Print this post Print this post

Orbán, Islam, Russia, Feminism, & the Stuff Dreams are Made Of

1,818 words

To the utter despair of materialist historians, existence (a subtle philosophical French concept, which would probably translate into Rightist English as values) keeps preceding essence: we are not only what we are, but also – and, at some turning points of history, predominantly – what we fancy to be.

Looking at what we are: as a Frenchman living in Hungary, I have to say that objective anthropological differences between the indigenous populations of both countries are laughably small. In both countries, the once-dominant Christian faith is now de facto cultural nostalgia, a kind of quaint folklore to go along with dinner during traditional holidays. In rural Hungary, you can expect a few more shops to be closed on Sundays. Otherwise, on both sides, we have late and rather sterile marriages, a high divorce rate, and growing social atomization.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, however, dares to mention Christianity as a defining element of Hungarian and European identity, while the new, made-in-Washington hope of French conservatives, Marion Maréchal Le Pen, in her AIPAC-approved brand of pseudo-nationalism reduced to an Islamophobic discourse, prefers, as her Aunt Marine already did, to speak about laicity (another typically French code name for deeply anti-Christian, “Republican” ideas) – while her own grandfather, Jean-Marie Le Pen, himself a well-known lecher and atheist, would still dare to mention the Christian faith.

In 1990, many Hungarians did not even know to which religion their family belonged, let alone which denomination (in the case of Christians). Viktor Orbán, who probably knew that his family was, somehow, Calvinist, was however no exception to this rule: his FIDESZ party was by then full of retarded heirs of the May 1968 cultural revolution, exhibiting metrosexual hairstyles, advocating the legalization of drugs, and consistently snubbing the historical churches of Hungary in the political debate. No wonder Uncle Soros liked them so much back then. Viktor Orbán’s present-day attitude, both politically and in his (not so) private life (married to the same woman for the last thirty years, a father of five, and a churchgoer) would thus deserve – if anything in this world does – to be called “neoconservative,” since it is not an inherited cultural feature.

For the same reasons, the problem with the latest – and most glamorous – “Marion” release of the Le Pen brand is not so much that, as the daughter of a shady French network-artist with proven Mossad links, she does not live with the father of her child, and, judging by her elocution, spends – like her aunt – much more time in discos than in libraries. The issue is that even her self-representation through political discourse clearly shows that she cannot see anything wrong in her deeply unchristian and postmodern way of life, which is problematic even by Clintonian PR standards.

Obviously, even putting a brutal end to extra-European immigration (which Marion does not really want to do, since she and her aunt do not really push for Frexit, and must know that the sacrosanct “mobility of persons” is baked into the cake of the European treaties), though a highly desirable move, would not reverse the negative population growth of native Europeans, since this demographic shipwreck (in spite of the “migrant rape” rhetoric in which even Orbán himself indulges from time to time) is not the result of the migrant invasion, but rather of the attitude of selfish, narcissistic, and morally under-educated Western women, well represented as such by the unrepentant Marion herself.

Though never thoroughly convinced by Islam, the Ottoman Turks did not only use it as a geopolitical tool. Casanova reports in his Memoires that, while residing in Istanbul, they constantly tried to convert him. And, lo and behold, Casanova the lecher, the Mason, the progressive, had both sentimental and theological arguments to support his refusal: back then, though “Europe” was still more of a geographical notion than the kind of makeshift ideal it later became, concepts such as the divinity of Christ were part and parcel of the culture of educated Europeans (to accept or refute it – but, in both cases, knowing what they were talking about). Whereas “Western conservatives” (who can only conserve what they objectively still have: the May 1968 anti-authoritarian Kool-Aid cult) are as representative of the Christian tradition as Soros’ cosmopolitan migrant army of smartphone-addicted, porn-intoxicated, unrooted consumers is representative of Islamic tradition, some political movements in the East (such as those around Putin and Orbán) could give us hope that they might eventually fake it till they make it.

Though personally sharing this hope as an instinctual self-preservation attitude, as an analyst I have to say that it has many illusory aspects. As nice as the “Russian interference” narrative might sound to the ears of my Eurasianist friends, let’s be honest: whether you like it or not, there is no such thing. Of the two competing and contradictory lies of neocon war propaganda against Russia (the “gas station posturing as a state” and the omnipresent, omnipotent Russian Devil), in foreign policy, the first seems to stand closer to the truth: Russia does not ideologically influence political movements in the West, because in order to be able to do so Russia would first have to sort out what kind of state ideology it itself has – which has not been done at any point in the existence of Putin’s regime. As a consequence, Russia acts as a conservative and stingy investor in the Western political stock markets, basically buying shares in any make-believe “conservative” start-up going public on the Washington, Paris, or Berlin exchanges – including AIPAC-approved Marion and the LGBT-friendly AfD – encouraging Islamophobic demagogy in the West while simultaneously disappointing centuries-old Christian allies (such as Armenia) in the Caucasus, as a side-effect of a perilous diplomatic poker game with the neo-Ottoman capo di tutti capi in Ankara and his Azerbaijani stooges.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I personally think that Lavrov is the best living diplomat on Planet Earth. But even Lavrov cannot possibly promote an agenda which does not exist in the minds of the Russian elites – who, due to their chronic lack of any consistent self-image, enjoy and mimic the most moronic Russophobic clichés mass-produced about them by Hollywood, and seemingly hire Pussy Riot cartoonists to stage the pro-Putin electoral message. Russia’s resistance to globalism is pure inertia, which a more effective (i.e., less hostile) campaign of Western cognitive warfare might neutralize in a matter of years. Fortunately, the so-called elites of the West, excepting a few dinosaurs like Kissinger, are by now too degenerate and stupid to be able to understand the not-very-complicated mentality of the Russian people.

Alongside sheer stupidity, however, this enormous tactical mistake is also based on a deep ideological need of the dying West: the need for an enemy, of the phantom-like presence of Evil in a world which should simultaneously be made axiologically neutral. In Rousseau’s world, which is now even the de facto horizon of the new gurus of the “Right” (such as Jordan Peterson), human nature is so benign that violence can only be explained as a consequence of ideology. Of course, nobody cares to explain what kind of “ideology” could motivate the Dayak hunter-gatherer mountaineers of Borneo, only a few decades ago, to slice to pieces a significant part of the agricultural population that was settled in the coastal area by the unified Indonesian state.

As the subtle transition from anti-Communism to anti-fascism undertaken by Western Russophobic discourse clearly shows – disregarding the hard feelings of a few vengeful Trotskyites – the Western hostility towards Russia (e.g., the need for “containment” – an “anti-Communist” concept which appeared in British intelligence reports . . . during the Crimean War of the nineteenth century!) has no other basis than geopolitics. But the West has grown too immoral to be cynical, and needs Russia to embody the (necessarily ideological) Evil – willy-nilly: if the Popovs don’t like their part in the movie, well, let’s just force it upon them. After all, the ever-increasing costs of media hegemony should also bring some return on the investment, right?

The bottom line of this messy paradox is that, as Mircea Eliade understood, there is no such thing as irreligious mankind, only religiously disturbed nations, which, as a consequence of that illness, quickly disappear – while often proving quite harmful to those around them during their agony. As the ludicrous controversy around the “Polish Holocaust” demonstrates, the truly religious feeling that both Polish PiS voters and New York liberals still have in common is that both the New Age Polish brand of re-invented, post-Communist Catholicism, as well as the shallow, East Coast atheism-cum-scientism of Hillary voters, follow the cult of victimhood. You cannot refuse the migrant invasion because it is racially alien and socially disastrous – but only in the name of some poor victimized European women (though all electoral statistics show that pro-migrant parties have a much wider feminine base throughout Europe).

Similarly, Holocaust victims are not, as the Christian saints once were, moral examples of selflessness: their life story does not need an element of assumed sacrifice (as in the case of some Warsaw ghetto heroes) to be religiously revered – in the deeply feminine worldview of the emasculated White World, all that is needed is (passive) suffering at the hands of Evil. Though economically occupied by the only European power which, at some point of history, did not make a secret of its intention to erase the Polish nation from the surface of its Lebensraum, and directly targeted by a license to kill by all the Soros stooges in Brussels, the PiS government, which would therefore need a pacified Poland-Russia relationship as much as oxygen to breathe, is too busy managing its own national victimized narrative in the form of cemetery vandalism and Holocaust-certified good conscience contests.

So, faced with a schizophrenic West, an autistic Russia, and a demented Poland, could hope take refuge in Hungary? Well, it could – provided we don’t forget for one single second that there is no such thing as “independent Hungary”: there is a small, economically dominated NATO country ruled by a largely apolitical FIDESZ full of potential traitors, who respect their charismatic leader mostly out of fear (of personal sanctions at the individual level, and of electoral annihilation at the party level – since the Hungarian people plebiscite their leader, not their leader’s party). All there is is Viktor Orbán, a lone fighter for Tradition, whose (political and/or physical) assassination has been on the globalists’ menu for quite a few years. Orbán, a few old friends (such as László Kövér and Zsolt Bayer) who became his lieutenants, the dream of a European Renaissance, and (perhaps) Orbán’s guardian angel. For the upcoming battle of Budapest, I’m afraid that’s all we have, folks.

Modeste Schwartz lives in Hungary and regularly writes for the Visegrád Post (in French and English), Gândește (in Romanian), and Geopolitika (in English and Russian). He specializes in political analysis and cultural critique, and is also a poet, folk dancer, and traveler. He maintains a Patreon account here.

Related

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

14 Comments

  1. sylvie
    Posted March 8, 2018 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Strange article.

    Full of factual errors (the Poles took “Lebensraum” from the Germans, not the inverse, as claimed; the sacrosanct “mobility of persons” refers to intra-EU migration not to Africans and Arabs,…),

    obscure smears (Jean-Marie Le Pen a “well known leecher”) and

    misunderstandings (French laicity is not anti-Christian per se, but avoids interference of religions in state affairs, a very reasonable concept, as French Huguenots could tell the author; BTW, Prussia practiced it well before the French republicains).

    Punching in all directions and disapprouving all parties on our side on obscure grounds (lifestyle of FN-Marion Le Pen, Lesbianism of AfD-Alice Weidel,…), only a few concepts emerge and even these are confuse and debatable.

    For example, that the “demographic shipwreck .. is not the result of the migrant invasion” but to attitudes “as such by the unrepentant Marion“.

    This is nonsense not only because of poor unrepentant Marion, but because an overpopulated continent like Europe needs nothing less than new inhabitants. The Europeans themselves feel the demographic pressure and react (like all overpopulated animal communities) with reducing the number of their children. Again, a very reasonable reaction.

    Of course, the main problem is – contrary to the author’s opinion – the result of immigration, but any pregnancy race against our invaders is rigged, lost from the start.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 8, 2018 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

      This will be Modeste’s final appearance at Counter-Currents.

      • Posted March 9, 2018 at 11:09 am | Permalink

        This will be Modeste’s final appearance at Counter-Currents.

        Modeste is, from my perspective, an eccentric guy, but he is an interesting writer, and he has clearly arrived at his views after much thought.

        It is, though, a mistake to berate rightist politicians because they don’t say everything we want them to say, or don’t live their lives they way we want them to live their lives.

        Modeste hopes, I believe, for a return to a deeply Christian Europe. Perhaps that’s a good idea, perhaps not. But since France is clearly among the post-Christian Western nations, it is unreasonable to expect that Marion Le Pen, a politician who must acquire votes, will channel Modeste’s opinions while she campaigns.

        In the present political climate, Marion is doing about as much as we could expect from a rightist French politician in pursuit of votes, so we should be pleased with her successes and hope for more of them in the future.

        The same could be said of Trump. He is far from perfect, but he is better than we could have expected three years ago.

        • sylvie
          Posted March 9, 2018 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

          “Modeste …has clearly arrived at his views after much thought.”

          Sure. And here is one of them:

          “I cannot even think of a non-cultural reason why Western Europeans should “feel overpopulated” for now: almost nobody’s starving, war is a far-away memory, life expectancy is high.”

        • Modeste
          Posted March 10, 2018 at 3:52 am | Permalink

          “It is, though, a mistake to berate rightist politicians because they don’t say everything we want them to say, or don’t live their lives they way we want them to live their lives. ”

          Since you’re not the only one coming with this reproach of “purism”, and since this is very far from what I’m trying to do, I have to admit that maybe I’m not very good at making a point.
          Far for purism, I think that power is the best school of anti-globalist resistance, as shown by the case of Putin or Orban, who were not natural born anti-globalists at the beginning of their carrier but were simply forced to come closer to ideological truth by the needs of geopolitical survival.

          But here’s the thing (and this, indeed, should have been stressed in the paper): in my (rather long) experience of French politics, the Front National has never acted as a party really trying to come to power.
          I don’t want to launch a contest of cynical thought, but, considering that (unlike the US) France has a very large (and, for some parts of it, already old) Muslim population, and that the rejection of FN in the mind of middle-of-the-way French voters is largely based on the fear of an ethnic civil war, one might say that the quickest way to power would be to pretend to be “civic nationalists” (harmless to Islam), while preparing to become ethnic nationalists once in power. Marine Le Pen did the exact opposite of this – with the unsurprising result of boosting the ticket of a guy (Macron) whose name was unknown to most Frenchmen a year before the elections…
          So please don’t get me wrong: of course, I also prefer Trump to Hillary, Brexit to EU etc. – but IMO the Trump-Marion parallel is flawed. I might be wrong. Of course, it’s hard to tell, since she’s pretty much a political virgin. Bets are open.

    • Modeste
      Posted March 9, 2018 at 8:35 am | Permalink

      “the Poles took “Lebensraum” from the Germans, not the inverse, as claimed”

      It is not what is claimed in the paper. Please read carefully before commenting.

      “the sacrosanct “mobility of persons” refers to intra-EU migration”

      False. Please read the treaties.

      “obscure smears (Jean-Marie Le Pen a “well known leecher”)”

      Well, if this comment is sincere, then it means that you have never had the slightest contacts with the FN crew – which makes this conversation useless. Of course, JMLP, as an old-school gentleman, does not boast of his many adventures (and never pretended to be anything more than a cultural Christian, so that his attitude is, after all, consistent and honorable – I wish I could say the same about his progeny…).

      “misunderstandings (French laicity is not anti-Christian per se, but avoids interference of religions in state affairs, a very reasonable concept, as French Huguenots could tell the author; BTW, Prussia practiced it well before the French republicains).”

      LOL. Just one word: Vendée.

      “For example, that the “demographic shipwreck .. is not the result of the migrant invasion” but to attitudes “as such by the unrepentant Marion“.”

      Well, if you can explain how a massive immigration which began in the 70′ may be the cause of a demographic decline which was heavily commented upon as soon as the 30′ – then I’ll change my mind.

      “This is nonsense not only because of poor unrepentant Marion, but because an overpopulated continent like Europe needs nothing less than new inhabitants. The Europeans themselves feel the demographic pressure and react (like all overpopulated animal communities) with reducing the number of their children. Again, a very reasonable reaction.”

      I answered this objection in my answer to another comment. Indeed, population reduction in absolute numbers does not have to be an evil in itself. Yet when you look at the family structure (“monoparental families” become a majority of households in Northern European countries right under our eyes, and this will also be the case in the rest of Europe within 20 years), you realize that, after the last bi-parental raised generation is gone, the decline will probably become exponential. And, sorry to infringe the dogma of Western biologism, but present-day Sub-Saharan Africa is the living proof that Sapiens Sapiens does not behave and react like “overpopulated animal communities”. I cannot even think of a non-cultural reason why Western Europeans should “feel overpopulated” for now: almost nobody’s starving, war is a far-away memory, life expectancy is high.
      I guess you just refuse to see the feminist elephant in the middle of the room.
      Well, I’m afraid the price for this will be extinction. As our patriarchal ancestors said: Vae victis!

      • sylvie
        Posted March 9, 2018 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

        Well, if this comment is sincere, then it means that you have never had the slightest contacts with the FN crew – which makes this conversation useless.

        Well, believe it or not, I had the chance to speak personally with Jean-Marie Le Pen. I was introduced to him at a meeting in Valence/Drome in the eighties where at that time I knew several local FN dignitaries.

        Of course, unlike you, I do not know his private affairs and I dont care. In France, politicians without “private affairs” can be counted with the fingers of one hand – leaving over some fingers.

  2. E
    Posted March 8, 2018 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    The meaning of the Hungarian word for “Christian” varies in different contexts, but most often it just means a person who dislikes being lorded over by Jews. It’s a code word for “our guys”.

    There is practically no overlap between the Hungarian manosphere and the Hungarian Right. Even the most low-brow, Daily Stormer-ish website on the Right would probably refuse to publish this article. The manosphere is widely regarded as feminine, a mirror image of feminisim, and detrimental to male development. Chimpanzee and cavemen arguments are ridiculed. Instead of evolutionary biology Hungarian rightists study demography, e.g. identify White subgroups that still reproduce (the upper classes, the Szeklers) and promote their values and lifestyles.

  3. Modeste
    Posted March 8, 2018 at 1:03 am | Permalink

    „No member of the Le Pen family is popular with the Washington establishment.„

    I know. But it’s not about being popular with the Washington establishment (which is of course impossible if you’re on the right). It’s about needing US credentials and being tolerated in such forums (two disgraces which never happened to her grandfather, for instance).

    “France has a large population of Muslims; France would be better off without its large population of Muslims; France would also be better off if no additional Muslim immigrants arrive on its shores.”

    I never said it wouldn’t. But this requires to stop immigration. Which is LEGALLY impossible within the EU. And she’s not a Frexiter. Hence, she’s a shill.

    “Which you then describe, on a far-right website, as part of “an Islamophobic discourse,” as though “Islamophobia” were a genuine concept and not a propaganda label designed to keep Europeans quiet while their nations are stolen from them.”

    One and the same word can be used in different ways. Opposing Islam in the name of Christianity, for instance, and claiming that Europe is and has to remain Christian, as Orban does, seems natural and healthy to me. It’s healthy because it’s about OUR nations, it’s ethno-differential. A universalist critique of Islam (applying to all places where it is practiced, including Muslim countries – i.e. exactly where Muslims SHOULD stay) is (best case scenario) an empty rhetoric, or (worst case) one more brand of globalism.

    “As a matter of rather obvious fact, the demographic shipwreck is indeed caused by the migrant invasion/colonization.”

    Well, no, objectively, it’s not. I’m not talking about ethnic proportions, but simply about about sheer quantity. Less and less white children are being born, as the result of a process which began long before mass immigration. Statistics. Hard facts. Look around you. Wake up.

    “A low birthrate is probably bad, for a variety of different reasons, but it is not in itself fatal.”

    You might be right, if this low rate was the result of combining the 0-growth of one (totally liberal and Malthusian) part of white societies with the high growth of another (Amish-like traditionalist) minority. The reality, though, is very different: what we see are “mono-parental household”, i.e. a somewhat aging feminist raising a fatherless child. How many chances do you give to such fatherless children to perpetuate classical family models?

    “That’s why Marion and others are correct to speak critically of Islam. And that’s also why American rightists are correct to speak critically of Mexicans.”

    You are providing excellent examples for MY point: Mexicans don’t tend to be Muslims. Many of the sub-Saharan Africans now jeopardizing Europe are also formally Christian, or animists, or whatever (but not Muslims). And strangely enough, in peace time, I don’t really see massive raping-waves in Muslim countries. Ergo: the cause of the trouble is IMMIGRATION, not Islam. All this talk about Islam is just a deflecting strategy, so that we end up tolerating mass-immigration provided no mosques are built, or provided most immigrants are Asians, etc..

    “Globalist Republicans called her a racist, an Islamophobe, a fascist, a far-rightist, and so forth; yet she ended up speaking at CPAC anyway, and she was warmly received.”

    QED.

    • Posted March 8, 2018 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      It’s about needing US credentials and being tolerated in such forums (two disgraces which never happened to her grandfather, for instance).

      You’re too purist. Marion Le Pen is a politician, not a philosopher. She needs to speak in influential forums, and she needs to speak in the language of mainstream political discourse, while expanding, in a nationalist direction, the boundaries of what is considered mainstream.

      Her CPAC speech, before an audience of Trumpist conservatives, did all of that.

      needing US credentials

      It’s hard to see what you mean here. It strikes me as unlikely that Marion requires validation in an American political forum in order to become politically attractive to French voters; but if she does require such American validation, and cannot hope for political success without it, you shouldn’t call her appearance at CPAC disgraceful. “Necessary” would be the right word, if indeed French politicians require the support of American voters, which appears to be what you’re claiming.

      You may suffer from Benoist’s affliction: a compulsion to put the adjective “American” in front of almost everything you dislike.

      she’s not a Frexiter

      If a politician calls for a Frexit referendum, praises the successful Brexit referendum, and regularly attacks the EU, then I’d call that politician a Frexiter. In any case, she is a French nationalist, which makes her vastly better than most other French politicians.

      the cause of the trouble is IMMIGRATION, not Islam. All this talk about Islam is just a deflecting strategy, so that we end up tolerating mass-immigration provided no mosques are built…

      You’re preaching to the choir. Obviously immigration in general is the core problem. You and I agree, as does almost everyone reading this. The question is how to convince others, namely mainstream voters who don’t think much about politics, that they too should oppose immigration.

      The BNP’s Nick Griffin had a good line: Our worst enemy is our most visible enemy. He was interested in practical politics, not refined speculations about the various sources of Western decline. In France, as in the rest of Western Europe, the most visible enemy is Islam and Muslims; it is not the several thousand Sri Lankans and Eskimos who may now be living in France or swimming towards Italy.

      Opposing Muslim immigration, and thereby asserting our right to oppose immigration in general, requires speaking critically of Islam and Muslims, which you call “Islamophobia” (aka truth-telling about Islam.) We need more of this “Islamophobia,” not less.

      The goal is to get our people to recognize what should be an obvious fact, namely that they have the moral right to say “no” to immigration and “yes” to borders. Truth-telling about Islam is a valuable part of that crucial process of political education. If I am morally entitled to say “no” to Muslim immigration, then I am also morally entitled to say “no” to non-white immigration in general.

      • Modeste
        Posted March 9, 2018 at 9:00 am | Permalink

        “Our worst enemy is our most visible enemy.”

        No, unfortunately, this is not the case. We are just getting high on our own rhetoric: there might be some kind of “invasion” along the Rio Grande, but the millions who stepped into Europe last year did so in a rather non-violent way, because there was no resistance, though the EU theoretically lacks no legal or technical means to stop them. Ergo, the worst enemy is inside, and wants to keep us entertained with counter-Jihadism while the real agenda is being implemented. Merkel, Junker, Macron, Soros, etc. etc.: name one Muslim among the masterminds of Open Society – can you?

        “Opposing Muslim immigration, and thereby asserting our right to oppose immigration”

        Here “thereby” is logically flawed. Don’t you think that noisily rejecting anal rape could rather easily be understood as a tacit admission of greater tolerance towards oral or vaginal rape? Would you try such a strategy in a Mexican jail?

        “The goal is to get our people to recognize what should be an obvious fact, namely that they have the moral right to say “no” to immigration and “yes” to borders.”

        Exactly.

        “If I am morally entitled to say “no” to Muslim immigration, then I am also morally entitled to say “no” to non-white immigration in general.”

        This, again, is logically flawed. Many Muslim are white by anthropological standards. Many non-white immigrants are Christians, animists etc..
        And anyway, “moral entitlement” will never compensate for the lack of sovereignty.
        And I guess this is the heart of the issue: negative comments to this paper seem to be mostly written by people who do not really oppose globalism, because they are intellectually unable of understanding globalism as the last and unavoidable stage of Modernity and/or morally unable to question Modernity as a part of their own being, hence have no revolutionary ambitions beyond begging for “a more right-wing” kind of globalism, which, I’m afraid, is an illusion. Won’t happen. Big loss of time for you guys. You could be enjoying life in the meantime.

    • Lemur
      Posted March 8, 2018 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      A less pessimistic way of looking at it is that as the GOP becomes the party of Trump, especially at the grassroots, its starting to approximate the rightist nationalism of Europe (as many GOP pundits lamented). The tenor of CPAC has changed significantly.

  4. Lemur
    Posted March 7, 2018 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    If the National Front is in anyway philosemitic, its an alliance of convenience with some hard core Zionist factions borne out of a “common” Islamic enemy. While the wisdom of that is debatable, its not a strategic error. The Le Pens are opposed to the ZOG approved destabilization and regime change op in Syria. If they’re AIRPAC stooges, they very bad at following the party line.

    The next gripe is Marion’s non-traditional lifestyle. From a right wing perspective, any woman in politics is an anomaly to begin with. However, in the Western tradition, these outliers were permitted to assume spiritual and temporal authority. Elizabeth I, the so-called ‘virgin’ queen, was nothing of the sort, yet never married. Hardly traditional by the *average* standards of the early modern period. When I heard Marion Speak at CPAC, i got the sense she is the sort of Joan of Arc figure who could rouse the French people to fight for their place in the sun.

    Modeste makes a fair point about the moribund conservatism of the Eastern European leadership, including Russia. The Putinreich’s opposition to the West seems to derive from the pique of the post-Soviet Russian elite when they weren’t permitted to join the Washington consensus as a premium partner, like London or Riyadh. Similarly, Poland and Hungary try to interpret the values of the global elite in a fashion which permit them a limited remit to manevour to the margins of the main current. Since they still subscribe to the energy of the current even to move out of its way, they too are rather bankrupt in terms of political culture and ideology.

  5. Posted March 7, 2018 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    I hate to disagree with you again, but…

    the new, made-in-Washington hope of French conservatives, Marion Maréchal Le Pen

    No member of the Le Pen family is popular with the Washington establishment.

    her AIPAC-approved brand of pseudo-nationalism reduced to an Islamophobic discourse

    There is nothing wrong with simple, uncomplicated truths.

    France has a large population of Muslims; France would be better off without its large population of Muslims; France would also be better off if no additional Muslim immigrants arrive on its shores. Therefore Marion, who cares about France and hopes to see it survive, speaks critically of Islam and Muslims.

    Which you then describe, on a far-right website, as part of “an Islamophobic discourse,” as though “Islamophobia” were a genuine concept and not a propaganda label designed to keep Europeans quiet while their nations are stolen from them.

    Russia … encourag[es] Islamophobic demagogy in the West

    I doubt that’s true, but we can all hope.

    this demographic shipwreck … is not the result of the migrant invasion

    As a matter of rather obvious fact, the demographic shipwreck is indeed caused by the migrant invasion/colonization. France, even with its current low birthrate, could remain French if it had not imported large numbers of a hostile population with a high birthrate. A low birthrate is probably bad, for a variety of different reasons, but it is not in itself fatal. On the other hand, a low birthrate is fatal (hence a shipwreck) when combined with a policy of importing hostile Muslims from the Third World.

    That’s why Marion and others are correct to speak critically of Islam. And that’s also why American rightists are correct to speak critically of Mexicans. In a better world — that is, a world with secure borders and strong nations — we could spend our days saying nice things about Muslims and Mexicans, as we observed them from a distance going about their daily business in their own countries. But since they are invading and colonizing our nations, we don’t have that luxury.

    ***

    Modeste linked to the following because he thinks it’s bad; I’ll link to it again because I think it’s good:

    Marion Le Pen’s CPAC Speech
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcIfcjQfJKY

    Her speech was an important moment, regardless of whether we liked its content or not. Globalist Republicans called her a racist, an Islamophobe, a fascist, a far-rightist, and so forth; yet she ended up speaking at CPAC anyway, and she was warmly received.

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    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

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    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

    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 Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance