Counter-Currents
1,681 words
Éric Zemmour has announced his candidacy for the presidency of France. The next great Dissident Right debate is upon us, and there is no way to win.
It basically comes down to this: If you support Zemmour, you can count on being called a “Jew lover” from now until eternity and expect to see your endorsements screenshotted into infinity. If you oppose Zemmour, you are going to look like the most petulant, stubbornly impractical purity-spiraler.
For all these years, we have fantasized about the day when a candidate from a major Western nation with wide name recognition and a strong grassroots base of support would come along and make the Great Replacement and anti-white racism their primary issues. Well, now that day has arrived, and the son of a bitch is a Jew.
To quote the French poet Depeche Mode:
I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumors
But I think that God has a sick sense of humor
It does feel as if an almighty being is playing some kind of cruel joke on us that we find ourselves in this position.
This is not to say that being Jewish is not a perfectly valid reason to oppose a politician. But in Zemmour’s case, it’s literally the only reason to oppose him. If he were a gentile, it would be a complete no-brainer.
Headlines in the Anglosphere are comparing Zemmour to Trump, probably for clickbait purposes. In reality, Zemmour has more in common with Patrick Buchanan. Like Buchanan, Zemmour became a household name as a television commentator on CNews (France’s equivalent of FOX News).
And like Buchanan, Zemmour’s talk show experience means he’s highly skilled and practiced at debating. A lot of the French Left are scared to go on his show. In April 2020, a video went viral of a migrant harassing and insulting Zemmour on the street as he was walking home from the grocery store. The perpetrator was later quoted as saying, “He is too strong in debate. What do you want to do except insult him?”
The fact that Zemmour is being called France’s Trump is significant given that four years ago, people were calling Marine Le Pen “France’s Trump” and she is still active in politics. Alas, Le Pen has spent the last four years cucking to the Left and punching to the Right in a counter-productive quest for any scrap of an electoral edge. In October, Le Pen said that she would be open to more immigration if employers said they needed it.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s New Right vs. Old Right here
Le Pen’s relentless push to the center has created enough space for her to be outflanked on her Right. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, polls were showing Zemmour as being nearly even with Le Pen. While it is doubtful that Zemmour could actually become President, getting into a second-round runoff with current President Emmanuel Macron is not beyond the realm of possibility. Even if Zemmour were to lose the second round, merely having him in the race will force the Left to argue for the Great Replacement. Jew or not, the effect this could have on the Overton window is potentially game-changing. It’s an offer almost too good to refuse, especially when we might not get another such opportunity for a while.
At the same time, Zemmour doing well and becoming the face of the Great Replacement debate might also set back discussion of the Jewish Question by years. Sick sense of humor, indeed.
Surely Zemmour must be controlled opposition, right? He has a fair bit of racist street cred. He has been charged with hate speech and inciting racial hatred nearly a dozen times. If he is secretly working for the establishment, the establishment has a funny way of showing their appreciation.
To me, Zemmour sounds as if he has been sounding more radical than necessary if he were controlled opposition. Take this quote from May 2020 on France’s Muslim no-go areas:
I think we reconquer by force. Moreover, in order to reconquer, there’s a problem of the number of people. You think — you are more humanist than I am — you think that we can bring people around by means of education. That’s something I don’t believe anymore. I think that from a certain number — you know, it is the sentence from Hegel that I say all the time — the quantity becomes a quality. So in this case, it is necessary to reconquer by force or give up.
All right, so Zemmour is not a fanatical anti-white Jew — but he must surely be a radical secular Jew! Actually, not really. Not only is Zemmour anti-anti-white, but he is also anti-anti-Catholic. In his speeches, he talks about keeping France Catholic. Zemmour has stated that the French character is a mix of Catholic-inspired social hierarchy and the traditions of Roman law.
Consider this passage from Zemmour’s 2019 speech at the Convention de la Droite:
On one side we have liberals and the market, which have opened our country to the winds of globalized free trading, destroying borders and small businesses and transforming our citizens into individualists, almost hysterical consumers in thrall to the edicts of advertising and big business. On the other side we have the far Left, who have swapped their Marxism and class warfare for the sacred cause of minorities, whether they be sexual of ethnic, and who have replaced the streets and the barricade with the courtroom.
The judges, conditioned by Left-wing propaganda at magistrate schools, have become an instrument, and often an accomplice, of various organizations for whom they serve as an armed wing, to racketeer the dissidents and terrorize the majority who were previously silent and are now paralyzed. All those who felt constrained by the previous society governed by Catholicism and the civil code, all those who were promised liberation and believed it: women, the young, homosexuals, people with dark skin, Jews, Protestants, atheists, all those who felt they were an unwelcome minority within the male, white, heterosexual, Catholic majority and who tore down the statue to the jerky rhythm of Mick Jagger’s swaying hips.
It’s first of all noteworthy that Zemmour identified Jews as being part of the problem — although not the problem. Secondly, Zemmour promotes Catholicism as the true and rightful culture of France. While he is not Catholic himself, he acknowledges the cultural hierarchy.
In Zemmour’s defense, he’s a Sephardic Jew, not an Ashkenazi. Sephardi aren’t the Jews who run the banks; they’re the Jews ran the slave trade. If nothing else, he comes from a line of Jews who have experience transporting blacks from one continent to another against their will. Thus, if he is serious about stopping white genocide, maybe some of that epigenetic knowledge will be useful.
There are of course some personal issues with Zemmour. Rumors have swept France recently that he may have knocked up his young mistress/political strategist. Yeah, that’s naughty, but this is France we are talking about. In France, having a young mistress is virtually a job requirement to be President. I’m pretty certain it’s in their constitution.
In the interests of fairness, or in case anyone thinks I’m going too easy on Zemmour, I will now grant equal time to the anti-Zemmour case. For this, we’ll hear from Captain Harlock of Democratie-Participative, aka “the French Daily Stormer”:
Zemmour is a Jew for whom the world revolves around Jews. This is not exceptional; all Jews think so. Zemmour projects his rabbinic Semitism on France as Bernard-Henri Lévy projects his cosmopolitanism on France, the dividing line between the two being their divergence as to the best tribal strategy to adopt to secure the interests of the Jewish race in France.
The goyim make much of these recent feuds between prominent Jews. It is because they do not know anything about the Jews. These intra-community clashes are permanent, in France as in Israel, and bring Jewish factions into conflict on points of detail. If they are currently spilling over into the public square, it is because Zemmour’s line corresponds to an internal struggle between the Jewish establishment in power in France since 1945 and the supporters of Likud. . . .
In the event of Zemmour’s victory, all these Jews know that the Muslims will be unleashed against them and that the current precarious balance will be shattered. However, the whole Jewish racial strategy until now has consisted of fueling Arab rage against whites through their anti-racist media and associations. This policy ended up falling on the heads of these Hebrews, and the Jews united around Zemmour replied to their fellows in the CRIF [Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions] and LICRA [International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism] that a lack of change in strategy would only strengthen the Muslims over time. At no time in this equation does the fate of the whites cross the minds of these Jews who, moreover, all eat at each other’s homes on Saturdays.
This is what I expect most of the anti-Zemmour rhetoric on the Right is like; something along the lines of, “Okay, he says good things and is proposing good things, but he has a secret Jewish motive for it.” And who knows? Maybe he does. Maybe he is afraid that Jews in France will one day face a double pincer comeuppance between French patriots who are angry that the Jews wrecked their ancestral motherland and fanatical Muslims who are angry that the Jews wrecked their ancestral motherland.
The way I see it, we’re in serious “beggars can’t be choosers” territory. The drawbacks of a Zemmour candidacy — that it would muddy the waters when discussing the JQ and that we’ll spend the next 20 years explaining why Zemmour is exception to the rule — would only matter if he performed well, in which case it would also come with a lot of positive results, such as the normalization of many other dangerous topics. If he does poorly, however, then we’re no worse off than we are now.
In looking at it from a cost/benefit perspective, I think supporting Zemmour is worth the gamble. If nothing else, it will be destabilizing and could create opportunities.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
42 comments
I’m already sick of him.
I didn’t mean because he was Jewish, but there’s always some right wing figure in Timbuktu were are supposed to be excited about
There are powerful Sephardic banking families, particularly in France, the peireire family were like the Rothchild’s of France. The montefiores in England. It is true however that Sephardic Jews tend to be more right wing and loyal to the ancien regime than ashkenazis. For example, Judah Benjamin in the civil war and figures like David Ricardo in England.
– “Can I please have a White president who cares about White people”
– “Best I can do is a Zionist Jew”
In a triage situation you can only use the tools available to you right now. The only question is: “Is he better than Macron?” Obviously he is. So if you are French vote for him, if he is elected expect the worst, hope for the best, and all the while do what you always do: work tirelessly for the White race.
Being Sephardi, Zemmour might not provide as strong a blow to the JQ as Travis suggests. Didn’t Guillome Durocher say something about Zemmour pointing out that Ashkenazim have a racist attitude against his own branch on the latest weekly podcast? (sorry if I’m mistaken, I wasn’t listening too closely)
This reminds of Paul Gottfried’s review of CoC. He agreed with most of what MacDonald had to say, but made a distinction between the politically active “Russian” Jews who came in the 20th century, and his own group consisting of well-assimilated elements already in the US. Needless to say, he places MacDonald’s pernicious agents mostly in the first category.
Personally, I’m worried for the Smurfs if Gargamel is allowed to gain the French presidency.
Man, that’s hilarious! I’d all but forgotten about the Smurfs. It’s been awhile since I had a genuine belly laugh. Thank you.
It’s worth considering that some of the “Never, under any circumstances, a Jew!” types might be imposters, not our guys at all.
It seems likely that at least some of them are actually trolling, upset that we recognize Jewish subterfuge; so, they figure, they’ll just rub our noses in it when we see an exception to a rule, be unreasonably “anti-Jewish” at every turn just to show us, even when it doesn’t make strategic sense to. It’s as if they’re saying, “You don’t like Jews, so you have to be consistent! See, not even in this case! No! You’re not allowed to approve a Jew! Ever!!!”
Seriously, the hysterics of it all … no one’s going to take away your mead horn just because you recognize a strategically advantageous move (provided it is one, of course) if it happens to involve a would-be outsider ally who falls outside of his group’s character bell curve.
I recognize that Zemmour is clearly a better option in this election. But the greater point is that eventually, if we want a future for our people, we will have to stand up for ourselves. So many people still think it is immoral for Whites do defend ourselves, and that our interests can only be morally validated when expressed by a nonwhite.
You’re right about that. (And clearly you’re not the unreasonably all-or-nothing type I’m being critical of.)
If the help of others is being offered in the future and we’re ever in a position of such power that we don’t need it, I’m sure we’ll find a gracious way to decline it. 🙂
We should not be criticizing Eric Zemmour for outflanking Marine LePen from the Right and offering a more articulate and radical case for stopping the Great Replacement. We should be criticizing the French gentile politicians, including Marine LePen, who are not doing better. It is easy to cast aspersions on Zemmour’s sincerity and loyalty because he is a Jew. But what does it say about the character and loyalty of Marine LePen to have gotten outflanked like this?
Wise comment. I never liked Marine, even though I was hoping she’d do better when she went against Macron. Her rupture with her excellent father; her pushing many of the most “extreme” (ie, realistic and patriotic) elements out of the FN; her allowing FN to tactically (or principally?) “embrace diversity” in FN advertisements; and the fact that, from my conservative ideological perspective, she stinks on almost every issue except immigration (and now I just learned she’s sold out even on that??!), have all suggested that she’s nothing but a grifter desperately trying to use her only asset (her famous and honorable name) to ascend to power, probably for her own benefit and not that of the oppressed French people and their grim future.
If I were French, I would vote Zemmour this time. Who cares if he’s Jewish or a queer or whatever else as long as he’s advancing the white preservationist agenda? Whites need to recover their power and control over their own futures in their own homelands. The first step is to stop the bleeding out, which means halting government-abetted migratory invasions. Whoever can best be assumed to be able to do that should be supported. As I have mentioned a few times in comments here at CC, absent accelerationist collapse scenarios (which might be in our future based on regime incompetence {cf, Biden’s many self-caused messes}, but are overwhelmingly out of our control or influence), our path is one of ever intensifying gradual radicalization, constantly forcing the Overton Window to be opened wider (ie, upping our demands). One victory can and will lead to others, given that our agenda is the correct one for the vast bulk of our dispossessed and persecuted people. But we need to start that ball rolling somewhere and sometime. When we are one day strong again, JQ and similar issues will quietly disappear of themselves.
“Maybe he is afraid that Jews in France will one day face a double pincer comeuppance between French patriots who are angry that the Jews wrecked their ancestral motherland and fanatical Muslims who are angry that the Jews wrecked their ancestral motherland.”
Honestly this wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if more Jews, particularly of non-Ashkenazi heritage like Zemmours, start turning against the White Genocide/Great Replacement program, especially in europe. Sure you destroyed the traditional white nation, but jews will have to content with brown muslim Golems who don’t give two hoots about the holocaust or antisemitism, because in their minds jews are just white people with funny Physiognomy. Didn’t we see that to an extent already in NYC this year, during the Israel-Palestine flair up some months ago? I remember seeing a few headlines about jews being physically attacked in the streets.
While I’m not french, personally I’m in the beggers can’t be choosers camp, within limits. If Le Pen is cucked and traditional politics can still be useful to us, I mean really what choice do we have?
The overton window will shift. the goalposts on acceptable discussion will shift hard right. ALL we have to do is keep the subsequent discussion focused on the arguments being made, and away from the fact that its a Jew making them.
Isnt this meta politics in action…applied metapolitics if you will? If we are fearful that we as readers of this site and dissidents in general cant pull off this simple slight of hand/framing of the discussion, then we are certainly in way over our heads intellectually
“In reality, Zemmour has more in common with Patrick Buchanan.”
Zemmour goes way beyond Buchanan. I say this as someone who campaigned for and donated money to Pat (even as a grad student who was short of money). Pat mostly stuck to economic issues and never really pressed the racial issues much (even if he was correct on them when he did talk about race). He also got sidetracked on abortion all too easily and had a strong strain of conservativism in him (taxes, balanced budgets, Reaganism, etc.).
Zemmour is saying straight out that race is what matters and actually proposing something more than a cutback on immigration or pushing assimilation. No one else in my lifetime has spoken so forthrightly on the problems we face as a race.
I suppose I do understand the reticence on the part of some to support him. But since no one else has taken up the mantle (Marin Le Pen is no Jean Marie Le Pen) I’m not sure we have a choice.
You are so right. I actually worked for Buchanan back in that ’96 race (for pay; not as staff but a paid outside contractor; my boss, however, spent several months in early winter ’96 mostly in Buchanan’s company; alas, though he was/is very pro-white, he was much less knowledgeable and articulate on policy than I was, and too focused on election mechanics – to be fair, his/our job – at the expense of really being able to persuade Pat to make immigration cessation his centerpiece issue). While I didn’t have too much personal face time with Buchanan (his sister Bay was a real problem; she didn’t like the Hard Rightists in his circle – not that I was part of that inner circle), I did at one point in summer 1995 have the chance to argue to him that he should make his primary rhetorical focus the negative economic costs of mass immigration – as opposed to fixating (as he was already doing, and would go on to do more intensely over the primary season) on free trade as Middle America’s chief economic bane, which was stupid economically (free trade tends to be a good thing; the problem often misleadingly criticized as “free trade” is actually globalization, or the outsourcing of industrial manufacturing to lower wage countries), as well as politically, providing a real opening for his anti-nationalist GOP opponents to criticize him as anti-capitalist (which was absolutely untrue, both theoretically – one can be pro-free market and still opposed to transferring our industrial base to Communist China! – as well as ideologically: Buchanan’s economic policy agenda was in fact arguably more capitalist than that of any of his opponents, but getting people to understand why does require an ability to explain political economy to the public that “wordsmith” Pat simply lacked, mainly because economics is not among his passions or intellectual interests).
Of course, I would have preferred he publicly focus on the long term racial disaster of mass immigration, but even then (as now, at least in the US) I realized that such explicit white interests advocacy would simply be a nonstarter for someone who was very serious about trying to secure the GOP nomination and win the Presidency. Unfortunately, Pat, a much older and more experienced and successful man than I was (or ever shall be), did not heed my advice (though he did of course understand that immigration was bad for the nation, as well as the conservative cause; he’d already read Brimelow’s Alien Nation). The result was that Buchananite nationalism became ever more centered on protecting “Middle American jobs”, which alienated many free marketist ideologues within the GOP, instead of on stopping the unfair importation of wage-lowering immigrant job competition so as to protect working-class labor bargaining power and standard of living. This merely allowed antiwhite neocon, neoliberal, and libertarian GOP elements to then “school” Buchanan on his lack of understanding of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, etc, thereby creating in the GOP mass-mind the idea that Buchanan was a dangerous deviant from free marketist orthodoxy.
There are so many lessons here for future nationalist candidates.
Are we seriously having this discussion again after the farce which was Donald Trump?
You are welcome to sit it out.
Zemmour talk the talk, but walk the walk? Trump also talked the talk, but didnt walk the walk.
Besides, he is a jew. Call me a wignat all you want, but thats his biggest problem. Jews (no matter the subspecies) are only loyal to their tribe. Even if he win (which is nearly impossible) he will work solely on the criteria of “what is good for the jews”.
Macron will be reelected, but Zemmour is going to ballotage with him. Marine maybe would jump Zemmour’s boat, but I dont think so, because her ego his as big as little are his voters.
Is it possible that what’s good for the Jews in this instance is also what’s good for whites? When our interests align, why shouldn’t we cooperate? As long as our interests are in fact being advanced, I cannot see an objection to such alliances.
There is a certain faction within jewry that dislike muslims and blacks. They dislike them for reasons very different from our own, and that doesn’t mean our interests and their interests are aligned. The ‘Neocon’ faction in USA is the perfect example of this.
Zemmour’s grudge with muslims comes (I think) from the Argelia question, as he is a ‘pied noir’. He dislikes muslims because they took his parent’s home, and forced them to emigrate to France in the Algerian war. He is not working for the white people of France, but for his own personal vendetta against muslims (which is understandable).
Now, pragmatically speaking he is the lesser evil (just like Trump was). I do prefer a zionist jew who dislike muslims as a candidate for president of France, than a globalist wimp with a male muslim lover like Macron (yes, just google it).
This is sensible. But Whites have a terrible history of complacency. Every White musician with a Jewish agent will tell you how ‘alignment of interests’ is a very tricky thing between us and the Jews.
It will take someone with enormous warrior-like strength and then the loyal backing of other powerful allies to reverse this collapse into hell.
It will need someone fluent with strategy and tactics galvanized by an all consuming will to win. It needs someone who can inspire. It needs someone who can accept the costs to achieve this victory… on all of us, and who understands the enemy will do anything to stop this.
I often think that the person to turn this around may need to be more extraordinary than Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. I wonder if you magically dropped either of them into the middle of Paris or Detroit today how well they would do.
It’s needs a different attitude altogether, applicable to the world we are actually in today with a realistic understanding of the overwhelming weight of power against us and what that means.
Zemmour does articulate the modern problems in France, but leaving aside the Jew question for one moment, which I think is a completely reasonable and appropriate question, I see this guy as quite old for this kind of fight.
Even if he did win, it’s possible he will immediately find himself boxed in like Trump, unable to do anything with some specious ‘investigation’ into his conduct hanging over him.
Or worse his sane positions will become rounded off by the massive tide of pressure from the center/left, which seems to have happened to LePen.
We must never underestimate this pressure. It is like a black hole. It can destroy everything. This pressure even effects us as dissidents.
I think a realistic result we can hope for from Zemmour’s run in France is that it reopens the wound that Trump started in the center/anti-white left around the world and then our activists keep hammering that open wound again and again any way they can.
More extraordinary than Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great?
I think you underestimate the times. The system (the Cathedral) is a highly complex machine made up of bureaucracies and offices, things that are only binding as long as the public accepts them. What happens when enough people disagree with the system and it starts break?
They want us to think fight is impossible, to flee through the gap and be slaughtered; when turning our backs on escape and holding the line means only two possibilities–win or die.
Besides, when the time comes, our General will emerge and give the system a thorough thrashing. Do not despair, it is possible the Caesar treads the earth this very moment. Of course, we must not think that a great leader will solve all of our problems, we must act each individually to see the next civilization is brought about once this one has died.
Better a Jew like Éric Zemmour, than a White like Bush, Clinton, Trump, Biden or Emmanuel Macron.
At first, I was suspicious of Zemmour, because I knew nothing about him. Now I know a little. The more I learn, the more I like.
I’ve been a member of le Rassemblement National for many years (before the name change), and I like Marine Le Pen. Either Le Pen or Zemmour would be great. I support them both, and hope that one of them can win the presidency in 2022.
Don’t you think Zemmour is splitting the anti-diversity/sane vote on purpose? Even if that’s not his intent and he’s narcissistic enough to think he can win, don’t you think it will be the likely result? As I have said elsewhere, democracy will never save a White country. If Marine Le Pen were elected, she would not save France any more than Zemmour would, but for those who still believe in electioneering, the situation doesn’t look particularly promising.
If you don’t think democracy matters, then why do you care about Zemmour’s motives? Why are they any more interesting than LePen’s?
For one, because I’m a student of the Self-Chosen Ones. Can one of them truly be nationalistic in regard to a White Christian country? The answer, in my view, is basically no since their identity is wrapped up in tribal supremacy, which necessarily conflicts with the interests of the host nation. Zemmour is more interesting than LePen because in his case there are three presumptive factors behind his desire for high office: personal ambition, some version of French patriotism, and tribal loyalty. LePen lacks the last one.
In the US press Zemmour is described as “a Berber whose grandfather converted to Judaism”. Is this so? But French nationalists have a long row to hoe. How are they going to get around the dogma that race is not real? It is illegal to classify by race. As well, Zemmour only warns of islamisation—-not africanisation—-is everybody in France completely cool with a mullatto perm nation?
On France.
Zemmour could be their Disraeli. Not saying much but I’d guess that’s the mindset. Also can French nukes really be trusted to blacks and Muslims in coalition with leftist whites?
<blockquote>It basically comes down to this: If you support Zemmour, you can count on being called a “Jew lover” from now until eternity and expect to see your endorsements screenshotted into infinity. If you oppose Zemmour, you are going to look like the most petulant, stubbornly impractical purity-spiraler.</blockquote>
How about this solution to your dilemma? Just shrug your shoulders and say, “Ça m’est égal.”
Democracy is a huge part of the problem; democracy will never be the solution. No White country will be saved by someone elected through a one hominid–one vote process, and this Jew will certainly not save France. Other than understanding the reality of race, no truth is more important to White survival than the realization that democracy is a surefire recipe for national suicide. That’s true under all circumstances, but the process of destruction is significantly accelerated when the vote is tainted by female suffrage and primitive-hominid suffrage.
The ongoing deterioration of US economic and military power is the best thing that could happen to the White race at present because the US is the originator, promoter, and thuggish enforcer of “democratic values”. Once the US becomes too weak and discredited to carry on that role—or disappears altogether as a geopolitical entity—other White countries, and hopefully large portions of the US, will be able to free themselves from the death spiral caused by “our democracy” and “our values”. Until then politics will continue to be a grotesque clown show.
Your point on the US weakening is definitely key. I would hold that our strategies should be accelerationist and Divisive.
To accelerate the collapse of the bureaucracy and the political power that holds.
-“But I paid you! I own you!”
-“And this gives you power over me?”
That sums up the accelerationist principle. When confronted by representatives of the bureaucracy, we need to shift the power dynamic to support ourselves, no matter the tactics. If it requires us to end the life of a representative of our Overlords, then so be it! If it requires us to scream “fire!” and run away into the night, then so be it!
Remember, our enemy is dangerous, ruthless and above all, malevolent. We cannot let our moral codes of a just society of a past time get in the way. Playing the “optics game” is not going to win over long term support.
Our strategy should be along the lines of Organized Crime and the Mafia. We treat each of the “Made Men” as we would treat a civilized human being and a brother in arms; the outsiders, “People”, as no more worth our time and care, and rules about them are fluid at best.
We need to be little Machiavelli’s in our dealings with others. Being a race under threat of exile or execution, we should fight! And fight dirty!
Trump was like a blanket of protection against the demons of the night–it worked only for our peace-of-mind and little else. Zemmour is most likely the same as the previous US President; a token resistance against ZOG, but ultimately incapable of fighting back.
What use is fighting against an implacable enemy, if we have only two or three warriors? A general needs an army, if he has no army, he is not a general–but a soldier. And soldiers are sent to die.
Universal suffrage has been an unmitigated disaster.
Sadly it’s a highly contested issue among the right, but it shouldn’t be. I view the current situation as a Global ideological struggle not an ethnic one.
If we constantly view ourselves only in the perspective of White Nationalists, we lose focus on the war that is being fought here. This is why our side fails–we hold no power in the political or academic, so we cannot grasp the future–for to us the future is always unsure and many things can go wrong. Very few things are ever a satisfactory victory in our favor.
We lose because we are not an ideology or a group or fighters–we are dissidents, intellectual refugees, social and societal outcasts, men without hope in the eyes of an evil god–there is nothing we can do, because a dissident has already lost the most important battle: the battle of the mind.
Training ourselves to think in cold, calculating, Machiavellian terms will help us gain an advantage over our crumbling society, but attempting to take it back by any of the tactics being used against us is a sure-fire way to get ourselves demoralized, trapped and killed. We need to expunge any idea of democratic thinking from our minds and embrace a “might makes right” outlook on the world of politics–the enemy always had this thought-process which is why they won control over our “neutral” system.
We need to take on the attributes of warriors, not the attributes of the modern day cynical soldiers that return home from war scarred and terrified. Modern-day soldiers look into the abyss and run away screaming.
Warriors must look into the abyss without blinking nor a tear in their eye.
-“If your eye offends you, pluck it out . . .”
I see so many people want to “save” their countries; good for them, they have empathy and a grasp of the violation being thrust upon them. Can they do anything about this? No. They must let go of things that are corrupted and lost–pursue a better future in a land of your choosing and do so, but do not weep for the world that was lost–it is your enemy.
I have chosen to settle in a land away from where I was raised; once I get there, I intend to start building, and making allies in this fight against the system. We cannot succeed as refugees of the world, we must harden our hearts and strengthen our wills to become warriors–men who fight for their home with fury and abandon, knowing if they fall, all is lost.
“In Zemmour’s defense, he’s a Sephardic Jew, not an Ashkenazi. Sephardi aren’t the Jews who run the banks; they’re the Jews ran the slave trade. If nothing else, he comes from a line of Jews who have experience transporting blacks from one continent to another against their will. Thus, if he is serious about stopping white genocide, maybe some of that epigenetic knowledge will be useful.”
guffa guffa!
Is your last name Mr. Tongue and Cheek?
I predicted this. I thought it would be America, though. My prediction is that the Jews would walk into the very center of political power openly and unabashedly on some kind of pro-White or White user-friendly platform.
The old master beats the dog until it looks like the dog is ready to kill him in his sleep.Then a new master shows up and beats him a lot less and the dog is grateful and will kill for his master again.
Nor Zemour, nor Le Pen will reach the second round. It will be Valerie Pecresse. As simple as that.
Purity spiraling is counterproductive. The world is messy.
I am all for any candidate who discusses important issues truthfully, because I have found that many — not all — people are pretty skeptical of the mainstream narrative. When given an opportunity to agree with unpleasant truths, they will.
Face some facts: Le Pen got 34% last time in the second-round, and this time Macron is known and loathed. She could actually win – unless Zemmour wrecks it by splitting the ‘far-right’ vote or even getting into the second round by eliminating her. Then if as is likely he loses (being even more ‘extreme’ and untrusted than her) it will be a disaster and he will be despised. He even has to fudge the facts big time to speak of “our heritage” and “our ancestors”, she doesn’t. And if by some fluke he won the presidency, what solid base of support would he have to get anything much done? Talk is cheap, and some repeat of Trump in France is a waste of time; maybe he could serve as a useful adviser/minister under her, but that is about it, especially this time round. There is no basis on which to especially trust him or expect anything useful from him as a candidate in the election or even president. Le Pen at least has a serious heritage, movement, and campaign record. And she is smart enough to realize that she won’t get into power by pushing ‘extreme’ positions, once there though, she can maybe make a real difference.
Zemmour is just a flash in the pan a best, if not a long-term plant activated now to head off Le Pen at the pass when she might just win at last.
This is the line LePen proxies take as they pander to the anti-semites and hard-core ethnonationalists that they have publicly distanced themselves from. The sense of entitlement is strong with Marine. She thinks she is entitled to the votes of the people she has betrayed and failed repeatedly. It is entirely her fault that Zemmour has outflanked her by embracing correct positions that she has abandoned. Now all she can say is that Zemmour might spoil her career. This puts her in the Hillary Clinton camp of entitled, power-mad pantsuits who stand for nothing but themselves. Frankly, she should retire from politics.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
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.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment