The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
French Lesson
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The gruesome attack on Charlie Hebdo has earned condemnation around the world. It has been called “cowardly” and “evil” by Barack Obama, “a barbaric act” by Stephen Harper, and an “infamy” by François Hollande.

Yes, violence is serious. It’s a crime when done by an individual and war when done by a country. It’s a grave breach of the rules that govern our society. Whatever differences we may have, they are to be settled peacefully, through the courts if need be. Violence is just not to be done.

Except it increasingly is. The attack on Charlie Hebdo is not an isolated incident. It’s part of a worsening trend of violence by people described as jeunes [youths] or simply not described at all. That was not the case in the recent attack; the victims were too well known. But it is generally the case, and this conspiracy of silence has become something of a social norm, particularly in the media.

Yet statistics do exist, notably those compiled by the Gendarmerie. According to French criminologist Xavier Raufer:

The criminality we are talking about is the kind that is making life unbearable for the population: burglaries, thefts of all sorts, assaults, violent thefts without firearms, etc. In these specific cases, 7 out of 10 of these crimes are committed by people who in one way or another have an immigrant background, either directly (first generation on French territory, with or without a residence permit) or indirectly (second generation). (Chevrier and Raufer, 2014)

The word “immigrant” is misleading. Many if not most are French-born, and they tend to come much more from some immigrant groups than from others. In general, they are young men of North African or sub-Saharan African background, plus smaller numbers of Roma and Albanians.

This criminality, when not being denied, is usually put down to social marginalization and lack of integration. Yet the reverse is closer to the truth. The typical French person is an individual in a sea of individuals, whereas immigrant communities enjoy strong social networks and a keen sense of solidarity. This is one of the reasons given why the targets of the crime wave are so often Français de souche [old-stock French]. “Whites don’t stick up for each other.”

Personal violence in human societies

In France, as in other Western countries, personal violence is criminalized and even pathologized. The young violent male is said to be “sick.” Or “deprived.” He has not had a chance to get a good job and lead a nice quiet life.

Yet this is not how young violent males perceive themselves or, for that matter, how most human societies have perceived them down through the ages. Indeed, early societies accepted the legitimacy of personal violence. Each adult male had the right to defend himself and his kin with whatever violence he deemed necessary. The term “self-defence” is used loosely here—a man could react violently to a lack of respect or to slurs on his honor or the honor of his ancestors. There were courts to arbitrate this sort of dispute but they typically had no power, enforcement of court rulings being left to the aggrieved party and his male kin. In general, violence was a socially approved way to prove one’s manhood, attract potential mates, and gain respect from other men.

Things changed as human societies developed. The State grew in power and increasingly monopolized the legitimate use of violence, thus knocking down the violent young male from hero to zero. This course of action was zealously pursued in Northwest Europe from the 11th century onward (Carbasse, 2011, pp. 36-56). There were two reasons. First, the end of the Dark Ages brought a strengthening of State power, a resumption of trade and, hence, a growing need and ability by the authorities to pacify social relations. Second, the main obstacle to criminalization of personal violence—kin-based morality and the desire to avenge wrongs committed against kin—seems to have been weaker in Northwest Europe than elsewhere. There was correspondingly a greater susceptibility to more universal and less kin-based forms of morality, such as the Christian ban on murder in almost all circumstances.

Murder was increasingly punished not only by the ultimate penalty but also by exemplary forms of execution, e.g., burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, and breaking on the wheel (Carbasse, 2011, pp. 52-53). This “war on murder” reached a peak from the 16th to 18th centuries when, out of every two hundred men, one or two would end up being executed (Taccoen, 1982, p. 52). A comparable number of murderers would die either at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial (Ireland, 1987).

Gene-culture co-evolution?

The cultural norm thus shifted toward nonviolence. There was now strong selection against people who could not or would not lead peaceful lives, their removal from society being abrupt, via the hangman’s noose, or more gradual, through ostracism by one’s peers and rejection on the marriage market. As a result, the homicide rate fell from between 20 and 40 homicides per 100,000 in the late Middle Ages to between 0.5 and 1 per 100,000 in the mid-20th century (Eisner, 2001, pp. 628-629).

Was this decline due solely to legal and cultural restraints on personal violence? Or were there also changes to the gene pool? Was there a process of gene-culture co-evolution whereby Church and State created a culture of nonviolence, which in turn favored some genotypes over others? We know that aggressive/antisocial behavior is moderately to highly heritable. In the latest twin study, heritability was 40% when the twins had different evaluators and 69% when they had the same one (Barker et al., 2009). The actual neural basis is still unsure. Perhaps a predisposition to violence is due to stronger impulsiveness and weaker internal controls on behavior (Niv et al., 2012). Perhaps the threshold for expression of violence is lower. Perhaps ideation comes easier (van der Dennen, 2006). Or perhaps the sight and smell of blood is more pleasurable (vanden Bergh and Kelly, 1964).

It was probably a mix of cultural and genetic factors that caused the homicide rate to decline in Western societies. Even if culture alone were responsible, we would still be facing the same problem. Different societies view male violence differently:

In Algerian society for example, children are raised according to their sex. A boy usually receives an authoritarian and severe type of upbringing that will prepare him to become aware of the responsibilities that await him in adulthood, notably responsibility for his family and for the elderly. This is why a mother will allow her son to fight in the street and will scarcely be alarmed if the boy has a fall or if she sees a bruise. The boy of an Algerian family is accustomed from an early age to being hit hard without whimpering too much. People orient him more toward combat sports and group games in order to arm him with courage and endurance—virtues deemed to be manly.(Assous, 2005)

In Algeria and similar societies, a shaky equilibrium contains the worst excesses of male violence. Men think twice before acting violently, for fear of retaliation from the victim’s brothers and other kinsmen. Of course, this “balance of terror” does not deter violence against those who have few kinsmen to count on.

Problems really begin, however, when a culture that legitimizes male violence coexists with one that delegitimizes it. This is France’s situation. Les jeunes perceive violence as a legitimate way to advance personal interests, and they eagerly pursue this goal with other young men. Conversely, les Français de souche perceive such violence as illegitimate and will not organize collectively for self-defence. The outcome is predictable. The first group will focus their attacks on members of the second group—not out of hate but because the latter are soft targets who cannot fight back or get support from others.

But what about the obviously Islamist motives of the Charlie Hebdoattackers? Such motives can certainly channel violent tendencies, but those tendencies would exist regardless. Even if we completely eradicated radical Islam, les jeunes would still be present and still engaging in the same kind of behavior that is becoming almost routine. At best, there would be fewer high-profile attacks—the kind that make the police pull out all stops to find and kill the perps. It is this “high end” that attracts the extremists, since they are the least deterred by the risks involved. The “low end” tends to attract devotees of American hip hop. Keep in mind that less than two-thirds of France’s Afro/Arab/Roma population is even nominally Muslim.

Conclusion

Modern France is founded on Western principles of equality, human betterment, and universal morality. Anyone anywhere can become French. That view, the official one, seems more and more disconnected from reality. Many people living in France have no wish to become French in any meaningful sense. By “French” I don’t mean having a passport, paying taxes, or agreeing to a set of abstract propositions. I mean behaving in certain concrete ways and sharing a common culture and history.

This reality is sinking in, and with it a loss of faith in the official view of France. Faith can be restored, on the condition that outrageous incidents stop happening. But they will continue to happen. And they will matter a lot more than the much more numerous incidents tout court—the rising tide of thefts, assaults, and home invasions that are spreading deeper and deeper into areas that were safe a few years ago. The attack on Charlie Hebdo matters more because it cannot be hidden from public view and public acknowledgment. How does one explain the disappearance of an entire newspaper and the mass execution of its editorial board?

The Front national will be the beneficiary, of course. It may already have one third of the electorate, but that’s still not enough to take power, especially with all of the other parties from the right to the left combining to keep the FN out. Meanwhile, the Great Replacement proceeds apace, regardless of whether the government is “left-wing” or “right-wing.”

References

Assous, A. (2005). L’impact de l’éducation parentale sur le développement de l’enfant, Hawwa, 3(3), 354-369.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156920805774910033

Barker, E.D., H. Larsson, E. Viding, B. Maughan, F. Rijsdijk, N. Fontaine, and R. Plomin. (2009). Common genetic but specific environmental influences for aggressive and deceitful behaviors in preadolescent males, Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 299-308.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226851959_Common_Genetic_but_Specific_Environmental_Influences_for_Aggressive_and_Deceitful_Behaviors_in_Preadolescent_Males/file/9fcfd506c1944288cb.pdf

Chevrier, G. and X. Raufer. (2014). Aucun lien entre immigration et délinquance ? Une France peu généreuse avec ses immigrés ? Radiographie de quelques clichés “bien pensants” à la peau dure,Atlantico, November 26
http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/aucun-lien-entre-immigration-et-delinquance-france-peu-genereuse-avec-immigres-radiographie-quelques-cliches-bien-pensants-peau-1875772.html

Eisner, M. (2001). Modernization, self-control and lethal violence. The long-term dynamics of European homicide rates in theoretical perspective, British Journal of Criminology, 41, 618-638.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/249284795_Modernization_Self-Control_and_Lethal_Violence._The_Long-term_Dynamics_of_European_Homicide_Rates_in_Theoretical_Perspective/file/60b7d52cbfa9aec78c.pdf

Ireland, R.W. (1987). Theory and practice within the medieval English prison, The American Journal of Legal History, 31, 56-67.

Niv, S., C. Tuvblad, A. Raine, P. Wang, and L.A. Baker. (2012). Heritability and longitudinal stability of impulsivity in adolescence,Behavior Genetics, 42, 378-392.
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3351554

Taccoen, L. (1982). L’Occident est nu, Paris: Flammarion.

Vanden Bergh, R.L., and J.F. Kelly. (1964). Vampirism. A review with new observations. Archives of General Psychiatry, 11, 543-547.
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=488664

Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (2006). Review essay: The murderer next door: Why the mind is designed to kill, Homicide Studies, 10, 320-335.

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 92 CommentsLeave a Comment
92 Comments to "French Lesson"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Numinous says:

    This criminality, when not being denied, is usually put down to social marginalization and lack of integration. Yet the reverse is closer to the truth. The typical French person is an individual in a sea of individuals, whereas immigrant communities enjoy strong social networks and a keen sense of solidarity.

    That these “immigrants” are socially marginalized in France is asserted in virtually every essay or blog post I have read on this topic. Those essayists and bloggers thereby compare the US favorably with France when it comes to integrating immigrants. What evidence do you have for your statement: “Yet the reverse is closer to the truth.

    • Replies: @Jake
  2. Sean says:

    It would be nice if the problem might be lack of understanding, and talking about the conflicts of interest and the disastrous direction western society is taking could do some good. But it doesn’t.

    There is something in the psychology of white intellectual sectors that is making them self harm. White society thinks it is all their fault, because they are not morally perfect. Like telling a perfectionist girl with anorexia she is not fat and ugly, but actually too thin; it just makes things worse.

  3. RW says:

    I think the article’s overall point is sound, however there is a argument to be made that a significant part of the social pathology of the immigrant population in France is due to lack of foresight on the part of the city planners who planned the communities where the immigrants are now settled. The argument goes that they have poor access to jobs and services which results in them having little productive to do and no way to get themselves out of their situation. I don’t know to what extent this is accurate, but it sounds plausible. A friend of mine taught in these neighborhoods around Paris for a year, and this was his impression.

  4. anon • Disclaimer says:

    @RW

    “The argument goes that they have poor access to jobs and services…”

    The political class have deliberately created a labor surplus to drive down wages.

    The people who use this as an excuse are the same people deliberately creating the labor surplus.

  5. […] working. Liberal anguish (with an unexpectedly hard edge). Additional diverse commentary from Peter Frost, Gregory Hood, Sean Gabb, Ed West, Juan Cole, Slavoj Žižek. The Houellebecq connection. John Robb […]

  6. Bill P says:

    In Algerian society for example, children are raised according to their sex. A boy usually receives an authoritarian and severe type of upbringing that will prepare him to become aware of the responsibilities that await him in adulthood, notably responsibility for his family and for the elderly. This is why a mother will allow her son to fight in the street and will scarcely be alarmed if the boy has a fall or if she sees a bruise. The boy of an Algerian family is accustomed from an early age to being hit hard without whimpering too much. People orient him more toward combat sports and group games in order to arm him with courage and endurance—virtues deemed to be manly.(Assous, 2005)

    Eh, isn’t this normal for NW Europeans? That’s exactly how I grew up, and my mom’s mainly Scottish (Scots Irish in American vernacular) by ancestry. If you came home crying without any visible marks it was really considered shameful, and neither physical nor psychological weakness were tolerated — especially when it came to “combat sports and group games.” Injuries – including real wounds – were not so much a source of sympathy as a point of pride. I still have the scars to prove it, and without modern joint surgery half my male relatives would be cripples by now. Without going into too many details, it wasn’t exactly an “enlightened” environment in that regard, and this is a fairly accomplished family by conventional cultural measures — not illiterate hillbillies.

    I always thought Mediterranean types were a lot more humane toward their sons, and I admire them for that and try to emulate it by being a nice, gentle and loving father who doesn’t expect his sons to put their health and happiness on the line to prove their manhood.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @bossel
  7. TomB says:

    I don’t know about the “lessons” of what’s happened in Paris as Mr. Frost speaks of same, but certainly things like this have intellectual consequences, consequences on people’s consciousness and perspective about relevant issues and etc., etc.

    And, trying to think through this, it’s interesting to imagine that this will have some decisive impact upon same.

    It’s seems so discrete and clear, that is, and of course horrific in an easily imaginable way (you are in your office and someone comes in with machine-guns) that its tempting to believe this will herald some sea-change in thinking and/or attitudes in at least some way—about immigration, say, or Muslims, or whatever.

    But of course that also can seem to be the case with any number of incidents and the reality would seem to be that events accomplishing that sort of change are rather rare and it takes quite a bit to puncture some pre-existing paradigmatic way of thinking or feeling.

    Take 9-11 even: Did it really cause any wide or deep re-assessment of our beliefs or attitudes towards … the ME, or moslems, or—most relevantly—our policies?

    I don’t think you can say it did. All it really can seem to have done is to have reinforced mainline preexisting thinking, and over-come the resistance that had existed beforehand to get deeply, directly militarily involved in the Mideast.

    (Whereupon, one might say, the sourness of our experience with that has brought us right back to square one in our thinking.)

    At the very least though it seems to me that like 9-11 might eventually still prove to be, this Paris business might be thought of as taking a big chunk out of the foundations of mainstream European thought on a couple of different issues. Or “further emphasizing the contradictions in same” to put it in the very astute way that Lenin saw such things.

    #1.) As regards European immigration in general and muslim immigration into Europe especially.

    It’s just hard not to see how this doesn’t make defenders of the old “welcome the world” faith look like pathetic and now dangerous fools, and critics of that old faith look like the men and women of the future.

    I think especially of how in the wake of this Paris incident supremely, snobbishly elitist and feckless Angela Merkel looks after just savaging the entirely peaceful PEGIDA folks.

    #2.) And as regards elitism again I can’t help but think that the un-obscurable, crystal clear reason that Charlie Hebdo was attacked—running that stuff on Muhammed—may well have the European populace sitting back wondering about the coherence and integrity of the speech codes it has erected.

    Just how come, that is, you might be clapped into jail for all kinds of vaguely defined “hate speech,” but pouring ridicule and scorn on the man that billions regard as the Prophet of God is somehow enlightened.

    And if that isn’t a contradiction I don’t know what is.

    Of course this incident may well have other intellectual and/or attitudinal effects, but one can’t but think that even alone much less together their effect is as a fairly hefty slam against one or more of the very foundation stones of modern Western European-dominated elite policies and opinions and attitudes. Call it the UKIPping of Western Europe perhaps, with UKIP in Great Britain of course being the one movement that will probably see the most concrete and immediate positive effect of this.

    For those who feel that indeed Western Europe (and/or the United States) has indeed come under a hugely firm and bad elitist rule, this event then may well represent a significant point in the fight against same. Probably not conclusive or definitive, but significant at least one suspects.

  8. Smiddy says:

    @anon

    “The people who use this as an excuse are the same people deliberately creating the labor surplus.”

    Not true at all, the greatest perpetrators of “spinning multiculturalism” are actually American universities, specifically the private ones. And you’d think it were ironic that the more liberal universities tended to be the private… until you consider the ethnic group that runs the Ivy League, or the foundation of (liberal) American academia.

    In other words, they’re doing it for the most part unwittingly. A lot of people simply aren’t aware (or have been blinded) of the history or economic forces behind “multiculturalism.” Liberal studies lacking an emphasis on the social sciences, I would speculate, is part of the issue.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  9. bob sykes says:

    The Muslim/African population in France (and the rest of Europe) is not only unassimilable, it is openly hostile to European culture, which they are intent on replacing with Islam and Sharia. They have largely succeeded in doing this in the banlieus they control.

    While it is true that middle and upper class whites will not defend themselves or others, working class whites are not so effete. Europe is rapidly approaching open race war. This will not be lead by Pegida pacifists or Le Pen/Assange conservatives. White nationalist, racialist leaders will rise up all over Europe, and they will lead the effort to expel the Muslim/African invaders.

  10. iffen says:
    @Bill P

    Mr. P

    One has to look carefully as to where the lines are drawn on the map of the old countries. Mine and your ancestors might be on the outside looking in. Also confusing is that while some NWEs were worried about stepping on ants underfoot many more were exploring the world and bringing their brand of peace and harmony to native peoples worldwide.

  11. Jake says:
    @Numinous

    He’s saying the immigrants have closer ties with one another than French whites do with each other.

    I hate the social marginalization excuse anyway. When I visited Sydney I noticed how adrift the Sri Lankan and other ethnic communities were from mainstream society, but they don’t commit the gang rapes and other violent crimes perpetrated by the Lebanese.

  12. Mr Frost, I very much enjoy your posts. It is so good to see someone with a social sciences background write on the side of anti-immigration/anti-multiculturalism. There are really very few people on the anti-immigration/anti-multiculturalism side who have that background.

    Another aspect of the pathology of immigrants in the West is that the immigrant community includes a lot of mentally unbalanced, sick, somewhat deranged immigrants– misfits, sociopaths, and even psychopaths.

    The reason many immigrants come to the West from “undeveloped,” vibrant nations is that they did not fit in with their own society. In some cases, they were driven from their own place in that nation by their neighbors, their family, etc. Many immigrants are mentally unbalanced misfits with personality disorders, and other serious mental conditions. They are often failures and are embarrassed by that, embarrassed to be a failure in the eyes of their families, or they have committed crimes etc. Many of the immigrants to the West are men who abandoned their families.

    These are not good people, generally. Greedy, shamed, mentally unbalanced. But in the eyes of the mega-corporations, these undesirables represent money.

    The mega-corporations that control the most developed nations in the West want these human livestock. They want more workers, more consumers. They want lower wages, higher GDP, higher profits.

    They want to further factionalize the populace of the West with race, nationality, culture, etc. A populace divided by race, nationality, culture, language etc cannot stand against the mega-corporations.

    And of course the nature of these immigrants is going to influence the immigrant communities in the West.

  13. Peter Frost wrote:

    “Whites don’t stick up for each other.”

    Yes, but why?

    Because most whites are taught early on that white solidarity, white racial consciousness is The Most Evil Thing On Earth.

    Why? How did that come to pass?

    Oh, because whites enslaved blacks and they killed Jews, right?

    Wrong.

    Rich people enslaved blacks. Only 1.5% of all white americans owned slaves in 1860. Per the US Census. That same census showed that about 4% of slaveowners were nonwhites. And why only 1.5% of all american whites owned slaves? Because a slave cost about 2-5 years wages for the average white man. How many people today have $60K to $150K cash to spend on capital investments? Not that many people. That is why slaveowners were of the upper class. But somehow history got twisted around and the blame for slavery got put on whites in general. Hmmm. I wonder why that happened?

    Another little fact of history that got shoved down the memory hole is that many if not most american whites are descended from white slaves who were sold at auction in chains in north america in the 1600s. History has been twisted to make it out like they were volunteers and were freed after a few years. Wrong. They called slaves, and sold at auction in chains, in many if not most cases. Few were freed after a few years of indentureship. Many if not most were worked to death. But somehow history has been shaped and molded to hide this fact. Curious. I wonder why that happened.

    OK, so Hitler killed the Jews. Yeah, he did. But hitler was a creature of the upper class and the corporations. But the establishment tells us that Hitler represented white pride. Nope. He represented the rich and the corporations.

    Read Karl Mayr’s essay called “I was Hitler’s Boss.” That essay shows that the idea of making the Jews scapegoats was already in place before hitler was even hired by the Reichswehr. Mayr states that hitler came to them as a pauper looking for food and shelter and that he did not give a hill of beans about jews. But he absorbed the plan and strategy of the upper class and used his oratorical talents to carry out their plan. What was the plan? The upper class of germany wanted to stop bolshevism. They did not want a populist revolt in germany like what happened in Russia. They did not want the working class to take their wealth and hang them. Imagine that.

    So they subverted the working class revolt and gave them a scapegoat to take the place of the upper class. The jews. The nazi regime was created and funded by the upper class. Hitler was the tool they used. Hitler was born with one testicle and was therefore an outcast from youth. He wandered the hills of austria alone and made speeches to amuse himself. Hence his talent.

    So why has history been shaped and molded to fit a certain narrative? Why has white racial consciousness and solidarity been demonized and discouraged?

    Would you believe money is behind it?

    Growth. GDP. This is what the globalist corporations seek. How do you get growth in the West when white people don’t want to have as many children anymore?

    Mass Immigration.

    But who wants a bunch of foreigners around?

    No one.

    So you mold and shape the culture via the educational curriculum so as to encourage young people to like foreigners, and to feel guilty about white history.

    Multiculturalism is the lubricant for the mass immigration machine.

    Multiculturalism helps to to manufacture consent for mass immigration.

    • Replies: @martin
  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Hatfield-McCoy or Albanian style blood feuds and vendettas might work for those living up in the mountainous areas but for everyone else they’re a primitive anachronism. It doesn’t mesh well with civilization. Placing primitives next to modern people is not going to work out. I think the part about raising Algerian males to be “manly” is romanticizing it. Being a bully, swaggering thug and petty criminal doesn’t strike me as being “manly” at all except in the most superficial way of looking at it. Those Muslims don’t fit into European civilization; there is no place for them there. They might provide something to the society by working in low level jobs but that’s far outstripped by their cost in welfare, crime and the squalor they produce. A divorce is necessary and the sooner they start thinking about the logistics of that the better.

  15. Tr says:

    Long ago an Afro American told me that there would be no one to help or to rehabilitate a black man or woman but a white would find thousand ways to get back on feet after reversal of fortune fame,criminal or civil convictions. May be he was oversimplifying or combining under and over estimation. May be he was not. This statement he made following overturning of Kennedy teen age adolescence boys convictions and rehab and he was referring to various black leaders,players,actors,and performers . He was comparing white film artists,radio hosts,political leaders and bankers.
    State does cater to the needs and concerns of the majority ethnic group when the majority controls the economics,politics,and the academy and also the media . This attitude and implicit arrangement are ignored in case of the minorities if the room is there and there is always room at those levels where deliberations and decision take place away from public view and participation.
    France is unique to denigrate the color,race,religion based politics and expression . So it seems ironic to see the marginalization. But the appearance could be deceptive. French Philopsopher Bernard Levy is not reprimanded for instigation of violence abroad ( against Libya or Iran or Gaza) . Hollande is not criticized and punished for killing the family members of some of these immigrants from Africa in their home countries in the name of fighting terror. Neither the French ever bother to question or hold candle light vigil for the victims of the grinding exploitative oppressive French support for some of the worst thugs in Sub Saharan Africa. Neither they question or demonstrate against involvement in Syria. But these French have always something to say against Iran or China or Pakistan . French citizen don’t demonstrate when the news paper channel lies that can kill people . They don’t question the French law of jailing people accused of questioning the Holocaust . Their leaders can threaten jail for making sign ( reverse of Nazi salute) and they feel comfortable with this . The typical French reaction against Vietnam and Algerian freedom movement were no different than the reactions and responses of the French citizen of today against the French involvement in various conflicts . The country was taking care of their needs . French has no reason to agitate and spoil the good time . Even today French ships like other European and Japanese ships continue to dump toxic garbage off the coast of Somalia. Now a Somalian is supposed to not throw litters on the streets of Mersailles ! They are not causally and environmentally related but the relation does exist at another level .
    Genetic dont explain the passivity or nonviolence . State has taken over that role .

  16. bossel says:
    @Bill P

    That’s exactly how I grew up

    Same here, though different part of Europe.

    @ bob sykes

    The Muslim/African population in France (and the rest of Europe) is not only unassimilable, it is openly hostile to European culture

    Nope. I met (& have seen) quite a number of well integrated (though only partially assimilated) Muslims.

    Bigger problems usually only develop if you concentrate a large number of them in one place, as happened in France with the Banlieues.

  17. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The way American schools of the 1880-1920 period dealt with a huge mass of immigrant children was to make them think their own native cultures were the equivalent of body lice. It was a remarkably effective technique at producing assimilation, especially when an immigrant child in school was surrounded by WASP children whose American nationality went back to colonial days. Unfortunately, liberal philosophy has declared that we’re too enlightened for that sort of solution anymore.

    But even if we tried, we could not reproduce our ancestors’ results. Today, whites are isolated in private schools and suburban schools, and immigrants are massed together in inner-city public schools where they are the majority. This keeps immigrant culture intact and won’t produce assimilation–or, even worse, the ‘American culture’ they learn is black thug culture, if the immigrants end up in black inner-city schools.

    The melting pot is going to stay lumpy for some time.

  18. This photo illustration from Alain Soral’s site takes a clever shot at the way the political class in France is pushing one message only now:

    It really is a strategy of: “don’t think, feel”.

  19. ka says:

    France is not unique to fold from under behind the scene pressure . The freedom expression league did worry of safety at not so distant past. Let me quite this comment from http://www.mondoweiss.net


    ritzl
    January 9, 2015, 12:28 pm
    …..

    And as Max Blumenthal pointed out, Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist (Maurice Sinet/Siné) for ONE allegedly anti-semitic article and cartoons; link to en.wikipedia.org (for which he received death threats from the JDL).

    The rag was definitely not an equal opportunity offender.

    I’m so not Charlie.
    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/why-i-am-not-charlie/comment-page-1#comment-737136

  20. rod1963 says:

    Peter Frost

    “Whites don’t stick up for each other.”

    This is a maxim in regards to modern day whites. A reality that was created by the state and corporations have broken up the old family structure and ethnic communities for their own needs over the last century.

    Here’s the thing the state would rather manage atomized individuals that cohesive ethnics that they can’t screw or manipulate very easily. So they worked hard to break up the old ties and turn a Pole or Italian into a generic American consumer/taxpayer. It goes further, remember how whites used to use their extended family to care for their elderly instead of the modern method of sending them to some hell hole senior center to croak? Day care? Wasn’t needed since the community was there. People looked out for each other. With that ceasing the state rolled in and became the extended family.

    It also become the mother and father by virtue of forced schooling. Mom and dad didn’t raise junior and missy anymore, they were lucky to see their spawn a couple hours a day before bed time. Strangers and other kids raised yours.

    The corporations wanted docile easily manipulated workers for their factories. They didn’t want the sort of people who would stick together and not tolerate being screwed over by the managerial class. They also wanted people to buy what their factories produced, so they confused their wants and needs and presto they produced a consumer.

    Hence the rise of the atomized secular white. Easy prey for the government and other ethnic groups.

  21. Sean says:

    “The gruesome attack on Charlie Hebdo has earned condemnation around the world. It has been called ..a a barbaric act by Stephen Harper”.

    No country for old men, Canada used to prize immigrants who would make good citizens. Now people with job offers have jumped to the front of the queue “The new Canadians are younger and better educated than ever before, boasts Mr Alexander. “Our immigrants have a much higher incidence of post-secondary degrees than the Canadian population at large,” he says. That bodes well for Canada’s future.”

    About 35,000 people have marched through the German city of Dresden in protest against recent so-called anti-Islamisation rallies, organisers say. The turnout is nearly double that of the largest demonstration by anti-Islamists Pegida, held last Monday.

    Like anorexia this cognitive glitch strikes the most affluent.

  22. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Modern France is founded on Western principles of equality, human betterment, and universal morality. Anyone anywhere can become French. That view, the official one

    Not so, according to recent pronouncements by the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls:

    “French Prime Minister: If Jews Flee, the Republic Will Be a Failure
    Manuel Valls: “If 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/french-prime-minister-warns-if-jews-flee-the-republic-will-be-judged-a-failure/384410/

    In an interview conducted before the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket massacres, Valls told me that if French Jews were to flee in large numbers, the soul of the French Republic would be at risk.

    “The choice was made by the French Revolution in 1789 to recognize Jews as full citizens,” Valls told me. “To understand what the idea of the republic is about, you have to understand the central role played by the emancipation of the Jews. It is a founding principle.”

    Valls, a Socialist who is the son of Spanish immigrants, describes the threat of a Jewish exodus from France this way: “If 100,000 French people of Spanish origin were to leave, I would never say that France is not France anymore. But if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.

    So according to the French Prime Minister, modern France is founded on, to put it simply, Jews. France is only France insofar as Jews are there. If French of Spanish origin leave, France is still France. But if Jews leave France, France is no longer France. Presumably, if French people of French origin left France, France would still be France as long as Jews are still there.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @ka
    , @Dan
  23. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    18 July, 2004: French Jews ‘must move to Israel “Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has urged all French Jews to move to Israel immediately to escape anti-Semitism.”

    10 November 2014: Young Jews see bright future in Berlin “When Nir Iveniaki told his grandmother in Tel Aviv that he was emigrating to Germany, the first thing she did was produce a gun [...] In recent weeks, the debate has found a fulcrum in the form of a now-notorious Facebook page, Olim Le Berlin – a name that plays on the Hebrew word commonly used to encourage immigration to Israel. It was initially launched anonymously by a recent arrival to Berlin – 25-year-old mobile app designer Naor Narkis, who last month revealed his identity in the Washington Post. From his perch on the internet, he has lorded inexpensive puddings and cheap gym memberships.”

    • Replies: @KA
  24. ka says:

    Braking up of the family as an intended consequence is not restricted to the White . it is so glaringly obvious among the Afro Americans .

  25. Social Security is openly a Ponzi scheme. Healthcare will be one soon enough. The only way to keep a Ponzi scheme from collapsing is constant recruitment of new members.

    You can delay the inevitable, and secure your own immediate future, at the cost of your genetic heritage. Some choice.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  26. ka says:
    @Anonymous

    These are cheap shibboleths and empty platitudes . Jews dont buy .They have watched worst groveling by US politicians . But it is necessary and serves a purpose even when it is meaningless .It suppresses alternates and hides or makes the genuine grievances against Israel disappear

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  27. @anon
    “So according to the French Prime Minister, modern France is founded on, to put it simply, Jews.”

    Yeah, but what are they founded on? Or is it Jews all the way down?

  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ka

    Apparently the cheap shibboleths and empty platitudes are that modern France is founded on Western principles of equality, human betterment, and universal morality and that anyone anywhere can become French. That is not the case. Modern France is founded on the status of Jews and only Jews in France can truly be French.

  29. martin says:
    @leftist conservative

    The reason that whites don’t stick together is that, because most if not all of the people one interacts with on a daily basis are white, therefore any bad experiences with other people are inevitably going to be with other white people.

    Consider the case of a hard-up old lady I know who was conned out of 1000 pounds by a (white) tradesman. Am I supposed to feel any ethnic solidarity with that man because he is white? If I could press a button that would kill him or kill a random Muslim or black I would without hesitation kill him.

    I think that it is obvious that whites create the best societies, and this is why it is crucial to maintain a white majority in white countries. This has little to do with ethnic solidarity for its own sake, but for the sake of preserving valuable societies and cultures. But individual whites are certainly not necessarily more moral, intelligent, or competent.

  30. ka says:

    It is disturbing to note that 42% of Americans, 51% of Republicans, and 46% of Independents all believe this long since discredited belief, many years after the Bush Administration, which used WMD as the basis for the entire war, conceded they were wrong.
    http://news.antiwar.com/2015/01/07/poll-42-of-americans-think-troops-found-wmds-in-iraq/

    http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2015/false/

    Contact Us: [email protected] — FDU Florham Campus, 285 Madison Avenue, Madison, N.J. 07940 — 973-443-8500
    America is poised for take over once again by the neocon . CNN and FOX are playing on the fear and the fire ,latest example is generated by the attack on the cartoonist . Neocns did not appear from out of blue .The ground was prepared for 11 years by the media for attack on Iraq . Next time the neocons will have this 42% morons with their ballot already cast for the neocon’s arrival .

    • Replies: @GW
    , @TWS
  31. KA says:
    @Sean

    This is so ironic. Once the Jewish people arrive,France will be accused of forced transfer and will be asked to pay the reparations.

  32. Hacienda says:

    Damn those French. They never learn. They’re still suckers for Liberty, Fraternity, Equality:

    http://time.com/3662772/paris-march-solidarity-terrorism/

  33. @Ozymandias

    Social Security is openly a Ponzi scheme.

    No it isn’t. Real Ponzi schemes, for all their duplicity, do start with some assets. Social Security (i.e., the US program) is pure welfare, and has no assets at all.

    So ruled the Supreme Court in 1962.

  34. KA says:

    Now the threat has reached Israeli news paper Haaretz .(http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/journalists-publication-newspaper) and its also on the Facebook .

    n the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris last week Haaretz published a daring cartoon juxtaposing journalists* killed in Gaza by Israel during the brutal summer slaughter with the journalists killed at the office of the satirical magazine in Paris. This set off a chain reaction which ultimately led to calls for murdering Haaretz journalists after Ronen Shoval, founder of the neo-Zionist and proto-fascist Im Tirtzu movement, called for an investigation of the newspaper’s editors.

    10 journalists killed in attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris (top), about 13 journalists killed last summer in attack on Gaza (bottom).

    Shoval, who is running in the primary election of the religious Zionist Habayit Hayehudi “Jewish Home” political party called for the investigation “on suspicion of ‘defeatist propaganda’ under Statute 103 of Israel’s penal code” on his Facebook page. Users of the social media site weighed in, Haaretz reported several of the threats:

    A raft of death threats came in. “We must do what the terrorists did to them in France, but at Haaretz,” wrote Facebook user Chai Aloni. “Why is there no terror attack at Haaretz?” wrote Moni Ponte.

    “Let the terrorists eliminate them,” wrote Daniella Peretz. “With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France,” wrote Miki Dahan. As Danit Hajaj put it, “They should die.”

    “Haaretz is where the terrorists should have gone,” wrote Riki Michael. “Death to traitors,” added Moshe Mehager. “I hope that terrorism reaches Haaretz as well,” wrote Tuval Shalom. “With God’s help, [there will be] a Hamas operation that kills all of you, like the journalists in France,” wrote Ruti Hevroni.

    Haaretz’s editorial staff said the cartoons published in the project were a personal gesture by the newspaper’s designers, not the editorial board, and this is how they were presented.

    After the recent alarming death threats a spokesperson for Haaretz’s editorial staff had this to say:
    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/journalists-publication-newspaper#sthash.aPMhlshJ.dpuf

  35. anon • Disclaimer says:

    @Smiddy

    “the greatest perpetrators of “spinning multiculturalism” are actually American universities”

    Not on my TV.

    Millions of people from the *bottom* of the economic ladder in their original countries were imported into the West and unsurprisingly most of them now sit permanently at the bottom of the economic ladder in the West also and the media/politicians responsible use this as an excuse for all the problems caused.

  36. Geoff-UK says:

    2 possibilities:
    1) Diluting WASP populations by virtue of mass immigration unwanted by the WASP majority is an act of stupidity, or
    2) It’s on purpose

    If it’s on purpose, who sees benefit in the W-word G-word-that-can’t-be-name? Hmm…Eskimos? Eskimos better hope WASPs don’t figure out the plan ahead of the last step.

  37. Bill P says:

    So according to the French Prime Minister, modern France is founded on, to put it simply, Jews. France is only France insofar as Jews are there. If French of Spanish origin leave, France is still France. But if Jews leave France, France is no longer France. Presumably, if French people of French origin left France, France would still be France as long as Jews are still there.

    -Anonymous

    Actually, that’s true technically speaking. Modern Europe’s legitimacy does depend entirely on Jews.

    That’s why the Muslims are so restless, and the nativist right is so fiercely suppressed.

    Without Jews, postwar Europe has no moral, political or spiritual foundation. What do the governments of Germany and France stand on besides the Holocaust? It is the sine qua non of national legitimacy from Donetsk to Calais.

    But this isn’t really the Jews’ fault. More like a useful narrative they came up with that both Anglos and Russians have seized on to impose their will on the continent. When it breaks down, we’ll be in for quite a ride.

    Hopefully there will be no more anti-Jew hysteria next time. What a shamefully small-minded, counterproductive effort that was.

  38. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The Narrative: The view of the world made normative by media and academia through the group dynamic emergent from each individual attempting to avoid confrontation with the group by assuming that media and academia set standards of conceptual and mythic vocabulary.

    In European derived countries, The Narrative is typically dominated by the diaspora Ashkenazi Jewish “swing vote” in media and academia. Therefore, you can expect events, that directly threaten diaspora Jews will shift The Narrative accordingly. In the present instance, the default posture of The Narrative for open borders is maintained until there is a direct threat to diaspora Jews — in this case in France. The Narrative then starts to admit, on a case-by-case basis, rationality to penetrate its default posture.

  39. @Anonymous

    Anonymous wrote:
    The Narrative: The view of the world made normative by media and academia through the group dynamic emergent from each individual attempting to avoid confrontation with the group by assuming that media and academia set standards of conceptual and mythic vocabulary.

    In European derived countries, The Narrative is typically dominated by the diaspora Ashkenazi Jewish “swing vote” in media and academia.

    I agree with your description of The Narrative in your first paragraph, although your description is too highly jargonized.

    However, in your second paragraph, you blame the Jews for The Narrative. I disagree. The Narrative is a result of forces, and those forces have nothing to do with Jews. Jews are tools for those forces.

    What forces? The most powerful forces in this human ecosystem–large aggregations of Capital. Money. Big Money. Large corporations. Plutocrats.

    Just because jews happen to be disproportionately rich does not mean that they are the ones responsible for The Narrative. Consider this fact: even if every single Jew in the world disappeared tomorrow, The Narrative would still exist and the forces that create and support it would still do so.

    Why?

    Because The Narrative serves a purpose. It makes Big Money Bigger. And Big Money wants to be Bigger. That is a force. And unless countered effectively, that force of Big Money will continue to influence society in order to bolster and propagate The Narrative.

    Big Money uses tools to create The Narrative. What tools? Educated people, for one.

    What do we know about “educated people” in general? Well, for one, they are disproportionately Jews. That fact is due to the makeup and history of the Diaspora Jews. Their culture and historical circumstances led them to value education. They played a major role in creating modern science because of this. And their high degree of education allows them to be useful tools for Large Aggregations Of Capital that wish to create and propagate a narrative that will make those Large Aggregations Of Capital even larger. Their dominance in ivy league colleges allowed many of them to become rich.

    The whole problem with the set of people who say “The Jews Are Behind Anti-White Multiculturalism” is that they are basically employing cargo cult analysis. To refresh your memory on cargo cult culture, it was born of the airstrips on pacific islands during world war 2. The allies built airstrips on the islands to carry out war against japan. The planes that landed on these airstrips carried cargo, including food and other stuff. In order to keep the natives happy, the allies gave them some of the cargo. The natives sure did love that cargo. Good food! Tools! They sure loved that Spam!

    Then the war ended. No more planes landed on airstrips. No more cargo!

    What to do?

    Well, the natives thought, well, let’s build us some more airstrips, complete with control towers, and that will cause the planes to land. And we will get more cargo.

    So they did build the new airstrips. But the planes still did not land.

    Hmm.

    The natives failed to understand the forces that caused the planes to land in the first place. Their analysis of the situation was superficial.

    Same issue plagues your mind when you blame the jews. The jews are simply the best tools to help Capital create and propagate The Narrative. The Narrative exists because multiculturalism increases GDP and corporate profits. And that makes Big Money Bigger.

    In order to increase GDP and corporate profits, Big Money will use whatever tools it has available to increase profits and GDP.

    Multiculturalism increases the supply of labor faster than the demand for labor, thus depressing wages. That makes Big Money Bigger.

    Multiculturalism enables and facilitates mass immigration. More workers and more consumers. More corporate revenue, more profits. That makes Big Money Bigger.

    White people have fewer babies now. Uh oh.

    Big Money operates america and the West as a livestock operation. Big Money wants as many human livestock on the ranch as possible. Gotta make up for the loss in white babies.

    Head ‘em up, move ‘em out, keep those immigrants moving, rawhide, hell bent for leather, any kind of weather, rolling till the end of the line…

    But if you don’t prep the minds of young whites in school and via the media and academia, they will not allow mass immigration of third world foreigners. Big Money had to change the culture to one that accepts and even adores nonwhites, in general. It took decades to implant the ideological propaganda-seed of multiculturalism and white self-loathing. But those seeds planted in young white minds bore a rich harvest of white guilt and nonwhite idolization. That allowed and enabled mass immigration, racial integration etc. More human livestock. Higher GDP. More corporate profits. Cram that third world labor into the workplace. Cram them into the malls. More income. More profits. And multiculturalism and white race guilt are the lubricants that allow this machine to operate.

    And even if every jew in the world disappeared tomorrow, Big Money would still want to get Bigger, and multiculturalism is a very good tool for making Big Money Bigger. And so multiculturalist propaganda would still be crammed into the minds of impressionable young whites via academia, media and Hollywood. Jews or no Jews.

    You have to look beyond the surface and analyze the forces underneath. To do otherwise is mere cargo cult analysis.

    • Replies: @Dan
    , @skep
  40. skep says:
    @Anonymous

    There are many things to say about what happened with CH:
    1° it was a left-wingist paper enjoying assailing catholics and conservatives, led by leftists and freemasons… You can’t understand what happens in France if you ignore the fact the french state is an oligarchic masonic state, french masonists being the ideologic heirs of the butchers of 1793. You can’t access some high level state executive jobs (domestic security, education, justice, health care system …) if you are not part of a masonic lodge. It’s a mafia. They are the real backbone -along with the sionists- of the republic.
    2° Discrimination: living in France, i am very surprised to learn in the official datas that there are just 65 millions people living in France, just 600 000 jewish people, just 6 millions muslims; a jewish friend of mine told me that the recurrence of the number 6 in such datas was a benchmark of jewish falsification.
    Those figures are outliers for whoever lives in the banlieus (i worked there for 10 years) and intellectually suffers from the globalist french MSM; they are largely understated; i would rather say 4 /5 millions jews and ver 15 millions muslims, in my opinion; but to publish such figures would led nationalists in the governement. This can lead to deem that muslims are segregated; the fact is that they come from shame culture where community is prevalent, and the have the consistent trend to impose their way of live to there, forcing them to leave the place where muslims are a majority, segregating and discrimining the non muslims. An other consistent fact is that many mosques are built and paid by the taxpayer money: what a discrimination!
    Indeed, many of my algerian or moroccan friends are graduates and are well bread and educated: the main factor of social failure among

    • Replies: @skep
  41. Bill P says:

    One has to look carefully as to where the lines are drawn on the map of the old countries. Mine and your ancestors might be on the outside looking in.

    -Cracker1

    OK then, even if Scots aren’t NW Europeans by this narrow-minded definition (although it seems ridiculous to me to exclude them) surely they must be easier to assimilate than African Muslims, so why don’t the French do like the English did in Ulster and on the American frontier and import a few tens of thousands of them to deal with trouble around Paris?

    They could do their thing and then easily be absorbed into the French nation within a couple generations once the smoke clears from the banlieus. It’s a simple and elegant solution. Well, “elegant” might be pushing it, but it would probably work, and the French could console themselves with the fact that they are not technically “Anglais.”

  42. skep says:
    @skep

    sorry for my non-ended comment.
    I just wanted to say there are a very big chinese community about which you never hear, as you will never hear about my muslim educated friends: it will surprise you, but you will find many algerian, moroccan, tunisian ingeneers or with Ph.d or masters; but they have all a common point: they were well bread by their parents , and got most of the time a severe education; the real shame consists in judiciary laissez-faire where any wrong-doing from that community is considered as induced by culture and “colonisation”, laissez-faire that would never happen in north african countries. There are no more police, nor firemen, nor doctors or any kind of services in the banlieus because they are unceasingly assaulted by minorities of “youngs”, with the bless of the leftist judiciary system (the well-known”Syndicat de la Magistature”) and corrupted politicians and MSM. Huge quantities of money are poured in the french banlieus (40 billions i think), to no avail…
    An other problem is the IQ: in the northern banlieue of Paris, twenty years ago, according to a multicu doctor i met at that time, the median IQ was arround 85. It was before the huge arrival of subsaharians , but IQ is a french tabou…
    So i support this article of Peter Frost that i consider as pecularly truthful and fairminded.

    And sorry for the spelling mistakes…

  43. Dan says:
    @leftist conservative

    Cargo Cult?

    No.

    The New Guinea natives built Bamboo radios and bamboo aircraft. You can’t seriously compare that level of Stone Age ignorance about aircraft to what we see in Europe and North America and race replacement. If anything the Cargo Cult is the dumb invite to blacks and browns to move to Europe and America.

  44. Dan says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s odd. Post ww2 France might well be. The French socialist party is a nest.

    I don’t think the Republic was supposed to be centrally Jewish enterprise though.

    If you said that Cromwell’s commonwealth was a Jewish plot you’d be stoned.

  45. skep says:
    @leftist conservative

    “White people have fewer babies now.”

    Very interesting analysis; but not only White people; religious have many children, catholic as muslim. But education and working women decrease the fecondity rate, and many educated african girls of the second or third generation of immigrants – as arobo-berber as subsaharian- don’t get maried or have few children – as much as european natives. One reason is the status of submission of women in most african and muslim societies that those girls want to avoid, an other the high cost of the life in western Europe, that prevents from having too many children if you want to give them a correct education.
    Hence the finance oligarchy needs more and more immigrants, as low-skilled jobs are fewer and fewer, and those immigrants say non-muslims white are racist because they don’t give such jobs, as some graduate muslims think they are discriminated whereas there are no jobs available for anybody. This is the consistent consequence of rigged datas, and communitarianism make them parano. France is just overpopulated. If you believe that i lie, take the suburban transports around Paris!
    A french lib-conservative politician said: “we import low-skilled or illiterate people and export PH.d graduates”; that’s not relevant: indeed we import 80 IQ people and export over 130 IQ ; in the former, you can train people; not in the latter anyway.

  46. pyrrhus says:
    @JayMan

    Young men are violent because for millions of years their role in hunter/gatherer groups was largely hunting and warfare with other groups.Evolution selected for men who could succeed in those roles. As Frost indicates, some of this was bred out in Europe by executing more violent individuals at a high rate, but the rest of the world remains the same….So Africans are much more violent than Europeans, and nothing can be done about it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Jim
  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @pyrrhus

    Yes, William Tecumseh Sherman, Curtis LeMay, the SS, the Navy SEALs were and are all African.

  48. Bill P says:

    Yes, William Tecumseh Sherman, Curtis LeMay, the SS, the Navy SEALs were and are all African.

    -Anonymous

    Don’t be a fool and make these sorts of false equivalencies.

    Objectively speaking, chimpanzees are far more violent than humans, but even in his wildest dreams no chimp – or group of chimps – could hope to match the 8th Air Force in sheer destructive power.

    Does it follow, then, that if one comes across a human on the street one should be more worried than if there’s a hulking, sullen chimp knuckling his way down the sidewalk?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  49. No pundit, think tanker, expert, head of state, and certainly no Frenchman should be permitted to opine on the Hebdo provocations and retaliatory assassinations, and the cycle of violence, until he/she has read “A Tale of Two Cities,” from “It was the best of times …” to “It is a far far better thing I do.”

    Pay close attention to the punishments levied by the State, and in retaliation for acts of the state.

    The Tall Man whose son was run over and killed by the Marquis in his recklessly driven carriage kills the Marquis. He is apprehended by soldiers, held isolated in prison, then hung 40′ above the town fountain, polluting the village’s water supply.

    Je suis Jacques One, Two, Three, Four …..

  50. When I see “Je suis Charlie” superimposed on a bold red banner with a black स्वस्तिक in the center, then I will believe that the leaders of the free world, those linked-arm champions of civilized society (even the one who checked his combover after his bodyguard pointed him in the direction of the camera http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/212583/how-bibi-tried-to-make-paris-all-about-him/#ixzz3OelHbwXp ), really, truly, endorse free speech for ALL.

    Because if anybody is excluded from “Je suis Charlie,” then free speech is a mockery.

  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P

    Don’t be a pathetic beta male and assume that the combination of low intelligence and impulsiveness is some sort of sign of toughness and the ability to produce destructive violence.

    It’s a lot easier to kill a chimp than a man. Men use tools and a chimp has no chance against a man whether he’s armed with guns or more primitive tools.

  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Incidentally, while Charlie Hebdo regularly published anti-Christian and anti-Islamic content with official impunity, one of its cartoonists was put on trial on charges of “anti-Semitism”:

    “French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

  53. “That these “immigrants” are socially marginalized in France is asserted in virtually every essay or blog post I have read on this topic. Those essayists and bloggers thereby compare the US favorably with France when it comes to integrating immigrants.”

    Majority opinion isn’t always right. If it were, why would I bother writing? Yes, American and French pundits want France to follow the American model. Most of them get generously paid for writing, and that money comes directly or indirectly from corporate donors who believe in the globalist project and want more immigration. They see France as a weak link, and a lot of money is being funnelled — on both the right and the left — to make the French look bad, if not evil.

    “What evidence do you have for your statement: “Yet the reverse is closer to the truth.”

    Pierre van den Berghe (an anthropologist) routinely assigns his freshmen students the following task: “Name all four of your grandparents.” Most of them can’t. If you do the same experiment in a non-Western society, you’ll get close to 100% success.

    In Western societies, the natives are much more socially marginal than the immigrants. They have fewer kinfolk, and the kinfolk they do have are often total strangers. They have fewer friends, and the friends they do have are unreliable. In general, non-Western immigrants in Western societies have better and more solid social networks. I’ve been told this repeatedly by many immigrants. For a while, they try to integrate into the host society, only to find out that there’s not much to integrate into.

    “a significant part of the social pathology of the immigrant population in France is due to lack of foresight on the part of the city planners who planned the communities where the immigrants are now settled.”

    Most of those communities were postwar planned communities. They were initially inhabited by ethnic French or European immigrants (Jews, Poles, Italians, etc.) who had no problem finding work. Those jobs have largely disappeared because employers are afraid to locate in areas that have such a high level of crime. Another reason is that globalization has offshored most of the manufacturing jobs. Those were good-paying jobs that didn’t require a lot of intellectual work. Now they’re gone and the unemployed are told that they should become computer programmers.

    “Eh, isn’t this normal for NW Europeans? That’s exactly how I grew up, and my mom’s mainly Scottish (Scots Irish in American vernacular) by ancestry. If you came home crying without any visible marks it was really considered shameful, and neither physical nor psychological weakness were tolerated — especially when it came to “combat sports and group games.” Injuries – including real wounds – were not so much a source of sympathy as a point of pride. I still have the scars to prove it, and without modern joint surgery half my male relatives would be cripples by now. ”

    I hear you. I initially went to an elementary school where most of the kids were of English background. There was some playground fighting but it wasn’t a daily occurrence. More to the point, if you didn’t want to get involved, you didn’t have to. My family then moved and I began going to a school where most of the kids were of “Scots-Irish” background. Fighting was a daily occurrence, and you couldn’t politely decline. The reasons were also more trivial, or even nonexistent. Things like “lack of respect” or “I don’t like your face.”

    Pacification of social relations came much later to the borderlands of Scotland and England — the homeland of the Scots-Irish. Endemic violence persisted until the 18th century. Any encounter with non-kin, however innocent, could turn violent. ‘‘In a world of treachery and danger, blood relationships became highly important. Families grew into clans, and kinsmen placed fidelity to family above loyalty to the crown itself’’. Disputes would grow into long-running feuds unless settled through payment of blood money.

    D.H. Fischer, Albion’s Seed. Four British Folkways in America, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 1989.

    “Because most whites are taught early on that white solidarity, white racial consciousness is The Most Evil Thing On Earth.”

    Social atomization of Western societies goes back long before political correctness. In fact, there seems to have been a longstanding tendency toward weaker kinship and stronger individualism since at least the 12th century.

    Face it. We’ll never be good at the gang thing. Our societies tend to organize at a higher level, but for that we’ll have to take back control of our culture.

    “France is unique to denigrate the color,race,religion based politics and expression”

    No, France is not unique. Traditionally, there were only two ways to enter any human society: (1) by being born to a member of it or (2) by marrying a member. That is still the way most societies on this planet work. By comparison, France is a model of color-blindness, religion-blindness, and race-blindness.

    Western societies, like France, have moved to a model of “civic” or “propositional” nationalism where anyone can join by claiming adherence to a set of abstract propositions. That model isn’t working, partly because people will lie in order to enjoy a better life and partly because human behavior is not simply a product of conscious decisions. It’s also a product of emotions and desires.

    “remember how whites used to use their extended family to care for their elderly instead of the modern method of sending them to some hell hole senior center to croak?”

    That model was already falling apart when universal pensions were introduced in the 1960s. One reason was that more people were living longer, often in a semi-invalid state. Another reason was that people were more mobile, so children were often far away from their parents. Finally, family size had also shrunk, so there were fewer people to help the elderly.

    I agree that the current model is now, likewise, falling apart. There is no easy answer.

    “Consider the case of a hard-up old lady I know who was conned out of 1000 pounds by a (white) tradesman.”

    In the past, such a person would have been judged morally worthless and excluded from society.

    “Jews, jews, jews, jews”

    Please, knock it off. If I complain about the cold weather, will someone tell me that the Jews are responsible? The level of Jew-obsession in some of these comments is becoming ridiculous.

  54. iffen says:

    ““Jews, jews, jews, jews”
    Please, knock it off. If I complain about the cold weather, will someone tell me that the Jews are responsible? The level of Jew-obsession in some of these comments is becoming ridiculous.”

    I have hope for you yet, Mr. Frost.

  55. RW says:

    Maybe the French actually deserve this, after all those years of criticizing the United States for being an intolerant racist country.

  56. Numinous says:

    Majority opinion isn’t always right. If it were, why would I bother writing? Yes, American and French pundits want France to follow the American model. Most of them get generously paid for writing, and that money comes directly or indirectly from corporate donors who believe in the globalist project and want more immigration. They see France as a weak link, and a lot of money is being funnelled — on both the right and the left — to make the French look bad, if not evil.

    Peter, thanks for taking the time to respond. But I’m really not sure what you are getting at here. Sure, majority opinion isn’t always right, but if it isn’t, that opinion ought to be easy to disprove, no? Yet, what I see expressed in the above paragraph is something that approaches a conspiracy theory. Are you saying that there’s no real difference between the USA and France when it comes to assimilating immigrants, and all that we hear is propaganda? Rod Dreher over at TAC (no liberal, not pro-immigration, as far as I know) also keeps saying that Muslims in France seem to be on the margins; does he have a vested interest too?

    Pierre van den Berghe (an anthropologist) routinely assigns his freshmen students the following task: “Name all four of your grandparents.” Most of them can’t. If you do the same experiment in a non-Western society, you’ll get close to 100% success.

    I am seriously (and I mean seriously) skeptical about this. But I have no basis to challenge you on this apart from anecdotes (about immigrants and Americans alike.) I’d like to hear what others have to say on this topic though.

    In Western societies, the natives are much more socially marginal than the immigrants. They have fewer kinfolk, and the kinfolk they do have are often total strangers. They have fewer friends, and the friends they do have are unreliable. In general, non-Western immigrants in Western societies have better and more solid social networks. I’ve been told this repeatedly by many immigrants. For a while, they try to integrate into the host society, only to find out that there’s not much to integrate into.

    When I went to the US for the first time as a grad student in my early 20s, I recall rooming with people from my home country, and getting in touch with others from my home country for help, in the beginning. But that was a temporary phase, and it was only getting into social circles with American friends did I really understand the country and felt at home there. Never did I get the feeling that Americans (white or Asian, that was my circle) lacked friends or close kinship ties, or didn’t know who grandma or grandpa were. It was the other way round for the foreign students. For most such students, the first (and sometimes second) Thanksgiving is the loneliest time they spend in the US. Americans have family; these students don’t have a social network (yet).
    I have on doubt that you speak from knowledge and authentic experience, but you probably refer to a different set of immigrants (and natives) than the ones I had all my interactions with.

  57. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    Please, knock it off.

    Good argument. Very convincing.

    Look, you’re just as obsessed as anyone else in this comment thread. The difference is that you’re obsessed with ignoring what’s blatantly right in front of your nose as much as possible. You’re obsessed with ignoring basic empirical data.

  58. RW says:

    I’m not buying what Pierre Van den berg says about most Americans, or was it Westerners, not being able to name all four of their grandparents, UNLESS he is talking about inner-city blacks who don’t know their paternal lineage. No offense Peter, but some anthropologists do sometimes make up anecdotes in order to get praise from their peers.

    (BTW, looking at my previous comment, I think I was a little harsh. The French don’t deserve this. It’s just the general principle.)

  59. RW says:

    Jews are an interesting subset of the population of Europe, I imagine they did not follow the WEMP. And so they may not have the same inclinations. But there was a fair amount of intermarriage over the centuries.

  60. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    Our societies tend to organize at a higher level, but for that we’ll have to take back control of our culture.

    Your model seems to be that higher level organization itself selected for altruistic traits that make higher level organization effective.

    I think a more plausible model is that higher level organization exploited altruistic traits that had been selected for in older environments with smaller scale organization and that higher level organization itself selects against and burns up those altruistic traits that make it successful and effective, per Greg Cochran’s point here:

    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/your-countrys-not-your-blood/

  61. Lesson from Paris is apparently that somebody thinks we are so stupid we will yet again fall for another false flag and start discussing it in exactly the way intended. Ie Bernard Lewis – Samuel Huntington clash of civilizations.
    The police officer writing the report committed suicide
    according to some sources and there is the usual rapid removal of evidence, so it isnt even clear that all the claimed murders really happened.
    It isnt a farfetched doubt since several prior events in the Us such as the Boston Maraton bombing and the Sandy Hook school shooting turned out to be fake despite the media recently repeating the false death counts.

    • Replies: @Sideways
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    but for that we’ll have to take back control of our culture.

    This of course implies that we have lost control of our culture and that the various social developments being discussed and critiqued here are the result of the culture and the people who have taken control of the culture away from us influencing society. Yet you dismiss anyone else who makes points or arguments along these lines.

    So who are these people, who are not us, that have taken control of our culture away from us?

  63. TWS says:
    @ka

    Quit advertising your blog. If you want hits buy an advert from Unz.

  64. TWS says:
    @Peter Frost

    Pierre van den Berghe (an anthropologist) routinely assigns his freshmen students the following task: “Name all four of your grandparents.” Most of them can’t. If you do the same experiment in a non-Western society, you’ll get close to 100% success.

    That can’t be right. Freshmen don’t know their grandparents? Where the Hell did he teach, inner-city Philadelphia or Detroit?

    My kids can name their great-grandparents. I don’t know anyone who cannot name his grandparents and I live in a very socioeconomically depressed area. It’s not like Thurston Howell III is running around here.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    , @Sideways
  65. Bill P says:
    @TWS

    This site’s readers are a self-selected bunch. I don’t know for sure whether it’s true that most American freshmen cannot name all four grandparents, but it wouldn’t really surprise me.

    Consider the fact that most kids do not reach the age of 18 in intact families. Then there’s the issue of mobility. People who grow up far away from their grandparents tend not to know them.

    I’m a genXer whose parents divorced when I was quite young, as was the fashion at the time (today, people don’t even bother getting married until the age of 35 or so, kids or not), and I was fortunate in that my mother chose to stay close to home, possibly because my grandparents provided daily, free daycare when she really needed the help. Some of my friends whose parents split up, on the other hand, never saw their fathers let alone paternal grandparents.

    Today, we are seeing a second generation grow up in the broken home era. A lot of today’s kids are the children of people like me and many of my friends, who grew up without our fathers around, often without knowing or having met our grandparents. It only stands to reason that after a couple generations of this it becomes the norm.

    Boomers may not really be aware of how much the concept of family has changed because the society they grew up in was fundamentally different from the one their grandkids inhabit. They would have to look backward, at their wake so to speak, to see it for what it is.

    Incidentally, that’s a strange paradox of human psychology, isn’t it? We see the past as behind us and the future as ahead, but it is really the future that follows us.

    • Replies: @Jim
  66. Sideways says:
    @TWS

    He taught at University of Washington, which has an 85% white+Asian+international student population. I don’t believe it, either. One of my grandfathers ran off before my mother was born and never met her, but I still know his name.

  67. “Rod Dreher over at TAC (no liberal, not pro-immigration, as far as I know) also keeps saying that Muslims in France seem to be on the margins; does he have a vested interest too?”

    I don’t know. I imagine he just accepts what he reads in the press. Why do you cite him as someone whose opinion I might value and respect?

    “Never did I get the feeling that Americans (white or Asian, that was my circle) lacked friends or close kinship ties, or didn’t know who grandma or grandpa were.”

    I’m not American, but from my own visits and conversations with Americans, there seems to be a high degree of social atomization in that country, as in my own. There is a fundamentalist Christian subculture that is trying to fight this trend, but that subculture makes up only between a quarter and a third of the population. Even within that culture, there’s a lot of loneliness, particularly among young unmarried men. I suspect you got a somewhat biased picture of American life.

    “Look, you’re just as obsessed as anyone else in this comment thread. The difference is that you’re obsessed with ignoring what’s blatantly right in front of your nose as much as possible.”

    I’ve discussed the role of Jewish scholars in the antiracist movement, particularly since the early 1930s — when a consensus arose that the struggle against Nazism required a struggle against all forms of hereditarian/racial thinking. I also agree that antiracism now plays a key role in legitimizing the globalist project.

    But suppose that Hitler had never happened and that Jewish thinking on racialism/hereditarianism was all over the board (as it was in the 1920s). Would things be much different today? I don’t think so. There would still be pressure from the business community to outsource jobs to low-wage countries and insource low-wage labor for jobs that cannot be relocated. That pressure has always existed and it’s got progressively worse with improvements in transportation and communication.

    Look at the people who are pushing for globalism. Yes, some of them are Jews, but most aren’t. Often, they come from old WASP families. They’re pushing for immigration and outsourcing because that’s where the money is. This is the logic of late capitalism.

    Perhaps, you think I’m wrong. Fine. But I really believe what I write.

    “I’m not buying what Pierre Van den berg says about most Americans, or was it Westerners, not being able to name all four of their grandparents, UNLESS he is talking about inner-city blacks who don’t know their paternal lineage.”

    These were 1st-year university students at the University of Washington. I’ve tried the same experiment myself with other people, and it’s true. Most people can’t name all four of their grandparents. Even in my case, I know all four only because I made a conscious effort to find out their names. My parents seldom talked about them because of messy family breakups on both sides of my family.

    “I think a more plausible model is that higher level organization exploited altruistic traits that had been selected for in older environments with smaller scale organization and that higher level organization itself selects against and burns up those altruistic traits that make it successful and effective, per Greg Cochran’s point here”

    I respect Greg but I think he’s wrong. The high level of altruism we see in Northwest European societies seems to be part of a larger behavioral complex that goes back at least to the 12th century and probably earlier still. These were not small-scale band societies. These were much larger societies that brought together large numbers of people. Northwest Europeans did develop a stable cultural configuration that made altruism possible, in part through a higher capacity
    for guilt and empathy and in part through ruthless social exclusion of people deemed morally worthless.

    “So who are these people, who are not us, that have taken control of our culture away from us?”

    It’s the top 10% of Western societies, and even more the top 1%. They are net beneficiaries of globalism. They really love it, and they feel no sympathy for the traditional working class that is being displaced. Antiracism has provided a marvellous means for them to feel no guilt over what they’re doing.

  68. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    Look at the people who are pushing for globalism. Yes, some of them are Jews, but most aren’t. Often, they come from old WASP families. They’re pushing for immigration and outsourcing because that’s where the money is. This is the logic of late capitalism.

    Look at the work of people who have done the actual empirical legwork on the history of American immigration policy:

    kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf

    I don’t think empirical work should be hand waved away with appeals to Marxist like theories about late capitalism.

    “Old WASP families” have not played a prominent role in American public life since 50, 60 years ago.

  69. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    These were not small-scale band societies. These were much larger societies that brought together large numbers of people.

    They were smaller than the higher-level organizations that followed like modern nation-states, and the 12th century or so is pretty late. This would be consistent with Cochran’s points.

  70. Hacienda says:
    @Peter Frost

    Antiracism has provided a marvellous means for them to feel no guilt over what they’re doing.

    ———————

    That’s true. Free the Cherokee, the Lakotas, Shawnee, etc. Mankind wasn’t meant to turn the Earth into a block machine.

  71. Numinous says:
    @Peter Frost

    I don’t know. I imagine he just accepts what he reads in the press. Why do you cite him as someone whose opinion I might value and respect?

    Well, he has spent some time in France and has a number of French contacts. I cited him because he is a blogger with a large readership. In any case, that’s not the point. Maybe he’s full of it. But you are also avoiding dealing with the argument on its merits or providing evidence that contradicts the majority. In this case, it’s a simple proposition. Immigrants, especially Muslim ones, seem to be very un-integrated in French society as compared to American society, and a far higher percentage of French natives like to keep the immigrants marginalized as compared to American natives (by which I mean whites.) Most people I have read say yes to this, while you say no. People who say yes typically have lived in France or have a number of French connections. You, on the other hand, posit what seems to me to be a conspiracy theory. That’s the beginning and end of my objection to what you said. And just to be clear, I don’t mean to imply that being marginalized gives anyone a free pass to commit murder or violate social norms of their host societies. But I also assert that it’s very hard for immigrants to integrate if the natives stay aloof and are unwilling to take one step to match an immigrant’s two (or five, pick a number.)

    Regarding social atomization and not knowing one or more grandparents: it seems you are talking about the result of the broken family, divorce, single parenthood, etc. But unless I am mistaken, all of that is a very recent phenomenon, dating to not more than a half-century ago. A hundred years ago, divorce, illegitimacy, and single parenthood, would have subjected one to the same social stigma in a Western country as in a non-Western one, no? Women would not have been stoned as they would in a Middle-Eastern country, but I believe suicides were not unknown for women with illegitimate children, even in the West.
    So if “not-knowing-grandpa” is a result of the 60s cultural changes, I am not sure if that tells us very much about the differences between NW European and other peoples.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    , @skep
  72. “Look at the work of people who have done the actual empirical legwork on the history of American immigration policy”

    Yes, I’m familiar with Kevin’s work. Look, the desire of American employers for low-wage immigrant workers goes back a long time. It was a problem in the late 19th century when the Jewish community was much smaller and much less influential in American life. Ironically, one of its major opponents was Samuel Gompers, a socialist union organizer of Jewish origin.

    From the mid-1920s to the mid-1960s, there was a consensus that the U.S. should remain a high-wage society, and this consensus determined immigration and trade policy. A similar consensus prevailed in Canada and in other Western countries. That consensus broke down for several reasons. Kevin highlights lobbying by Jewish groups, but there were other reasons. The Western powers and the Soviet bloc were vying for influence in the Third World, and there was intense pressure from foreign policy advisors to make immigration policy non-discriminatory. Industry and agribusiness were lobbying for low-wage immigrants because the postwar boom was pushing wage rates upward. In general, there was an optimistic feeling that the postwar boom would go on indefinitely and that there would be plenty of jobs for everybody.

    Once the doors were opened to low-wage labor from the Third World, it became self-perpetuating. One business after another became addicted and clamored for more. The slaughterhouse industry, for instance, used to be a high-wage sector. Now, working conditions are virtually Third World in a supposedly First World country.

    “They were smaller than the higher-level organizations that followed like modern nation-states, and the 12th century or so is pretty late. This would be consistent with Cochran’s points.”

    A society that consisted of hundreds of thousands of people (eventually millions) would not be consistent with Cochran’s points. Moreover, the high altruism/high population societies of Northwest Europe had a stable cultural configuration that broke down only in the 20th century with the breaking down of the mechanisms that kept them going.

    “But you are also avoiding dealing with the argument on its merits or providing evidence that contradicts the majority. In this case, it’s a simple proposition. Immigrants, especially Muslim ones, seem to be very un-integrated in French society as compared to American society, and a far higher percentage of French natives like to keep the immigrants marginalized as compared to American natives”

    French natives simply leave the areas where North African/subSaharan African immigrants settle. All of those banlieues were originally inhabited either by ethnic French or European immigrants (Jews, Poles, Italians, etc.). They began as postwar planned communities with modern facilities and plenty of jobs.

    The term “integration” needs to be demystified. It implies that the native society has large and strong social networks that enables its members to get good jobs and a high quality of life. This isn’t the case. Except for certain rural areas, native French society is highly atomized. It has a higher quality of life because its members are less likely to engage in gratuitous aggressive behavior and is more likely to plan for the future and show greater impulse control. It’s not because they have all solid ethnic networks and all kinds of contacts. Ironically, that is more true for immigrant communities.

    “You, on the other hand, posit what seems to me to be a conspiracy theory.”

    NO!!!!! In fact, I’m the one who’s arguing against conspiracy theories. Globalism is not something that is being pushed simply by wealthy plutocrats. It’s also being pushed by employers of all sorts: landscapers, restaurants, Christmas tree growers, and the like. There is no conspiracy. It’s the logic of the current economic system.

    “But unless I am mistaken, all of that is a very recent phenomenon, dating to not more than a half-century ago.”

    In my family tree, family breakups go back at least to the 1920s. In any case, Western societies have a long history of individualism, which has enabled them to develop societies that are much less based on kinship and based more on other principles of social organization (the market economy, the nation state, etc.).

    Yes, these other organizing principles have taken on a life of their own, and are pushing Western societies toward increasing social atomization. We are indeed moving into uncharted waters, but the beginnings of that movement go a long way back. Western societies have gone the farthest in that direction, and it’s not clear that other societies will continue to imitate the West.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  73. Sean says:

    That these “immigrants” are socially marginalized in France is asserted in virtually every essay or blog post I have read on this topic

    Most of those you seem to be referring to are not immigrants, they are born in France and have full rights, they are as North Africans and French. Communities are marginalised in a sense but in that sense African Americans in the USA are more marginalised. So this idea that America has a genius for social inclusion is very dubious if you look at African Americans. It is not obvious to me that African Americans are less marginalised than Africans in France (there is far more intermarriage in Europe I think).

    If you want to talk about actual immigrants in North America, try immigrants that are being recruited by employers straight into jobs in North America. (Canadian immigration minister: “THE new Canadians are younger and better educated than ever before, boasts Mr Alexander.”

    They get to immigrate because they have job offers, and they have job offers because they have superior qualifications. Employers say they need these qualified people. Why don’t these employers train someone already in the country instead of recruiting a qualified person from abroad. Could it be because they don’t want to pay for training?

    When elected government officials (representing the ‘majority’ opinion according to you) are openly saying that these immigrants are better people who will make a better country that is marginalisation of the indigenous population. Social scientists will strain every fibre to prove that everyone wins with immigration, and you can do that if you take a perspective of global utility. The immigrants gain more than the indigenous lose, and just by moving to a rich country the immigrant magically increases their productivity. The indigenous don’t lose except, when you look at things on what economist regard as an economically invalid perspective, and economics is the study of rational choice so the invalid (national) perspective is irrational or a conspiracy theory.

    A good book is Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century.The author is a development economist and does not accept the HBD explanation for western development at all. Yet he is quite clear that immigration will inexorably accelerate, and is going to result in a lowering of trust, popular legitimacy of law and democracy and Robert D. Putnam-style social capital in Western countries (and further impoverishment of the Third World ). This is not so different to what Peter is saying. So it is by no means true that you can write off Peter’s concerns by saying HBD is mistaken. Several lines of evidence converge on the conclusion that a peaceful high trust societies of the West are on the way out. And the indigenous French and other Europeans are going to be the losers.

    As for this idea you have that there is a single majority that in a democracy will always rule in its own interests, I don’t think history bears that out. An issue will attract a public, but it is not the same public each time. Nor do the institutions in society remain same, they change to meet a need. The West has old institutions that are dying because they are of yesterdays consensus, and not capable of dealing with a new issue, and the public concerned with the issue of immigration is still in the process of forming. Right now it looks like indigenous Europe is dying, and transcending the nationalism that globalism says is a rationally invalid viewpoint. It may be that globalism will totally defeat European ethnic majority nations. But if it does, that would just be the outcome of a conflict, it won’t prove Might does not make Right, because the globalists have a lot of resources on their side.

  74. Bill P says:
    @Numinous

    … a far higher percentage of French natives like to keep the immigrants marginalized as compared to American natives (by which I mean whites.) Most people I have read say yes to this, while you say no. People who say yes typically have lived in France or have a number of French connections.

    This is not true at all. The French are more “tolerant” than Americans, more accepting of mixing cultures, more positive toward cosmopolitanism, etc. They really do act as though being French is a state of mind rather than an ancestry. I lived in France for a while and found that to be the case everywhere I went. If people don’t become “French,” it’s because they don’t want to. Sure, there’s a large, culturally conservative French rural class, but as a rule everyone who matters looks down on them, which is a problem in itself. As for Americans, as recently as the 1960s mixing with even a Norwegian was considered a step down for proper Anglo-Celtic Americans (being from the Pacific NW, I have some Norwegian ancestors and in-laws and saw the snubs first-hand).

    In fact, despite the claims of discrimination, Irish, being English speakers and culturally close to British, had a big advantage over Germans/Nordics from the beginning — their only real hindrance to full acceptance was Catholicism, and in time they even managed to turn that prejudice around on others in large parts of the country. Read Sometimes a Great Notion, set in a backwoods Oregon logging town of all places, for some background on the weird American ethnic pecking order.

    There’s a strong clannish strain in Americans, probably because of the religious pluralism that has always been a characteristic of the country. It seems that a universal faith, like France’s Catholicism, and perhaps more recently Republicanism, can go a long ways toward minimizing ethnic differences. Now that Islam is making headway in France, the French can kiss that advantage goodbye.

  75. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    Look, the desire of American employers for low-wage immigrant workers goes back a long time.

    Exactly. If one variable remains constant while other variables change, the former cannot be causal. This is elementary reasoning.

    Kevin highlights

    He doesn’t simply “highlight”. He explores in detail the mechanism of decisive influence. It’s quite different from vague appeals to “business” or “foreign policy”.

  76. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost

    A society that consisted of hundreds of thousands of people (eventually millions) would not be consistent with Cochran’s points.

    It’s consistent. Regardless of how large those societies were, they became much bigger after the 12th century, and obviously there was nothing comparable to Napoleon’s Grande Armée, the British Empire, modern conscription, etc. in those societies. England’s population at the start of the 12th century was around 1 million. Roman Italy’s population was in the several millions in the first few centuries A.D..

  77. skep says:
    @Numinous

    ” Immigrants, especially Muslim ones, seem to be very un-integrated in French society as compared to American society, and a far higher percentage of French natives like to keep the immigrants marginalized as compared to American natives (by which I mean whites).”

    USA built itself as an immigrant country; it is not the same for european country, whose native population lived the arrival of immigrants as an invasion, at a time when low-skilled jobless people were increasing (70′s). I do know many muslims who live peacefully and successfully, and are relatively well integrated in the french society. We perfectly integrated the former immigrants from Poland, Portugal, Italy,… but all of them were christians, carrying the same values as french people. The problem that we have with the muslim is that Valery Giscard (d’Estaing) abandonned the principle of assimilation for integeration, that is much more difficult with people who don’t share the same values as you.
    The problem is the following one: what’ the difference between an immigrant and a settler?
    I think that the immigrant comes in order to integrate himself, that it to say to submit to the native’s law and culture and become progressively like them; he wants it. The settler comes in order to replace the natives and make them concurrence; he has no intention to assimilate nor integrate. Remind you of the Talmud for which the biggest crime for a jew was to assimilate into a goy society. How do you want to assimilate people who consider that the islamic law is above the french law, that they are the people whom Allah has chosen to rule the world in place of jews and christians; how do you want to assimilate people thinking so?
    Why do they live in the same place? The newcomers have the priority for subsidized low-rent dwellings, from which are excluded old-stock french and integrated immigrants , as many of them have no jobs (invalid grades or just no skill, not french speaking,…) . I am very surprised that you stress France for this, whereas the problem is the same in Germany (as said U.Ulfkotte), Great Britain, Netherlands,…

    • Replies: @Bill P
  78. Jim says:
    @Bill P

    I don’t know the first names of any of my grandparents. Both of my grandfathers died before I was born. I did not live near either of my grandmothers. My family did travel to visit them but not frequently. I believe my maternal grandmother’s name was Blanche but I’m not sure. I only met her once that I remember and she was in poor health due to diabetes and died when I was quite young. I remember my paternal grandmother best as she lived to an advanced age. But it was generally several years between visits to her as we lived far away. When visiting her we children just called her “Grammy” and my father when he talked about her just refered to her as “my mother” and never used her first name. She was very kind to us grandchildren when we visited and always sent us presents at Christmas. I remember when she was talking to us she would sometimes lapse into German and talk to us in German until she suddenly remembered that we didn’t understand a word she was saying.

    I am probably a pretty typical white American and I agree that extended family ties are very weak for many white Americans. I have a first cousin whom I met just once in my life. I have no idea where he lives now and whether he is even still alive.

  79. Jim says:
    @pyrrhus

    People of Sub-Saharan African descent tend to be much more violent than people descended from NW Europeans. But some non-white groups such as East Asians have even lower rates of violence.

  80. Bill P says:
    @skep

    USA built itself as an immigrant country; it is not the same for european country, whose native population lived the arrival of immigrants as an invasion, at a time when low-skilled jobless people were increasing (70′s).

    Apologies to Peter for hogging this comment thread, but I must correct my French friend here.

    The idea that the US was built as an immigrant society is horse pucky. That is a myth propagated by certain elements who want to make us seem all welcoming and a shining beacon of liberty etc. etc. ad nauseum. It’s what we Americans call “whitewashing.” We are a settler and pioneer society, more like the obstinate Muslims in France than the assimilated Poles and Portuguese.

    If we Americans were really immigrants, we would not be speaking English, but rather Mohawk, Cherokee, Salish or whatever. I happen to live very close to “the rez”, and see Indians on a daily basis. If I am an “immigrant,” then why are they on a “reservation?”

    This is something the French should bear in mind as the language and faith of Muhammad flows outward from mosques through the streets of French cities. Sure would be a shame if my great grandkids had to go to a French reservation to have some wine and galette saucisse on some future tour of Europe.

    • Replies: @skep
    , @Numinous
  81. @Sideways

    @sideways
    Judging from your alias you consider your thinking lateral.
    Your reaction however seems more what I would expect from a troll. False flag is devastatingly common.
    Try the decorated general Smedley Butler who knew all about it.

  82. skep says:
    @Bill P

    “We are a settler and pioneer society”

    Thank you for correcting my comment; it was a mistake from my part, inconsistent with the following part of my comment; I agree with your sentiments.
    However, “This is something the French should bear in mind as the language and faith of Muhammad flows outward from mosques through the streets of French cities”, this is something we keep in mind indeed, but as I said previously, the french political regime is an oligarchic regime and there are many things we are not allowed to say without having problems with our far-leftist justice: look at our Justice minister, backed by the “syndicat de la magistrature”; this ultra-leftist magistrate union is a majority in many tribunals in the worse banlieus such as the one of Seine-st Denis, and discharge most of the time “les jeunes” from the crimes they commited. For less than two years jail sentence, according to the law, you will probably never serve the sentence, and many rapers are sentenced for less than two! Guess what happen to the victim when they leave the tribunal… free!
    It is an explanation for the high criminality rate in the banlieus.

    Anyway, the main problem we all face is the legitimacy of a people in a country: on which basis can you ground it if the modern humankind comes from Africa, hence we would all be intrinsically nomads, just influenced by the gene culture evolution along our peregrinations around the world, and any settlement could be legitimated, and not only by secular laws.
    Most recent thesis establish that human races of homo sapiens and h. sap. sapiens are born locally, and created in a way by interaction with the land: in this way any settlement out of the native land would be naturally outlaw. It is the way of life of sedentarists, and only sedentarists built main civilisations: it is in relation with the way of considering the time: cyclic short term for nomads, without projection in long term future, vs long term cyclic conception for the sedentarists, collaborating with land and nature by necessity and sensitivity.

    Thank you for your reply, American friend.

  83. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Smiddy

    I hear you, but Soros has poured millions ( which has blossomed into 3.0 Billion and counting) into interlocked foundations espousing all sorts of add-on whackadoo causes to multi-culti theme. And he is but one individual. Do you have any idea how many billionaires there are in NYC and Silicon Valley alone? Not to mention, largely, they have similar interests worldwide since they make their money in the same markets, but live, literally, everywhere.

    They know what they are buying (endless Ferguson, etc) but they cannot predict perfect outcomes.

  84. Numinous says:
    @Bill P

    The idea that the US was built as an immigrant society is horse pucky.
    We are a settler and pioneer society

    Sounds like a semantic difference. Isn’t it the intention of every immigrant to “settle” in the host land? They vary in the extent to which they wish to hold on to their original cultures and the extent to which they wish to adopt the host culture, but that’s a continuum, not a sharp difference.

    I believe the US is referred to by some as an immigrant society because there have been periodic influxes of foreign peoples into the country ever since Jamestown. The difference between these influxes has never been more than a generation or two, something that is unprecedented in the history of the Old World. This happened even during the period of unquestioned English dominance and immigration, as David Fischer describes in Albion’s Seed. Naturally, since the first few influxes of people were English (or quasi-English, like the Scots-Irish), the culture and language of the country has remained resolutely English since then.

    @skep

    I am very surprised that you stress France for this, whereas the problem is the same in Germany (as said U.Ulfkotte), Great Britain, Netherlands,…

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to single out France. That country was the topic of this article, Mr. Frost discussed the differences between France and the US (or the lack thereof), and I just cotinued that discussion. All your other points are well taken. Any society (not just white Western ones) would struggle to integrate foreigners who are predisposed to not just hang on to their native cultures, but also consider them superior to all others.

    • Replies: @Bill P
  85. Bill P says:
    @Numinous

    Sounds like a semantic difference. Isn’t it the intention of every immigrant to “settle” in the host land? They vary in the extent to which they wish to hold on to their original cultures and the extent to which they wish to adopt the host culture, but that’s a continuum, not a sharp difference.

    It is indeed a “semantic” difference. Immigrant and settler mean different things. If I wanted to draw a very sharp difference, I could have used the word “invaders,” but that doesn’t seem entirely accurate, as it wasn’t a purely military process (although that was a big part of it — we still have towns and places named “Fort this-or-that” all over the west).

    The difference comes down to this: an immigrant is by definition an insider, whereas a settler may or may not be. Immigration is a legal and cultural process, whereas settlement is merely a change of residence.

    When British people came to the New World, they didn’t change their law, culture or language, so they were never immigrants. When Americans rebelled and tossed out the aristocrats, they didn’t suddenly become immigrants, either. As we spread out west and settled the land, we kept our law, our ways and our faith relatively unchanged.

    When we brought in new people, on the other hand, we demanded that they change and conform to our culture. We made an effort to make them “one of us.” In fact, we went so far that we actively suppressed the German language well into the 20th century and sometimes, such as during WWI, we were very unpleasant about it. All that’s left of what was once a large, thriving German-speaking population is the Amish.

    In my own family, my Norwegian great grandparents (my only immigrant ancestors besides one Irish woman who came in the 19th century) stopped speaking Norwegian to their kids by the time they entered school, and gave them American names. By the time they were adults, they had a fully American identity and all married Americans (interestingly, all left the Lutheran church, too).

    Immigration was a process whereby one became American. Those who resisted this were looked down upon until very recently. People didn’t come to the US to become immigrants; they immigrated to become Americans. So to call the US a “nation of immigrants” is to misinterpret or obfuscate what immigration was about for two centuries, and to imply that there’s really no such thing as an American or American culture. It’s pure multiculturalist drivel, and it hides the truth, both the good and bad of it.

  86. Social suicide by socialism in action. It’s even worse there than Venezuela. English will ban encryption soon and maths!

  87. TB2 [AKA "JB"] says:

    Too clever by half. I can’t speak about Europe, but it wasn’t that long ago that violence was encouraged for boys in this country, and whites did group together in self-defense. This was in my lifetime. What’s happening isn’t the de-legitimizing of violence but the de-legitimizing of whiteness. The best spin that can be put on it is that leftists really do believe that in the very near future we’re all going to be mixed race and perpetually buying each other cokes, and that since the only societies they control just happen to be white the only people they can breed out of existence through racial colonialism are whites, and they really believe that other nations and cultures will then follow their lead. The reality is that leftism is a religion that long ago devolved into an irrational white-hating racist movement whose members gain status within the cult by the degree of their anti-whiteness. They don’t care about non-white “racism”, they don’t care if mass Muslim immigration brings about sharia law, they’re target fixated on eliminating “whiteness” and the bacillus that carries it.

    Non-white violence isn’t treated as if it were illegitimate in the West, it’s encouraged, even celebrated, because again it isn’t about violence but about race, and non-white violence is a tool of the System against the whites masses. Thus the dearth of hate-crimes or speech crime charges against non-whites, the suppression of the reality of their criminality and violence, and the blatant covering-up of their hate crimes. The bottom line is that the white masses haven’t spontaneously adopted non-violence (though many have internalized this racism-masquerading-as-non-violence to a considerable degree) , it is forced on them from the top, as in any occupation-type situation. Take away the oppression from the top and the vast, vast, vast money, effort and violence the System expends in enforcing it and you would soon have conflict between the natives and the colonizers, to the natives advantage.

  88. TB2 [AKA "JB"] says:

    BTW, There’s been a spate of raids and arrests of suspected Muslim terrorists since the Hebdo incident, how many of these alleged plots are likely to have sprung up after the Hebdo attacks? It’s clear that the police were sitting on most of these alleged terrorist threats, and made the raids as a PR stunt designed not to prevent eminent danger, but to sell continuing mass Muslim and other immigration to the natives. As if little police action, a few laws banning the burqua, and “positive discrimination” will overcome the effects of being made a hated minority in your own homeland.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS