Print this post Print this post

No Guilt for White Men (and Women)

The Vel d’Hiv roundup, July 1942.

1,458 words

National Front leader Marine Le Pen revealed her tri-colored stripes again when she recently exonerated the French for rounding up thirteen thousand Jews at the Paris Vélodrome d’Hiver cycling track in 1942 for the Nazis. The Vélodrome d’Hiver, known colloquially as the Vel d’Hiv (pronounced “Val-deev”), has been a site of great infamy since the war, with Right and Left disputing how much, if any, guilt France should accept for what occurred. In her usual direct fashion, Le Pen said in a television interview, “I don’t think France is responsible for the Vel d’Hiv.”

This statement is correct on two levels and incorrect on a third.

Strictly speaking, the Third French Republic died in June 1940 when France capitulated to Germany and Hitler danced his jig (but actually didn’t) at Compiègne. From then until the end of the war, there was no French Republic, its leadership having been exiled to London and its “Free French” army fighting overseas under Charles de Gaulle. It was Philippe Pétain’s Vichy France, not Marine Le Pen’s “France,” which carried out the Vel d’Hiv roundup (under duress from the Germans, of course). One could justifiably argue that the French Republic had even less responsibility for Vel d’Hiv than the British Crown had for the excesses of Oliver Cromwell (and England did not have the excuse of being occupied by a hostile foreign power).

Of course, such argumentation amounts to little more than a clever dodge. It is technically true, but avoids dealing with what’s really on people’s minds these days. The official line of the French government for fifty years after the Second World War was, don’t apologize and don’t accept the guilt for something the official French government did not do. But when people call on French leaders to apologize for Vel d’Hiv, they are hunting for bigger game than the current French government. Rather, they are looking to indict the French people themselves, and to convince them to reduce or abandon their nationalistic sympathies.

French President François Hollande summed up this anti-French sentiment during his 2012 apology speech in which he claimed that “[t]he truth is that this crime was committed in France, by France.” Socialists tend to push for the softening of borders and national identities, so it makes sense that a socialist like Hollande would say such a thing. After all, if “France” committed such despicable crimes, who in their right mind would want to be French?

Another example of this kind of thinking can be found in the 2011 film Sarah’s Key. The film flashes back and forth between a Jewish couple and their daughter during the roundup of French Jews in 1942 and a journalist in 2009, Julia Jarmond, who is attempting to track down their daughter, Sarah, who managed to escape. It is an excellent film in that it accomplishes exactly what it set out to do: engender sympathy for the victims of the roundup and depict the French as struggling with guilt over it, even seventy years after the fact. However, at times the film’s anti-French bias is anything but subtle. Early on, Julia informs a junior colleague that the reason why there was so little photographic evidence of the roundup was because it was perpetrated not by the Germans, but by “the French.” Later, when Julia takes her colleague to the site which would have been the entrance to the stadium (it was demolished in 1959), he comments that there is no sign that anything had ever happened there. Julia then walks away, muttering something about the “irony of history” as the camera pans to the French flag flying high.

Yes, the film is more complex than this. When interviewing an old lady who had lived near the stadium during the war, the lady says, “What could we have done, anyway? Call the police?” In the historical sequences, a sympathetic French guard lets Sarah and a friend escape from their internment camp, and a French couple hides and protects Sarah from the Vichy French authorities. In the modern segments, there are no French villains who wish to deny or hush up what had happened. In all, the French are portrayed as decent human beings, even the ones who were living during the roundup.

Still, a portion of Jacques Chirac’s historic 1995 speech, which officially accepted French guilt for the roundup, is shown during a critical moment in the film and is portrayed as great and noble. Here is the snippet:

These dark days sully our nation’s history forever. Seventy-four trains left for Auschwitz. Seventy-six thousand Jews were deported from France and never came back. Yes, the criminal madness of the occupier was, as we all know, abetted by French citizens, abetted by the French state.

See? The guilt for the Vel d’Hiv roundup is collective. It is a stain on the history of France. Never mind that it was perpetrated by nine thousand police under the auspices of an unelected government which was acting under duress from its conquerors. For the sins of those nine thousand, all French must take the blame.

Denying such an absurd accusation is the second, and more important, way in which Marine Le Pen is correct. The French as a people, especially those living today, are not to blame for Vel d’Hiv and should not be made to feel guilt over it. As Le Pen puts it quite plainly, “We have taught our children that they had every reason to criticize France, to see only the darkest historical episodes perhaps. I want them to be proud of being French once more.”

Yes, like so many bad things in history, the Vel d’Hiv roundup happened. Yes, many French eagerly or not-so-eagerly collaborated with the Germans to make it happen. Yes, it was tragic. Such things should be admitted and never denied. But guilt? What purpose does that serve?

I’m reminded of a line spoken by Julia’s editor early on in Sarah’s Key. After revealing that the daughter of a Vel d’Hiv deportee had finally won her lawsuit against the French government, he quips, “I guess Chirac’s speech in ’95 at the Vel d’Hiv has finally served some purpose.”

You see, that’s another purpose guilt serves: not only does it weaken the nationalistic resolve of an entire people, it also enriches their enemies. A great nation finally admits culpability for some historical wrong, and the victims and their descendants come out of the woodwork demanding reparations.

They say power loves a vacuum. Well, so does greed. If people can sniff a way to make a buck without earning it, they will do it. That the French taxpayers and the French government are perfectly innocent of what happened at Vel d’Hiv is no matter. If these plaintiffs really wished to seek justice, they should file suit against the descendants of those nine thousand policemen and government officials who collaborated with the Nazis. But there would be no money in that, so, of course, they don’t adopt that course. And what about the descendants of those who resisted the Nazi invasion or who were killed as a result? Should they be exempt from ponying up for the payola? If we are interested in justice, they should be. But they’re not.

The reason why they are not leads me to the reason why Le Pen’s statement, for all its truth, is incorrect . . . politically incorrect, that is. Those in France who see themselves as other than French, and who wish to take advantage of those who indeed are French, occupy influential positions in France, and there are people like them throughout the West. Many of these people are Jews, yes. But many are not. In either case, they are the ones who determine what can and cannot be said in polite society, and what Le Pen said was indeed impolite. Why? Because the French feeling rotten about being French and ceding land and resources to primarily Muslim foreigners who wish to replace them makes the ends of our globalist elites that much easier to achieve. They would like to ultimately establish a one-government, miscegenistic, socialist utopia which realizes Marx’s dreams of economic leveling and perfect equality. But you can’t accomplish this as long as the French are proud of being French and, by extension, European whites are proud of being European and white.

This is why Marine Le Pen said the right thing and deserves credit for it. This is also why nationalism must make a serious return in Europe and why White Nationalism must emerge as a serious political force beyond Europe. Without nationalism, the French and the other indigenous white Europeans will have no defense against the globalists who ultimately wish to destroy them, which is a crime far worse than what happened at the Vel d’Hiv.

Related

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

9 Comments

  1. JJ Przybylski
    Posted April 17, 2017 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    A quote from the above article:

    “The reason why…Le Pen’s statement, for all its truth, is incorrect . . . politically incorrect, that is. Those in France who see themselves as other than French, and who wish to take advantage of those who indeed are French, occupy influential positions in France, and there are people like them throughout the West.”

    A quote from an interview Greg Johnson had with Hervé Ryssen published in The Occidental Quarterly, Spring 2010, in which Ryssen himself quotes an (((intellectual))) who is evidently superior to binding French custom:

    “For example Bernard-Henri Lévy wrote, in the first number of the journal Globe in 1985: ‘Of course we are resolutely cosmopolitan. Of course all that is earthy, bourrées, bagpipes, in short typically French or chauvinist, is foreign, even odious to us.’ ‘Fatherlands of any kind and their processions of old-fashioned things’ disgust him (Levi) utterly: they are nothing but a ‘timid and exasperated retreat to the most impoverished identities.’ ‘To speak patois, to dance bourrées, to march to the sound of bagpipes . . . such stupidity is nauseating.’”

  2. Vehmgericht
    Posted April 13, 2017 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    The purpose of Holocaust museums, of Holocaust education from a young age, is to ensure that a chastening guilt attaches to all European peoples. Even, in the case of Britain, to a nation that fought the Nazis to no discernible benefit to itself.

    For do not imagine that having been on the winning side of WWII is sufficient to exonerate: for a start the British are guilty of insufficient activity to prevent the Shoah during the war, of inadequate post-war support for the State of Israel, and lastly of historical antisemitism — the rather ugly cult of Little Hugh of Lincoln, for example.

    It is thus axiomatic that any nationalist politician will acquire a taint of having been the sort of person who would have abbetted, or even instigated, the Holocaust. And conversely any politician who does not genuflect to the maximum extent possible, will have his or her career destroyed.

    This is simply not a game that can be won from the present position, and Marine Le Pen is foolish to be drawn into it.

  3. Seamus Padraig
    Posted April 13, 2017 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    This was shaping up to be a really good essay; then I came to this:

    … our globalist elites … would like to ultimately establish a … socialist utopia which realizes Marx’s dreams of economic leveling and perfect equality. [Emphasis mine.]

    Are you kidding? Socialist? Economic leveling? Equality? Why on earth would the NWOligarchs want to share their treasure horde with the rest of us? Have you not noticed that there’s a hell of a lot more privatization going on in the west now than nationalization? Come to think of it, getting rid of sovereign nations would ultimately make nationalization pretty much impossible. Consider the EU’s Growth & Stability Pact, for example, which makes re-nationalizing sectors that have already been privatized illegal.

    And as far as economic leveling is concerned: well, if you haven’t noticed, the trend over the last generation or so–after globalization went into overdrive–has been decidedly in favor of ever-increasing wealth disparity, not equality or leveling. That’s what the real NWO is all about: making the rich richer and the poor poorer–and killing off the middle and working classes completely.

  4. Margot Metroland
    Posted April 13, 2017 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    The traditional name for this 1942 event was ‘La grande rafle’ (the Big Roundup), perhaps because calling it a bicycle stadium seemed frivolous. But the Velodrome was torn down long ago and ‘Vel d’Hiv’ is now completely abstracted, so they’re using it to signify the event itself.

    An uglier misdirection shows up in the potted history we read in recent news stories. It is said, or implied, that French Jews were rounded up in the Velodrome d’Hiver. This is simply not true. The Jews rounded up were foreigners. Native-born citizens of Jewish extraction were ‘Israelites’ under French law, and as such were not targeted in the July 1942 rafle. In the NYTimes coverage of April 10, the headline calls it ’rounding up Jews’ and you have to read down eight paragraphs to find the briefest mention that French citizens were not affected. The apparent goal here is to erase distinctions between citizens and aliens.

  5. Wilburn Sprayberry
    Posted April 13, 2017 at 1:41 am | Permalink

    Since Oliver Cromwell chopped off the head of the British Crown (Charles the First), the British Crown has zero responsibility for the “excesses” of Oliver Cromwell. (And his only real “excess” was letting ((a hostile foreign power)) back in.)

  6. Proofreader
    Posted April 12, 2017 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    “It [Sarah’s Key] is an excellent film in that it accomplishes exactly what it set out to do: engender sympathy for the victims of the roundup and depict the French as struggling with guilt over it, even seventy years after the fact.” That reminds me of the joke:

    Question: What’s the difference between a cow and the holocaust?
    Answer: You can’t milk a cow for seventy years.

  7. sylvie
    Posted April 12, 2017 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    “And what about the descendants of those who resisted the Nazi invasion or who were killed as a result? Should they be exempt from ponying up for the payola? If we are interested in justice, they should be”

    Hey, hey, just a minute, Spencer, I think your terminology and concepts of “justice” are a little confused:

    1) The French had declared war on Germany, so what you call “Nazi invasion” of a “conqueror” is the normal reaction of a country to an agression by its neighbor.

    2) On the contrary, what you call “resistance” is illegal partisan warfare of a country which had officially surrendered.

    3) in both, drumming up for war and in murdering German soldiers in the so-called “resistance”, (((they))) had their disproportionate share, as they themselves are boasting about.

    • Petronius
      Posted April 13, 2017 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

      If your country was invaded and officially surrendered, would you give up and surrender as well, because it would be against the law?

      • Walter
        Posted April 13, 2017 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

        War is not a funny cat-and-mouse game.
        sylvie has ponted out the important fact usually left out: It was France declaring war on Germany (even if reluctantly) and it did not take up any of the various peace offers from Germany between September 3, 1939 and May 10, 1940. Considering that Germany was always held to standards of law the allies exempted themselves from (I am thinking here especially of the breach of neutrality and the disregard of maritime laws by Britain and the US in both wars), I see nothing- in principle- wrong with expecting that one an armistice has been signed that hostilities cease.
        That France was not made to feel a harsh occupation was rooted in Hitler’s desire to end the Hereditary Enmity between France and Germany. That it was the Bolsheviks in Moscow who incited partisan warfare in France after the beginning of the German-Soviet war must be kept in mind. It was intended to incite German reprisals. Today’s warfare is aimed at total annihilation of the enemy, but this came about through the mutual intensification of measure and countermeasure until the victory over an opponent id not mean political neutralization but annihilation. One has to ask, therefore, who initiated this dangerous cycle.
        If my country was invaded and occupied -as it is- I would certainly think about ways of throwing the occupier out, but I would weigh all actions against possible consequences and benefits, and I would also think about the future.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    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

    Forever and Ever

    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

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Prison Notes

    Standardbearers

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance