Tag Archives: france

Jews Celebrate Victory in France

jews_jewing_jewishly

The anti-French sentiments of jews have been most frankly expressed in the jewsmedia aimed at jews.

Big in Israel: Macron captures 94 percent of French-Israeli vote – Israel News – Haaretz.com:

Many French-Israelis said they voted because they feared a Le Pen victory. Le Pen’s threat to strip French-Israelis of their dual citizenship stoked anxiety, and many feared that a Le Pen victory could spell trouble for their Jewish friends and relatives left behind in France.

French-Israelis vote overwhelmingly for Macron | The Times of Israel

French Jews ‘relieved’ Macron won but worried over Le Pen’s electoral gains | The Times of Israel

Saying ‘anti-Semitism defeated,’ Israelis fete Macron victory | The Times of Israel:

“I look forward to working with President Macron and together to take on the shared challenges of our two democracies,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement which included his congratulations.

“One of the greatest threats facing the world today is extremist Islamic terror, which carries out attacks in Paris, Jerusalem and many other cities around the world. Israel and France have a long-standing alliance and I am sure that we will continue to deepen our connections,” said Netanyahu.

Likud MK Oren Hazan, a brash backbencher who had publicly supported Le Pen and alleged that others in the ruling party did as well, was silent in the immediate aftermath of the results Sunday night. Hours before the results were announced, he wrote on Facebook that victory for Macron would be a disaster.

“If France becomes the first European-Islamic power, then it will be impossible to undo and Jews… will not be able to walk around there at all,”

However, most in Israel had opposed Le Pen, who finished with only 3 percent or so of the vote among expats in Israel in the first round of voting.

Similar sentiments have been expressed in more cryptic form in the jewsmedia aimed at non-jews.

(((Anti-Trump))) jew Yascha Mounk declared victory in France, but reminded his readers the broader war on Whites is not over yet. Four reasons not to be cheered by Emmanuel Macron’s defeat of Marine Le Pen:

Finally, and most important, a lot of the commentary on the rise of populism is treating the success of candidates such as Trump as though they were the result of a mysterious virus that might subside just as quickly as it spread. But to make this argument is to close our eyes to the fact that the current challenge to the political system has been steadily growing over time—which suggests that it has deep, structural causes.

There continues to be real debate as to just what these causes are. But there are some obvious candidates: Over the past decades, the living standards for most ordinary citizens have stagnated in both North America and Western Europe. Countries on both sides of the Atlantic have had to deal with high levels of immigration while overcoming deeply entrenched racial hierarchies that privileged whites over everybody else. At the same time, they have seen a growing chasm between affluent urban centers and a stagnant periphery, which feels increasingly neglected. To halt the rise of populism, moderate politicians will have to find answers to these immense challenges.

(((Anti-anti-Trump))) jew Marc Thiessen also declared victory in France, and jewsplained why this is good news for Trump-supporting jews. Le Pen’s defeat is good news for Trump:

The media are framing the defeat of Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election as a defeat for President Trump and his brand of populist nationalism.

Then there is the cloud of anti-Semitism that hangs over Le Pen’s National Front. At the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum National Days of Remembrance ceremony, Trump delivered a strong denunciation of Holocaust denial, declaring that “there are even those filled with such hate, total hate, that they want to erase the Holocaust from history. Those who deny the Holocaust are an accomplice to this horrible evil.”

One of those “accomplices” is Le Pen’s father, who as leader of the National Front dismissed the gas chambers of the Holocaust as a “detail” of history and declared that the Nazi occupation of France was “not particularly inhuman.” Marine Le Pen called another anti-Semitic remark of his a mere “political gaffe” and distanced the party from her radioactive father in a campaign of what she called “dédiabolisation” (or “un-demonizing”) to bring it into the political mainstream.

But recent reminders of the National Front’s anti-Semitism almost certainly depressed her vote. After winning a spot in the presidential runoff in April, Le Pen handed the reins of the party to Jean-François Jalkh, her handpicked successor, who was then forced to step down days later when it emerged that he had praised a Holocaust denier and declared it was “impossible” for the Nazis to have used Zyklon B gas to kill Jews. Le Pen defended him and called the charges a “defamation.”

And there was also Le Pen’s own “gaffe” when she declared that “I don’t think that France is responsible for the Vél d’Hiv” — the infamous 1942 roundup by French police of 13,000 Paris Jews who were interned in a stadium near the Eiffel Tower before being deported to concentration camps. The arrests were carried out not by Nazi occupiers, but by the French themselves. For Marine Le Pen to deny French complicity in this “detail” of the Holocaust suggests that the apple did not fall far from the tree.

There is a big difference between American-style populism and the virulent strain that exists on the European continent. So it is a mistake to read the French election as a rejection of Trump or his agenda. French voters did not cast their ballots for open borders and global supranationalism — rather, they rejected the National Front with all its racist baggage.

Wherever jews live and however they express themselves the vast majority don’t feel any sympathy for Whites, French or otherwise.

Pluralis Judaeis

genocide_by_semitical_correctness

You’ve heard of the royal “we”, here are two good examples of the jewy “we”.

After Paris Attacks, Don’t Close Doors to Refugees – Open Them, Jesse Berney, Rolling Stone:

When we see attacks like the horror in Paris, we should open our borders to a flood of refugees, not close them. We should shower those families with generosity. We should make sure they have jobs that fit their skills. We should educate their children. We should provide them health care and whatever social services they need.

In other words, “let’s you and them mix”, or, “let’s you serve them”.

A more familiar variant takes the form, “let’s you and them fight”. See, for example, French Jewish Council Calls for ‘World War’ Against ‘Jihadist Fanaticism’, Breitbart:

“Our country is bloodied by all those innocent lives cut short by the bullets of these new barbarians. The world war against the monstrosity of jihadist fanaticism must become the top priority of democratic nations,” [CRIF] said.

“We must combat them tirelessly and without pity, until they are defeated,” the group added.

The jewy “we”, pluralis judaeis, is deployed by jewhadis, “left” and “right”, not only to shamelessly lecture everyone else what they should think and do, but specifically to serve the interests of jews, whatever harm it will cause anyone else.

Charlie Hebdo and What Heebs Do

what_heebs_do

Some observations on the assassination of Charlie Hebdo “satirists” in France last week – specifically how jews have pushed their “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate” meme.

There is a distinct contrast between the jewsmedia response to the Hebdo attack, Anders Breivik’s attack in Norway in 2011, and their initial reaction to Mohammed Merah’s shootings in Toulouse in 2012.

Hebdo was anti-nationalist. In 1996 Cavanna, Val and Charb (three pillars of Charlie Hebdo) organized a public petition to ban Front Nationale and personally delivered the signatures they collected to the French government.

This animus is in step with The Demonization of Marine Le Pen by the broader jewsmedia.

Hebdo was also anti-islam/anti-muslim. This is what the mainstream jewsmedia found most controversial about it. It does not fit the liberal, leftist or cultural marxist mindset. It is neo-con. Like The Jew Republic under Peretz, but in crude cartoon form.

The controversy reflects a division among jews on whether the islamization of dar al goyim is good for the jews. Outside Israel the clearest ideological distinction between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” jews is where they stand on this issue.

“Liberal” jews see muslims as “new jews”, as allies. They think it best for the jews to extend some degree of special “hate speech” protection to muslims. “Conservative” jews see muslims as “islamofascists” (“new nazis”), as enemies. They think it best for the jews if muslims can be freely mocked and ridiculed – satirized – as Hebdo did.

Heebdo illustrates and defines the term, and also links and comments on some prominent examples.

Shyster Sheldon Nahmod is a professor who describes himself as a “well-known expert on constitutional law, civil rights and the law of Section 1983″ (which was “enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871″ and “was originally designed to combat post-Civil War racial violence in the Southern states”).

Nahmod offers the following heebdo:

One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech, including but not limited to the anti-Semitic kind. Hate speech and anti-Semitism are major concerns in Europe and the Middle East and remain a nagging concern in the US as well. Hate speech can be defined as speech directed at a historically oppressed religious or racial minority with the intent to insult and demean. Hate speech undermines social attitudes and beliefs, it isolates its targets and it tends to silence them because they are often stunned and unable to respond. Hate speech also traumatizes (think of the effect it had on survivors and other Jews when the Nazis threatened to march in Skokie). We all know some of the hateful slurs that are too often directed against Jews, blacks, Latinos and Italians in this country.

This captures the essence of what you find when you search for “free speech” “hate speech” – lots of jews explaining how “free speech” is not “hate speech”, with jews literally defining “hate”. The decisive factor is identity and intent, who/whom, not words. The key phrase is “historically oppressed religious or racial minority”, the generalized-jew template, how jews describe themselves without using the word jew. It’s part and parcel of the broader jewish narrative.

As I indicated in Christmas 2014, jew worship is openly promoted at the highest levels of government. Charlie Hebdo has been criticized for blasphemy against the dieties of muslims and Christians, but for jews the mere caricature of a generic jew is regarded as blasphemous.

One of the examples the New York Times attached to Proud to Offend, Charlie Hebdo Carries Torch of Political Provocation was a Hebdo cover depicting the Le Pen father and daughter in a concentration camp tower, laughing, with the “new reactionary” jew Eric Zemmour sitting between them looking sour. It is included in the article only as an example of something regarded as offensive and provocative to jews, because it toys with the most holy iconography of jew-worship.

If you like my podcasts, see TFeed.

News from Toulouse


Whoops. Sorry. That’s old news from Marseilles.

Toulouse shooting: 4 dead and several injured by gunman at French Jewish school | Mail Online:

Police fear the latest shooting, which took place outside the Ozar Hatorah school, shows that a far right wing gunman is on the loose with a grudge against ethnic minorities. All the victims so far have been Jewish, black or of North African origin.

Toulouse shooting: little girl cornered in school and shot in head – Telegraph:

The prospect of a serial killer targeting religious and minority groups spread fear across the nation and is likely to raise questions over controversial remarks made during the presidential campaign relating to faith and immigration.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews:

This attack is a terrible reminder of the threat which minorities, across Europe, face from extremists of all political persuasions. All right minded people must unite to reject their baseless hatred and bring whoever is responsible for this attack to justice.

The ethnic cleansing of the French from France and Europeans from Europe continues apace, but according to the jewish narrative, alien “minorities”, first and foremost jews, are the real victims.

Some of the media reports hint at an underlying ethnic conflict having something to do with immigration. Professional jews disagree. They blame “baseless hatred” coming from Europeans, no doubt on the basis of Jewish Involvement in Immigration and Anti Free Speech Legislation.

Since nobody has actually been apprehended and charged yet, the volume of self-righteous moralizing and speculation concerning who is doing what and why is more telling than anything else.

marine_le_pen

The Demonization of Marine Le Pen

France’s National Front: Le Pen, mightier than the sword?, The Economist, 5 May 2011:

UP CLOSE, the most unnerving thing about Marine Le Pen is not her obsession with Islam, her populism or her divisive politics—but the way she oozes charm. With a ready laugh and unaffected manner, this steely politician deflects awkward questions with an easy grace that makes her a rarity in French politics. The newish leader of the far-right National Front is an intriguing study in how to make extremist politics marketable—and in doing so, perhaps to reshape French party politics.

In the short run, Ms Le Pen wants to decontaminate the National Front, stripping it of the skin-headed image it had under her father, Jean-Marie. At the party’s annual May 1st rally, she surrounded herself with fresh-faced young women in jeans and T-shirts. Her father, a former paratrooper, perfected a line in anti-Semitic and xenophobic outrage. She shares much of his programme, such as support for the death penalty and job preference for French nationals. But she has junked the anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi sidekicks in favour of a subtler tone. “When I talk about the immigration problem, I don’t talk out of hate, or xenophobia, or Islamophobia, or fear,” she insists, but pragmatism. “We cannot afford to let everybody in.”

Across Europe, traditional divisions between left and right have blurred, Ms Le Pen argues, giving way to a new fracture between those who believe in globalisation, international governance and open borders, and those who believe in the primacy of the nation. In her eyes President Nicolas Sarkozy and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF and a likely Socialist candidate, are “interchangeable”: standard-bearers for a globalised world view. By contrast, she wants a return to national sovereignty, a withdrawal from the euro (“before it collapses”) and NATO (“submission to America”), the return of border controls and an unapologetic protectionist policy to “re-industrialise France”.

For under scrutiny, many of Ms Le Pen’s ideas, when not toxic, are deeply flawed. France cannot compete with China on cost, she says, so better to put up borders, go for a competitive devaluation and start building factories at home again. She dismisses worries about the colossal cost of protectionism or of debt-servicing with a devalued currency as scaremongering. For now, such details have yet to spoil the seductive simplicity of her message. And this will keep her a highly disruptive figure in the run-up to 2012 and beyond.

Unlike DSK, Marine Le Pen has never been accused of committing a crime, violent or otherwise. However, as made clear by the defamatory, accusatory opinion quoted above – fairly typical of the limited coverage Le Pen receives in English-language media – Le Pen is regarded with a poisonous cynicism, a combination of fear and loathing that would elicit outraged cries and condemnations of “hate” if it were directed at any representative of immigrants or jews. Le Pen, like all European nationalists, is treated to a different standard, worse than any accused rapist. She’s undeniably popular with the native French, who for perfectly normal reasons would like to be led by someone, anyone who actually favors them over aliens. Naturally this frightens and disgusts anyone who loves aliens and hates the French.

The double standard was clearly visible amid the empassioned cacaphony following the arrest of DSK. The realization that the scandal would likely improve Le Pen’s prospects frightened certain pundits so much that they couldn’t help but couple their open-minded reminders that DSK is innocent until proven guilty with cognitive-dissonance-inducing paranoia and hang-wringing over Le Pen. The most egregious examples I’ve found are Doug Schoen and Anne Applebaum. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that while neither one is French, both are jews.

UPDATE 20 May 2011: Marine Le Pen becomes Front National leader: A pivotal moment for French politics? – Telegraph, by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, 16 Jan 2011:

It’s a measure of the inroads Marine Le Pen has already made in the French political debate that she now splits opinion among the rarefied world of Parisian intellectuals.

On the one hand, the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy still thinks she reeks of sulphur: according to him, the youngest daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, 82, the longstanding Front National leader, is “even more dangerous than her father”.

Yet on the other Elisabeth Lévy, the shrewd editor of Causeur magazine, the French answer to The Spectator, considers not only that Marine Le Pen “says nothing scandalous or morally unacceptable”, but also that she might well “be truly breaking away from the old French extreme-Right, to create something new.”

It’s a measure of just how un-French “French” political debate is that Moutet cites two jews as representative, even though they are members of a powerful, exclusive ethnic group who comprise less than 1% of the overall population.

[Marine's father, Jean-Marie] Le Pen, an orphaned Breton fisherman’s son, tried to join the Résistance in 1944, and later fought in Algeria and in the Suez expedition.

But he made his indelible mark in French politics by obsessively picking at the scabs of the country’s dark past. He boasted of using torture in Algeria to combat terrorism; called the gas chambers “a point of detail” of the Second World War; used time-and-motion calculations to dispute the number of Auschwitz victims; and described France’s German occupiers as “very civilised”.

He was several times condemned under French incitement laws – all of which he used to paint himself as a larger-than-life pariah in the too-tame, self-referential world of French politics.

Le Pen is being painted as a pariah here for having the audacity to try to represent his people. Let’s be honest. Is there anyone who picks more obsessively at scabs from the past (like Auschwitz) than jews do? Argue with them, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, and you’re painted as dangerous. Don’t argue, like Marine Le Pen, and you’re painted as worse.

At 42, a handsome, single working mother of three, she presents herself as the young, modern face of the Front National, in sharp contrast to her defeated opponent in the Party leadership contest, the 60-year-old academic Bruno Gollnisch, under whose banner the Party’s residual hardliners had sought an increasingly exiguous shelter.

In the Gollnisch camp gather the “tradis”, the traditionalist Catholics who are horrified by Marine’s support of gay rights – short of gay marriage – and refusal to support abolition of the 1975 law permitting abortion. (She says she only wants all provisions of the law strictly applied, so that women are first offered “alternatives” such as pre-natal adoption.)

No-one in France will admit to anti-Semitism, which is actionable by law, but campaign rumours from the Gollnisch camp included descriptions of Marine’s entourage as “full of Jews, queers and Arabs”.

Actionable by law is an innocuous way of saying that in France you can be persecuted for making elementary observations like the ones I just have. Meanwhile no special laws prevent jews living in France from saying whatever they wish about the French.

It is interesting that two personalities she quoted positively during a half-hour conversation were two Jews: Simone Veil, the former health minister and European Parliament president, who first introduced the abortion bill, and Elisabeth Badinter, the left-wing feminist author.

It is interesting how jews keep coming up in Moutet’s piece. Is she jewish? At any rate, the impression Moutet creates is that what’s most important about Le Pen is what jews think about her, not what she thinks about anything. And never mind what the French think either.

dominique_strauss_kahn_dots

Top International Banker Arrested

But not for fraud or corruption.

I.M.F. Head Is Arrested and Accused of Sexual Attack – NYTimes.com:

The managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was taken off an Air France plane at Kennedy International Airport minutes before it was to take off for Paris on Saturday and arrested in connection with the sexual attack of a maid at a Midtown Manhattan hotel, the authorities said.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, who was widely expected to become the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, was apprehended by detectives of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the first-class section of the jetliner, and immediately turned over to detectives from the Midtown South Precinct, officials said.

The New York Police Department took Mr. Strauss-Kahn into custody, where he was “being questioned in connection with the sexual assault of a hotel chambermaid earlier this afternoon,” Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, said Saturday night. “He is being arrested for a criminal sex act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment.”

The link in the text above is to an article from February 18 which provides some background on Strauss-Kahn, painting him as a victim of French nationalists. Strauss-Kahn Has France Talking About a Presidential Run – NYTimes.com:

He has been called a member of “the caviar left,” out of touch with his own more left-leaning party. Some wonder if he might lose in party primaries despite his high poll numbers, which they say are based partly on name recognition and unhappiness with the current choices.

But there have been other, uglier notes in the right’s reaction, circling around the fact that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Christian Jacob, a legislator and farmer, described him as an urban intellectual — a “bobo,” short for “bourgeois-bohemian.” Mr. Jacob said that Mr. Strauss-Kahn did not represent “the image of France, the image of rural France, the image of the France of terroirs and territories.” This notion of rootless cosmopolitanism, of being out of touch with the soil and the mystery of “la France profonde,” is an old trope for foreign and Jewish influence.

Even the president of France’s main Jewish organization, the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France, called Mr. Jacob’s comments “a very great clumsiness.” The group’s leader, Richard Prasquier, said that as a farmer, Mr. Jacob may have “a particular feeling for the soil,” but that it was not “an essential criterion for leading the nation.” He added that he hoped “the political debate will become more elevated.”

Pierre Moscovici, an ally of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, was blunter. “The attack resembles a little the rhetoric of the far right between the two world wars,” Mr. Moscovici said. “There is something unhealthy here,” he said, and while Mr. Jacob “is not a bad guy, I ask him to pull back his statement and change his song.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Jacob denied any anti-Semitic feeling, saying that “as a farmer, I can’t recognize myself or identify with him.”

“He doesn’t incarnate the rural world, that’s all,” he continued. “I reacted with my peasant core, as a farmer.”

Of course Mr. Sarkozy is also seen as an urban figure, a lawyer with no roots in rural France, and, although Roman Catholic, of Jewish ancestry on his mother’s side.

The right’s reaction was perceived as a shot across the bow of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who has also had a reputation for womanizing, and had to admit to an affair with an economist at the fund, who later left. He was cleared of harassment or abuse of power, but was criticized by the board in 2008 for “a serious error of judgment.”

More sordid details of Strauss-Kahn’s present predicament can be found in Top French politician, International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn held investigation of sodomy charge – NYPOST.com:

The married Strauss-Kahn was in his bathroom, said sources. He emerged naked, grabbed her and “he jumps her,” a source said.

Then, Strauss-Kahn allegedly threw the housekeeper on the room’s bed and forced her to perform oral sex on him, said the sources.

The maid managed to break free and ran to a hotel worker to tell what happened, said a source. Soon afterward, Strauss-Kahn got dressed and headed off to Kennedy Airport for his flight to Paris.

When he was approached on the plane by Port Authority cops, he said, “What is this about?” sources said. He was then taken off without handcuffs.

Two law enforcement sources said Strauss-Kahn was trying to flee the US. Police said he left his cellphone and other personal items in the room.

A high-profile jew accused of a sex crime tries to flee to France? I’ve seen this movie before.

Based on the outrageous defense of Roman Polanski we can expect to see some familiar patterns emerge as this controversy develops:

- The mainstream media and blogosphere will quickly offer a number of op-eds in defense of Strauss-Kahn.

- A few pundits, especially jews, will make the most outrageous arguments, twisting facts and logic to excuse Strauss-Kahn and blame others.

- Strauss-Kahn’s jewishness will be part of the defense, insinuations will be made that he is persecuted because he’s jewish.

- Few mainstream pundits will openly condemn Strauss-Kahn, but reader responses to the defenders will lean against him, based on the expectation that he be prosecuted like anyone else would.

- As this public opinion becomes obvious and a direct defense of Strauss-Kahn becomes more obviously at odds with it narratives will be offerred which shift blame elsewhere – to the victim, “Puritans”, “Americans”, or some other scapegoat.

Like Polanski, Strauss-Kahn is rich and famous. Unlike Polanski, Strauss-Kahn wields substantial political power. His friends won’t need to petition the government for his release. His friends are the government. Thus he could very well be cleared and released more quickly and with less media fanfare than Polanski was. On the other hand Strauss-Kahn doesn’t need to be extradicted. The crime he’s accused of is fresh, not decades old. His accuser has not recanted. Yet.

Can he claim diplomatic immunity?

As a last resort, if the accuser can’t be discredited or bought off and the government won’t just spring him, Strauss-Kahn might indulge the public and the court, get convicted, and then escape justice by absconding to France.