With the second round of the French presidential elections less than one week away, France faces an important choice between change and more of the same. Marine Le Pen of the National Front is facing off against Emmanuel Macron of En March! Macron, a self-proclaimed centrist, is a former banker and former member of the hardcore socialist Hollande administration. He represents a continuation of the same open borders, pro-EU, globalist policies, which have put France into an economic decline, usurped its sovereignty and kept the doors open for the continued influx of third world (primarily Muslim) masses into France. As establishment politicians constantly repeat slogans such as “cultural diversity enriches a nation” and talk on and on about the economic benefits third world immigration provides, they conveniently ignore and outright reject reality. There has been a stark increase in crime and the perpetrators are overwhelmingly Muslim or of another third world origin. Terrorism has become an issue. There have been violent riots. Third world immigrants also use welfare and other government services at disproportionate rates, while those that work provide cheaper labor for big corporations, all at the expense of the indigenous population of France. Those must be the economic benefits the politicians talk about; after all, what does a government exist for if not to protect and serve its nation? Worse yet, third world immigrants, especially Muslims, largely refuse to integrate, instead demanding that French society acquiesce to their needs and wants. Typically, immigrants are supposed to integrate into the nations that take them in, not the other way around.
Many ordinary French people are increasingly starting to see that third world (particularly Islamic) “immigration” to France offers no benefit whatsoever. Many are also starting to see that the supranational union of European nations that was intended to offer brotherhood and prosperity has given them neither, instead robbing them of their national sovereignty and liberty. The people of France have woken up to find that a group of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, not their elected representatives in Paris, have the final say in a number of crucial matters, including but not limited to monetary policy, trade, borders and even how many “immigrants” and “refugees” they must accept into their own country. That’s right, the EU dictates to its member states how many “refugees” they must take in. This means the French government no longer has a say in who and how many of them can be allowed to enter France. In seemingly democratic France, the French people have no representation, though certainly plenty of taxation. The rest of Western Europe finds itself in a similar situation. (It should be noted that some Eastern European countries such as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have stood up to the EU, but it is certain that Macron would do no such thing.)
One would think that it would not be unreasonable to at least be serious about fixing some of these problems. Perhaps at least an honest discussion of why French jobs are being lost, why the French people have no say in the future of their country and why they have zero say in who is allowed to come to their country. Yet, the French political establishment denounces anyone who criticizes them as “regressive”, “Eurosceptic” and even racist and xenophobic, as if these words have any real meaning anymore. None of the major parties in France want to change the course of France, as they are all invested in continued globalization and the continued dispossession and displacement of the French population. Only Marine Le Pen and the National Front are willing to have a serious conversation about these problems. Only they offer an alternative. Le Pen wants to let the people of France decide on whether to stay in the EU. She wants to put a moratorium on immigration in France. And only she is willing to address the problem no one else even wants to touch: Western Europe, with its low birthrates and high influx of third world foreigners with massive birthrates, is sitting on a demographic time bomb – one which will lead to the inevitable replacement of indigenous Europeans with people from other continents, unless it is addressed and soon. So bad is this problem that some have even wondered (for now) in jest whether the next Islamic nation to attain nuclear weapons will be Iran or France.
If ethnic French are to become a minority and be displaced by a new majority that continually seeks to impose its culture and values on France, then France is on its path to the dustbin of history, as any conquered nation that lost its lands, political power, and cultural dominance to a hostile outgroup would be. The Islamization of France is textbook colonialism, except that the systems of exploitation and transfer of political power are the very democratic and socialist policies of the country itself. This is where things become even more interesting. The Islamic colonization of Western Europe has been devastating not only for ethnic Europeans, but also for European Jews, perhaps even more so. Many of the Muslims arriving in Europe harbor a virulent and deep anti-Semitism, that is ultimately rooted in the Quran. There have been a number of anti-Semitic terrorist attacks, particularly in France, as well as other violence against Jews, along with a general increase in anti-Semitism. Most of that is coming not from the ethnic French, but from Muslims. Yet, despite all of this, most Jews support Macron and equate Le Pen with Hitler.
To the average Jew, Le Pen is an anti-Semitic nationalist candidate who wants to turn France into an ethnically French fascist state. Nothing else matters to them. The very association with “nationalism” sends jitters down their spines, evoking images of Hitler and Nazism. To many Jews, European nationalism means another Holocaust. While it has been over seventy years since the end of WWII, that is not that long of a time. Besides, German national socialism was not the only time in history that “European nationalism” was bad for the Jews. Throughout much of their two thousand years in exile, Jews, being a stateless non-European minority, were persecuted in nearly every European nation they lived in (they were also persecuted in the Islamic world, but not too many people know or care to highlight this inconvenient truth). Nationalism, to them, thus meant exclusion and persecution. It is thus completely unsurprising that when an ideology like Marxism came along around 150 years ago, with its promise of an international brotherhood and “progress”, many Jews became internationalists (often at the expense of their Jewish identity), in the hope that this would bring an end to anti-Semitism and allow Jews to be included in European societies. This pervasive “citizen of the world” mindset permeated throughout most of European Jewry, especially in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Indeed, a weaker nationalism can be beneficial to a stateless minority, especially a persecuted one. It is important to understand that this mindset is not exclusive to the Jews, but rather all stateless minorities experiencing persecution or exclusion. It is in large part a manifestation of a survivalist instinct.
As the rest of Europe embraced international socialism for reasons of their own, the logical next step was to be “inclusive” for everyone and allow in masses of people from the third world. Western guilt over colonialism and over being so much more well off than the third world (global inequality) also turned this into an altruistic endeavor. In addition, the carnage of the two world wars was blamed exclusively on nationalism, thus driving Western nations further toward looser immigration policies. This was the catalyst for European integration that international socialists had been waiting for.
Unfortunately, what everyone apparently forgot was the entirely tribal essence of human nature. Once third world people began trickling in, it became apparent that while Europeans and European Jews may have hidden their ethnic identities to a workable degree (something made easier by either relative cultural similarity or other common traits such as high intelligence), the third world people did not and seemed incapable of doing so. And rather than integrating into Europe, they started integrating Europe into their culture (primarily Islamic culture). The West may have lost its sense of identity, but the Muslim (and other third world) newcomers did not. Even second and third generations retained their own culture, sometimes even stronger than prior generations (some of the terrorists that carried out the recent attacks were second generation). In all their glory, the great civilization that dominated the globe apparently forgot its history: multiculturalism has never worked. All multiethnic nations have historically either had a dominant ethnic group, or have broken up along ethnic lines.
The aftermath of WWII; however, brought about another profound change: Israel. For the first time in 2000 years, the stateless minority was no longer stateless. The Jews finally had a nation of their own again. Even so, arguably a majority of Jews continued to support internationalism in the West, even as their human nature and their roots made Zionists (Jewish nationalists) out of many of them. A curious paradox emerged, where many Jews supported Israel, along with its Jewish-only immigration policy, yet at the same time, supported third world immigration into Europe and the rest of the West. Many Jews retained the mentality of a persecuted stateless people. After all, Israel has only existed for 69 years, but the exile lasted about 2000 years. It is not easy to shed the memories of the wretched diaspora and become a proud nationalist who inherently knows he has a great homeland of his own.
However, now it has become a matter of survival. It is not 1945, but 2017. The Nazis were decisively defeated 72 years ago. Today, it is internationalism and Islam that pose the greatest threats to Israel, Jews and the West. Whether or not Le Pen is an anti-Semite is irrelevant. Whether Le Pen’s comments about the French government’s involvement in the Holocaust are accurate or not is irrelevant. There are much bigger things at stake. You choose a doctor because he is qualified to deliver the correct cure that you need to survive, not based on whether he shares every last political and historical sensibility with you. A statesman (or woman in this case) is no different.
Muslims are no longer simply a bunch of poor people with archaic weapons living far away in the third world (and apparently, Europeans have forgotten what Muslims were like when their weapons were on par with or better than those of Europe). They have come here now. And over there, they have modern weapons and they have demonstrated time and time again their desire to use them against the Jews and Europeans. They nearly prevented Israel’s re-creation and then tried multiple times to destroy it (and are still trying). Only Israel’s military might has prevented Arabs from driving Jews into the sea. The Quran refers to Jews as “sons of apes and pigs” (Quran 2:65, 5:60 and 7:166). Mohammad, the founder of Islam, whom Muslims are taught to emulate as much as possible, was responsible for the murder of thousands of Jews in Medina. Jews were also persecuted throughout the Islamic world, but sadly, this is not taught in the history classrooms. Islam divides the world up into two: Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War). Quran 8:39 states “and fight them until there is no more disbelief”. And the Jews are the number one non-Muslim foe. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and other non-Muslims are next in line. The recent rise in anti-Semitism in Europe is primarily one of the numerous consequences of the increase of the Muslim population of Europe. One has to wonder what a Muslim-majority France – a nuclear power – would mean not just for French Jews, but for Israel, Europe and the rest of the world. The Jewish state is already faced with Islam on three sides. Do we need a fourth?
Internationalism and the left, while often times beneficial to minorities in other nations, disadvantage their majorities. Nowhere is that more clearly visible than in Israel. Under the guise of internationalism, the world meddles in Israel’s affairs, preventing it from adequately defending itself, demanding that it stop building Jewish towns in specific locations and demanding that it surrender land to an enemy that, if it had the capability, would not hesitate to genocide Jews. Leftist Jews themselves often domestically champion many of these same policies for their own people, with more hardcore segments of it even advocating that Israel take in non-Jewish refugees as permanent citizens. If internationalism is left totally unchallenged, its ultimate end goal is the elimination of all nation states (which would include Israel) via the dissolution of borders and sovereignty. The pervasive prevailing internationalist mentality infringes on Israel’s sovereignty and its inherent right as a nation to manage its own internal affairs and take the action necessary to protect its people from all threats. Internationalism is the covert threat preventing Israel from defending itself against the overt threat, namely Islamic aggression.
An additional adverse effect of internationalism has been the loss of national and ethnic identity. This has primarily affected Westerners – Jews and non-Jews alike. Numerous Jews have disassociated themselves with their traditional Jewish roots in favor of deluding themselves that they are post-identity cosmopolitans. It is a relic of the failed international experiment – an experiment that has helped literally no one but parasitic, hostile, and culturally incompatible migrants and refugees. The financial and cultural costs of this resulting colonization of Western Europe are enormous.
For these reasons, Jews should be the first to oppose this destructive force. The survival of Israel and of Jews as a people depends on it. Jews must wake up before the combined effects of Islam and secular humanist assimilation consumes them all, and wrecks impressive civilizations tirelessly built and preserved by others.
This brings us back to Marine Le Pen. She is a French patriot. She puts her country, not the world, first. She simply wants to make France sovereign, secure, prosperous and free. And yes, she wants to keep France French. While many would call this simple natural desire “xenophobic” and “racist”, one has to wonder why it is only Europe (and nations founded by Europeans) that have to share their homelands with the rest of the world. For example, Israel, Japan and South Korea – all first world nations with strong economies and a high standard of living – have very exclusive sensible immigration policies that put their own nations first. Israel allows only Jews (or those with at least some Jewish ancestry) to immigrate. Why? Because they understand that if Jews become a minority in Israel, then Israel will no longer be Israel. Yet if the indigenous people of France – ethnic French – become a minority in France, will not France also cease to be France? We all know what the answer to this question is. The left dare not admit it, and if they do admit it, they cheer it on.
It is irrational, and even absurd, for this very idea to be controversial. France is for the French and Israel is for the Jews. We, as Jews, who want to maintain cultural and demographic hegemony in our homeland, should easily understand why others want the exact same thing. The Jewish people stand at a crossroads. With the exile coming to an end, many are still in a diaspora mentality and are still in the process of learning what it is like to have a nation of their own once again. Many are still living in the past. Even as they themselves embrace nationalism, they are afraid of nationalism – so afraid, that they are ignorant of the existential threats of today.
It is time for Jews to wake up and embrace nationalism. It is time for Jews and ethnic Europeans to ally against their much greater mutual foes and save both of their distinct and unique civilizations. These respective civilizations, not to be conflated with each other, are each rooted not in abstract ideals, but rather in a people who share a sense of brotherhood based on deep historical ties, which extend much further than some vague civic concept. And on Sunday, May 7, 2017, we have a chance to win the first battle in what will be a long war.
Le Pen 2017!
(Editor’s note: In truth, Le Pen is quite moderate and I’d endorse a candidate who was willing to go significantly further than she is. She is merely the first step, and the best choice of the options that we have.)