [words unclear here] tomorrow will be in the mixture, the spreading expansion, and — I’m not scared of this word — the race-mixing.

Ségo: [ ?], une France colorée qui fait de sa diversité une richesse, une France métissée dans laquelle plus aucune discrimination ne sera tolérée

A France of colored people which makes its diversity into a richness, a race-mixed France in which never will any discrimination be tolerated

Sarko:  … président d’une France qui aura compris que la création demain sera dans le mélange, dans l’ouverture, dans la rencontre – je n’ai pas peur du mot – dans le métissage.  Quel sera donc [word unclear] des regards, la fécondation réciproque des cultures!

… president of a France that will understand that tomorrow’s creations will be through mixture, through openness, through encountering others —  I’m not scared of this word — through race-mixing.  Imagine, then [word here unclear] the looks [?], the cross-fertilization of cultures!

Ségo:  La France de demain, comme celle d’hier, se nommera «Diversité» et son unité se forgera dans un projet partagé.  La France est diverse, multiple, colorée, métissée!

Tomorrow’s France, like yesterday’s, will go by the name “Diversity,” and its unity will be forged as a shared project.  France is diverse, multiple, colored, race-mixed!

______

The bloggers who run the site Fdesouche.com introduced the above two videos with this commentary (see it in original French at Armor’s link; all emphasis below was in the original) (Armor feel free to correct it anywhere):

We’ve been publishing a regular blog feature under the [sarcastic] sub-heading “There’s no propaganda in France,” which makes use of pictures, newspaper clippings, etc., to show the unofficial pro-race-mixing ideology which for years has underlain all institutional and media communication.

This feature is no longer necessary (either that, or its title needs to be changed):  the propaganda in question is now openly admitted, fully acknowledged, theorised, defended and encouraged at the hightest level of government by President Sarkozy — and backed up by threats.

That there’s an official ideology in favor of race-mixing is from here on a simple fact, which it will no longer do to try to cover up or deny through attack or ridicule:  the government’s propaganda bureau has just been launched and its Kommissar-in-Chief chosen.

This intensive propaganda campaign, henceforth consciously taken over by the French government, was for years the responsibility of heavily subsidized outfits like SOS-Racisme and similar ilk, or delegated to carefully selected public-service journalists, especially Radio France and France Television.

Notice, incidentally, that not a single dissenting voice has ever been heard on the other private radio or television stations (is it “private” or “deprived of thoughts”?)  In the grip of the military-industrial complex, the other media organs have long been in bed with Power.

The French press — known as “the Fourth Estate” and priding itself on its independence — is not guiltless since it exists essentially through public subsidy (through your taxes, in other words) and publicity.  It plays an active role in bringing about the ideological submission of the masses.

 
______

My comments:  1) What Sarko and Ségo are doing here isn’t trying to make sure their Jewish money continues to flow.  That would be a correct interpretation if each hadn’t already clinched the nomination by this point.  That each had already clinched the nomination by this point means each had been reliably vetted by the Jews and correctly identified as a true-believing race-replacement advocate and therefore deserving of Jewish financial backing.  2)  The fact that government has now admitted its official policy of enforced race-replacement, the public has no longer any need to avoid discussing this subject openly using plain language.

Posted by Armor on December 27, 2008, 09:44 PM | #

” Armor feel free to correct it “

I don’t have any change to suggest. The only problematic word here is “métissage”. Literally, it means race-mixing, but it is used figuratively by leftist journalists and self-styled poets who talk about foreign cultures. Race-replacers love the word because no one can tell if it is used literally or figuratively. But when a threatening Sarkozy says that métissage is the objective and consanguinité is the problem, it no longer leaves much ambiguity. Even so, Sarko introduced some confusion in his speech in this way: he was basically speaking about forced miscegenation, and said: “We have no choice”. At that point, every one understands: we have no choice but miscegenation. Then he went on to say: “We have no choice, the diversity at the country’s base must be reflected in diversity at the country’s head”. And he looked very convinced of what he was saying, in spite of the non sequitur. Forced miscegenation and quotas for non-whites are two different things.

Sarko: “If this republican voluntarism were to fail to function, it would be necessary for the Republic to resort to even more forceful methods.”

Republican is a very threatening french word that has been popular with supporters of a strong central state since 1789. It contains both a slur and a threat against possible critics: if you disapprove of what I said, it means you are anti-republican. Anti-republicans used to be guillotined in the old days. At the same time, members of the government also say “THE Republic” to refer to their own clique, as if they exemplified the republican form of government.

Posted by Armor on December 27, 2008, 09:57 PM | #

you see they are not the comments of a man who wishes for “racial-harmony-leading-if-need-be-to-a-mixed-race-population” (—Fred Scrooby, about comments made by the french socialist MP Julien Dray)

I don’t think that kind of man exists in the first place. No one honestly believes that the destruction of the white race will help anyone else.

they are instead the comments of a man who 1) wishes a mixed-race population and 2) subordinates other policy to the achievement of that goal.

I think anyone who supports immigration is trying to hurt us, not help immigrants. Dray supports race-replacement and race-mixing out of racial animus, because he is a Jew. But non-Jews who support immigration do not do so for the love of immigrants. White society is their target. All their arguments in favor of immigration are absurd. I don’t think they believe any of them.

It is hard to explain the motivations of non-Jews. A few possible motives :

• They like to destroy things. (Maybe they would like a society that regenerates automatically so they can keep destroying it for ever?).

• What matters to them is to have the right posturing. (They don’t care that they are destroying their own race in the process, or they haven’t thought of that).

• They are comfortable obeying authority and resent dissenters. (When they realize they are wrong, they dig in their heels and defend their position even more fanatically, because they resent anyone who knows better than them).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 01, 2009, 07:01 PM | #

Tiberge, who blogs at BrusselsJournal.com, also refers (as does Armor:  see his comment two above) to the devious way in which the other side are using “métissage” in different contexts in order to try to blur the distinction in people’s minds between race-mixing and cultural influences.

http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2008/12/mtissage-now-its-obligation.html

Jack Lang (French Jew and super-slimy) also does this in a video dating from 1984 in which he reassures two Maghrebian schoolboys of their rightful place in France.  The slimy way in which Lang does this in that video, attempts to say he means cultural influences when it’s clear he means race-mixing, is truly nauseating.

Tiberge is wrong in saying “métisser/métissage” is hard to translate exactly into English.  It’s not hard at all:  it means race-mixing.  It’s just that the slimy individuals on the other side are trying to blur its meaning by pretending to mean sometimes race-mixing, sometimes cultural influences, to try to make it “OK” in skeptics’ minds.

Only morons will fall for it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 01, 2009, 07:18 PM | #

Incidentally, Friedrich really rakes Tiberge over the coals as I’ve rarely seen him rake anyone except disruptive trolls:  here (it’s in regard to Tiberge’s BrusselsJournal.com log entry on the Dieudonné affair):

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/12/30/dieudonne-faurisson-and-le-pen/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 01, 2009, 07:53 PM | #

Response to an attack on Dieudonné in The New Yorker (what ethnicity owns that magazine?):

http://jonathanmiller.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/the-new-yorker-finds-a-comedian-to-hate/

(Hat tip:  http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/12/30/dieudonne-faurisson-and-le-pen/comment-page-1/#comment-33769 )

Posted by Armor on January 02, 2009, 05:52 PM | #

Three posts above, I was trying to describe the behavior of the perverts who want more immigration. I said that when they realize they are wrong, they dig in their heels and defend their position even more fanatically.

At Takimag, there is a column by Austin Bramwell about George Bush and his Iraq adventure. It says this:

Bush’s celebrated idealism—a president, he says, should “never substitute pragmatism for an idealistic vision”—really is unprecedented.

[ . . . ]

Bush’s idealism, in short, means that he’s not just indifferent to the evil consequences of his actions but positively welcomes them as proofs of his commitment to idealism. In Bush’s mind, our very failures in Iraq have shown how he has gloriously withstood the test of leadership. For all that other presidents have also claimed the mantle of righteousness, an idealism as fanatical as Bush’s has never been seen before.

I think the same could be said about his immigration policy.

Some people consciously want to destroy European peoples, while others, like Bush, seem to be idealistic fanatics.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 10, 2009, 01:16 AM | #

For French speakers, here’s a video of yet another foul Jew pushing Euros to race-mix themselves out of existence.  It’s clear a major Jewish drive is underway, a Jewish drive having as its aim the mulattoization of as many Euros as possible.  The Jews are coming right out and saying it now; they’re not scared, not mincing words, and this utter absence of fear on their part gives the lie to any and all claims the Jews don’t control the mainstream media, for if those claims were true Jews would be quaking in their boots at the mere thought of saying what this Jew does in this video.  Since the Jews control the mainstream media this guy feels perfectly safe in spouting the pro-genocide criminality he spouts. 

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/09/19/de-lart-du-mensonge-chez-les-juifs-le-metissage/comment-page-1/#comment-34030

Anyone want to give me odds on whether or not the slimy, lying, genocidal filth in this video married out of his race and produced mulatto or other mixed-race children?  This man should be arrested and put on trial on capital charges of promoting genocide:  at the Nuremberg Kangaroo Court the Jews hanged Julius Streicher for less. 

While we’re on the subject, anyone want to give me odds on Alon Ziv marrying other than a Jewish woman and raising other than full-blooded one-hundred-percent Jewish children?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 10, 2009, 06:32 PM | #

Corrigendum:

“here’s a video of yet another foul Jew pushing Euros to race-mix”  (—from my comment just above)

He’s foul all right.  But it turns out he’s not a Jew.  I looked him up.

First, here is what this plenty foul pro-race-mixing professor spoke in that video (I transcribe it in French first, in case there’s a dispute as to my translation into English):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJG25vV6E3w

Moderator:  Ce soir, Axel Kahn, vous avez une piste dans ce domaine—uhh—que faut-il faire?

Prof. Axel Kahn, généticien, président de l’Université Paris-Descartes:  Déjà il faut voir que l’humanité s’est toujours métisée.  Elle n’a pu évoluer qu’en se métissant, et biologiquement, et culturellement.  On parle des civilizations lointaines mais qu’est-ce que c’est que la civilization étrusque qui n’aurait pas eu un contact important avec la civilization grecque?  Qu’est-ce que c’est que la civilization de bassin méditerranéen qui n’aurait pas bénéficié des phéniciens, des carthaginois?  Qu’est-ce que c’est — beaucoup plus près de nous — que l’art moderne qui n’aurait pas été totalement irrigué par l’art nègre au XIXe siècle?  Il n’y a pas — il n’y a pas — de processus de civilization sans rencontre, contact, métissage culturel, et pour un biologiste par ailleurs, le métissage, qu’il soit culturel, ou bien qu’il soit biologique, est un extraordinaire facteur de vigueur!  Rien n’est revigorant autant que le métissage!  Si bien que quand on me dit qu’il y a une période moderne de métissage, le biologiste que je suis est certainement intéressé mais pas totalement convaincu, car le monde entier n’a pu évolué que comme cela.  Vous savez, l’absence du métissage est l’absence de la rencontre.  C’est le clonage des esprits, le clonage des corps.  C’est-à-dire, c’est un dialogue avec soi-même.  Mais un dialogue avec soi-même n’enrichit pas soi-même.  Seule le dialogue avec l’autre enrichit chacun.

______

Moderator:  This evening, Axel Kahn, you have something to say on this subject — uhh — what should be done?

Prof. Axel Kahn (geneticist, President of the University of Paris - René Descartes campus):  First we have to realize that the human race has always race-mixed.  It has been able to evolve solely by mixing, both racially and culturally.  [Or, “Without both race-mixing and culture-mixing it wouldn’t have been able to evolve.”]  You talk about ancient civilizations, but what would Etruscan civilization be in the absence of close contact with Greek civilization?  What would the civilization of the Mediterranean Basin be, had it not benefited from the Phoenicians and Carthaginians?  To bring up something much closer to us, what would modern art be without its huge infusion from XIXth-Century Negro art?  There is no way for civilization to proceed — no way for it to proceed — without meetings, contacts, cultural mixture, and furthermore, to the biologist, mixing — both culture-mixing and race-mixing — is an extraordinary source of vigor!  Nothing is so invigorating as mixture!  So much so that when I’m told there’s a modern period of mixture, the biologist in me is certainly interested but not completely convinced, because it’s only through such means that the entire world has been able to evolve!  You know, absence of mixture is absence of coming into contact with others.  It’s the cloning of minds, the cloning of bodies.  It is, in other words, holding a conversation with oneself.  But holding a conversation with oneself doesn’t enrich.  Each is enriched only by holding a conversation with others.

______

Though he has a Jewish name, Prof. Axel Kahn isn’t Jewish.  In the publisher’s blurb of a book he and his brother have written it says his mother was Catholic and his father Jewish, and he is neither of those but “agnostic”:

http://livre.fnac.com/a1758878/Axel-Kahn-Comme-deux-Freres

... une grand-mère antisémite et pro-allemande, un père, juif athée, résistant et professeur, une mère catholique. [...] Ils ont un patronyme juif mais ne sont pas juifs. Ils sont même farouchement agnostiques. Comment donne-t-on un sens à sa vie quand on ne croit ni à la Rédemption, ni au peuple élu, ni même, après un passage au PC, aux « lendemains qui chantent » ? C’est tout l’objet de ce livre.

... a pro-German grandmother who was critical of Jews [the original says “a pro-German, anti-Semitic grandmother”; I’ve come to avoid the term “anti-Semitic” as meaningless, so I put it differently in my translation], an atheist Jewish father who was a professor and a member of the French resistance during the war, a Catholic mother.  They [the brothers] have a Jewish family name but aren’t Jewish.  They’re even passionately agnostic.  How does one find meaning in life when one believes neither in the Redemption, nor in the Chosen People, nor even, after a sojourn in the French Communist Party, in the future Workers’ Paradise?  All that is this book’s subject matter.

______

But the picture still fits:  it’s most often the communists along with the Jews who adopt these aggressively pro-race-mixing stances.  We learn in Prof. Kahn’s Wikipedia bio, the French edition, that he was a member of the French Communist Party until 1977 when he left the party but apparently didn’t abandon his ... uhhhh ... his communist ideals.  (No ... he certainly didn’t abandon those ... Not by a long shot ...)

Oh, and ... should he still be prosecuted on capital charges of promoting genocide? 

Damn right he should!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 10, 2009, 06:40 PM | #

“without its huge infusion from XIXth-Century Negro art?”  (—from the translation, just above)

Change that to, “without its huge XIXth-Century infusion of Negro art?”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 10, 2009, 06:51 PM | #

By the way, why is this guy given TV time in France?  Do the ... uhhh ... agnostics ... control French TV too?  (Maybe, but I couldda sworn it was another group that controlled it.) ... Whoever controls it, whether “agnostics” or ... or someone else (I can’t think of their name just at the moment) ... they’re mighty sympathetic to the views he expresses, clearly.

Surprise, surprise .....

Posted by Armor on January 10, 2009, 09:24 PM | #

Since it appears that the Jewish religion has redefined itself as the ideology of replacing Europeans with Africans, we can say that Axel Kahn is devoutly Jewish.

” By the way, why is this guy given TV time in France? “

He’s not just on TV. They also like him a lot on radio-france-culture, the most Jewish of all french-state-radio stations, and on radio-france-info, and on radio-france-inter, and on radio-france-international…

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 10, 2009, 10:13 PM | #

Referring to my comment posted on Christmas, 5:43 AM:  Sarko says, near the end of those excerpts from his speech (and says with much emphasis in the video, as if it’s extremely serious and important), 

“We cannot do otherwise [than change into Negroes], lest we find ourselves facing major problems!”

I’d love to have asked him, “Mr. President, exactly what ‘major problems’ do you mean?  What will happen to Frenchmen that’s so, so, so terrible if they prefer not to change themselves into a collection of Negroes and Mulattoes?”

Can anyone reading this respond in Sarkozy’s place?  I honestly would like to know what “major problems” he had in mind in that speech.  What, precisely, will happen that’s so horrible if Frenchmen stay Frenchmen racially, as they’ve always been? 

And of course it would be interesting also to know if the Jews who told Sarkozy to say that intended it for French Jews too — are France’s Jews also advised to turn themselves into Sub-Saharans, or is that stern advice aimes solely at Frenchmen, Jews being excused?  Of course a snowball has a better chance in hell than anyone has of getting a straight answer from Sarko’s Jewish masters on that subject, so my question was strictly rhetorical, as goes without saying.

Posted by Armor on January 10, 2009, 11:04 PM | #

Sarko’s Jewish masters

I’m sure you can find people who are more Jewish than Sarko, but he is Jewish enough for me. If journalists have no qualms calling him french, even though he has no french ancestry and wants to replace french people with Arabs and Africans, then why can we not call him Jewish, considering that he has Jewish ancestry, supports the Jews, and behaves like a Jew? Are we supposed to get permission from some central Jewish authority before we can call anyone a Jew or a neocon? I think too many Jews who are loyal to the Jews are masquerading as non Jews when they campaing for race-replacement.

Posted by Armor on January 15, 2009, 07:08 PM | #

Sarkozy’s wife Carla Bruni used to live with Jean-Paul Enthoven, and later with his son Raphaël Enthoven, who works for the Jewish radio station “radio-france-culture” and was married before that with the daughter of media celebrity Bernard Henry Levy. It seems that most of Carla Bruni’s ex-boyfriends are Jewish. Sarkozy’s former wife is Jewish too. His younger son is engaged to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, who is Jewish.

It was announced this week that Sarkozy is launching a Council for Artistic Creation that will be chaired by Marin Karmitz, a Jewish former maoist from Bucarest. I suppose his job will be to decide where artistic inspiration should come from.

Also, it was announced yesterday that Sarkozy would like to appoint Jack Lang, a Jewish socialist former minister for education and culture, as french ambassador at the United Nations in New York. Jack Lang is well known for his encouragement of graffiti and hip-hop.

Posted by Armor on February 03, 2009, 03:13 PM | #

We already knew Sarkozy would keep race-replacing and race-mixing the French. Now he is going to change their culture too.

Recent declarations by the crazy Hungarian midget :
(It is my own translation, so it isn’t perfect.)

PARIS (AFP) - Last Monday Nicolas Sarkozy launched the new Council for artistic creation over which he will preside, giving it the mission to start a “change of culture” and the ambition to push culture as “France’s answer to the economic crisis”.

“I believe fundamentally in the State’s power to spark a change in culture, so we will learn how to better support the creation process”, said M. Sarkozy in a speech he made at the Elysée palace, in front of over 300 representatives from the world of culture.

[...]

Nicolas Sarkozy justified his decision to chair the new institution. “My words are freer than the person who creates and who must watch what he says, (...) so it is up to me to kick the ant hill and stir things up”, he said.

“I want things to start moving, I want change, I want culture to be our response to the world economic crisis (...), and to that end, creation must be at the heart of the cultural policy I would like to launch”, said the president.

“I want to beat one-way thinking, sectarianism, sects that would like to confine everyone in a small environment, when culture must radiate for all of us”, he said, addressing his guests.

[...]

source