Print this post Print this post

Marine Le Pen 
Le peste blonde

3,182 words

“Marine Le Pen apparaît en effet pour les Français comme le moyen actuel le plus évident d’exprimer désormais politiquement le rejet du Système.”
— Andrea Massari

In a number of opinion polls taken since January 16, when Marine Le Pen succeeded her father as head of the Front National (FN), she’s placed as one of the two presidential candidates likely to reach the second electoral round of May 2012.

Her party’s unprecedented popularity in this period of crisis and uncertainty has sent a shockwave through Europe’s globalizing elites – who fear a possible European Spring will sweep le Peste blonde into the presidential palace.


Five years ago, when following the 2007 French presidential campaign, I thought “Nationalists [Had] Won the Battle of Ideas.”

There was then a good deal of popular disgust with the political class, corruption and scandal were rife at the highest levels of the state, Europeanization and globalization had taken a toll on the economy, and the French were increasingly beset by questions of ‘who are we?’ In the year leading up to the 2007 election, Jean-Marie Le Pen stood not just at an unprecedented 14 percent in the polls, the presidential campaign itself was marked by an unmistakable lepénisation de l’esprit.

The leading presidential candidates were compelled, as a consequence, to present themselves as critics of the established system, exalt the national heritage, talk tough on immigration and insecurity, and ‘out-Le Pen’ Le Pen if they could.

Despite this remarkable change of consciousness, the FN placed but fourth in the first round of voting, receiving the lowest score in its 35-year history.

How was it possible, I wondered, that the FN could ideologically dominate the campaign (by setting its agenda) and still do so poorly at the polls?

There were explanations. Mine was to attribute the party’s dismal showing to Le Pen’s youngest daughter.

The then 38-year old Marine, already being groomed for the succession, had managed her father’s 2007 campaign in a way I thought disastrous.


I have since learned that Marine is no disaster, but rather someone in whom a figure of destiny can be seen.

She stands a head taller than the lightweights of the established parties, she’s an eloquent, charismatic champion of the national cause, and she’s no ordinary political strategist.

Raised by one of the legendary street-brawling politicians of the 20th century, the young Marine (her first campaign was at the age of 13) early on saw how fragile the System was and where it was already starting to give way. She also had first-hand experience of the mediocrities in charge of the System and seen the disorder, doubt, and uncertainty they had brought to everything. But most of all, she realized that in misgoverning France the mediocrities making up the ‘elites’ — these playthings of the System’s consummate meaninglessness — were creating an opportunity that could potentially turn her father’s ‘outlaw’ party into a governing party — next year, or, more likely in five years, with the 2017 presidential election, when the breakdown (and other things) will be far more advanced.

Marine is not content, then, with simply assuming the leadership of her father’s protest party, she wants it to take state power. And that, she knows, requires a long march.


When assuming her apprenticeship for the FN presidency in 2007, she began to re-position the party, ‘modernizing’ — de-demonizing, normalizing, banalizing (?) — it, with the aim of running an electoral campaign that might credibly take it into the Elysée. This entailed not just widening the party’s electoral base, but modifying its rhetoric and jettisoning ‘the provocative, sulfurous themes’ dear to her father.

In endeavoring, however, to purge the party of those causes deeply rooted in Vichy and Algeria, in the Church and in French relations to the Jews — those causes which had kept the party on the fringe, away from power — she threatened to purge all the things, I (along with the party’s old guard) thought, that had defined the Front National, made it the System’s most formidable opponent, and won it the allegiance of French France.

The sole thing that actually seemed to come from her modernizing reforms was the electoral disaster of 2007.

Or, so I thought.

2012: Year of Decision

Today, everything I saw as responsible for the 2007 failure seems suddenly to be working in Marine’s favor.

There are several reasons for this. At one important level, politics in our media-saturated counter-civilization is a matter of image-making, and Marine, now at the FN’s helm, is giving the party a very telegenic image, her smile winning converts more readily than her father’s defiant snarl.

Her critics on the ‘extreme Right’ are not entirely happy with all that comes with her smile — and they go so far as to claim that she is submitting to the System’s dictates, even becoming a part of it.

However, from my remote perspective (far across the Atlantic and with only an internet access to the subject), her so-called ‘concessions’ to the System don’t seem to go much beyond the surface of things. For despite her media dissimulations, she still stands for national preference, withdrawal from the EU and NATO, opposition to Islamization and Third-World immigration, economic nationalism, and a plebiscitary republic – all positions that challenge the System in its fundamentals

The party’s fundamentals, though, are being given a ‘new look’. In the streets and on television, the fresh-faced youth in jeans and T-shirts — this conspicuous generational change evident at the party’s May Day march — conveys a far different message to the electorate than the former skin-heads, with their Celtic crosses, whom Marine now excludes from FN demonstrations.

The tonality of the party’s discourses is similarly changing. Where her father dismissed the alleged Nazi gas chambers as a historical ‘detail’ and characterized the Occupation as relatively benign, she describes the so-called Holocaust as the ‘summation of barbarism’ and compares Muslims praying in French streets to the German Occupation forces. More forthrightly even, though not uncritically, she extends her hand to Israel and the French Jewish community (both of which have largely refrained from taking it, accusing frontistes [as Haaretz puts it] of having traded ‘in their Jewish demon-enemy for the Muslim criminal-immigrant model’, hoping in this way to get ‘the Jewish absolution’ that will bring them closer to power).

All Marine’s concessions to the System can, in fact, be seen as part of her effort to publicly re-define the FN as a ‘national-populist’ rather than an ‘extreme right’ party. There’s but a fine distinction between these two designations: nevertheless, the first term is considered acceptable, the second is not. Certain MSM commentators claim for this reason that Marine is simply changing the party’s vocabulary and style — that Jean-Marie’s paternal heritage still guides the party — and they, I suspect, are closer to the truth than her far-Right critics.


Partly as a consequence of her ‘de-demonizing’ efforts, a majority of the French now sees the FN as ‘a party like the others’ — which means it will no longer take a conscious act of rebellion to vote for it.

Marine is also suddenly very ‘popular’ in the media — her face is on all the magazine covers, her image or voice is regularly seen or heard on TV and radio, her lepénisation of the presidential campaign has again made the FN the center of political debate, and, far from being a creature of the media as her critics charge, the media-savvy Marine is creating the ‘events’ and addressing the issues (ignored by the System) that attract media attention.

All these things are contributing to legitimizing and normalizing France’s principal anti-System party. As the New York Times has it, Marine presents herself as ‘a kinder, gentler extremist’. But however her ‘modernized’ FN is characterized, it is becoming an increasingly ‘credible’ electoral force — and one day it will likely get a say in how the French state is run.

One of the FN’s more astute observers, the sociologist Alain Mergier, claims we are entering a period when the far-Right’s historic discourse is giving way to a new discourse adapted to the society-shattering realities of financial markets and immigrant waves. In contrast to the reality-denying discourses of the established parties, ‘the extreme Right [i.e., the FN] is beginning to introduce the type of discourse that will mark the 21st century’ (Le Monde, 4-21-11).


Marine expects that the French — this very conservative people with a long tradition of revolution — will at some future point (in desperation perhaps) want to cut the Gordian knot, break with the System and its corrupt parties (from the Communists and Greens on the far Left to the respectable conservatives of the governing UMP) — ridding themselves of them and their System in order, ultimately, to overthrow ‘King Money’ and re-assert the sovereignty and existence of their threatened fatherland.

Marine’s reassuring face – with its charismatic hint of Saint Joan’s faith in France – has undoubtedly been a factor in making the FN’s anti-System campaign increasingly popular.

But in sharp contrast to 2007, something else, something absolutely critical, has entered the electoral equation.

It’s often been said that the FN does well whenever France does not. Today, France, along with the rest of Europe, is teetering on the brink of a potentially terminal system crisis. Combined with Islam’s rapid, brutal, and widespread penetration of the Continent, the crisis is multiplying all political effects by an exponentially higher figure. A fin-du-monde feeling is thus more and more evident, as the world of consumerism and abundance, easy credit, and confidence in the future gives way to a world of scarcity, apprehension, and threat.

France seems headed toward some sort of turning point — to what may be a period similar to Spengler’s decisive years — a period when everything forthcoming is to be decided. One conspicuous sign of this shifting political terrain, in France and across Europe, is the hollowing out of the large national centrist parties (Center-Left/Center-Right) that have governed the Continent for the last half century.

The cahiers de doléances preceding the convening of what may be another Estates-General have yet to be announced, but a petitioning of grievances is already underway in the reigning psychology. According to recent polls, three-quarters of the French oppose globalization and ‘Europeanization’; a similar number has a negative view of  ‘capitalism’; and nearly everyone believes the governing elites care nothing about the ‘people’, whose welfare is daily sacrificed on the altars of their (the elites’) cosmopolitan gods — who self-righteously demand the leveling of the whole world for the sake of consuming ‘Coca-Cola and Nikes’.

Such anti-System sentiments are not distinct to France. Everywhere in Europe, they are fueling the rise of ‘national-populist’ parties opposing the globalizing forces of Europeanization, Americanization, Third-Worldization, and Islamization, each of which is seen as serving interests hostile to the ‘people’.


The first great depression of the global economy, structural unemployment, impending state bankruptcy, secessionist immigrant enclaves, ugliness and insecurity everywhere — all these disturbing trends are making Europeans more conscious of the forces threatening them, as the economic-system crisis of a globalizing modernity converges with rising populist resistance to create a potentially explosive situation.

Marine’s FN

Since its origin in 1972, FN campaigns have focused on the population-replacing implications of Third World immigration — a focus the System designates as ‘racist’ (i.e., inhuman and hence totally condemnable).

It’s become a bit harder, lately, for the System’s defenders to play this card (especially since Angela Merkel publicly repudiated multiculturalism). At the same time, the FN is taking a different approach to immigration.

By critically re-framing questions of Islam and immigration in terms of a larger anti-System critique that circumvents the restrictions the System imposes on discourses related to the globalizing forces of Islam and immigration, the FN can no longer be dismissed as solely a ‘racist’ or xenophobic party. In fact, it is arguably the only party addressing the great social and economic issues of our age, which is making it a political vanguard that the established parties will try to recuperate for themselves — as Sarkozy did in 2007.

Against the System’s arrogant elites (the ‘UMPS’), the FN presents itself as ni gauche, ni droite, but nationalist — defender of family, work, and community — champion of la France profonde — counter-elite of an awakened people refusing submission to US, EU, and IMF dictates — and, as such, a party that holds that Dominique Strauss-Kahn got what he deserved and that the IMF shouldn’t be reformed, but abolished, for being the misery-inflicting pit bull of international finance that it is.

The FN now orients less to the traditional Right electorate than to the popular classes — the ‘little people’ — who have paid the highest price for ‘Anglo-Saxon ultra-liberalism’. Two-thirds of the FN electorate are males between the ages of 35 and 49 — the most active part of the population and the part most touched by the economic crisis. Rumor has it that half the party’s latest recruits are workers who once voted Communist or Socialist. claims the FN is even adapting the old PCF’s organizational forms to structure and federate its expanding membership base.

The anti-globalist, economically nationalist, and identitarian anti-System campaign the FN is beginning to wage is steering the party clear of the taboo racial aspects of Islam and immigration, while, at the same time, providing the party with innumerable social and economic reasons to legitimize its resistance to the invaders — reasons are intersecting popular concerns.

Thus, without any reference to the biocultural character of the Third-World hordes assailing Europe’s frontiers, the ‘global capitalism’ favoring such population-replacing migrations is condemned for destroying the high-wage manufacturing sectors of First-World economies, devastating their working and middle classes, undermining and bankrupting their national states, fostering dysgenic social values, betraying rooted forms of identity and heritage, etc.

Marine’s mix of far-Right nationalism and Left-wing anti-globalism oriented to the interests of blue- and white-collar workers threatened by the financialization of the world economy, along with her opposition to US/NATO military adventures in Libya or Afghanistan, are attracting elements not only from the Right and the Left electorate, it’s confusing the established parties, whose every effort to steel her thunder simply adds to her legitimacy.

The Far-Right Critique

My tendency is to privilege the ideas that go into constructing a political identity rather than the political expediency of  realizing them. This makes me temperamentally closer to the FN’s far-Right critics (who emphasize ideological clarity and fidelity) than to the practical-minded electoralists of the Mariniste camp. Nevertheless, if I were French, I would defend the FN against its critics.

Maybe it’s a latent reformism in me, or maybe a sense of what’s needed to prepare the national revolution, but though I agree that Marine is making compromises to the System, restricting the militancy of the party membership, and soft-pedaling her differences with Islam, her party (the sole credible anti-System challenger in Europe’s most important country) has already begun preparing the preconditions for a national revolution.

Thus, after considering the anti-Mariniste critiques of Robert Spieler, Pierre Vial, and the groupuscules linked to the NDP, the MNR, PdF, and the tradis (Traditional Catholics) — and accepting even the justice of much of their criticisms — I nevertheless still think Marine’s FN serves the French people, being the one party that might actually defend them from the System’s inherent nihilism. Everything else at this point of high uncertainty and crisis seems utopian.

The debates over Marine’s impure distillation of French nationalism remind me of earlier debates between the revolutionary and reformist wings of the last century’s nationalist and labor movements — debates that pitted Home Rulers against Fenian insurrectionists, Social Democrats against Communists.

Most history-changing social movements, I sense, combine both revolutionary and reformist elements, and one usually serves as a spur to the other. Indeed, it could be argued that a revolutionary movement depends on first having a well-established reformist movement to create an electoral and institutional audience receptive to a more radical pursuit of the movement’s goals. (Nationalists of this ilk might argue: No Parnell, no Pearse).

Marine’s far-Right critics go even further, however, claiming that her entourage is ‘full of Jews, queers, and Arabs’, that she’s ‘a Zionist and the candidate of the political-media system’, that she lacks all conviction, etc. These (I assume) exaggerated accusations seem to have had little resonance in the popular classes (where she’s seen as the sole bulwark against the ‘rising tide of color’) — and they have not mitigated the alarm felt across the Left spectrum (which, in any case, prefers to fight the ‘fascists’ of the FN than the vampire capitalism that today has the whole world in its clutches).

Marine’s concessions to the System, however ideologically impure, have already created a public space for the discussion of issues that would never otherwise have escaped the nationalist ghetto. Indeed, the nationalist agenda, through her efforts, is increasingly part of public debate.

Marine’s rising popularity and the growing anti-System disaffection relate, in fact, less to ideological matters than to the spreading realization that the great problems born of the System’s now unmistakable failures (unemployment, Third-World immigration, debt, cost of living, security, etc.) are not being addressed by the established parties — and that alternatives solutions, even radical ones, ought to be considered, especially as things get worse.

Beyond all concern for ideological sign and symbol, Marine wants state power. If obtaining it means sacrificing certain sacred ideological cows, then Marine, like Henri-Quatre, hasn’t a qualm. (Paris, after all, vaut bien une messe).

Marine can say almost anything and make almost any concession to the System’s totalitarian dictates (especially if made with Machiavellian purpose) and it won’t detract from the nationalist cause, for if her party should capture the presidency or even establish a significant parliamentary presence, the state will be forced to modify its anti-national policies, as French France advances a step closer to reasserting herself.

But of even greater political consequence to the world, a FN-led France would radically re-align global power relations, for Marine has learned from France’s many Russophile geostrategists that Europe’s future lies in the lands of the rising sun and not in America’s decadent Abendland.

Marine promises thus to take France not only out of the EU and NATO, but out of the Atlanticist Alliance, whose nomos has governed the earth since 1945.

Such a course would undoubtedly set off ‘an epochal tectonic shift’, as France, in partnership with Russia and Germany, frees herself from the satanic globalist forces (Chinamérique) headquartered in Washington and New York, to reassert her sovereignty in ways favoring the development of a European continental bloc.


Even assuming that Marine manages to win 30 percent of the vote in late April 2012, placing first, she still won’t survive the second round of the elections, for all the System forces are certain to unite against her.

Marine evokes the possibility of a European Spring.

It’s impossible, though, to know what the world will be like a year from now, even given the accelerating severity of the crisis.

Marine will probably have to wait for 2017. But no matter, the sands are running for her. The System’s peste blonde, my Saint Joan, is only 42. She has time — especially considering that the liberal-modern system sapping the life from European-descended peoples has finally entered the late Winter phase of its demonic cycle.

Vive le Peste!

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Posted June 15, 2011 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    A very informative piece. Thanks Michael.

  2. Posted June 15, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    A few comments on this analysis which conclusions I mostly share.

    The few journalists and popular chroniclers that had started to openly give her support, whether on the radio, TV or the press, have recently been given the push. The establishment is slowly but surely adopting the same tactics that it used against her father : direct censorship, the censorship of silence, “diabolisation”.

    An unprecedented number of French people have privately declared that they will vote for her, there is no denying this change of mood amongst the voters. People who would never have dreamed of voting for her father. However, it is said that many of those will change their mind before the second round on the principle” better the devil you know”.

    A good number of high civil servants are beginning to edge their bets, discreetly of course.

    Nicolas Sarkozy is no cheap adversary, he is ruthless and ready to do anything to keep the position of power (Some say he was the one pulling the strings during Strauss Kahn downfall). He knows public opinion is volatile and minds can be changed within a week with an active media propaganda.

    Things are going to worsen a lot in the few coming months on all fronts. Marine is the only proper response to the difficult times France will have to face. She might be the one needed by the establishment to solve the problems, in the same way that Marechal Pétain was used, then discarded. 2017 might be a bridge too far. One thing is certain, if she wins in 2012, it is because they will let her win.

    My personal perception as an antidemocratic nationalist catholic in exile : Marine, un moindre mal pour le bien commun, et le plus tôt le mieux (A lesser evil for the common good, and the sooner the better).

  3. Posted June 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Frankly, I never saw Marine as a good successor mostly due to some of her liberal positions on abortion and gay rights. In fact, I think that she is somewhat of a French female Nick Griffin. This is exactly why I’m a little suspicious of nationalist and nationalist parties who try to “moderate” their image. Just look at what the BNP has become in recent years. Sure they’ve made some headway in the political arena, but at what price. Race mixing is no longer frowned upon anymore and it has become almost rabidly pro-Israel (even allowing Jews and coloreds into the party).

    Of course, the French National Front even when Jean Marie Le Pen has never fully been a white nationalist party because it does include Jews and nonwhites in it, as well as one member (Bruno Gollnisch) who has a Japanese wife and three mongrel children and Jean Marie Le Pen is the godfather of a half-Negro (Dieudonné M’bala M’bala). Like the BNP, it too only allows “voluntary” repatriation of non-whites and bans skinheads and others considered “extremist.”

    I can understad to an extent why some nationalist parties do have to moderate some of their earlier positions and are not allowed to say certain things about race that is not in line with political correctness or question “certain” historical accounts out of fear of going to prison. Perhaps this might help Marine’s and the NF image, maybe even get her elected as prime minister some day (if that ever happens), but at the same time, it could also be deadly to our race by allowing Jews and some nonwhites to stay in white countries (unless they were put in isolated areas away from the white general public). We must never compromise our standards in order to gain power.

    This article reminds me a little bit of an article by the National Alliance a few year back. The post is here.

  4. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted June 15, 2011 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Thanks to Dr. O’Meara for another excellent thought piece.

    This seems most relevant to us:

    Indeed, it could be argued that a revolutionary movement depends on first having a well-established reformist movement to create an electoral and institutional audience receptive to a more radical pursuit of the movement’s goals.

    SUCCESSFUL revolutions are few, and remarkably unstable, because they lack the ability to govern effectively. Rule, for a (short) season, yes, but not govern, effectively. Their institutional ineptitude validates the counter-revolution.

    If Marine wisely takes the time needed to bring the de facto Governance – the Grand Ecole graduates who make The System work – along with her, she might be the pivot upon which the French element of the Greater European future moves. That’s an example for all of us.

    Save the ideological purity for the (Restored!) Church Militant.

    What’s In YOUR Future?

    Focus Northwest

  5. CaptainEuro
    Posted June 16, 2011 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    Thanks for this article Michael. Excellent piece of work. The more Marine LePen is demonised by the establishment and, at the same time, the more people support her the better. This (arguably) should be a good sign.

    On the other hand I have to totally agree with JoeRebel on this issue. Race is the number one priority through and through. If what LePen (Marine) is doing is some kind of ‘strategy’ to gain power, good, but I have to conclude that politicians (within the Democratic framework) are bound to corruption and deception. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for her anyway, after all, there isn’t a better alternative.

  6. Posted June 16, 2011 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    Here is a recent article dealing with the manner French journalism is usually controlled, and more specifically with the Marine Le Pen problem.

    Présidentielle 2012 : après Zemmour, Ménard, vers la sur-normalisation des médias
    Par Eric Martin le 15 juin 2011 dans La tribune de Polémia, La une, Médias tics avec 2 Commentaires
    Les médias français sont hyper politiquement corrects. Mais sous la pression de la concurrence d’Internet, certains journalistes avaient su prendre une certaine liberté de ton : Eric Zemmour, Eric Naulleau, Elisabeth Lévy, Robert Ménard ou Frédéric Taddéi. Leur épuration est en cours. Parce que le politiquement correct ne peut pas affronter un débat à la loyale. Parce que le Système repose sur la scénarisation d’affrontements fictifs. Parce que Nicolas Sarkozy et l’UMP ont électoralement intérêt à être opposés à des journalistes politiquement corrects. Explications.

    Médias de marché ? Non médias d’influence !

    Les épurés – ou ceux dont les dirigeants de l’audiovisuel réduisent la surface médiatique – ont un point commun : ils font de l’audience. A ce titre, ils se croyaient protégés par leur succès. A tort. Les médias ne sont pas financés par leurs spectateurs et leurs auditeurs. Le rôle des médias n’est pas d’informer mais d’influencer commercialement ou politiquement par la publicité et la « communication ». Patrick Le Lay avait résumé cette mission d’une formule choc : « le rôle de TF1 est de vendre du temps de cerveau humain disponible à Coca-Cola. »

    Dans cette logique, il ne s’agit pas de faire réfléchir les gens mais de les endormir. Ruquier (« On n’est pas couché ») reprochait souvent à Zemmour et Naulleau leur excès de critique avec cette formule : « ce n’est pas bon pour la promotion ». La promotion de spectacles ou de livres politiquement corrects.

    Le politiquement correct ne peut survivre que dans le déni de débat

    La tâche des défenseurs du politiquement correct est immense : il leur faut faire croire que l’immigration est une chance pour les Français, le libre échange mondial un bienfait pour l’emploi, et le mariage gay une avancée naturelle. Or la meilleure manière d’imposer le déni de réalité, c’est le déni de débat.
    De ce point de vue, les épurés sont quadruplement dangereux :

    – ils montrent qu’un autre discours que le discours officiel est possible ;

    – ils surclassent par la qualité de leurs arguments et leur vivacité d’esprit leurs adversaires ;

    – ils sont une menace pour les petites cylindrées intellectuelles, type Jean-Michel Aphatie ou Alain Duhamel ;

    – et surtout ils risquaient de faire école.

    L’épuration en cours sonne donc comme un rappel à l’ordre des journalistes. C’est ce qu’on appelait à l’époque soviétique une reglaciation.

    Le Système repose sur la scénarisation d’affrontements fictifs

    En Occident le système mondialiste repose sur la mise en concurrence d’équipes politique défendant des projets quasi similaires. Ces oppositions sont scénarisées. Il faut faire croire aux citoyens que remplacer l’équipe A par l’équipe B, en attendant de remplacer l’équipe B par l’équipe A changera quelque chose. Les médias ont pour fonction d’intéresser les électeurs. Avant d’être un événement politique, l’élection présidentielle est un spectacle.

    Le rôle des médias est de façonner l’affrontement entre les candidats susceptibles d’être élus au regard des exigences du système dominant : DSK versus Sarkozy, ou Sarkozy versus Aubry ou Hollande. De ce point de vue, Marine Le Pen n’a pas à être traitée comme les autres contrairement à ce que pensaient les journalistes en cours d’épuration. Pour faire carrière, les journalistes n’ont pas à se comporter en observateurs mais en militants : à l’image de Caroline Fourest qui sature l’espace médiatique en publiant une biographie politique sur Marine Le Pen… suivie d’un manuel de combat.

    Ce ne sont pas les électeurs qui ont le droit de décider qui peut être président de la République. Ce sont d’abord les médias. Et derrière eux les puissances d’argent qui les contrôlent : la finance, les banques et l’industrie du luxe.

    Paradoxalement Sarkozy et l’UMP ont besoin de journalistes politiquement corrects

    Il peut paraître paradoxal qu’alors que Nicolas Sarkozy s’apprête à faire une campagne électorale axée à « droite », les journalistes les moins politiquement corrects soit épurés. Mais ces journalistes sont épurés précisément parce qu’ils montraient les faux semblants de l’opposition entre l’UMP et le PS. Et que pour l’UMP et Sarkozy la meilleure manière de passer pour « à droite » c’est d’être interrogé par des journalistes politiquement corrects et si possibles de gauche. Car ceux-ci s’intéresseront à leurs déclarations, non à leurs actes. Ils les critiqueront du point de vue politiquement correct, non du point de vue populiste. Ils rentreront donc parfaitement dans le plan com’ sarkozyste. Ce n’est pas hasard, si Ivan Rioufol est jusqu’ici épargné : lui prend au premier degré les affrontements virtuels entre l’UMP et le PS.

    Une présidentielle aseptisée ?

    Les télévisions s’apprêtent à organiser des débats convenus présentés par des personnalités appropriées : Alain Duhamel, Yves Calvi ou Laurence Ferrari. Les radios se mettront au diapason.

    Reste à savoir quel rôle jouera Internet dans la bataille.

    Andrea Massari

  7. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted June 19, 2011 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    The most important question from a WN point of view is of course : what is her standpoint on non-White immigration and remigration?If she will have attained power will she stop immigration altogether (including that of “asylum-seekers”) and start a realistic remigration program?Perhaps she keeps her real intentions vague in order not to deter the electorate,but these are the crucial questions.It is also disquieting that she tries to pander too much to Israel and the Jews.With Jews this is a lost case.Their fanatical hatred for all things ethnic and national, especially of Christian Europeans will never make them real cooperators in our survival.There is a real danger that Jews will infiltrate her party and steer it in an entirely different direction,transforming it in a kind of French neo-con party,heavily pro-Israel but soft on immigration and miscegenation.You could better have the Jews as open enemies than as “friends” who will stab you in the back,as they always have done in history.It seems that ALL nationalist parties in Europe now steer a pro-Jewish course which makes them liable to Jewish infiltration,manipulation and ultimately neutralization.

  8. Mark Hess
    Posted June 19, 2011 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    I often come across a peculiar tendency in much of the writings of people who are concerned with nationalism and the preservation of our European heritage. It is an easy willingness to dismiss whatever good a potential ally has to offer because that person does not work for a “perfect agenda.”

    Apparently, because Marine Le Pen does not have a pathological loathing for all homosexuals, and because she does not believe that a collection of cells that has not even developed the capacity to feel, let alone to be aware, trumps the health and welfare of a sentient human being, that must mean that she is “working for the enemy” and that she has nothing good to offer. Right?


    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted June 20, 2011 at 4:05 pm | Permalink


      White Nationalism’s last FIFTY years, with rare exceptions:

      (1) Rockwell

      (2) Tonight’s Entertainment

      (3) Covington

      This demanding of perfection is reminiscent of Peter Pan, the eternal Child.

      They won’t deal with the vast range of grey that the Real World, the balancing realm between Light and Darkness, uses as the building blocks their spiritual development needs. Why? They refuse to accept the power (the test of character) and responsibility (the values that form the character) that are the foundations of Adult effectiveness.


      What’s In YOUR Future?

      Focus Northwest

  9. Michael O'Meara
    Posted June 20, 2011 at 11:40 pm | Permalink


    I’ve always enjoyed and learned from Your comments here — and perhaps years ago when I posted at VNN.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted June 21, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      Thank you for the kind words.

      I enjoyed your comments, and they inspired me to consider the Racial Question in much greater depth than I had until then. The challenge you, Covington, and a precious few others presented is the Challenge of Telemachus – HOW Do We Do The Work That Must Be Done?

      I see White Nationalism as a cultural force that always seems to be grounded whenever it starts to become remotely effective. The competent, “high quality” people Pierce claimed he wanted – people like Rockwell, for example – become attracted, and are then horrified as misfit, morbidly obese clowns hold the banner they were considering following. The Cathedral of Light was replaced by a sandbox in a lunatic asylum. How could this be?

      This can not be by accident; not time after time, all of the time. Why did those we followed choose us to play the role of Charlie Brown – fat, stupid, untrained, uneducated, and incapable of learning how badly he has been played for a fool, in a Game he could walk away from at a moment’s notice?

      WNism has avoided the development of mature political structures, in part because few could imagine the purpose to which they would be placed, the Work they would be performing with them. Thus, the importance of the metapolitical perspective as the foundation for a framework we can work in. This, incidentally, is where the late Dr. Sam Francis was heading in his analysis.

      The Christians at the foot of the Cross could not have imagined the force of Christianity in transforming Civilization into the fullest expression of Western Civilization, the outworking of the Western Soul in the material world. Yet, they, quite unwittingly, were doing the necessary spadework to turn the soil, transform the soil, plant and nourish the seeds for GENERATIONS to come.

      The ability to bind one’s Self, and then, a group, to a plan of development over generations is the greatest skill of our Racial Adversaries, and the only way we can match this is with similarly focused Institutions. Thus, my focus on a new outworking of the Christic Impulse. This implies a new Christian Church, as part of the Living Foundation of the New Civilization.

      I owe these ideas to the writings of yourself, Greg Johnson, and The Man Who Saw Clearly, Harold Covington.

      And that’s how I spent my summer vacation!

      Thank you.

      What’s In YOUR Future?

      Focus Northwest

  10. Armor
    Posted July 2, 2011 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    “Where her father dismissed the alleged Nazi gas chambers as a historical ‘detail’

    According to EN.Wikipedia, Le Pen was asked in 1987 about Faurisson and the gas chambers, and he replied this: “I ask myself several questions. I’m not saying the gas chambers didn’t exist. I haven’t seen them myself. I haven’t particularly studied the question. But I believe it’s just a detail in the history of World War II.”

    I think the journalists wanted him to argue against the existence of gas chambers, and Le Pen simply declined. According to FR.Wikipedia, the journalist got huffy when he heard the word “detail”, and Le Pen immediately added: “No, the question that was asked is how those people were killed or not”.

    As I understand it, he didn’t want to argue about the judeocide and the gas chambers. He took the position that it makes little difference whether someone dies in a gas chamber or before a firing squad. In fact, he refused the confrontation with the Jewish lobby.

    Even so, the “French” television then launched a six month long vilification campaign against Le Pen, based on his use of the word “détail”. They were so heavy and persistent in their attacks that it really became an assault against television viewers, not just against Le Pen. I thought that the word detail would have to be dropped from the French language altogether.

    Le Pen later argued that “the holocaust” is really a detail of WW2, since it is part of something bigger. The media and the tribunals argued that the word detail refers to a trifling matter.

    Two years later, in 1989, another very long vilification campaign took place. Le Pen and his National Front party were accused by the government and the media of bearing heavy responsibility in the profanation of a Jewish cemetery in the town of Carpentras. A body had been taken out of his grave. They tried to create an association in people’s minds between Le Pen and Jewish corpses, so as to bring his popularity down. But Le Pen and the National Front had nothing to do with it.

    On a different topic :

    Both Michael O’Meara and Philippe Régniez have quoted Andrea Massari. I think the problem with people like him writing in France is that they are afraid to mention the Jewish problem. The effect of judicial intimidation is to dumb down the French debate. It makes American websites all the more interesting to read.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace