I Guess I Am with the “French New Right”

Whoever criticizes capitalism while approving immigration whose working class is its first victim had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration while remaining silent about capitalism should do the same.

– Alain De Benoist, founder of the French New Right.

You know the European Left is failing when the fascists have the best ideas in the political marketplace.

US Politardics:

“Right”: I love capitalism! I hate immigration! (lol wut)

“Left”: I love immigration! I hate capitalism! (wtf)

The Politics of Idiocy.

That’s your choice folks. You get to choose between two perfectly awful views. Isn’t that cool?

There is no Left or Right. There are only nationalists and globalists.

– Marine Le Pen, French rightwing politician.

Another fascist gets my vote. This is absolutely repulsive. The European Left is so evil, insane and retarded that the even the fascists are better in comparison. Pathetic!

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

23 thoughts on “I Guess I Am with the “French New Right””

  1. Muslims are way worse than the Latinos, in that they’re violent to the general population, and they want to impose their intolerance on the general population.

  2. How could you NOT be with the French Right if you don’t want to see France commit national, ethnic, and cultural suicide? ….They are the ones standing up for reason and survival.

  3. Plus, the ‘French Right’ is pretty reasonable on making sure the French economy serves the whole of the French people, ( and poorer French people), not just the rich as the right in the U.S does.

  4. Dear Robert

    Nationalism and socialism should go hand in hand. Nationalism without socialism is fraudulent, it is like a family get-together to which only the richest members of the family are invited. Socialism without nationalism is impotent, it is like a “family” get-together to which everybody can come if they feel like it.

    Ultimately, socialism is all about the promotion of equality. For instance, the purpose of socialized medicine, or socialized medical insurance, is to insure that poor people can enjoy health care that is as good as that enjoyed by rich people. However, it should be available only to the citizens and legal residents of a country. When the British Labor government after WWII introduced the NHS (National Health Service), it wasn’t meant for the whole world, just for the inhabitants of the UK.

    Socialism should end at the border. Foreigners can create their own socialism. If they don’t, then we shouldn’t have to do it for them. If Ruritania provides free health care to all its citizens but its neighbor Slobodia has completely private health care, then Ruritanians would be utter fools if they also allowed Slobodians to enjoy free health care in Ruritania.

    Of course, leftists have totally abandoned such common sense. They are blinded by their traditional hostility to nationalism, which they see as nothing but jingoism, chauvinism, militarism and imperialism. However, nationalism means our own people first. Nationalism is no more unethical than family feeling. Does a person behave unethically if he helps his family members first? Why should it be morally blameworthy if we practice solidarity primarily with our compatriots and reject immigration?

    Regards. James

    1. However, nationalism means our own people first.

      In the case of Nazi Germany (sarcasm) that meant attacking other nations. However, the excuse was defending against Communism, right? In other words, get them, before they get us, or was it? Wasn’t it about more living space for Germans? At the expense of others, of course.

    2. What about if Slobodia has NO healthcare, and just uses Ruritania as a Free Clinic? That’s what Mexico’s doing to America!

    3. Well, I’m not sure that massive immigration is the only thing that makes socialism a real bad idea. Getting to the heart of the matter, it’s diversity that makes it a bad idea – you can’t have large groups that are actively hostile to the traditional society (tax payers) who are eligible for social benefits. These groups see “society” as the enemy and they will take as much as they can while giving just as little. As society, we have no way to correct the thinking in these disparate people – that is an ipso facto argument (try correcting a black child at the grocery store and see what happens). More fundamentally, a nation is an extension of family not business venture. Once a large enough minority view society as the enemy – it’s all over; socialized benefits only attracts these traitors faster while increasing the birth rates of those already here (or brought here).

  5. It remains quite simply impossible for any given economic system (say, The Hanseatic League, for instance) to operate without at least one political system (say, the duty-free city-state, for instance). Consequently, one must learn to keep one’s eye not on “the painted lady” (e.g. globalization, income inequality, health care, immigration etc.) but on the three-card Monte dealer’s sleeve (i.e. the Citizen’s United decision overruling campaign finance reform at about the same time that Wall Street privatized The United States Treasury). Failure to wake up, snap out of it and start paying attention to what’s really going on around here will only deepen the semiotic dementia that puts Donald Trump ahead in the polls for the Republican nomination for President. Surely one can understand Mr. Lindsay’s desire to use his vote as wisely as he might at least one more time before he loses it.

        1. You’re a guy! Darn. I just tried to seduce “Diane.”

          And now you’re turning me gay, dammit.

          And watch your manners Coleslaw. You’re treading on the fine razor edge of a ban.

          Your anti-Evo Psych spiel needs a redo. Getting a bit stale around the edges. Time for a makeover?

          Darryl’s Philosophy Tuneup Shop will tune up your philosophical fallacies for only $99 with a coupon. Labor Day Special. Give em a call?

        2. There’s a name for testable hypotheses that have never been tested. But the comments policy of this blog evidently overrules the typing and posting of that name on this blog. If socially-dominant individuals produce more offspring on average than socially-submissive individuals produce, then it ought to take substantially less than eighty years experimentally to confirm that hypothesis. One might think that the evolutionary psychologists would be especially keen on proving the heritability of social dominance. After all, if social dominance were not a heritable trait, then social dominance would not evolve through genetic drift, either.

    1. Bringing in tens or hundreds of millions of poor non-whites is not trivial, nor is globalization trivial. Actually, they are the two most important issues of our time. A nation can rebound from almost any insult so long as that nation has a strong cohesive citizenry and a means to a productive economy. Degrading European nations permanently is exactly what is up the sleeve.

      1. What’s wrong with fascism?

        He had been something of a bohemian in his youth, and always regarded young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of outmoded prejudices. And he was widely admired by the young people of his country, many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and architecture, and was even something of a painter. He rejected what he regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups, and he and his girlfriend “lived together” for years. He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators, and took the view that a man’s personal morals were none of his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time where a number of contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking, regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws; and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill.

        He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: “As Christ proclaimed ‘love one another’,” he said, “so our call — ‘people’s community,’ ‘public need before private greed,’ ‘communally-minded social consciousness’ — rings out.! This call will echo throughout the world!”

        The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people. For he and his associates believed strongly that a people’s ethnic and racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in some sense depends on one’s ethnic worldview, and especially on what best promotes the well-being of one’s ethnic group

        1. He outlawed The Free-Thinkers (a.k.a. atheists), banned their publications, seized their printing presses and their meeting hall and gave them both to protestants for the purpose of recruitment via pamphleteering. He outlawed secularism when he signed a concordat with The Vatican that made all schools in Germany Christian religious schools. He mandated that all Germans paying The Church Tax (namely, all Germans) confess as either Protestant or Catholic or Positive Christian and nothing else other than those three confessions. He arrested anyone who refused to confess to Christianity. He killed a very great many of those detainees.

          Oopsie daisy! Were you being sarcastic? Or do you truly believe that the person of whom we’re writing was … “not personally a Christian?”

      2. To date, every last single mass deportation or mass repatriation of displaced persons in human history has resulted in famine, disease and unnecessary deaths on a fairly grand scale. When Western nationalists call for mass deportations and mass repatriations that will predictably result in unnecessary deaths from famine and disease it is not a strategy of The Left to call them fascists.

        1. Boleslav – I’ve been checking the Catholic box on forms for my whole life and yet I don’t consider myself a believer – I don’t feel oppressed. Hitler saw that religion was one way to bind the people together (that’s a good thing).

        2. Look up the word religion in an etymological dictionary and see if you think that “binding people together” is something other than “religion.”

        3. If you’re not a believer, then do you dutifully check the box on the form to avoid arrest or worse–after all these many years? Is that what you mean by binding the people together?

  6. “see if you think that “binding people together” is something other than “religion.” – is binding people together (cohesion) a bad word in your book?

    I check the box because I was baptized and I support most Catholic mores – immigration not being one. I suffer no psychological trauma from the act. In general, I’d side with the Catholics over the atheists on most topics.

    To avoid arrest or worse? You’re just being a clown now. We are bound by a common morality which is the best we can get until this egalitarian nonsense is forever cleansed from our minds. I’ll happily side with my fellow Catholics – I’m a secular Catholic I guess, kind of like your secular Jew buddies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)