The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Russian Reaction BlogTeasers
The French Elections 2017 (Round Two)
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

france-elections-2017-whos-who-update

I don’t have much to add to my previous posts on this matter:

ipsos-poll-france-elections-2017

An n=8,200 Ipsos poll from May 5 gave Emmanual Macron 63% to Le Pen’s 37%. She needs a miracle.

The betting markets are likewise gloomy. Macron is 87% favorites on PredictIt, which is bad but not hopeless for Le Pen.

However, the picture becomes much worse for the French nationalists when you look at betting markets with a wider breakdown of options. For instance, the probability distribution for the question asking what percentage of the popular vote MLP will get displays a bell curve with a peak around 37%-38%, declining to 1% for the segment 45-46%, and staying at 1% for each consecutive one percentage point segment until we get to 11% predicting 50%+, i.e. a Le Pen victory.

These Le Pen optimists are clearly banking on some kind of miracle – systemic polling problems that massively understate MLP’s support (seemingly disproved in the first round); the spirit of kek; perhaps a few timely leaks.

And it just so happens that kek has delivered through the hacker 4chan.

On May 3, a /pol/ack posted two PDFs with evidence of an offshore bank account owned by Macron in the Cayman Islands.

The first doc is the incorporation of a shell company in Nevis, a country that doesn’t keep ownership records of corporations. The second is proof of a banking relationship with a bank involved in tax evasion in the Cayman Islands.

People have known for a while that Macron underreported his income and assets to the government, but nobody knew where it was stored. Here’s where his money is stored. See what you can do with this, anon. Let’s get grinding. If we can get #MacronCacheCash trending in France for the debates tonight, it might discourage French voters from voting Macron.

Document 1: https://my.mixtape.moe/onviuq.pdf

Document 2: https://my.mixtape.moe/bspenp.pdf

palmer-banking-spy Curiously, in the final debate, Le Pen had implied Macron might be in possession of an offshore account in the Bahamas, in response to which Macron had threatened a defamation lawsuit.

The lawyer who the documents indicate set up Macron’s Cayman LLC appears to have had a career as a top CIA banking spy.

One day later, about 9GB of email, photos, and attachments up to April 24, 2017 were posted on the /pol/ boards.

Are you ready /pol/?

https://pastebin.com/bUJKFpH1

http://archive.is/eQtrm

In this pastebin are links to torrents of emails between Macron, his team and other officials, politicians as well as original documents and photos

The emails were quickly established as credible, though the Macron campaign has taken a cue from the HRC campaign and hinted that there are fakes interspersed amongst the real emails.

Though nobody has comprehensively looked through the entire thing, and of course doing so before the actual elections is unrealistic, some interesting tidbits are cropping up that may involve insider trading, unauthorized access to classified state information, and the purchase of recreational drugs and perhaps harder stuff.

Needless to say, this has created quite the stir on cyberspace. Wikileaks and Jack Posobiec spread the message on Twitter; as I write this, #MacronLeaks is the number one trending hashtag on French Twitter. The French police have taken a formal interest in ascertaining the identity of the leaker.

Problem: The French media has entered its election silence period, so there will be no substantive discussions of the MacronLeaks in the MSM. (I checked the front pages of the major French newspapers and Le Monde is the only one to have prominent coverage of MacronLeaks).

Which begs the question of whodunnit.

The MSM has, of course, rushed to blame the Russian hacker Ivan. However, as more level-headed people have pointed out, what would be the point of doing this at the last moment? Macron is the least Russia friendly of the four major candidates – his campaign has scandalously barred the Russian media outlets RT and Sputnik from his events – and, the logic goes, would now be even less well disposed towards Putin.

On the other hand, a more cynical view might be that the Kremlin views the prospects for cooperation with a Macron-led France as being so dismal anyway that it might as well begin destabilizing him straight away.

Two other possibilities:

(1) Bryan MacDonald: “My bet is other state actors trying to ruin any chance of a future Macron-Putin arrangement or freelance Russians acting the maggot.”

(2) Technically competent, disgruntled Leftist/Communist supporter who wants to undermine Macron, but who doesn’t want Le Pen to benefit from it.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Macron would be hell for Russia anyway.

    Are you sure?
    It is better for Russia if Russia’s Europhile elite does not get more false hope.
    The Kremlin would not have accepted the return of Crimea if Europeans were not such assholes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/france-elections-2017-final/#comment-1862066
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Cagey Beast says: • Website

    The Front National has always faced a united politico-media-academia-techo-globalist front. That front is holding and French normies are stuck trying to figure out what to do next at the voting booth. A lot of them must be asking “can we take a chance on Le Pen, with her wildcard proposals on the euro and EU membership, when everyone in authority makes it clear they won’t work with her?”.

    The President of France — like every head of state or government — has to work with the existing political class. Trump has just been finding that out the hard way in the last month or so. Le Pen is just getting the same shakedown operation and stonewalling the FN has always received but she got the team closer to the goal than ever before. Trump, on the other hand, managed to get over the wall before the Establishment regrouped. Looks like it’s going to be okay after all … for them:

    Finally, a force that can stop nationalism in the White House: Wealthy elites.
    The super-rich members of Trump’s Cabinet have hobbled the ethno-nationalists. And that’s a good thing.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/nationalists-are-losing-ground-in-the-white-house-thank-wealthy-elites/

    Read More
  3. The Presidential election is essentially over and done with. The important election now is the legislative one, which will take place over two rounds on 11 and 18 June. Macron certainly believes that he has mobilized the country behind his En Marche! movement, and that this will translate into a legislative victory which will give him a governing majority.

    Far more plausible, in my opinion, is that he will have won the Presidency as Monsieur none-of-the-above, and that his movement will fall far short of a governing majority in June. It will then be very interesting to see how he puts together a governing coalition among the “old” parties.

    Also interesting will be whether the c.40% support for the FN in the Presidential will translate into an effective representation in the Assemblée Nationale — it currently holds 2 of the 577 seats.

    Read More
  4. Cagey Beast says: • Website

    Two prominent political commentators, Eric Zemmour and Bernard Henri-Levy — both products of recent North African immigration — debate the state of France right now:

    My translation:

    Eric Zemmour:
    When you spend your time evoking the 1930s, etcetera, the anti-Nazism, etcetera, I’ll tell you, you mistake the era. Because, in fact, we’re not in the 1930s, we are in 1848. We have a a clash of social classes more acute than we’ve seen since the 19th century. And there is, on one side, the new proletariat of globalisation and the new bourgeoisie. There is even a different geography. I won’t restate the numbers of Christophe Guilluy …
    [crosstalk]
    There is, as they say in American, there are people from anywhere and people from somewhere. And you are a person from anywhere and you spend your time insulting people from somewhere. It’s an ideological split that’s entirely legitimate but admit it! You are the bourgeois supporting Louis Phillippe sending General Cavaignac to open fire on the workers in June 1848.* That’s what going on right now!

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Days_uprising

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I listened again and I should have had Zemmour saying "you are the Louis Phillippe supporting bourgeois who sent General Cavaignac to open fire on the workers in June 1848".
    , @neutral
    This is not even 1848, this is more like the 1000's when Turkish nomads gradually starting moving into the Byzantine Anatolian regions, or the 300-400's when the migration of many different tribes started to significantly alter the Roman empire. Those events however still had battles like at Manzikert or the various ones during the late Roman Empire, this time there will be no battles as surrender is now basically the ultimate sign of virtue.
  5. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Cagey Beast
    Two prominent political commentators, Eric Zemmour and Bernard Henri-Levy -- both products of recent North African immigration -- debate the state of France right now:

    https://twitter.com/FrDesouche/status/860794186387382272

    My translation:


    Eric Zemmour:
    When you spend your time evoking the 1930s, etcetera, the anti-Nazism, etcetera, I'll tell you, you mistake the era. Because, in fact, we're not in the 1930s, we are in 1848. We have a a clash of social classes more acute than we've seen since the 19th century. And there is, on one side, the new proletariat of globalisation and the new bourgeoisie. There is even a different geography. I won't restate the numbers of Christophe Guilluy ...
    [crosstalk]
    There is, as they say in American, there are people from anywhere and people from somewhere. And you are a person from anywhere and you spend your time insulting people from somewhere. It's an ideological split that's entirely legitimate but admit it! You are the bourgeois supporting Louis Phillippe sending General Cavaignac to open fire on the workers in June 1848.* That's what going on right now!
     
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Days_uprising

    I listened again and I should have had Zemmour saying “you are the Louis Phillippe supporting bourgeois who sent General Cavaignac to open fire on the workers in June 1848″.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    So the way these people defend "right-wing" views is by claiming that they're actually the REAL communist revolutionaries. No wonder France is dying.

    If the political establishment and system makes voting for Le Pen (or Trump or...) meaningless then it's time to change the system. Democracy is really a huge scam. We don't get to vote on who owns the media, we don't get to vote for judges, we don't get to vote for the bureaucrats, lobbyists, party donors and officials who actually write most of the policy.

    It's a waste of effort to even attempt to work within the system.
    , @AP
    How did Levy respond?
  6. El Dato says:

    Doesn’t look like the offshore account thing is credible. More like a #BadShop by “enthusastic” channers.

    http://www.numerama.com/politique/254983-compte-offshore-demmanuel-macron-une-intox-venue-de-4chan.html

    Nothing to see here, for the rest we will have to wait.

    Note that dumps exciting to US inhabitants may well be regarded as “meh material” in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whahae
    Not proof of a fake. Adobe does this automatically when optimizing scanned documents. You could see the same on Obama's birth certificate.
    , @neutral

    as “meh material” in Europe
     
    Most of everything is meh for Europe. Batlacan attacks - meh. Third world slums forming in Calais and Paris - meh. Millions of third worlders entering unopposed - meh. Having football teams that look like African teams - meh. Having the demographics of Venezuela - meh, meh, meh, meh, meh, meh.

    You may think all this mehing (except of course when it comes to anything remotely pro white) makes one some kind of aloof superior being that is beyond such petty concerns, but in the end not caring about any of these things is just signaling complete failure at the most basic biological levels.

  7. whahae says:
    @El Dato
    Doesn't look like the offshore account thing is credible. More like a #BadShop by "enthusastic" channers.

    http://www.numerama.com/politique/254983-compte-offshore-demmanuel-macron-une-intox-venue-de-4chan.html

    Nothing to see here, for the rest we will have to wait.

    Note that dumps exciting to US inhabitants may well be regarded as "meh material" in Europe.

    Not proof of a fake. Adobe does this automatically when optimizing scanned documents. You could see the same on Obama’s birth certificate.

    Read More
  8. @Cagey Beast
    I listened again and I should have had Zemmour saying "you are the Louis Phillippe supporting bourgeois who sent General Cavaignac to open fire on the workers in June 1848".

    So the way these people defend “right-wing” views is by claiming that they’re actually the REAL communist revolutionaries. No wonder France is dying.

    If the political establishment and system makes voting for Le Pen (or Trump or…) meaningless then it’s time to change the system. Democracy is really a huge scam. We don’t get to vote on who owns the media, we don’t get to vote for judges, we don’t get to vote for the bureaucrats, lobbyists, party donors and officials who actually write most of the policy.

    It’s a waste of effort to even attempt to work within the system.

    Read More
    • Agree: Felix Keverich
    • Replies: @anon
    Ancient democracy worked just because voting was limited to an educated (although also rich) class from the city-state. For a limited group to vote on their leaders, even the majority ancient greeks at that time were aware to see if they would really rule according to their needs in consequence of rebellions. And the right to rule came with commitment to true development instead of simple and pure usury.
    It's the same for kingdoms which was common to see what would happen if the peasants got too disappointed with the ruling and some powerful elements were to take advantage of that. The chinese are good example of that.
    Liberal democracy depends on the votes of uneducated people as an advantage to politicians and elite to not be blamed for misrule, therefore blaming the masses themselves and letting them fight one against the other. Also, societies nowadays are too worried to take true action and lose the "civilization" (refinement) characteristic even when their existence is in risk. And let's not forget all those rights and freebies for everyone, including how a "peaceful" globalized lifestyle will never get them hurt or hold them from going anywhere... All the while being poisoned with industrialized food, pollution, displacement by foreigners and still working in a slave-wage system believing they aren't in the Industrial Revolution anymore.
    , @Anon

    We don’t get to vote on who owns the media
     
    But we choose which media we want to consume.
    , @Cagey Beast
    Some of the most conservative people have little time for the haute bourgeoisie . Don't forget the French and American Revolutions, and the English Civil War, were driven by them. The current clash between globalists and patriots has happened before over the last 200yrs or so.

    You're right in the second part of your post though. If the political establishment keeps on proudly, gleefully and shamelessly telling people like Trump and FN supporters that trying to change things democratically is a waste of effort, then ....
  9. AP says:
    @Cagey Beast
    I listened again and I should have had Zemmour saying "you are the Louis Phillippe supporting bourgeois who sent General Cavaignac to open fire on the workers in June 1848".

    How did Levy respond?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I don't know yet, I've only seen that short clip posted in that tweet.
  10. neutral says:
    @El Dato
    Doesn't look like the offshore account thing is credible. More like a #BadShop by "enthusastic" channers.

    http://www.numerama.com/politique/254983-compte-offshore-demmanuel-macron-une-intox-venue-de-4chan.html

    Nothing to see here, for the rest we will have to wait.

    Note that dumps exciting to US inhabitants may well be regarded as "meh material" in Europe.

    as “meh material” in Europe

    Most of everything is meh for Europe. Batlacan attacks – meh. Third world slums forming in Calais and Paris – meh. Millions of third worlders entering unopposed – meh. Having football teams that look like African teams – meh. Having the demographics of Venezuela – meh, meh, meh, meh, meh, meh.

    You may think all this mehing (except of course when it comes to anything remotely pro white) makes one some kind of aloof superior being that is beyond such petty concerns, but in the end not caring about any of these things is just signaling complete failure at the most basic biological levels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    How's Detroit doing? How's the WASPy Ivy League doing? How's White America doing? Meh?
  11. neutral says:
    @Cagey Beast
    Two prominent political commentators, Eric Zemmour and Bernard Henri-Levy -- both products of recent North African immigration -- debate the state of France right now:

    https://twitter.com/FrDesouche/status/860794186387382272

    My translation:


    Eric Zemmour:
    When you spend your time evoking the 1930s, etcetera, the anti-Nazism, etcetera, I'll tell you, you mistake the era. Because, in fact, we're not in the 1930s, we are in 1848. We have a a clash of social classes more acute than we've seen since the 19th century. And there is, on one side, the new proletariat of globalisation and the new bourgeoisie. There is even a different geography. I won't restate the numbers of Christophe Guilluy ...
    [crosstalk]
    There is, as they say in American, there are people from anywhere and people from somewhere. And you are a person from anywhere and you spend your time insulting people from somewhere. It's an ideological split that's entirely legitimate but admit it! You are the bourgeois supporting Louis Phillippe sending General Cavaignac to open fire on the workers in June 1848.* That's what going on right now!
     
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Days_uprising

    This is not even 1848, this is more like the 1000′s when Turkish nomads gradually starting moving into the Byzantine Anatolian regions, or the 300-400′s when the migration of many different tribes started to significantly alter the Roman empire. Those events however still had battles like at Manzikert or the various ones during the late Roman Empire, this time there will be no battles as surrender is now basically the ultimate sign of virtue.

    Read More
  12. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @AP
    How did Levy respond?

    I don’t know yet, I’ve only seen that short clip posted in that tweet.

    Read More
  13. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jaakko Raipala
    So the way these people defend "right-wing" views is by claiming that they're actually the REAL communist revolutionaries. No wonder France is dying.

    If the political establishment and system makes voting for Le Pen (or Trump or...) meaningless then it's time to change the system. Democracy is really a huge scam. We don't get to vote on who owns the media, we don't get to vote for judges, we don't get to vote for the bureaucrats, lobbyists, party donors and officials who actually write most of the policy.

    It's a waste of effort to even attempt to work within the system.

    Ancient democracy worked just because voting was limited to an educated (although also rich) class from the city-state. For a limited group to vote on their leaders, even the majority ancient greeks at that time were aware to see if they would really rule according to their needs in consequence of rebellions. And the right to rule came with commitment to true development instead of simple and pure usury.
    It’s the same for kingdoms which was common to see what would happen if the peasants got too disappointed with the ruling and some powerful elements were to take advantage of that. The chinese are good example of that.
    Liberal democracy depends on the votes of uneducated people as an advantage to politicians and elite to not be blamed for misrule, therefore blaming the masses themselves and letting them fight one against the other. Also, societies nowadays are too worried to take true action and lose the “civilization” (refinement) characteristic even when their existence is in risk. And let’s not forget all those rights and freebies for everyone, including how a “peaceful” globalized lifestyle will never get them hurt or hold them from going anywhere… All the while being poisoned with industrialized food, pollution, displacement by foreigners and still working in a slave-wage system believing they aren’t in the Industrial Revolution anymore.

    Read More
  14. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jaakko Raipala
    So the way these people defend "right-wing" views is by claiming that they're actually the REAL communist revolutionaries. No wonder France is dying.

    If the political establishment and system makes voting for Le Pen (or Trump or...) meaningless then it's time to change the system. Democracy is really a huge scam. We don't get to vote on who owns the media, we don't get to vote for judges, we don't get to vote for the bureaucrats, lobbyists, party donors and officials who actually write most of the policy.

    It's a waste of effort to even attempt to work within the system.

    We don’t get to vote on who owns the media

    But we choose which media we want to consume.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    But we don't get to choose what media all our neighbours have presented to them as mainstream opinion. We also don't get to debate, shout down, boo or out argue these media authorities the way a person could in the days before mass communication. In the past, anyone who wanted to sway public opinion had to go out and mix with people, face their scrutiny and their argumentation. With mass media, we get weird, alienated, third rate people giving their version of things uninterrupted for year after year. It's like you have one vote and Wolf Blitzer has half a million, no matter how freaky and slow-witted he is. It's not a level playing field. Add to that the subsidized, financially bulletproof think-tanks and universities and you have the Swamp's cultural stagnation.
    , @Jaakko Raipala
    If all the options are promoting the same ideology then no, there is no choice.

    There *used to be*. We once had ideologically different newspapers - monarchist, liberal, socialist and so on and they had very different coverage. Then after World War II it became a taboo to ask questions about media owners and everything was quietly bought by a small set of people. It's useless to have a "right-wing" and "left-wing" newspaper if they're both owned by the same family that wants endless LBGT, immigration, Holocaust stories over and over and over again.

    They do this with entertainment as well. There's some unpolitical movie, character, video game, whatever that becomes a hit. Then when the sequels start coming out it becomes obvious that someone with a political message had bought the popular franchise and inserted his stuff in there. Sure, people will probably be disappointed and choose another franchise but they'll only do that after being exposed to the political conditioning.

    There are clearly pepole out there who are willing to spend big money just to push an ideology. The free market cultists that have convinced themselves that human interaction can be reduced to supply and demand have no answer to this so effectively they end up advocating submission to the manipulations of that subset of rich people and institutions who are willing to take losses to promote an ideology.
  15. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Brexit betting had a majority of pro-Brexit small bets but the odds were skewed the other way by a few very large no-Brexit bets (which created a narrative)

    Read More
  16. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Jaakko Raipala
    So the way these people defend "right-wing" views is by claiming that they're actually the REAL communist revolutionaries. No wonder France is dying.

    If the political establishment and system makes voting for Le Pen (or Trump or...) meaningless then it's time to change the system. Democracy is really a huge scam. We don't get to vote on who owns the media, we don't get to vote for judges, we don't get to vote for the bureaucrats, lobbyists, party donors and officials who actually write most of the policy.

    It's a waste of effort to even attempt to work within the system.

    Some of the most conservative people have little time for the haute bourgeoisie . Don’t forget the French and American Revolutions, and the English Civil War, were driven by them. The current clash between globalists and patriots has happened before over the last 200yrs or so.

    You’re right in the second part of your post though. If the political establishment keeps on proudly, gleefully and shamelessly telling people like Trump and FN supporters that trying to change things democratically is a waste of effort, then ….

    Read More
  17. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Anon

    We don’t get to vote on who owns the media
     
    But we choose which media we want to consume.

    But we don’t get to choose what media all our neighbours have presented to them as mainstream opinion. We also don’t get to debate, shout down, boo or out argue these media authorities the way a person could in the days before mass communication. In the past, anyone who wanted to sway public opinion had to go out and mix with people, face their scrutiny and their argumentation. With mass media, we get weird, alienated, third rate people giving their version of things uninterrupted for year after year. It’s like you have one vote and Wolf Blitzer has half a million, no matter how freaky and slow-witted he is. It’s not a level playing field. Add to that the subsidized, financially bulletproof think-tanks and universities and you have the Swamp’s cultural stagnation.

    Read More
  18. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @neutral

    as “meh material” in Europe
     
    Most of everything is meh for Europe. Batlacan attacks - meh. Third world slums forming in Calais and Paris - meh. Millions of third worlders entering unopposed - meh. Having football teams that look like African teams - meh. Having the demographics of Venezuela - meh, meh, meh, meh, meh, meh.

    You may think all this mehing (except of course when it comes to anything remotely pro white) makes one some kind of aloof superior being that is beyond such petty concerns, but in the end not caring about any of these things is just signaling complete failure at the most basic biological levels.

    How’s Detroit doing? How’s the WASPy Ivy League doing? How’s White America doing? Meh?

    Read More
  19. Cagey Beast says: • Website

    Meanwhile in Italy:

    We’re all in the same boat, folks. We’re all living in countries governed by people who believe they have to feed the beast called Growth no matter how:

    REPORT: Banks Admit They Want MORE EU Migration For Cheap Labour, A ‘Brexit’ Could HELP Smaller Euro Nations

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/21/how-you-know-the-pro-eu-voices-are-those-of-the-big-corporates-who-want-cheap-labour/

    There’s no point trying to whistle past the graveyard by saying this is just a French or European moral failing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    A lot more "refugees" have been coming to Italy via the route through Libya than in the first months of 2016 (mostly Africans, but apparently now also even Pakistanis and Bangladeshis because now it's more difficult for them to get through the Balkans). Might be an interesting summer. I actually hope the situation escalates, it might have some positive effect on the elections in Germany.
  20. @Cagey Beast
    Meanwhile in Italy:

    https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/860686174930731009

    We're all in the same boat, folks. We're all living in countries governed by people who believe they have to feed the beast called Growth no matter how:

    REPORT: Banks Admit They Want MORE EU Migration For Cheap Labour, A ‘Brexit’ Could HELP Smaller Euro Nations


    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/21/how-you-know-the-pro-eu-voices-are-those-of-the-big-corporates-who-want-cheap-labour/

    There's no point trying to whistle past the graveyard by saying this is just a French or European moral failing.

    A lot more “refugees” have been coming to Italy via the route through Libya than in the first months of 2016 (mostly Africans, but apparently now also even Pakistanis and Bangladeshis because now it’s more difficult for them to get through the Balkans). Might be an interesting summer. I actually hope the situation escalates, it might have some positive effect on the elections in Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Yes, the only way we'll see change is through a crisis. A mutiny by Italian police, Greek soldiers or something like that. It could then spread and force change at the top of the EU and elsewhere. It can be an almost bloodless crisis, like the one that brought in de Gaulle and his 5th Republic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5297LaOCUDs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP92katHAsg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb5r-k_isiA
  21. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @German_reader
    A lot more "refugees" have been coming to Italy via the route through Libya than in the first months of 2016 (mostly Africans, but apparently now also even Pakistanis and Bangladeshis because now it's more difficult for them to get through the Balkans). Might be an interesting summer. I actually hope the situation escalates, it might have some positive effect on the elections in Germany.

    Yes, the only way we’ll see change is through a crisis. A mutiny by Italian police, Greek soldiers or something like that. It could then spread and force change at the top of the EU and elsewhere. It can be an almost bloodless crisis, like the one that brought in de Gaulle and his 5th Republic:

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    On that, note one of the few encouraging stories I've read about the presidential election in France is that apparently 50% of police officers admit to voting for MLP.
  22. @Cagey Beast
    Yes, the only way we'll see change is through a crisis. A mutiny by Italian police, Greek soldiers or something like that. It could then spread and force change at the top of the EU and elsewhere. It can be an almost bloodless crisis, like the one that brought in de Gaulle and his 5th Republic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5297LaOCUDs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP92katHAsg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb5r-k_isiA

    On that, note one of the few encouraging stories I’ve read about the presidential election in France is that apparently 50% of police officers admit to voting for MLP.

    Read More
  23. iffen says:

    Something has happened, I don’t know what. There are no De Gaulles in the pipeline.

    Read More
  24. BB753 says:

    I’m no fan of de Gaulle.
    First, he rebelled against the legitimate French government (Vichy), as a puppet of the Allies.
    Then he pretended to hand over France to the French, (“Francais, je vous ai compris! “) by staging a coup against the Republic, the better to sell them afterwards.
    Not only were the French settlers betrayed and colonies deserted, but it was under de Gaulle’s watch that Algerians and assorted Africans started to move to France in great numbers.
    Giscard’s family reunification bill for immigrants sealed the deal.
    That’s how France turned into the present mess. From 0% Muslim in 1957 to probably over 25% today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    He gave independence to Algeria precisely because

    1) Algerians started moving to France en masse (to which they were legally entitled to, because Algeria was supposed to be an integral part of France, with moving Algiers to Marseilles being legally no different from moving from Lyon to Bordeaux)
    2) Algerians could legally apply for French citizenship while still in Algeria (again, because Algeria was considered an integral part of France)
    3) He noticed the very high fertility rates of Algerians

    He tried to get out of this mess (or at least buy some time until someone could figure out what to do) by giving independence to Algeria. Perhaps it was the wrong strategy, or it would have been better if France achieved an Algerian majority earlier when political correctness had less stranglehold on France (and on her allies like the US), but he couldn't have seen that.

    As to his "rebellion" against Vichy, the Vichy government took the rather sensible view that it was in the best interest of France to play both sides, so for example they never seriously tried to reestablish their control over places like French Equatorial Africa. De Gaulle basically made it possible for France to finish the war on the side of the victors, which would've been questionable, had there been no Free French. Again, one might argue that actually it didn't bring a lot of benefits to France, but in 1940 it was difficult (if not impossible) to foresee this. For example I doubt most people realized in 1940 that all colonial empires would be totally dismantled by the end of the 1960s, or that political correctness would become such a potent force later in the 20th century.

  25. Yevardian says:

    It’s funny how many major leaks get their initial traction on /pol/, hidden amongst the terabytes of daily garbage that passes through there.

    Read More
  26. @Anon

    We don’t get to vote on who owns the media
     
    But we choose which media we want to consume.

    If all the options are promoting the same ideology then no, there is no choice.

    There *used to be*. We once had ideologically different newspapers – monarchist, liberal, socialist and so on and they had very different coverage. Then after World War II it became a taboo to ask questions about media owners and everything was quietly bought by a small set of people. It’s useless to have a “right-wing” and “left-wing” newspaper if they’re both owned by the same family that wants endless LBGT, immigration, Holocaust stories over and over and over again.

    They do this with entertainment as well. There’s some unpolitical movie, character, video game, whatever that becomes a hit. Then when the sequels start coming out it becomes obvious that someone with a political message had bought the popular franchise and inserted his stuff in there. Sure, people will probably be disappointed and choose another franchise but they’ll only do that after being exposed to the political conditioning.

    There are clearly pepole out there who are willing to spend big money just to push an ideology. The free market cultists that have convinced themselves that human interaction can be reduced to supply and demand have no answer to this so effectively they end up advocating submission to the manipulations of that subset of rich people and institutions who are willing to take losses to promote an ideology.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Yes and no matter how third-rate the mainstream political culture gets, it's still strong enough to smother any rivals. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were the acceptable Republican candidates. Hillary Clinton was the only acceptable one for the Democrats. Similarly, the French and foreign "elite" put all their poker chips on the weird little man called Macron. Are any of these people even likeable, let alone impressive? The French Socialist Party was driven off a cliff by Hollande; Sarkozy wrecked the centre-right but together all the third rate survivors can still manage to gang up on the outsider. The same thing seems to be happening now in Washington.

    Trump was a famous billionaire with a unique combination of wealth, social connections and a rough charm to get through in a surprise win. Even so, the Swamp is working to smother him too:

    How Trump Could Get Fired
    The Constitution offers two main paths for removing a President from office. How feasible are they?
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/08/how-trump-could-get-fired

    The mass media, mass education, mass entertainment culture we inherited from the last century is good at almost nothing except choking out all rivals. It's like the old Soviet Union by the time of Brezhnev.

  27. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @BB753
    I'm no fan of de Gaulle.
    First, he rebelled against the legitimate French government (Vichy), as a puppet of the Allies.
    Then he pretended to hand over France to the French, ("Francais, je vous ai compris! ") by staging a coup against the Republic, the better to sell them afterwards.
    Not only were the French settlers betrayed and colonies deserted, but it was under de Gaulle's watch that Algerians and assorted Africans started to move to France in great numbers.
    Giscard's family reunification bill for immigrants sealed the deal.
    That's how France turned into the present mess. From 0% Muslim in 1957 to probably over 25% today.

    He gave independence to Algeria precisely because

    1) Algerians started moving to France en masse (to which they were legally entitled to, because Algeria was supposed to be an integral part of France, with moving Algiers to Marseilles being legally no different from moving from Lyon to Bordeaux)
    2) Algerians could legally apply for French citizenship while still in Algeria (again, because Algeria was considered an integral part of France)
    3) He noticed the very high fertility rates of Algerians

    He tried to get out of this mess (or at least buy some time until someone could figure out what to do) by giving independence to Algeria. Perhaps it was the wrong strategy, or it would have been better if France achieved an Algerian majority earlier when political correctness had less stranglehold on France (and on her allies like the US), but he couldn’t have seen that.

    As to his “rebellion” against Vichy, the Vichy government took the rather sensible view that it was in the best interest of France to play both sides, so for example they never seriously tried to reestablish their control over places like French Equatorial Africa. De Gaulle basically made it possible for France to finish the war on the side of the victors, which would’ve been questionable, had there been no Free French. Again, one might argue that actually it didn’t bring a lot of benefits to France, but in 1940 it was difficult (if not impossible) to foresee this. For example I doubt most people realized in 1940 that all colonial empires would be totally dismantled by the end of the 1960s, or that political correctness would become such a potent force later in the 20th century.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @BB753
    If de Gaulle was so concerned about Algerian immigration, why did he later let them immigrate massively in the sixties? In the end, the result was the same. Anecdotally, Senegalese were also French citizens.
    Like the slimy and incompetent Winston Churchill, de Gaulle's standing in history will one day be judged with more objectivity.
  28. BB753 says:
    @reiner Tor
    He gave independence to Algeria precisely because

    1) Algerians started moving to France en masse (to which they were legally entitled to, because Algeria was supposed to be an integral part of France, with moving Algiers to Marseilles being legally no different from moving from Lyon to Bordeaux)
    2) Algerians could legally apply for French citizenship while still in Algeria (again, because Algeria was considered an integral part of France)
    3) He noticed the very high fertility rates of Algerians

    He tried to get out of this mess (or at least buy some time until someone could figure out what to do) by giving independence to Algeria. Perhaps it was the wrong strategy, or it would have been better if France achieved an Algerian majority earlier when political correctness had less stranglehold on France (and on her allies like the US), but he couldn't have seen that.

    As to his "rebellion" against Vichy, the Vichy government took the rather sensible view that it was in the best interest of France to play both sides, so for example they never seriously tried to reestablish their control over places like French Equatorial Africa. De Gaulle basically made it possible for France to finish the war on the side of the victors, which would've been questionable, had there been no Free French. Again, one might argue that actually it didn't bring a lot of benefits to France, but in 1940 it was difficult (if not impossible) to foresee this. For example I doubt most people realized in 1940 that all colonial empires would be totally dismantled by the end of the 1960s, or that political correctness would become such a potent force later in the 20th century.

    If de Gaulle was so concerned about Algerian immigration, why did he later let them immigrate massively in the sixties? In the end, the result was the same. Anecdotally, Senegalese were also French citizens.
    Like the slimy and incompetent Winston Churchill, de Gaulle’s standing in history will one day be judged with more objectivity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    He did not. The massive waves of Arabs came after his time.
  29. Macron won with more than 65%.
    Wow, how depressing.

    I firmly believe that the Front National will never win an election in France, and that no one with the name of Le Pen will ever be either President or Prime Minister. There is simply too much history and stigmatisation attached to FN/Le Pen.

    This is shown, I think, by the rapidity with which Fillon endorsed Macron. If you look at Fillon’s policies on immigration (and, for that matter, Russia) they are ones that most of the readers of this thread would strongly agree with:

    1. a constitutional amendment fixing quotas for professional and family immigration

    2. make family “regroupement” more difficult, particularly where the prospects of social integration are doubtful.

    3. restore national sovereignty over immigration

    4. eliminate the recent “reforms” that have made it much easier to acquire French nationality (and that are frequently subject to abuse).

    5. Stop providing “family allocations” and housing subsidies for those who have resided for less than 2 years “regularly” (i.e., legally) in France.

    6. Effectively reduce medical assistance for immigrants to emergencies and care for children and, without violating medical confidentiality, make use of such information to “examine” the situation of foreigners requesting medical aid.

    7. Shift the burden of paying for integration and immigration from the French taxpayer to those applying for residence permits, naturalisation, etc.

    https://www.fillon2017.fr/projet/immigration/

    Fillon was always a far more dangerous candidate than Le Pen, which is why he had to be eliminated at any cost (as he was, by a very effective “deep state” intervention).

    Polls show that 70% of France thinks that there are “too many foreigners” in the country. Thus Macron won not because of his immigration policy, but in spite of it.

    If there is hope for France, and for demographic reasons it may well already be too late, it is with the disappearance of the Front National and an emergence of a true “Gaullist” candidate of the (non-stigmatised) Right.

    The continued existence of the Front National serves the interests of the “globalists” because it effectively acts to divide the Right, and present the emergence of an effective political force that can represent the large majority of French who are against currennt immigration policies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I agree with all of this except:

    I firmly believe that the Front National will never win an election in France, and that no one with the name of Le Pen will ever be either President or Prime Minister.

    In ten or fifteen years Marion Maréchal-Le Pen could win under a new banner but that's a minor quibble.

    Your main points still stand. The whole French political system has had decades to set up obstacles and barriers to the Front National and Le Pen family in the minds of voters and power brokers. Not very bright or nimble thinkers may not know much but they know "I'll never vote Front National!" Dumb people do well in dug-in positions and set plays but fall apart when forced onto new territory.

    Trump's run for office way a joy to watch because, again and again, he slipped around the old traps set for "cuckservative" candidates and his opponents didn't know what to do next. I think French patriots will have to move on from the Front National and Marine Le Pen if they want to get past the old obstacle course and rusty barbed wire set out to stop them.
    , @anon
    For all democratic and precise french politics seems to promote itself, it's in reality just another dysfunctional political system of pretend-to-be candidates.
    Even if your opponent has a similar ideology, you are ending up supporting the one who's gonna do more damage and is not going to hear your claims, being the farthest from your interests.
    Even Jobbik had decided to support Fidesz with their similar opinions. Or even the Communist Party of Russia ends up agreeing with United Russia and Putin's government on many things.
  30. Jon0815 says:

    Nationalists have under-performed everywhere since Trump’s victory: Austria, Netherlands, and now France. I think Brexit would lose if the vote were held again today.

    Trump is the worst of both worlds for nationalists: His boorish stupidity has tarnished the brand, and he doesn’t even deliver nationalist policies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I'm certain of this. Trump makes the everyone else in the West worry "what will the neighbours think??" if they elect their own Trump and the media plays on that to keep their friends in power. The media is expert at demonizing, bullying, scolding and shaming but they're not good at coming up with new solutions.
    , @German_reader
    I don't know, there may be something to this, but it will hardly have been decisive in the French election. Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn't quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.
    , @anon

    Nationalists have under-performed everywhere since Trump’s victory: Austria, Netherlands, and now France.
     
    1) Austria - nonsense, a candidate tagged as "far-right" almost won

    2) Holland - not sure, isn't Wilders a kind of neoliberal economically? I don't think that strategy can work

    3) France

    the official centrist two-party uniparty system collapsed

    the Left has no answer to the crisis cos PC

    the only opposition to the globalist uniparty is now nationalist

    the uniparty was only saved by a full-on media campaign and yet close to half the white vote went for someone labelled "far-right" by the media
    , @Hector_St_Clare
    Trump is the worst of both worlds for nationalists: His boorish stupidity has tarnished the brand, and he doesn’t even deliver nationalist policies.

    +1000 to this. Incidentaly this was one of the many reasons I didn't vote for Trump.

    The Austrian loss was particularly heartbreaking, especially since Norbert Hofer probably legitimately won the election in May. (He was leading, then the flawed 'postal ballots' came in to give his opponent a 0.6% lead). Then they re-did the election in December and he lost by a large margin.

    Silver lining in terms of Austria though: 1) they actually have the opportunity to solve their immigration problems peacefully now (something like 80% of Muslims in Austria say they would move if financially compensated, just based on the threat of a Hofer presidency, 2) the FPO is in any case going to be the first or second largest party in parliament as of next year, and 3) Van der Bellen has probably discredited himself with his ridiculous "Mandatory Headscarf" remark.

    As a friend of mine said when he saw the news story about the Austrian court giving an immigrant rapist a re-trial on the grounds that he didn't understand the language, "the Austrian establishment seems to be so suicidal that they're encouraging people to vote for fascists."
  31. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Jaakko Raipala
    If all the options are promoting the same ideology then no, there is no choice.

    There *used to be*. We once had ideologically different newspapers - monarchist, liberal, socialist and so on and they had very different coverage. Then after World War II it became a taboo to ask questions about media owners and everything was quietly bought by a small set of people. It's useless to have a "right-wing" and "left-wing" newspaper if they're both owned by the same family that wants endless LBGT, immigration, Holocaust stories over and over and over again.

    They do this with entertainment as well. There's some unpolitical movie, character, video game, whatever that becomes a hit. Then when the sequels start coming out it becomes obvious that someone with a political message had bought the popular franchise and inserted his stuff in there. Sure, people will probably be disappointed and choose another franchise but they'll only do that after being exposed to the political conditioning.

    There are clearly pepole out there who are willing to spend big money just to push an ideology. The free market cultists that have convinced themselves that human interaction can be reduced to supply and demand have no answer to this so effectively they end up advocating submission to the manipulations of that subset of rich people and institutions who are willing to take losses to promote an ideology.

    Yes and no matter how third-rate the mainstream political culture gets, it’s still strong enough to smother any rivals. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were the acceptable Republican candidates. Hillary Clinton was the only acceptable one for the Democrats. Similarly, the French and foreign “elite” put all their poker chips on the weird little man called Macron. Are any of these people even likeable, let alone impressive? The French Socialist Party was driven off a cliff by Hollande; Sarkozy wrecked the centre-right but together all the third rate survivors can still manage to gang up on the outsider. The same thing seems to be happening now in Washington.

    Trump was a famous billionaire with a unique combination of wealth, social connections and a rough charm to get through in a surprise win. Even so, the Swamp is working to smother him too:

    How Trump Could Get Fired
    The Constitution offers two main paths for removing a President from office. How feasible are they?

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/08/how-trump-could-get-fired

    The mass media, mass education, mass entertainment culture we inherited from the last century is good at almost nothing except choking out all rivals. It’s like the old Soviet Union by the time of Brezhnev.

    Read More
  32. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @BB753
    If de Gaulle was so concerned about Algerian immigration, why did he later let them immigrate massively in the sixties? In the end, the result was the same. Anecdotally, Senegalese were also French citizens.
    Like the slimy and incompetent Winston Churchill, de Gaulle's standing in history will one day be judged with more objectivity.

    He did not. The massive waves of Arabs came after his time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Wrong, de Gaulle was in office between 1959 and 1969.
  33. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Jon0815
    Nationalists have under-performed everywhere since Trump's victory: Austria, Netherlands, and now France. I think Brexit would lose if the vote were held again today.

    Trump is the worst of both worlds for nationalists: His boorish stupidity has tarnished the brand, and he doesn't even deliver nationalist policies.

    I’m certain of this. Trump makes the everyone else in the West worry “what will the neighbours think??” if they elect their own Trump and the media plays on that to keep their friends in power. The media is expert at demonizing, bullying, scolding and shaming but they’re not good at coming up with new solutions.

    Read More
  34. @Jon0815
    Nationalists have under-performed everywhere since Trump's victory: Austria, Netherlands, and now France. I think Brexit would lose if the vote were held again today.

    Trump is the worst of both worlds for nationalists: His boorish stupidity has tarnished the brand, and he doesn't even deliver nationalist policies.

    I don’t know, there may be something to this, but it will hardly have been decisive in the French election. Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn’t quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn’t quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.

    Your impression is incorrect. It is all hands on deck to trash him. There has never been anything in the modern era in the US that matches this.

    , @anon

    Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn’t quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.
     
    Yes for a few weeks the media softened dramatically but it seems to be over now since they realized it was only symbolic.
  35. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @for-the-record

    Macron won with more than 65%.
    Wow, how depressing.
     
    I firmly believe that the Front National will never win an election in France, and that no one with the name of Le Pen will ever be either President or Prime Minister. There is simply too much history and stigmatisation attached to FN/Le Pen.

    This is shown, I think, by the rapidity with which Fillon endorsed Macron. If you look at Fillon's policies on immigration (and, for that matter, Russia) they are ones that most of the readers of this thread would strongly agree with:

    1. a constitutional amendment fixing quotas for professional and family immigration

    2. make family "regroupement" more difficult, particularly where the prospects of social integration are doubtful.

    3. restore national sovereignty over immigration

    4. eliminate the recent "reforms" that have made it much easier to acquire French nationality (and that are frequently subject to abuse).

    5. Stop providing "family allocations" and housing subsidies for those who have resided for less than 2 years "regularly" (i.e., legally) in France.

    6. Effectively reduce medical assistance for immigrants to emergencies and care for children and, without violating medical confidentiality, make use of such information to "examine" the situation of foreigners requesting medical aid.

    7. Shift the burden of paying for integration and immigration from the French taxpayer to those applying for residence permits, naturalisation, etc.

    https://www.fillon2017.fr/projet/immigration/

    Fillon was always a far more dangerous candidate than Le Pen, which is why he had to be eliminated at any cost (as he was, by a very effective "deep state" intervention).

    Polls show that 70% of France thinks that there are "too many foreigners" in the country. Thus Macron won not because of his immigration policy, but in spite of it.

    If there is hope for France, and for demographic reasons it may well already be too late, it is with the disappearance of the Front National and an emergence of a true "Gaullist" candidate of the (non-stigmatised) Right.

    The continued existence of the Front National serves the interests of the "globalists" because it effectively acts to divide the Right, and present the emergence of an effective political force that can represent the large majority of French who are against currennt immigration policies.

    I agree with all of this except:

    I firmly believe that the Front National will never win an election in France, and that no one with the name of Le Pen will ever be either President or Prime Minister.

    In ten or fifteen years Marion Maréchal-Le Pen could win under a new banner but that’s a minor quibble.

    Your main points still stand. The whole French political system has had decades to set up obstacles and barriers to the Front National and Le Pen family in the minds of voters and power brokers. Not very bright or nimble thinkers may not know much but they know “I’ll never vote Front National!” Dumb people do well in dug-in positions and set plays but fall apart when forced onto new territory.

    Trump’s run for office way a joy to watch because, again and again, he slipped around the old traps set for “cuckservative” candidates and his opponents didn’t know what to do next. I think French patriots will have to move on from the Front National and Marine Le Pen if they want to get past the old obstacle course and rusty barbed wire set out to stop them.

    Read More
  36. Bunch of “woe is me!” bullshit going on in this thread.

    So MLP got 34 or whatever instead of 38, big deal. She still basically doubled what her old man got 15 years ago. She’ll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in ’31.

    Remember, Macron still needs to govern and he will fail miserably just like Hollande has. I suspect his approval will be in the 20′s within 2 years.

    Trump has not disappointed any of his supporters outside of the Syria-First Ron Paul crowd, who, despite their outsized representation on Unz, are politically irrelevant. Illegal border crossings are at an all time low and deportations from the interior at an all time high. Nobody except WNs and Paleocons care about his show bombing in Syria.

    There are 4 major differences between the US and other western countries that explain why Trump has succeeded while nationalists are struggling everywhere else:

    1. The US has a huge black population which forced a large amount of establishment friendly whites to vote for Trump even though they didn’t like him because they had to vote against the black party. There is no parallel to this in any other western country.

    2. The US has a hyper partisan 2 party system, which meant that Trump was able to just co-opt the bulk of the right wing establishment. If France had the same first past the post system that the US has, Marine would have won the nomination for the French version of the Republican party and then won this election.

    3. The US has an electoral college which weakens the power of minorities and urban liberals.

    4. Americans are much more contemptuous of elite opinion than Euros are.

    This election was just a Phyric victory for the Left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    Remember, Macron still needs to govern and he will fail miserably just like Hollande has. I suspect his approval will be in the 20′s within 2 years.
     
    Yes, that would be an interesting bet - how soon will Macron be as unpopular as Hollande? It could even be within a year cos
    - there is no neoliberal solution for the economy.
    - there is no PC solution for the ever growing intifada in the cities.

    The globalist's neoliberal economy + PC society is untenable.
    , @Cagey Beast
    I agree with your four points, except perhaps the last. In any case:

    2. The US has a hyper partisan 2 party system, which meant that Trump was able to just co-opt the bulk of the right wing establishment. If France had the same first past the post system that the US has, Marine would have won the nomination for the French version of the Republican party and then won this election.

    This is the critically important difference. I was thinking about this the other day and was reminded of what an actress said about how she always seems to fall in love with her male co-star: "I'm a typical woman I guess. If I do a sex scene part of my brain says 'if I'm in bed with you, that must mean I love you'". The Republican Party was like that with Trump after he won the nomination.

    , @German_reader

    She’ll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in ’31.
     
    That's too late. If there isn't radical change in Europe in the next few years and if "Fortress Europe" (even though I don't like that term, it's obviously meant to evoke Nazi associations) doesn't become a reality, it will all be over. If hundreds of thousands of additional Muslims and Africans continue to come to Europe every year, Europe will be changed demographically beyond recognition, and the only (very slight) chance for a turnaround would be civil war and violence on a massive scale. I don't understand why people don't get this, even people who agree somewhat with me on the immigration issue talk about things like the pensions system in 40 years - as if by that point anything of the sort would still exist if present trends continue.
    , @iffen
    You forgot to mention that it only happened because Trump was able to self fund in the early months. If he had not been able to self fund, Clinton would be President.
  37. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jon0815
    Nationalists have under-performed everywhere since Trump's victory: Austria, Netherlands, and now France. I think Brexit would lose if the vote were held again today.

    Trump is the worst of both worlds for nationalists: His boorish stupidity has tarnished the brand, and he doesn't even deliver nationalist policies.

    Nationalists have under-performed everywhere since Trump’s victory: Austria, Netherlands, and now France.

    1) Austria – nonsense, a candidate tagged as “far-right” almost won

    2) Holland – not sure, isn’t Wilders a kind of neoliberal economically? I don’t think that strategy can work

    3) France

    the official centrist two-party uniparty system collapsed

    the Left has no answer to the crisis cos PC

    the only opposition to the globalist uniparty is now nationalist

    the uniparty was only saved by a full-on media campaign and yet close to half the white vote went for someone labelled “far-right” by the media

    Read More
  38. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Greasy William
    Bunch of "woe is me!" bullshit going on in this thread.

    So MLP got 34 or whatever instead of 38, big deal. She still basically doubled what her old man got 15 years ago. She'll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in '31.

    Remember, Macron still needs to govern and he will fail miserably just like Hollande has. I suspect his approval will be in the 20's within 2 years.

    Trump has not disappointed any of his supporters outside of the Syria-First Ron Paul crowd, who, despite their outsized representation on Unz, are politically irrelevant. Illegal border crossings are at an all time low and deportations from the interior at an all time high. Nobody except WNs and Paleocons care about his show bombing in Syria.

    There are 4 major differences between the US and other western countries that explain why Trump has succeeded while nationalists are struggling everywhere else:

    1. The US has a huge black population which forced a large amount of establishment friendly whites to vote for Trump even though they didn't like him because they had to vote against the black party. There is no parallel to this in any other western country.

    2. The US has a hyper partisan 2 party system, which meant that Trump was able to just co-opt the bulk of the right wing establishment. If France had the same first past the post system that the US has, Marine would have won the nomination for the French version of the Republican party and then won this election.

    3. The US has an electoral college which weakens the power of minorities and urban liberals.

    4. Americans are much more contemptuous of elite opinion than Euros are.

    This election was just a Phyric victory for the Left.

    Remember, Macron still needs to govern and he will fail miserably just like Hollande has. I suspect his approval will be in the 20′s within 2 years.

    Yes, that would be an interesting bet – how soon will Macron be as unpopular as Hollande? It could even be within a year cos
    - there is no neoliberal solution for the economy.
    - there is no PC solution for the ever growing intifada in the cities.

    The globalist’s neoliberal economy + PC society is untenable.

    Read More
  39. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Greasy William
    Bunch of "woe is me!" bullshit going on in this thread.

    So MLP got 34 or whatever instead of 38, big deal. She still basically doubled what her old man got 15 years ago. She'll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in '31.

    Remember, Macron still needs to govern and he will fail miserably just like Hollande has. I suspect his approval will be in the 20's within 2 years.

    Trump has not disappointed any of his supporters outside of the Syria-First Ron Paul crowd, who, despite their outsized representation on Unz, are politically irrelevant. Illegal border crossings are at an all time low and deportations from the interior at an all time high. Nobody except WNs and Paleocons care about his show bombing in Syria.

    There are 4 major differences between the US and other western countries that explain why Trump has succeeded while nationalists are struggling everywhere else:

    1. The US has a huge black population which forced a large amount of establishment friendly whites to vote for Trump even though they didn't like him because they had to vote against the black party. There is no parallel to this in any other western country.

    2. The US has a hyper partisan 2 party system, which meant that Trump was able to just co-opt the bulk of the right wing establishment. If France had the same first past the post system that the US has, Marine would have won the nomination for the French version of the Republican party and then won this election.

    3. The US has an electoral college which weakens the power of minorities and urban liberals.

    4. Americans are much more contemptuous of elite opinion than Euros are.

    This election was just a Phyric victory for the Left.

    I agree with your four points, except perhaps the last. In any case:

    2. The US has a hyper partisan 2 party system, which meant that Trump was able to just co-opt the bulk of the right wing establishment. If France had the same first past the post system that the US has, Marine would have won the nomination for the French version of the Republican party and then won this election.

    This is the critically important difference. I was thinking about this the other day and was reminded of what an actress said about how she always seems to fall in love with her male co-star: “I’m a typical woman I guess. If I do a sex scene part of my brain says ‘if I’m in bed with you, that must mean I love you’”. The Republican Party was like that with Trump after he won the nomination.

    Read More
  40. @Greasy William
    Bunch of "woe is me!" bullshit going on in this thread.

    So MLP got 34 or whatever instead of 38, big deal. She still basically doubled what her old man got 15 years ago. She'll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in '31.

    Remember, Macron still needs to govern and he will fail miserably just like Hollande has. I suspect his approval will be in the 20's within 2 years.

    Trump has not disappointed any of his supporters outside of the Syria-First Ron Paul crowd, who, despite their outsized representation on Unz, are politically irrelevant. Illegal border crossings are at an all time low and deportations from the interior at an all time high. Nobody except WNs and Paleocons care about his show bombing in Syria.

    There are 4 major differences between the US and other western countries that explain why Trump has succeeded while nationalists are struggling everywhere else:

    1. The US has a huge black population which forced a large amount of establishment friendly whites to vote for Trump even though they didn't like him because they had to vote against the black party. There is no parallel to this in any other western country.

    2. The US has a hyper partisan 2 party system, which meant that Trump was able to just co-opt the bulk of the right wing establishment. If France had the same first past the post system that the US has, Marine would have won the nomination for the French version of the Republican party and then won this election.

    3. The US has an electoral college which weakens the power of minorities and urban liberals.

    4. Americans are much more contemptuous of elite opinion than Euros are.

    This election was just a Phyric victory for the Left.

    She’ll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in ’31.

    That’s too late. If there isn’t radical change in Europe in the next few years and if “Fortress Europe” (even though I don’t like that term, it’s obviously meant to evoke Nazi associations) doesn’t become a reality, it will all be over. If hundreds of thousands of additional Muslims and Africans continue to come to Europe every year, Europe will be changed demographically beyond recognition, and the only (very slight) chance for a turnaround would be civil war and violence on a massive scale. I don’t understand why people don’t get this, even people who agree somewhat with me on the immigration issue talk about things like the pensions system in 40 years – as if by that point anything of the sort would still exist if present trends continue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    the only (very slight) chance for a turnaround would be civil war and violence on a massive scale
     
    That's already the case. Given how majority black and majority Arab countries look like, violence on a massive scale is just about inevitable. It's size and outcome is still a big question. The sooner a nationalist candidate gets elected, the more likely that Europe could be saved with a relatively small(er) amount of violence. (Remember, there would already be rioting if Le Pen won. And that's before she did anything.) If Europe won't be saved, there will still be massive amounts of violence. Perhaps later, but eventually it could even be larger.
    , @Hector_St_Clare
    As I've said before, I think the issue with this scenario is that "Europe" isn't a single country or a homogeneous continent. I think some parts of Europe will certainly be changed beyond recognition, but I think other countries are going to remain quite ethnically homogeneous, and still other countries may end up partitioning themselves. Maybe Vienna and London will end up as cosmopolitan city-states surrounded by more ethnically homogeneous heartlands. Maybe France and Germany will end up with some kind of partition. And in any case, eastern European countries will probably choose to leave the EU before they concedes to 'diversify' themselves.

    As someone who lives in Germany, I'm aware you don't find this a particularly satisfying outcome. Better than civil war though....
    , @Greasy William

    That’s too late. If there isn’t radical change in Europe in the next few years and if “Fortress Europe” (even though I don’t like that term, it’s obviously meant to evoke Nazi associations) doesn’t become a reality, it will all be over.
     
    You're wrong. Voting trends change with demographics. In the US, the electorate of Texas is already majority minority and yet there is no chance a Democrat will ever win Texas because Texas whites vote as a bloc. And even cucked out Germany will not have a majority minority electorate even 20 years from now assuming present immigration trends continue. In fact, one other reason the far right is struggling in Europe relative to America is that your demographic situation isn't as desperate as ours is yet.
  41. @Jon0815
    Nationalists have under-performed everywhere since Trump's victory: Austria, Netherlands, and now France. I think Brexit would lose if the vote were held again today.

    Trump is the worst of both worlds for nationalists: His boorish stupidity has tarnished the brand, and he doesn't even deliver nationalist policies.

    Trump is the worst of both worlds for nationalists: His boorish stupidity has tarnished the brand, and he doesn’t even deliver nationalist policies.

    +1000 to this. Incidentaly this was one of the many reasons I didn’t vote for Trump.

    The Austrian loss was particularly heartbreaking, especially since Norbert Hofer probably legitimately won the election in May. (He was leading, then the flawed ‘postal ballots’ came in to give his opponent a 0.6% lead). Then they re-did the election in December and he lost by a large margin.

    Silver lining in terms of Austria though: 1) they actually have the opportunity to solve their immigration problems peacefully now (something like 80% of Muslims in Austria say they would move if financially compensated, just based on the threat of a Hofer presidency, 2) the FPO is in any case going to be the first or second largest party in parliament as of next year, and 3) Van der Bellen has probably discredited himself with his ridiculous “Mandatory Headscarf” remark.

    As a friend of mine said when he saw the news story about the Austrian court giving an immigrant rapist a re-trial on the grounds that he didn’t understand the language, “the Austrian establishment seems to be so suicidal that they’re encouraging people to vote for fascists.”

    Read More
  42. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @German_reader

    She’ll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in ’31.
     
    That's too late. If there isn't radical change in Europe in the next few years and if "Fortress Europe" (even though I don't like that term, it's obviously meant to evoke Nazi associations) doesn't become a reality, it will all be over. If hundreds of thousands of additional Muslims and Africans continue to come to Europe every year, Europe will be changed demographically beyond recognition, and the only (very slight) chance for a turnaround would be civil war and violence on a massive scale. I don't understand why people don't get this, even people who agree somewhat with me on the immigration issue talk about things like the pensions system in 40 years - as if by that point anything of the sort would still exist if present trends continue.

    the only (very slight) chance for a turnaround would be civil war and violence on a massive scale

    That’s already the case. Given how majority black and majority Arab countries look like, violence on a massive scale is just about inevitable. It’s size and outcome is still a big question. The sooner a nationalist candidate gets elected, the more likely that Europe could be saved with a relatively small(er) amount of violence. (Remember, there would already be rioting if Le Pen won. And that’s before she did anything.) If Europe won’t be saved, there will still be massive amounts of violence. Perhaps later, but eventually it could even be larger.

    Read More
  43. @German_reader

    She’ll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in ’31.
     
    That's too late. If there isn't radical change in Europe in the next few years and if "Fortress Europe" (even though I don't like that term, it's obviously meant to evoke Nazi associations) doesn't become a reality, it will all be over. If hundreds of thousands of additional Muslims and Africans continue to come to Europe every year, Europe will be changed demographically beyond recognition, and the only (very slight) chance for a turnaround would be civil war and violence on a massive scale. I don't understand why people don't get this, even people who agree somewhat with me on the immigration issue talk about things like the pensions system in 40 years - as if by that point anything of the sort would still exist if present trends continue.

    As I’ve said before, I think the issue with this scenario is that “Europe” isn’t a single country or a homogeneous continent. I think some parts of Europe will certainly be changed beyond recognition, but I think other countries are going to remain quite ethnically homogeneous, and still other countries may end up partitioning themselves. Maybe Vienna and London will end up as cosmopolitan city-states surrounded by more ethnically homogeneous heartlands. Maybe France and Germany will end up with some kind of partition. And in any case, eastern European countries will probably choose to leave the EU before they concedes to ‘diversify’ themselves.

    As someone who lives in Germany, I’m aware you don’t find this a particularly satisfying outcome. Better than civil war though….

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Maybe I should have written "Western Europe". Though I have my doubts Eastern Europeans can hold to their nationalist stance if Western Europe goes down (it's not like there aren't internal contradictions anyway, the right in Poland after all is often associated with hyper-Catholicism...given how pro-open borders the Catholic church up to its highest levels is, this can't work in the long run; plus there will be lots of pressure on them by the Western Europeans to take their "fair share" of migrants in return for EU subsidies).
    Would be an understatement to say that I don't find the way things are going satisfying. But I guess I shouldn't get too worked up about things I can't change, after all I'll be dead in a few decades anyway, and if the majority actually doesn't want to change anything... It just bothers me that all of this would have been easily preventable.
  44. Cagey Beast says: • Website

    On a side note, the defeat of Marine Le Pen seems to have given Richard Spencer’s pan-White dreams new wings on Twitter. He really is such a tiresome WASP progressive, deep down. We’re all going to be English-speaking, pan-White, post-Christian humanoids getting lots of abortions and watching Bond films.

    Fuck off Richard. Not today.

    Read More
  45. anon says: • Disclaimer

    speaking of the Austrian result – iirc Hofer won among men – it will be interesting to see the gender break down in France

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hector_St_Clare
    The biggest division in the Austrian election (well, besides Vienna vs. everyone else) was definitely by class. Hofer won a stunning 86% of the vote among blue collar workers.

    Which sort of casts a lot of doubt on the Socialists' claim to be a 'labour party' if you're so contemptuous of what workers actually want.
  46. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @for-the-record

    Macron won with more than 65%.
    Wow, how depressing.
     
    I firmly believe that the Front National will never win an election in France, and that no one with the name of Le Pen will ever be either President or Prime Minister. There is simply too much history and stigmatisation attached to FN/Le Pen.

    This is shown, I think, by the rapidity with which Fillon endorsed Macron. If you look at Fillon's policies on immigration (and, for that matter, Russia) they are ones that most of the readers of this thread would strongly agree with:

    1. a constitutional amendment fixing quotas for professional and family immigration

    2. make family "regroupement" more difficult, particularly where the prospects of social integration are doubtful.

    3. restore national sovereignty over immigration

    4. eliminate the recent "reforms" that have made it much easier to acquire French nationality (and that are frequently subject to abuse).

    5. Stop providing "family allocations" and housing subsidies for those who have resided for less than 2 years "regularly" (i.e., legally) in France.

    6. Effectively reduce medical assistance for immigrants to emergencies and care for children and, without violating medical confidentiality, make use of such information to "examine" the situation of foreigners requesting medical aid.

    7. Shift the burden of paying for integration and immigration from the French taxpayer to those applying for residence permits, naturalisation, etc.

    https://www.fillon2017.fr/projet/immigration/

    Fillon was always a far more dangerous candidate than Le Pen, which is why he had to be eliminated at any cost (as he was, by a very effective "deep state" intervention).

    Polls show that 70% of France thinks that there are "too many foreigners" in the country. Thus Macron won not because of his immigration policy, but in spite of it.

    If there is hope for France, and for demographic reasons it may well already be too late, it is with the disappearance of the Front National and an emergence of a true "Gaullist" candidate of the (non-stigmatised) Right.

    The continued existence of the Front National serves the interests of the "globalists" because it effectively acts to divide the Right, and present the emergence of an effective political force that can represent the large majority of French who are against currennt immigration policies.

    For all democratic and precise french politics seems to promote itself, it’s in reality just another dysfunctional political system of pretend-to-be candidates.
    Even if your opponent has a similar ideology, you are ending up supporting the one who’s gonna do more damage and is not going to hear your claims, being the farthest from your interests.
    Even Jobbik had decided to support Fidesz with their similar opinions. Or even the Communist Party of Russia ends up agreeing with United Russia and Putin’s government on many things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Even Jobbik had decided to support Fidesz with their similar opinions. Or even the Communist Party of Russia ends up agreeing with United Russia and Putin’s government on many things.
     
    And what is wrong with that?
    GOP-style opposition is bad for a country.
  47. @Hector_St_Clare
    As I've said before, I think the issue with this scenario is that "Europe" isn't a single country or a homogeneous continent. I think some parts of Europe will certainly be changed beyond recognition, but I think other countries are going to remain quite ethnically homogeneous, and still other countries may end up partitioning themselves. Maybe Vienna and London will end up as cosmopolitan city-states surrounded by more ethnically homogeneous heartlands. Maybe France and Germany will end up with some kind of partition. And in any case, eastern European countries will probably choose to leave the EU before they concedes to 'diversify' themselves.

    As someone who lives in Germany, I'm aware you don't find this a particularly satisfying outcome. Better than civil war though....

    Maybe I should have written “Western Europe”. Though I have my doubts Eastern Europeans can hold to their nationalist stance if Western Europe goes down (it’s not like there aren’t internal contradictions anyway, the right in Poland after all is often associated with hyper-Catholicism…given how pro-open borders the Catholic church up to its highest levels is, this can’t work in the long run; plus there will be lots of pressure on them by the Western Europeans to take their “fair share” of migrants in return for EU subsidies).
    Would be an understatement to say that I don’t find the way things are going satisfying. But I guess I shouldn’t get too worked up about things I can’t change, after all I’ll be dead in a few decades anyway, and if the majority actually doesn’t want to change anything… It just bothers me that all of this would have been easily preventable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hector_St_Clare
    the right in Poland after all is often associated with hyper-Catholicism…given how pro-open borders the Catholic church up to its highest levels is, this can’t work in the long run;

    Not necessarily. I was reading an article about the Polish Catholic hierarchy: the Polish bishops are distinctly not open-borders, and they favour a policy (which has been taken up by Law and Justice) of coupling increased humanitarian aid to the Middle East, and increased financial support for refugee camps in the region, with a closed border policy within Poland. Pope Francis may or may not disagree (I think his liberalism has been overstated), but he doesn't claim to be infallible on immigration anyway, and as far as Polish immigration policy he is no more than a bishop among other Polish bishops.

    Anyway as Eastern Europe gets richer the costs vs benefits of staying in the EU are going to change. The Czech Republic is IIRC the richest Eastern European country and also the most opposed to the EU. As for the majority, I'd also point out that on the single issue of immigration, even people in France want less immigration (and by some estimates even a total muslim ban is supported by a plurality).

    I'm more optimistic than you are about the future of Europe as a continent, but I think it will involve a kind of partitioning at some level: sacrificing some parts of the continent to multiculturalism in order to preserve others.
  48. @German_reader

    She’ll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in ’31.
     
    That's too late. If there isn't radical change in Europe in the next few years and if "Fortress Europe" (even though I don't like that term, it's obviously meant to evoke Nazi associations) doesn't become a reality, it will all be over. If hundreds of thousands of additional Muslims and Africans continue to come to Europe every year, Europe will be changed demographically beyond recognition, and the only (very slight) chance for a turnaround would be civil war and violence on a massive scale. I don't understand why people don't get this, even people who agree somewhat with me on the immigration issue talk about things like the pensions system in 40 years - as if by that point anything of the sort would still exist if present trends continue.

    That’s too late. If there isn’t radical change in Europe in the next few years and if “Fortress Europe” (even though I don’t like that term, it’s obviously meant to evoke Nazi associations) doesn’t become a reality, it will all be over.

    You’re wrong. Voting trends change with demographics. In the US, the electorate of Texas is already majority minority and yet there is no chance a Democrat will ever win Texas because Texas whites vote as a bloc. And even cucked out Germany will not have a majority minority electorate even 20 years from now assuming present immigration trends continue. In fact, one other reason the far right is struggling in Europe relative to America is that your demographic situation isn’t as desperate as ours is yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    In the US, the electorate of Texas is already majority minority and yet there is no chance a Democrat will ever win Texas because Texas whites vote as a bloc.
     
    That won't work anymore though when whites in Texas are only 20% of the population (and that's pretty much inevitable when you look at school-age children...I recall reading a story about Texas a few years ago that bluntly stated "It's all over for Anglos").
    Obviously it may well be that voting patterns in Europe will increasingly become just ethno-sectarian head counts (many "Socialist" parties seem already on the way to becoming "Muslim" parties in their blatant pandering to religious Muslims). But that's not a very promising prospect either. Lebanon isn't the kind of society I'd prefer to live in.
  49. @Greasy William

    That’s too late. If there isn’t radical change in Europe in the next few years and if “Fortress Europe” (even though I don’t like that term, it’s obviously meant to evoke Nazi associations) doesn’t become a reality, it will all be over.
     
    You're wrong. Voting trends change with demographics. In the US, the electorate of Texas is already majority minority and yet there is no chance a Democrat will ever win Texas because Texas whites vote as a bloc. And even cucked out Germany will not have a majority minority electorate even 20 years from now assuming present immigration trends continue. In fact, one other reason the far right is struggling in Europe relative to America is that your demographic situation isn't as desperate as ours is yet.

    In the US, the electorate of Texas is already majority minority and yet there is no chance a Democrat will ever win Texas because Texas whites vote as a bloc.

    That won’t work anymore though when whites in Texas are only 20% of the population (and that’s pretty much inevitable when you look at school-age children…I recall reading a story about Texas a few years ago that bluntly stated “It’s all over for Anglos”).
    Obviously it may well be that voting patterns in Europe will increasingly become just ethno-sectarian head counts (many “Socialist” parties seem already on the way to becoming “Muslim” parties in their blatant pandering to religious Muslims). But that’s not a very promising prospect either. Lebanon isn’t the kind of society I’d prefer to live in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Lebanon isn’t the kind of society I’d prefer to live in.

    Unfortunately our governing classes have already baked a Lebanese future for us. White people will continue to insist on the power of magical thinking and inclusiveness but that will eventually fade. It will probably collapse quietly over just a few years and White people will have an unspoken agreement never to discuss what just happened. That's how it will go under the best conditions. It was like that in English Canada over the 1990s as everyone just sort of gave up on the bilingual and bicultural project and trying to figure out what Quebec wanted. In fact, English Canada just sort of gave up on being a country at all in the years since. That will happen elsewhere: people will quietly just stop giving a damn about making the grand project work.

    , @Greasy William

    That won’t work anymore though when whites in Texas are only 20% of the population
     
    1. Latinos aren't Muslims, particularly Texas Latinos. Whereas Muslims, like blacks, are essentially unassimilable, Latinos and Asians are undergoing massive ethnic attrition into the white majority (or in the case of Texas, plurality).

    2. The white population of Texas has remained steady over the past 8 years and Trump's policies are sure to ultimately result in an even whiter Texas down the road.

    3. If Texas every does become 20% white, the result would not be nonwhite rule but rather a brutal civil war with non whites being ethnically cleansed from the state. There is not a single example in all of human history of a population allowing itself to be peacefully demographically conquered by another and white Texans will certainly not be the first.
  50. @German_reader
    Maybe I should have written "Western Europe". Though I have my doubts Eastern Europeans can hold to their nationalist stance if Western Europe goes down (it's not like there aren't internal contradictions anyway, the right in Poland after all is often associated with hyper-Catholicism...given how pro-open borders the Catholic church up to its highest levels is, this can't work in the long run; plus there will be lots of pressure on them by the Western Europeans to take their "fair share" of migrants in return for EU subsidies).
    Would be an understatement to say that I don't find the way things are going satisfying. But I guess I shouldn't get too worked up about things I can't change, after all I'll be dead in a few decades anyway, and if the majority actually doesn't want to change anything... It just bothers me that all of this would have been easily preventable.

    the right in Poland after all is often associated with hyper-Catholicism…given how pro-open borders the Catholic church up to its highest levels is, this can’t work in the long run;

    Not necessarily. I was reading an article about the Polish Catholic hierarchy: the Polish bishops are distinctly not open-borders, and they favour a policy (which has been taken up by Law and Justice) of coupling increased humanitarian aid to the Middle East, and increased financial support for refugee camps in the region, with a closed border policy within Poland. Pope Francis may or may not disagree (I think his liberalism has been overstated), but he doesn’t claim to be infallible on immigration anyway, and as far as Polish immigration policy he is no more than a bishop among other Polish bishops.

    Anyway as Eastern Europe gets richer the costs vs benefits of staying in the EU are going to change. The Czech Republic is IIRC the richest Eastern European country and also the most opposed to the EU. As for the majority, I’d also point out that on the single issue of immigration, even people in France want less immigration (and by some estimates even a total muslim ban is supported by a plurality).

    I’m more optimistic than you are about the future of Europe as a continent, but I think it will involve a kind of partitioning at some level: sacrificing some parts of the continent to multiculturalism in order to preserve others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    That sounds like a sensible position by Polish bishops. I'm admittedly strongly influenced in my general view of the Catholic church by behaviour of bishops in Germany - who are completely insane imo and promote really extreme open borders positions. But things may well be very different in Eastern Europe (also due to historical memories of Ottoman raiders, slave-raiding Tartars etc...I guess that naturally conditions people into a rather different view of Islam than in Western or Northern Europe).
  51. @anon
    speaking of the Austrian result - iirc Hofer won among men - it will be interesting to see the gender break down in France

    The biggest division in the Austrian election (well, besides Vienna vs. everyone else) was definitely by class. Hofer won a stunning 86% of the vote among blue collar workers.

    Which sort of casts a lot of doubt on the Socialists’ claim to be a ‘labour party’ if you’re so contemptuous of what workers actually want.

    Read More
  52. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @German_reader

    In the US, the electorate of Texas is already majority minority and yet there is no chance a Democrat will ever win Texas because Texas whites vote as a bloc.
     
    That won't work anymore though when whites in Texas are only 20% of the population (and that's pretty much inevitable when you look at school-age children...I recall reading a story about Texas a few years ago that bluntly stated "It's all over for Anglos").
    Obviously it may well be that voting patterns in Europe will increasingly become just ethno-sectarian head counts (many "Socialist" parties seem already on the way to becoming "Muslim" parties in their blatant pandering to religious Muslims). But that's not a very promising prospect either. Lebanon isn't the kind of society I'd prefer to live in.

    Lebanon isn’t the kind of society I’d prefer to live in.

    Unfortunately our governing classes have already baked a Lebanese future for us. White people will continue to insist on the power of magical thinking and inclusiveness but that will eventually fade. It will probably collapse quietly over just a few years and White people will have an unspoken agreement never to discuss what just happened. That’s how it will go under the best conditions. It was like that in English Canada over the 1990s as everyone just sort of gave up on the bilingual and bicultural project and trying to figure out what Quebec wanted. In fact, English Canada just sort of gave up on being a country at all in the years since. That will happen elsewhere: people will quietly just stop giving a damn about making the grand project work.

    Read More
  53. @German_reader

    In the US, the electorate of Texas is already majority minority and yet there is no chance a Democrat will ever win Texas because Texas whites vote as a bloc.
     
    That won't work anymore though when whites in Texas are only 20% of the population (and that's pretty much inevitable when you look at school-age children...I recall reading a story about Texas a few years ago that bluntly stated "It's all over for Anglos").
    Obviously it may well be that voting patterns in Europe will increasingly become just ethno-sectarian head counts (many "Socialist" parties seem already on the way to becoming "Muslim" parties in their blatant pandering to religious Muslims). But that's not a very promising prospect either. Lebanon isn't the kind of society I'd prefer to live in.

    That won’t work anymore though when whites in Texas are only 20% of the population

    1. Latinos aren’t Muslims, particularly Texas Latinos. Whereas Muslims, like blacks, are essentially unassimilable, Latinos and Asians are undergoing massive ethnic attrition into the white majority (or in the case of Texas, plurality).

    2. The white population of Texas has remained steady over the past 8 years and Trump’s policies are sure to ultimately result in an even whiter Texas down the road.

    3. If Texas every does become 20% white, the result would not be nonwhite rule but rather a brutal civil war with non whites being ethnically cleansed from the state. There is not a single example in all of human history of a population allowing itself to be peacefully demographically conquered by another and white Texans will certainly not be the first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    That's the story I referred to:
    http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/02/texas-demographer-its-basically-over-for-anglos/

    That's from 2011. Even back then two thirds of school children were "non-Anglo". That's such a massive disparity, I doubt the "minority" population can be absorbed through intermarriage and assimilation.
    From what I know about the US, I'd guess "Anglos" who don't like it will just leave the state and move to some whiter place. Problem in Europe is, there's much less space to run away to (and people are more attached to their region of origin and less mobile than many Americans anyway).
    , @Hector_St_Clare
    The other thing that needs to be mentioned here is collapsing Mexican and Mexican-American fertility.

    Mexico has gone from a TFR of 7.1 in 1957 (86% higher than the US) to a TFR of 2.25 today (25% above the US), and is scheduled to drop below the US by 2040 or so.

    Mexican-American fertility is higher (around 2.4 I think, so around 35% higher than white Americans), but it's declining too and it's not inconceivable that Mexican Americans will replicated the fertility pattern of Puerto Ricans (which is below white Americans right now).

    Also as you point out, Mexicans are alreadily heavily genetically European.
  54. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    For all democratic and precise french politics seems to promote itself, it's in reality just another dysfunctional political system of pretend-to-be candidates.
    Even if your opponent has a similar ideology, you are ending up supporting the one who's gonna do more damage and is not going to hear your claims, being the farthest from your interests.
    Even Jobbik had decided to support Fidesz with their similar opinions. Or even the Communist Party of Russia ends up agreeing with United Russia and Putin's government on many things.

    Even Jobbik had decided to support Fidesz with their similar opinions. Or even the Communist Party of Russia ends up agreeing with United Russia and Putin’s government on many things.

    And what is wrong with that?
    GOP-style opposition is bad for a country.

    Read More
  55. @Hector_St_Clare
    the right in Poland after all is often associated with hyper-Catholicism…given how pro-open borders the Catholic church up to its highest levels is, this can’t work in the long run;

    Not necessarily. I was reading an article about the Polish Catholic hierarchy: the Polish bishops are distinctly not open-borders, and they favour a policy (which has been taken up by Law and Justice) of coupling increased humanitarian aid to the Middle East, and increased financial support for refugee camps in the region, with a closed border policy within Poland. Pope Francis may or may not disagree (I think his liberalism has been overstated), but he doesn't claim to be infallible on immigration anyway, and as far as Polish immigration policy he is no more than a bishop among other Polish bishops.

    Anyway as Eastern Europe gets richer the costs vs benefits of staying in the EU are going to change. The Czech Republic is IIRC the richest Eastern European country and also the most opposed to the EU. As for the majority, I'd also point out that on the single issue of immigration, even people in France want less immigration (and by some estimates even a total muslim ban is supported by a plurality).

    I'm more optimistic than you are about the future of Europe as a continent, but I think it will involve a kind of partitioning at some level: sacrificing some parts of the continent to multiculturalism in order to preserve others.

    That sounds like a sensible position by Polish bishops. I’m admittedly strongly influenced in my general view of the Catholic church by behaviour of bishops in Germany – who are completely insane imo and promote really extreme open borders positions. But things may well be very different in Eastern Europe (also due to historical memories of Ottoman raiders, slave-raiding Tartars etc…I guess that naturally conditions people into a rather different view of Islam than in Western or Northern Europe).

    Read More
  56. @Greasy William

    That won’t work anymore though when whites in Texas are only 20% of the population
     
    1. Latinos aren't Muslims, particularly Texas Latinos. Whereas Muslims, like blacks, are essentially unassimilable, Latinos and Asians are undergoing massive ethnic attrition into the white majority (or in the case of Texas, plurality).

    2. The white population of Texas has remained steady over the past 8 years and Trump's policies are sure to ultimately result in an even whiter Texas down the road.

    3. If Texas every does become 20% white, the result would not be nonwhite rule but rather a brutal civil war with non whites being ethnically cleansed from the state. There is not a single example in all of human history of a population allowing itself to be peacefully demographically conquered by another and white Texans will certainly not be the first.

    That’s the story I referred to:

    http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/02/texas-demographer-its-basically-over-for-anglos/

    That’s from 2011. Even back then two thirds of school children were “non-Anglo”. That’s such a massive disparity, I doubt the “minority” population can be absorbed through intermarriage and assimilation.
    From what I know about the US, I’d guess “Anglos” who don’t like it will just leave the state and move to some whiter place. Problem in Europe is, there’s much less space to run away to (and people are more attached to their region of origin and less mobile than many Americans anyway).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Yes, White Flight is really just a modern version of the pioneer spirit. Protestant schisms and hard-headed economic thinking drove Whites westward, outward to the suburbs and generally elsewhere. That will be the pattern for Whites in the Sunbelt, I'd guess.
    , @Greasy William
    If 48% of the adults are Anglos, it makes sense that only about 33% of the children would be. But this is a result of the massive illegal immigration wave of the last 30 years, a wave that is over and is already reversing.

    As things stand now, the Texas electorate could get a full 15 points less white (something that won't happen until 2040 at the earliest, probably more like 2050) and it would still be a red state. And I do expect that Latino intermarriage with Texans will increase substantially over the next 20 years as well. Don't cry for Texas.

    Keep something else in mind: In 2040, people who have our politics will be considered "moderates". Whites are getting more ethnocentric. Remember that even though AfD is only going to get 6% or so of the vote, as recently as 2010 such a party couldn't have hoped to get 1%.

    Time is on our side.
    , @iffen
    There is a lot of intermarriage between Mexican-Americans and Anglos. For that matter there is quite a bit of black-white intermarriage.

    Anyway, Trump got close to 30% of the Hispanic vote.
  57. @Greasy William

    That won’t work anymore though when whites in Texas are only 20% of the population
     
    1. Latinos aren't Muslims, particularly Texas Latinos. Whereas Muslims, like blacks, are essentially unassimilable, Latinos and Asians are undergoing massive ethnic attrition into the white majority (or in the case of Texas, plurality).

    2. The white population of Texas has remained steady over the past 8 years and Trump's policies are sure to ultimately result in an even whiter Texas down the road.

    3. If Texas every does become 20% white, the result would not be nonwhite rule but rather a brutal civil war with non whites being ethnically cleansed from the state. There is not a single example in all of human history of a population allowing itself to be peacefully demographically conquered by another and white Texans will certainly not be the first.

    The other thing that needs to be mentioned here is collapsing Mexican and Mexican-American fertility.

    Mexico has gone from a TFR of 7.1 in 1957 (86% higher than the US) to a TFR of 2.25 today (25% above the US), and is scheduled to drop below the US by 2040 or so.

    Mexican-American fertility is higher (around 2.4 I think, so around 35% higher than white Americans), but it’s declining too and it’s not inconceivable that Mexican Americans will replicated the fertility pattern of Puerto Ricans (which is below white Americans right now).

    Also as you point out, Mexicans are alreadily heavily genetically European.

    Read More
  58. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @German_reader
    That's the story I referred to:
    http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/02/texas-demographer-its-basically-over-for-anglos/

    That's from 2011. Even back then two thirds of school children were "non-Anglo". That's such a massive disparity, I doubt the "minority" population can be absorbed through intermarriage and assimilation.
    From what I know about the US, I'd guess "Anglos" who don't like it will just leave the state and move to some whiter place. Problem in Europe is, there's much less space to run away to (and people are more attached to their region of origin and less mobile than many Americans anyway).

    Yes, White Flight is really just a modern version of the pioneer spirit. Protestant schisms and hard-headed economic thinking drove Whites westward, outward to the suburbs and generally elsewhere. That will be the pattern for Whites in the Sunbelt, I’d guess.

    Read More
  59. @German_reader
    That's the story I referred to:
    http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/02/texas-demographer-its-basically-over-for-anglos/

    That's from 2011. Even back then two thirds of school children were "non-Anglo". That's such a massive disparity, I doubt the "minority" population can be absorbed through intermarriage and assimilation.
    From what I know about the US, I'd guess "Anglos" who don't like it will just leave the state and move to some whiter place. Problem in Europe is, there's much less space to run away to (and people are more attached to their region of origin and less mobile than many Americans anyway).

    If 48% of the adults are Anglos, it makes sense that only about 33% of the children would be. But this is a result of the massive illegal immigration wave of the last 30 years, a wave that is over and is already reversing.

    As things stand now, the Texas electorate could get a full 15 points less white (something that won’t happen until 2040 at the earliest, probably more like 2050) and it would still be a red state. And I do expect that Latino intermarriage with Texans will increase substantially over the next 20 years as well. Don’t cry for Texas.

    Keep something else in mind: In 2040, people who have our politics will be considered “moderates”. Whites are getting more ethnocentric. Remember that even though AfD is only going to get 6% or so of the vote, as recently as 2010 such a party couldn’t have hoped to get 1%.

    Time is on our side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Fair enough, maybe I'm a bit too gloomy. But regarding this:

    Remember that even though AfD is only going to get 6% or so of the vote, as recently as 2010 such a party couldn’t have hoped to get 1%.
     
    I'm not sure at all. Really, what Merkel (with the support of her entire party) did in late 2015, was so extreme and irresponsible it should have politically destroyed her and permanently broken her party. This isn't even just about "nationalism", let alone "ethnonationalism", it's about rule of law and democratic accountability. But it seems to have had no consequences at all, the majority of the population just seems to accept it, maybe grumble a bit about it, but with no consequences. I'm convinced Merkel will stay chancellor for at least another four years after the September elections. Meanwhile, the AfD is denounced in increasingly hysterical ways and presented as Nazis (which imo isn't true, even if they have some deluded candidates in their ranks). And not just denounced, physically attacked by Antifa activists as well. And mainstream politicians obviously are just fine with that.
    I may be a pessimist in general, but if someone had told me a scenario like this five years ago, I wouldn't have believed it.
  60. BB753 says:
    @Cagey Beast
    He did not. The massive waves of Arabs came after his time.

    Wrong, de Gaulle was in office between 1959 and 1969.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Shouldn't you have assumed I already knew that? Keep in mind the massive wave of White and Jewish migrants from Algeria would be included in any numbers you may have seen.

    By the way, the Jews of Algeria ended up with French citizenship by a bit of dirty pool played at an earlier time when France was in acute distress:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9mieux_Decree
  61. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @BB753
    Wrong, de Gaulle was in office between 1959 and 1969.

    Shouldn’t you have assumed I already knew that? Keep in mind the massive wave of White and Jewish migrants from Algeria would be included in any numbers you may have seen.

    By the way, the Jews of Algeria ended up with French citizenship by a bit of dirty pool played at an earlier time when France was in acute distress:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9mieux_Decree

    Read More
  62. @Greasy William
    If 48% of the adults are Anglos, it makes sense that only about 33% of the children would be. But this is a result of the massive illegal immigration wave of the last 30 years, a wave that is over and is already reversing.

    As things stand now, the Texas electorate could get a full 15 points less white (something that won't happen until 2040 at the earliest, probably more like 2050) and it would still be a red state. And I do expect that Latino intermarriage with Texans will increase substantially over the next 20 years as well. Don't cry for Texas.

    Keep something else in mind: In 2040, people who have our politics will be considered "moderates". Whites are getting more ethnocentric. Remember that even though AfD is only going to get 6% or so of the vote, as recently as 2010 such a party couldn't have hoped to get 1%.

    Time is on our side.

    Fair enough, maybe I’m a bit too gloomy. But regarding this:

    Remember that even though AfD is only going to get 6% or so of the vote, as recently as 2010 such a party couldn’t have hoped to get 1%.

    I’m not sure at all. Really, what Merkel (with the support of her entire party) did in late 2015, was so extreme and irresponsible it should have politically destroyed her and permanently broken her party. This isn’t even just about “nationalism”, let alone “ethnonationalism”, it’s about rule of law and democratic accountability. But it seems to have had no consequences at all, the majority of the population just seems to accept it, maybe grumble a bit about it, but with no consequences. I’m convinced Merkel will stay chancellor for at least another four years after the September elections. Meanwhile, the AfD is denounced in increasingly hysterical ways and presented as Nazis (which imo isn’t true, even if they have some deluded candidates in their ranks). And not just denounced, physically attacked by Antifa activists as well. And mainstream politicians obviously are just fine with that.
    I may be a pessimist in general, but if someone had told me a scenario like this five years ago, I wouldn’t have believed it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hector_St_Clare
    It's interesting that Austria and Germany are so different politically speaking. I checked the last polls and the FPO is leading again. They may end up the leading party next year (although it's possible a Social Democrat / OVP alliance will keep them out of office).
    , @Greasy William

    ...it’s about rule of law and democratic accountability.
     
    The only thing that white people care about less than they care about the Palestinians is "rule of law". It is a platitude that white people think that they care about in abstract, non whites don't even pretend to value it, but it means absolutely nothing to people when push comes to shove.

    I don't know why you are surprised about the elites being okay with Antifa attacking AfD supporters. Our elites endorsed attacking Trump supporters until Trump won the primaries and thereby gained credibility (a path that is closed to the AfD and to the FN in France) and I don't think anybody here was surprised. If you are surprised by such things, all that means is that you were extremely naive about our situation.

    And keep in mind that Merkel and the German elites simply haven't failed to the same extent that the British, French and American elites have. From an economic point of view, the EU and mass immigration has worked out pretty well for Germany so far. Now that won't last, but for the time being experience has shown us that the only way for populism to triumph is for the political establishment to fail economically.
  63. @German_reader
    Fair enough, maybe I'm a bit too gloomy. But regarding this:

    Remember that even though AfD is only going to get 6% or so of the vote, as recently as 2010 such a party couldn’t have hoped to get 1%.
     
    I'm not sure at all. Really, what Merkel (with the support of her entire party) did in late 2015, was so extreme and irresponsible it should have politically destroyed her and permanently broken her party. This isn't even just about "nationalism", let alone "ethnonationalism", it's about rule of law and democratic accountability. But it seems to have had no consequences at all, the majority of the population just seems to accept it, maybe grumble a bit about it, but with no consequences. I'm convinced Merkel will stay chancellor for at least another four years after the September elections. Meanwhile, the AfD is denounced in increasingly hysterical ways and presented as Nazis (which imo isn't true, even if they have some deluded candidates in their ranks). And not just denounced, physically attacked by Antifa activists as well. And mainstream politicians obviously are just fine with that.
    I may be a pessimist in general, but if someone had told me a scenario like this five years ago, I wouldn't have believed it.

    It’s interesting that Austria and Germany are so different politically speaking. I checked the last polls and the FPO is leading again. They may end up the leading party next year (although it’s possible a Social Democrat / OVP alliance will keep them out of office).

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Austria is very different from Germany in many ways (e.g. much smaller, no strong Protestant influence, dealt with the Nazi past basically in a "We were Hitler's first victim" way, neutral during the Cold war...and probably much else), so its political culture is probably quite different anyway.
    Don't really know what Germany could be compared to. Maybe some African dictatorship. Certainly the weird personality cult about Merkel and the fact that it's just regarded as normal she'll probably be chancellor for at least 16 years would fit in with such a setting.
  64. @Hector_St_Clare
    It's interesting that Austria and Germany are so different politically speaking. I checked the last polls and the FPO is leading again. They may end up the leading party next year (although it's possible a Social Democrat / OVP alliance will keep them out of office).

    Austria is very different from Germany in many ways (e.g. much smaller, no strong Protestant influence, dealt with the Nazi past basically in a “We were Hitler’s first victim” way, neutral during the Cold war…and probably much else), so its political culture is probably quite different anyway.
    Don’t really know what Germany could be compared to. Maybe some African dictatorship. Certainly the weird personality cult about Merkel and the fact that it’s just regarded as normal she’ll probably be chancellor for at least 16 years would fit in with such a setting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hector_St_Clare
    Actually, coming in first in the 2018 elections may not help the FPO. Though the Social Democrats and Conservatives have not built a cordon sanitaire against them, and though they've been able to cooperate productively in the past, Van der Bellen of headscarf fame has said he won't recognize a FPO government (or at least that it's 'hard to imagine') on the grounds that it's soft-Euroskeptic, which essentially guarantees another Socialist / OVP coalition. (Which pretty well underscores the hollowness of liberal democracy: centrist parties are as unwilling to cooperate with ethnic nationalists today as they were with Communists in the Cold War, except that on issues like immigration the ethnic nationalists actually *have a majority*).

    I guess the FPO is going to have to wait till 2022 or whatever to have its chance in government.
  65. @German_reader
    Fair enough, maybe I'm a bit too gloomy. But regarding this:

    Remember that even though AfD is only going to get 6% or so of the vote, as recently as 2010 such a party couldn’t have hoped to get 1%.
     
    I'm not sure at all. Really, what Merkel (with the support of her entire party) did in late 2015, was so extreme and irresponsible it should have politically destroyed her and permanently broken her party. This isn't even just about "nationalism", let alone "ethnonationalism", it's about rule of law and democratic accountability. But it seems to have had no consequences at all, the majority of the population just seems to accept it, maybe grumble a bit about it, but with no consequences. I'm convinced Merkel will stay chancellor for at least another four years after the September elections. Meanwhile, the AfD is denounced in increasingly hysterical ways and presented as Nazis (which imo isn't true, even if they have some deluded candidates in their ranks). And not just denounced, physically attacked by Antifa activists as well. And mainstream politicians obviously are just fine with that.
    I may be a pessimist in general, but if someone had told me a scenario like this five years ago, I wouldn't have believed it.

    …it’s about rule of law and democratic accountability.

    The only thing that white people care about less than they care about the Palestinians is “rule of law”. It is a platitude that white people think that they care about in abstract, non whites don’t even pretend to value it, but it means absolutely nothing to people when push comes to shove.

    I don’t know why you are surprised about the elites being okay with Antifa attacking AfD supporters. Our elites endorsed attacking Trump supporters until Trump won the primaries and thereby gained credibility (a path that is closed to the AfD and to the FN in France) and I don’t think anybody here was surprised. If you are surprised by such things, all that means is that you were extremely naive about our situation.

    And keep in mind that Merkel and the German elites simply haven’t failed to the same extent that the British, French and American elites have. From an economic point of view, the EU and mass immigration has worked out pretty well for Germany so far. Now that won’t last, but for the time being experience has shown us that the only way for populism to triumph is for the political establishment to fail economically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    You're probably right, and I was somewhat naive; but then I guess, the last two or three years have been an eye-opening experience for many on both sides of the Atlantic. As for the economic side of things, yes, I suppose a collapse of the whole Euro project might be one possible avenue for change. But that would probably be still some years away.
  66. @Greasy William

    ...it’s about rule of law and democratic accountability.
     
    The only thing that white people care about less than they care about the Palestinians is "rule of law". It is a platitude that white people think that they care about in abstract, non whites don't even pretend to value it, but it means absolutely nothing to people when push comes to shove.

    I don't know why you are surprised about the elites being okay with Antifa attacking AfD supporters. Our elites endorsed attacking Trump supporters until Trump won the primaries and thereby gained credibility (a path that is closed to the AfD and to the FN in France) and I don't think anybody here was surprised. If you are surprised by such things, all that means is that you were extremely naive about our situation.

    And keep in mind that Merkel and the German elites simply haven't failed to the same extent that the British, French and American elites have. From an economic point of view, the EU and mass immigration has worked out pretty well for Germany so far. Now that won't last, but for the time being experience has shown us that the only way for populism to triumph is for the political establishment to fail economically.

    You’re probably right, and I was somewhat naive; but then I guess, the last two or three years have been an eye-opening experience for many on both sides of the Atlantic. As for the economic side of things, yes, I suppose a collapse of the whole Euro project might be one possible avenue for change. But that would probably be still some years away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record

    You’re probably right, and I was somewhat naive; but then I guess, the last two or three years have been an eye-opening experience for many on both sides of the Atlantic.
     
    I'm in the middle of the Atlantic, more or less, blissfully protected from diversity, and it has certainly been eye-opening for me as well. Among other things, the behavior of one set of German tourists (we own a rental property) who insist that everything is fine in Germany, but were paranoid about letting their daughter take a taxi from the Airport to the house late at night, something that would never have occurred to me (or anyone else here) in my wildest dreams. And another German couple, who were negotiating with us for a long-term rental and then backed out when they realized that the bedroom they would be using was on the ground floor. Here is how the husband explained their decision to us:

    Hello,

    es tut mir sehr leid, aber ich muss Ihnen mitteilen, dass wir uns für ein anderes Objekt entschieden haben.

    Aufgrund der unsicheren Situation, die sich in Deutschland entwickelt hat, fühlen wir uns nirgendwo mehr ganz sicher. Auch wenn es unwahrscheinlich ist, dass etwas passiert, würden wir im Erdgeschoss mit offenen Fenstern oder Türen nicht mehr ruhig schlafen.

    Wir haben deshalb ein Objekt gefunden, wo das Schlafzimmer im 2. Geschoss liegt.

    Bitte seien Sie nicht zu enttäuscht. Den Kontakt empfand ich als sehr angenehm, und wir drücken Ihnen die Daumen, dass Sie das Objekt in der Zeit noch gut vermieten können.
     
  67. @German_reader
    You're probably right, and I was somewhat naive; but then I guess, the last two or three years have been an eye-opening experience for many on both sides of the Atlantic. As for the economic side of things, yes, I suppose a collapse of the whole Euro project might be one possible avenue for change. But that would probably be still some years away.

    You’re probably right, and I was somewhat naive; but then I guess, the last two or three years have been an eye-opening experience for many on both sides of the Atlantic.

    I’m in the middle of the Atlantic, more or less, blissfully protected from diversity, and it has certainly been eye-opening for me as well. Among other things, the behavior of one set of German tourists (we own a rental property) who insist that everything is fine in Germany, but were paranoid about letting their daughter take a taxi from the Airport to the house late at night, something that would never have occurred to me (or anyone else here) in my wildest dreams. And another German couple, who were negotiating with us for a long-term rental and then backed out when they realized that the bedroom they would be using was on the ground floor. Here is how the husband explained their decision to us:

    Hello,

    es tut mir sehr leid, aber ich muss Ihnen mitteilen, dass wir uns für ein anderes Objekt entschieden haben.

    Aufgrund der unsicheren Situation, die sich in Deutschland entwickelt hat, fühlen wir uns nirgendwo mehr ganz sicher. Auch wenn es unwahrscheinlich ist, dass etwas passiert, würden wir im Erdgeschoss mit offenen Fenstern oder Türen nicht mehr ruhig schlafen.

    Wir haben deshalb ein Objekt gefunden, wo das Schlafzimmer im 2. Geschoss liegt.

    Bitte seien Sie nicht zu enttäuscht. Den Kontakt empfand ich als sehr angenehm, und wir drücken Ihnen die Daumen, dass Sie das Objekt in der Zeit noch gut vermieten können.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Well, even official statistics for 2016 show there has been an increase in violent crime in Germany (including really extreme crimes like gang rape by strangers), with "refugees" being overrepresented among the perpetrators. It's not like all of Germany has suddenly become a giant no-go zone, but it definitely has affected the sense of security of many people, especially women.
    , @BB753
    No surprise here about the German tourist feeling unsafe in the ground floor.
    The middle of the Atlantic, you say? Madeira, Azores, Iceland, Greenland?
  68. @for-the-record

    You’re probably right, and I was somewhat naive; but then I guess, the last two or three years have been an eye-opening experience for many on both sides of the Atlantic.
     
    I'm in the middle of the Atlantic, more or less, blissfully protected from diversity, and it has certainly been eye-opening for me as well. Among other things, the behavior of one set of German tourists (we own a rental property) who insist that everything is fine in Germany, but were paranoid about letting their daughter take a taxi from the Airport to the house late at night, something that would never have occurred to me (or anyone else here) in my wildest dreams. And another German couple, who were negotiating with us for a long-term rental and then backed out when they realized that the bedroom they would be using was on the ground floor. Here is how the husband explained their decision to us:

    Hello,

    es tut mir sehr leid, aber ich muss Ihnen mitteilen, dass wir uns für ein anderes Objekt entschieden haben.

    Aufgrund der unsicheren Situation, die sich in Deutschland entwickelt hat, fühlen wir uns nirgendwo mehr ganz sicher. Auch wenn es unwahrscheinlich ist, dass etwas passiert, würden wir im Erdgeschoss mit offenen Fenstern oder Türen nicht mehr ruhig schlafen.

    Wir haben deshalb ein Objekt gefunden, wo das Schlafzimmer im 2. Geschoss liegt.

    Bitte seien Sie nicht zu enttäuscht. Den Kontakt empfand ich als sehr angenehm, und wir drücken Ihnen die Daumen, dass Sie das Objekt in der Zeit noch gut vermieten können.
     

    Well, even official statistics for 2016 show there has been an increase in violent crime in Germany (including really extreme crimes like gang rape by strangers), with “refugees” being overrepresented among the perpetrators. It’s not like all of Germany has suddenly become a giant no-go zone, but it definitely has affected the sense of security of many people, especially women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record

    It’s not like all of Germany has suddenly become a giant no-go zone, but it definitely has affected the sense of security of many people, especially women.
     
    That's easily understandable. What I found surprising, shocking actually, was that they would "transport" this sense of insecurity to an island "paradise" where the greatest risk they will face is falling from mountain trails while they are posing for photos.
  69. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    I don't know, there may be something to this, but it will hardly have been decisive in the French election. Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn't quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.

    Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn’t quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.

    Your impression is incorrect. It is all hands on deck to trash him. There has never been anything in the modern era in the US that matches this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    I disagree. I feel like the Russia story completely died after Syria and the media has been markedly less hostile overall.
    , @John Gruskos
    Buchanan was, briefly, on the receiving end of a similar hysterical media hate campaign after his "culture wars" speech in 1992, and then again after he won the 1996 New Hampshire primary. There was a moment of hysteria after Jean-Marie Le Pen advanced to the second round of the 2002 French presidential race, and then another elite primal scream in 2008 when the House of Representatives rejected TARP the first time it came up for a vote. When the BNP had its best election, the media was driven to the verge of another episode.

    The anti-Trump hysteria was notable for being so long lasting. It started when Trump went full paleocon on immigration and foreign policy in the first primary debate in August 2015, briefly diminished after his March 2016 AIPAC speech, peaked the night of the election, and continued with gradually diminishing intensity until Trump expelled Bannon from the national security council and then bombed Syria in April 2017.

    The media is still virulently anti-Trump, but the mood is now contempt rather than fear.
  70. @German_reader
    Well, even official statistics for 2016 show there has been an increase in violent crime in Germany (including really extreme crimes like gang rape by strangers), with "refugees" being overrepresented among the perpetrators. It's not like all of Germany has suddenly become a giant no-go zone, but it definitely has affected the sense of security of many people, especially women.

    It’s not like all of Germany has suddenly become a giant no-go zone, but it definitely has affected the sense of security of many people, especially women.

    That’s easily understandable. What I found surprising, shocking actually, was that they would “transport” this sense of insecurity to an island “paradise” where the greatest risk they will face is falling from mountain trails while they are posing for photos.

    Read More
  71. iffen says:
    @Greasy William
    Bunch of "woe is me!" bullshit going on in this thread.

    So MLP got 34 or whatever instead of 38, big deal. She still basically doubled what her old man got 15 years ago. She'll break 40 next time and her niece will win it all in '31.

    Remember, Macron still needs to govern and he will fail miserably just like Hollande has. I suspect his approval will be in the 20's within 2 years.

    Trump has not disappointed any of his supporters outside of the Syria-First Ron Paul crowd, who, despite their outsized representation on Unz, are politically irrelevant. Illegal border crossings are at an all time low and deportations from the interior at an all time high. Nobody except WNs and Paleocons care about his show bombing in Syria.

    There are 4 major differences between the US and other western countries that explain why Trump has succeeded while nationalists are struggling everywhere else:

    1. The US has a huge black population which forced a large amount of establishment friendly whites to vote for Trump even though they didn't like him because they had to vote against the black party. There is no parallel to this in any other western country.

    2. The US has a hyper partisan 2 party system, which meant that Trump was able to just co-opt the bulk of the right wing establishment. If France had the same first past the post system that the US has, Marine would have won the nomination for the French version of the Republican party and then won this election.

    3. The US has an electoral college which weakens the power of minorities and urban liberals.

    4. Americans are much more contemptuous of elite opinion than Euros are.

    This election was just a Phyric victory for the Left.

    You forgot to mention that it only happened because Trump was able to self fund in the early months. If he had not been able to self fund, Clinton would be President.

    Read More
  72. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    That's the story I referred to:
    http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/02/texas-demographer-its-basically-over-for-anglos/

    That's from 2011. Even back then two thirds of school children were "non-Anglo". That's such a massive disparity, I doubt the "minority" population can be absorbed through intermarriage and assimilation.
    From what I know about the US, I'd guess "Anglos" who don't like it will just leave the state and move to some whiter place. Problem in Europe is, there's much less space to run away to (and people are more attached to their region of origin and less mobile than many Americans anyway).

    There is a lot of intermarriage between Mexican-Americans and Anglos. For that matter there is quite a bit of black-white intermarriage.

    Anyway, Trump got close to 30% of the Hispanic vote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Anyway, Trump got close to 30% of the Hispanic vote.
     
    No he didn't. That was according to exit polls and exit polls are trash. Nate Cohn at the NYT uses real data (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html) and he had Trump's Latino support at 26%, an even worse number than the loathsome Mitt Romney received. I do however expect Trump to receive 35% of the Latino vote in 2020, as long as the economy remains strong.

    As for black white intermarriage, all that does is increase the black population as virtually all half blacks identify simply as "black", although I do expect that to change over the coming decades.
  73. @iffen
    There is a lot of intermarriage between Mexican-Americans and Anglos. For that matter there is quite a bit of black-white intermarriage.

    Anyway, Trump got close to 30% of the Hispanic vote.

    Anyway, Trump got close to 30% of the Hispanic vote.

    No he didn’t. That was according to exit polls and exit polls are trash. Nate Cohn at the NYT uses real data (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html) and he had Trump’s Latino support at 26%, an even worse number than the loathsome Mitt Romney received. I do however expect Trump to receive 35% of the Latino vote in 2020, as long as the economy remains strong.

    As for black white intermarriage, all that does is increase the black population as virtually all half blacks identify simply as “black”, although I do expect that to change over the coming decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I stand corrected. Trump got over 25% of the Hispanic vote.
  74. @iffen
    Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn’t quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.

    Your impression is incorrect. It is all hands on deck to trash him. There has never been anything in the modern era in the US that matches this.

    I disagree. I feel like the Russia story completely died after Syria and the media has been markedly less hostile overall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guy
    Greasy, are you litvak. hasid, or sephardi. just curious
    , @iffen
    and the media has been markedly less hostile overall.

    Well, we don't have to argue, we can see how the rest of the term plays out, that is if he's not ruled incompetent as the MSM is now pushing.

  75. guy says:
    @Greasy William
    I disagree. I feel like the Russia story completely died after Syria and the media has been markedly less hostile overall.

    Greasy, are you litvak. hasid, or sephardi. just curious

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    There really is no neat classification for me. I am theologically some sort of hybrid of Maimonides, Satmar and Kahane mixed in with a bunch of outright heretical beliefs that are Greasy originals, but my personal level of observance is pretty low although I politically identify as Haredi. I am ethnically your standard Polish/Russian Jew and have both an inferiority and superiority complex towards all other Jewish groups, especially Mizrahim.

    Are you the same "guy" from The Phora?
  76. iffen says:
    @Greasy William
    I disagree. I feel like the Russia story completely died after Syria and the media has been markedly less hostile overall.

    and the media has been markedly less hostile overall.

    Well, we don’t have to argue, we can see how the rest of the term plays out, that is if he’s not ruled incompetent as the MSM is now pushing.

    Read More
  77. iffen says:
    @Greasy William

    Anyway, Trump got close to 30% of the Hispanic vote.
     
    No he didn't. That was according to exit polls and exit polls are trash. Nate Cohn at the NYT uses real data (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html) and he had Trump's Latino support at 26%, an even worse number than the loathsome Mitt Romney received. I do however expect Trump to receive 35% of the Latino vote in 2020, as long as the economy remains strong.

    As for black white intermarriage, all that does is increase the black population as virtually all half blacks identify simply as "black", although I do expect that to change over the coming decades.

    I stand corrected. Trump got over 25% of the Hispanic vote.

    Read More
  78. @iffen
    Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn’t quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.

    Your impression is incorrect. It is all hands on deck to trash him. There has never been anything in the modern era in the US that matches this.

    Buchanan was, briefly, on the receiving end of a similar hysterical media hate campaign after his “culture wars” speech in 1992, and then again after he won the 1996 New Hampshire primary. There was a moment of hysteria after Jean-Marie Le Pen advanced to the second round of the 2002 French presidential race, and then another elite primal scream in 2008 when the House of Representatives rejected TARP the first time it came up for a vote. When the BNP had its best election, the media was driven to the verge of another episode.

    The anti-Trump hysteria was notable for being so long lasting. It started when Trump went full paleocon on immigration and foreign policy in the first primary debate in August 2015, briefly diminished after his March 2016 AIPAC speech, peaked the night of the election, and continued with gradually diminishing intensity until Trump expelled Bannon from the national security council and then bombed Syria in April 2017.

    The media is still virulently anti-Trump, but the mood is now contempt rather than fear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Trump was solidly and unequivocally pro-Israel throughout his campaign. (The Iran deal: “Tear it up!”) I credit this position as one of the keys to his victory. He did seem to offer a chance at a saner and less interventionist foreign policy. Clinton was solidly pro-war and interventionist so a rational choice would have been to take a chance on Trump.

    Apparently some extremely small sliver of observers thought, without any foundation, that he would abandon Israel.

    The Tomahawking of the Syrian airfield brought praise from the usual warmongers, nothing changed.

    The entertainment industry, most of academia, the social media, the MSM and all of the elites of every kind are in a full destruction mode toward Trump. The real object of their hate and destruction are the “deplorables” that had the impudence to vote for Trump. And they are not worried about destroying liberal democracy or the 1st amendment in order to get the job done.

  79. @guy
    Greasy, are you litvak. hasid, or sephardi. just curious

    There really is no neat classification for me. I am theologically some sort of hybrid of Maimonides, Satmar and Kahane mixed in with a bunch of outright heretical beliefs that are Greasy originals, but my personal level of observance is pretty low although I politically identify as Haredi. I am ethnically your standard Polish/Russian Jew and have both an inferiority and superiority complex towards all other Jewish groups, especially Mizrahim.

    Are you the same “guy” from The Phora?

    Read More
    • Replies: @guy
    no. How do you reconcil the diff. between chardal and haredi on observance though? Study of torah, observance, is center of satmar life above all else. Doesn't shas offer more suitable view with kahane, (though it itself sucks up to litvak, shas members kids go to litvak school)
    , @Cagey Beast
    Are you the same “guy” from The Phora?

    Was/is Guy the oddball Calvinist there? I haven't posted there in years.
  80. guy says:
    @Greasy William
    There really is no neat classification for me. I am theologically some sort of hybrid of Maimonides, Satmar and Kahane mixed in with a bunch of outright heretical beliefs that are Greasy originals, but my personal level of observance is pretty low although I politically identify as Haredi. I am ethnically your standard Polish/Russian Jew and have both an inferiority and superiority complex towards all other Jewish groups, especially Mizrahim.

    Are you the same "guy" from The Phora?

    no. How do you reconcil the diff. between chardal and haredi on observance though? Study of torah, observance, is center of satmar life above all else. Doesn’t shas offer more suitable view with kahane, (though it itself sucks up to litvak, shas members kids go to litvak school)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    How do you reconcil the diff. between chardal and haredi on observance though?
     
    By not being very observant at all. I'm a believer but not much of a practicer.

    Study of torah, observance, is center of satmar life above all else.
     
    They also don't recognize the abomination that is the secular State of Israel and unlike Religious Zionists, they don't consider secular Jews to be their brothers. I agree with them on both points.

    The main mistake Kahana made was he said that the enemy was the Arabs, but in fact the true enemy are the secular Jews .

    Doesn’t shas offer more suitable view with kahane
     
    Are you Israeli? You don't seem to know very much about Shas.

    Shas are a bunch of Zionist dogs. I would vote for Meretz before I would vote for the party of Yosef and Deri.
  81. Cagey Beast says: • Website
    @Greasy William
    There really is no neat classification for me. I am theologically some sort of hybrid of Maimonides, Satmar and Kahane mixed in with a bunch of outright heretical beliefs that are Greasy originals, but my personal level of observance is pretty low although I politically identify as Haredi. I am ethnically your standard Polish/Russian Jew and have both an inferiority and superiority complex towards all other Jewish groups, especially Mizrahim.

    Are you the same "guy" from The Phora?

    Are you the same “guy” from The Phora?

    Was/is Guy the oddball Calvinist there? I haven’t posted there in years.

    Read More
  82. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @German_reader
    I don't know, there may be something to this, but it will hardly have been decisive in the French election. Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn't quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.

    Besides, my impression is mainstream media isn’t quite that anti-Trump anymore since he bombed Syria.

    Yes for a few weeks the media softened dramatically but it seems to be over now since they realized it was only symbolic.

    Read More
  83. @German_reader
    Austria is very different from Germany in many ways (e.g. much smaller, no strong Protestant influence, dealt with the Nazi past basically in a "We were Hitler's first victim" way, neutral during the Cold war...and probably much else), so its political culture is probably quite different anyway.
    Don't really know what Germany could be compared to. Maybe some African dictatorship. Certainly the weird personality cult about Merkel and the fact that it's just regarded as normal she'll probably be chancellor for at least 16 years would fit in with such a setting.

    Actually, coming in first in the 2018 elections may not help the FPO. Though the Social Democrats and Conservatives have not built a cordon sanitaire against them, and though they’ve been able to cooperate productively in the past, Van der Bellen of headscarf fame has said he won’t recognize a FPO government (or at least that it’s ‘hard to imagine’) on the grounds that it’s soft-Euroskeptic, which essentially guarantees another Socialist / OVP coalition. (Which pretty well underscores the hollowness of liberal democracy: centrist parties are as unwilling to cooperate with ethnic nationalists today as they were with Communists in the Cold War, except that on issues like immigration the ethnic nationalists actually *have a majority*).

    I guess the FPO is going to have to wait till 2022 or whatever to have its chance in government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Van der Bellen of headscarf fame has said he won’t recognize a FPO government
     
    I know, but if Van der Bellen does that, despite the FPÖ being the strongest party, it will be unprecedented...it will bring the legitimacy of the entire system into question.
  84. @guy
    no. How do you reconcil the diff. between chardal and haredi on observance though? Study of torah, observance, is center of satmar life above all else. Doesn't shas offer more suitable view with kahane, (though it itself sucks up to litvak, shas members kids go to litvak school)

    How do you reconcil the diff. between chardal and haredi on observance though?

    By not being very observant at all. I’m a believer but not much of a practicer.

    Study of torah, observance, is center of satmar life above all else.

    They also don’t recognize the abomination that is the secular State of Israel and unlike Religious Zionists, they don’t consider secular Jews to be their brothers. I agree with them on both points.

    The main mistake Kahana made was he said that the enemy was the Arabs, but in fact the true enemy are the secular Jews .

    Doesn’t shas offer more suitable view with kahane

    Are you Israeli? You don’t seem to know very much about Shas.

    Shas are a bunch of Zionist dogs. I would vote for Meretz before I would vote for the party of Yosef and Deri.

    Read More
  85. iffen says:
    @John Gruskos
    Buchanan was, briefly, on the receiving end of a similar hysterical media hate campaign after his "culture wars" speech in 1992, and then again after he won the 1996 New Hampshire primary. There was a moment of hysteria after Jean-Marie Le Pen advanced to the second round of the 2002 French presidential race, and then another elite primal scream in 2008 when the House of Representatives rejected TARP the first time it came up for a vote. When the BNP had its best election, the media was driven to the verge of another episode.

    The anti-Trump hysteria was notable for being so long lasting. It started when Trump went full paleocon on immigration and foreign policy in the first primary debate in August 2015, briefly diminished after his March 2016 AIPAC speech, peaked the night of the election, and continued with gradually diminishing intensity until Trump expelled Bannon from the national security council and then bombed Syria in April 2017.

    The media is still virulently anti-Trump, but the mood is now contempt rather than fear.

    Trump was solidly and unequivocally pro-Israel throughout his campaign. (The Iran deal: “Tear it up!”) I credit this position as one of the keys to his victory. He did seem to offer a chance at a saner and less interventionist foreign policy. Clinton was solidly pro-war and interventionist so a rational choice would have been to take a chance on Trump.

    Apparently some extremely small sliver of observers thought, without any foundation, that he would abandon Israel.

    The Tomahawking of the Syrian airfield brought praise from the usual warmongers, nothing changed.

    The entertainment industry, most of academia, the social media, the MSM and all of the elites of every kind are in a full destruction mode toward Trump. The real object of their hate and destruction are the “deplorables” that had the impudence to vote for Trump. And they are not worried about destroying liberal democracy or the 1st amendment in order to get the job done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    Trump called himself the "most pro-Israel guy", but he also said he was willing to be a neutral honest broker between the Palestinians and Israelis; he criticized the Iran deal as "the worst deal ever", but he never said he wanted to "tear up" the deal. He caught flak from Rubio because of it.

    He was the most non-interventionist Republican in the race other than Rand Paul. This helped differentiate him from Cruz, and it also helped him against the freakishly hawkish Hillary Clinton in the general election. If he'd run on Lindsey Graham's foreign policy, he would have lost the primary and the general election. (Just imagine what the primaries would have looked like if Rand Paul's Iowa percentage hadn't gone to Trump in every subsequent state, or the general election if Hillary had gotten the peace vote that went to Johnson and Stein.)

    Taking all his statements from the day he declared his candidacy to the day he was elected president, I expected the following:

    1. Israel - continue the status quo support, and increase symbolic support (UN, etc.)
    2. Iran - continue the status quo hostility and suspicion.
    3. Syria and Yemen - end our regime change proxy wars, which involve support for Al-Qaeda and are leading to humanitarian catastrophe.
    4. Russia - end our hostility and confrontation, and develop a partnership based on mutual interests.
    5. ISIS and Al-Qaeda - quickly destroy, thanks to cooperation with Russia and her clients.

    Instead, we've increased our hostility to Russia, Syria, Yemen and Iran. Al-Qaeda benefits, Middle Eastern Christians are harmed, and Yemen is driven to the brink of starvation - all of which provides a pretext for another surge of Middle Eastern migrants into Europe and America. America pays the price in lives, treasure, and lost export opportunities.

    Why the reversal? I suspect partly because men he admires, such as Kushner, Netanyahu and Mattis, were pushing for a reversal, but mostly because the establishment successfully bullied him with their preposterous "Putin's puppet" narrative.

    The foreign policy betrayal was followed by immigration and trade betrayals: DACA unrepealed, the wall unfunded, cheap labor visas increased, and China promised trade concessions in return for assistance on essentially unimportant foreign policy goals.

    Could you imagine rooted patriots like Pat Buchanan, Enoch Powell or Jean-Marie Le Pen folding like this, just because their favorite general, relative, and foreign leader counselled capitulation to a rabid establishment?

  86. @iffen
    Trump was solidly and unequivocally pro-Israel throughout his campaign. (The Iran deal: “Tear it up!”) I credit this position as one of the keys to his victory. He did seem to offer a chance at a saner and less interventionist foreign policy. Clinton was solidly pro-war and interventionist so a rational choice would have been to take a chance on Trump.

    Apparently some extremely small sliver of observers thought, without any foundation, that he would abandon Israel.

    The Tomahawking of the Syrian airfield brought praise from the usual warmongers, nothing changed.

    The entertainment industry, most of academia, the social media, the MSM and all of the elites of every kind are in a full destruction mode toward Trump. The real object of their hate and destruction are the “deplorables” that had the impudence to vote for Trump. And they are not worried about destroying liberal democracy or the 1st amendment in order to get the job done.

    Trump called himself the “most pro-Israel guy”, but he also said he was willing to be a neutral honest broker between the Palestinians and Israelis; he criticized the Iran deal as “the worst deal ever”, but he never said he wanted to “tear up” the deal. He caught flak from Rubio because of it.

    He was the most non-interventionist Republican in the race other than Rand Paul. This helped differentiate him from Cruz, and it also helped him against the freakishly hawkish Hillary Clinton in the general election. If he’d run on Lindsey Graham’s foreign policy, he would have lost the primary and the general election. (Just imagine what the primaries would have looked like if Rand Paul’s Iowa percentage hadn’t gone to Trump in every subsequent state, or the general election if Hillary had gotten the peace vote that went to Johnson and Stein.)

    Taking all his statements from the day he declared his candidacy to the day he was elected president, I expected the following:

    1. Israel – continue the status quo support, and increase symbolic support (UN, etc.)
    2. Iran – continue the status quo hostility and suspicion.
    3. Syria and Yemen – end our regime change proxy wars, which involve support for Al-Qaeda and are leading to humanitarian catastrophe.
    4. Russia – end our hostility and confrontation, and develop a partnership based on mutual interests.
    5. ISIS and Al-Qaeda – quickly destroy, thanks to cooperation with Russia and her clients.

    Instead, we’ve increased our hostility to Russia, Syria, Yemen and Iran. Al-Qaeda benefits, Middle Eastern Christians are harmed, and Yemen is driven to the brink of starvation – all of which provides a pretext for another surge of Middle Eastern migrants into Europe and America. America pays the price in lives, treasure, and lost export opportunities.

    Why the reversal? I suspect partly because men he admires, such as Kushner, Netanyahu and Mattis, were pushing for a reversal, but mostly because the establishment successfully bullied him with their preposterous “Putin’s puppet” narrative.

    The foreign policy betrayal was followed by immigration and trade betrayals: DACA unrepealed, the wall unfunded, cheap labor visas increased, and China promised trade concessions in return for assistance on essentially unimportant foreign policy goals.

    Could you imagine rooted patriots like Pat Buchanan, Enoch Powell or Jean-Marie Le Pen folding like this, just because their favorite general, relative, and foreign leader counselled capitulation to a rabid establishment?

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @iffen
    Could you imagine rooted patriots like Pat Buchanan, Enoch Powell or Jean-Marie Le Pen folding like this

    I can't imagine any of these people being elected, much less any of the R Pauls.
    , @iffen
    I agree with 1, 2, most of 3 and 4, (not sure about the partnership part in #4).

    I expected that he would continue or intensify missions that are directed at radical Muslim states or statelets. Quick destruction is not within the capabilities of the US.

    Why the reversal?

    He has no base of support in the Congress, he doesn't want to fail at everything.

  87. iffen says:
    @John Gruskos
    Trump called himself the "most pro-Israel guy", but he also said he was willing to be a neutral honest broker between the Palestinians and Israelis; he criticized the Iran deal as "the worst deal ever", but he never said he wanted to "tear up" the deal. He caught flak from Rubio because of it.

    He was the most non-interventionist Republican in the race other than Rand Paul. This helped differentiate him from Cruz, and it also helped him against the freakishly hawkish Hillary Clinton in the general election. If he'd run on Lindsey Graham's foreign policy, he would have lost the primary and the general election. (Just imagine what the primaries would have looked like if Rand Paul's Iowa percentage hadn't gone to Trump in every subsequent state, or the general election if Hillary had gotten the peace vote that went to Johnson and Stein.)

    Taking all his statements from the day he declared his candidacy to the day he was elected president, I expected the following:

    1. Israel - continue the status quo support, and increase symbolic support (UN, etc.)
    2. Iran - continue the status quo hostility and suspicion.
    3. Syria and Yemen - end our regime change proxy wars, which involve support for Al-Qaeda and are leading to humanitarian catastrophe.
    4. Russia - end our hostility and confrontation, and develop a partnership based on mutual interests.
    5. ISIS and Al-Qaeda - quickly destroy, thanks to cooperation with Russia and her clients.

    Instead, we've increased our hostility to Russia, Syria, Yemen and Iran. Al-Qaeda benefits, Middle Eastern Christians are harmed, and Yemen is driven to the brink of starvation - all of which provides a pretext for another surge of Middle Eastern migrants into Europe and America. America pays the price in lives, treasure, and lost export opportunities.

    Why the reversal? I suspect partly because men he admires, such as Kushner, Netanyahu and Mattis, were pushing for a reversal, but mostly because the establishment successfully bullied him with their preposterous "Putin's puppet" narrative.

    The foreign policy betrayal was followed by immigration and trade betrayals: DACA unrepealed, the wall unfunded, cheap labor visas increased, and China promised trade concessions in return for assistance on essentially unimportant foreign policy goals.

    Could you imagine rooted patriots like Pat Buchanan, Enoch Powell or Jean-Marie Le Pen folding like this, just because their favorite general, relative, and foreign leader counselled capitulation to a rabid establishment?

    Could you imagine rooted patriots like Pat Buchanan, Enoch Powell or Jean-Marie Le Pen folding like this

    I can’t imagine any of these people being elected, much less any of the R Pauls.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    The last quarter century has proved Buchanan's 1992 warnings correct.

    A healthy young Pat Buchanan, a paleolibertarian immigration restrictionist Rand Paul, or a non-interventionist Ted Cruz could have won in 2016.

    Buchanan was ahead of his time. Cruz and Paul took unpopular positions to placate their donors.

    This left a big opening for Trump, and he seized it. If he'd had the moral courage to actually carry out his promises, he would have been one of the greatest leaders in world history.
  88. iffen says:
    @John Gruskos
    Trump called himself the "most pro-Israel guy", but he also said he was willing to be a neutral honest broker between the Palestinians and Israelis; he criticized the Iran deal as "the worst deal ever", but he never said he wanted to "tear up" the deal. He caught flak from Rubio because of it.

    He was the most non-interventionist Republican in the race other than Rand Paul. This helped differentiate him from Cruz, and it also helped him against the freakishly hawkish Hillary Clinton in the general election. If he'd run on Lindsey Graham's foreign policy, he would have lost the primary and the general election. (Just imagine what the primaries would have looked like if Rand Paul's Iowa percentage hadn't gone to Trump in every subsequent state, or the general election if Hillary had gotten the peace vote that went to Johnson and Stein.)

    Taking all his statements from the day he declared his candidacy to the day he was elected president, I expected the following:

    1. Israel - continue the status quo support, and increase symbolic support (UN, etc.)
    2. Iran - continue the status quo hostility and suspicion.
    3. Syria and Yemen - end our regime change proxy wars, which involve support for Al-Qaeda and are leading to humanitarian catastrophe.
    4. Russia - end our hostility and confrontation, and develop a partnership based on mutual interests.
    5. ISIS and Al-Qaeda - quickly destroy, thanks to cooperation with Russia and her clients.

    Instead, we've increased our hostility to Russia, Syria, Yemen and Iran. Al-Qaeda benefits, Middle Eastern Christians are harmed, and Yemen is driven to the brink of starvation - all of which provides a pretext for another surge of Middle Eastern migrants into Europe and America. America pays the price in lives, treasure, and lost export opportunities.

    Why the reversal? I suspect partly because men he admires, such as Kushner, Netanyahu and Mattis, were pushing for a reversal, but mostly because the establishment successfully bullied him with their preposterous "Putin's puppet" narrative.

    The foreign policy betrayal was followed by immigration and trade betrayals: DACA unrepealed, the wall unfunded, cheap labor visas increased, and China promised trade concessions in return for assistance on essentially unimportant foreign policy goals.

    Could you imagine rooted patriots like Pat Buchanan, Enoch Powell or Jean-Marie Le Pen folding like this, just because their favorite general, relative, and foreign leader counselled capitulation to a rabid establishment?

    I agree with 1, 2, most of 3 and 4, (not sure about the partnership part in #4).

    I expected that he would continue or intensify missions that are directed at radical Muslim states or statelets. Quick destruction is not within the capabilities of the US.

    Why the reversal?

    He has no base of support in the Congress, he doesn’t want to fail at everything.

    Read More
  89. @iffen
    Could you imagine rooted patriots like Pat Buchanan, Enoch Powell or Jean-Marie Le Pen folding like this

    I can't imagine any of these people being elected, much less any of the R Pauls.

    The last quarter century has proved Buchanan’s 1992 warnings correct.

    A healthy young Pat Buchanan, a paleolibertarian immigration restrictionist Rand Paul, or a non-interventionist Ted Cruz could have won in 2016.

    Buchanan was ahead of his time. Cruz and Paul took unpopular positions to placate their donors.

    This left a big opening for Trump, and he seized it. If he’d had the moral courage to actually carry out his promises, he would have been one of the greatest leaders in world history.

    Read More
  90. @Hector_St_Clare
    Actually, coming in first in the 2018 elections may not help the FPO. Though the Social Democrats and Conservatives have not built a cordon sanitaire against them, and though they've been able to cooperate productively in the past, Van der Bellen of headscarf fame has said he won't recognize a FPO government (or at least that it's 'hard to imagine') on the grounds that it's soft-Euroskeptic, which essentially guarantees another Socialist / OVP coalition. (Which pretty well underscores the hollowness of liberal democracy: centrist parties are as unwilling to cooperate with ethnic nationalists today as they were with Communists in the Cold War, except that on issues like immigration the ethnic nationalists actually *have a majority*).

    I guess the FPO is going to have to wait till 2022 or whatever to have its chance in government.

    Van der Bellen of headscarf fame has said he won’t recognize a FPO government

    I know, but if Van der Bellen does that, despite the FPÖ being the strongest party, it will be unprecedented…it will bring the legitimacy of the entire system into question.

    Read More
  91. Sean says:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/french-elections-marine-le-pen-emmanuel-macron-no-real-choice-a7714911.html

    Don’t believe the liberals – there is no real-choice-a7714911.html real choice between Le Pen and Macron.

    Yes, Le Pen is a threat, but if we throw all our support behind Macron, do we not get caught into a kind of circle and fight the effect by way of supporting the very neoliberalism that fuels the far right?

    Slavoj Zizek repeating what he said about Trump vs Clinton

    But look at the shortness of skirt that Marine Le Pen is displaying in the poster. French sensuality!

    Read More
  92. BB753 says:
    @for-the-record

    You’re probably right, and I was somewhat naive; but then I guess, the last two or three years have been an eye-opening experience for many on both sides of the Atlantic.
     
    I'm in the middle of the Atlantic, more or less, blissfully protected from diversity, and it has certainly been eye-opening for me as well. Among other things, the behavior of one set of German tourists (we own a rental property) who insist that everything is fine in Germany, but were paranoid about letting their daughter take a taxi from the Airport to the house late at night, something that would never have occurred to me (or anyone else here) in my wildest dreams. And another German couple, who were negotiating with us for a long-term rental and then backed out when they realized that the bedroom they would be using was on the ground floor. Here is how the husband explained their decision to us:

    Hello,

    es tut mir sehr leid, aber ich muss Ihnen mitteilen, dass wir uns für ein anderes Objekt entschieden haben.

    Aufgrund der unsicheren Situation, die sich in Deutschland entwickelt hat, fühlen wir uns nirgendwo mehr ganz sicher. Auch wenn es unwahrscheinlich ist, dass etwas passiert, würden wir im Erdgeschoss mit offenen Fenstern oder Türen nicht mehr ruhig schlafen.

    Wir haben deshalb ein Objekt gefunden, wo das Schlafzimmer im 2. Geschoss liegt.

    Bitte seien Sie nicht zu enttäuscht. Den Kontakt empfand ich als sehr angenehm, und wir drücken Ihnen die Daumen, dass Sie das Objekt in der Zeit noch gut vermieten können.
     

    No surprise here about the German tourist feeling unsafe in the ground floor.
    The middle of the Atlantic, you say? Madeira, Azores, Iceland, Greenland?

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored