The Frogs choked


By now the results of France's Presidential election have been made quite clear: Emmanuel Macron has won, by a margin of something like 22 percentage points.

To be honest, I had kind of expected that outcome- and here is where I will be exposed, justifiably in my view, to accusations of what Americans call "Monday morning quarterbacking", and what the rest of the civilised world merely calls "use of hindsight". Unlike the American election, where I publicly and openly argued that the God-Emperor would win, starting back in May 2016, I made no public predictions about the French elections.

There are two very good reasons for this.

First, it's the French. I don't like them. They don't like me. That keeps everyone happy. What the Frogs do to destroy their own country- which, as I may have said a time or two before, I dislike intensely- is entirely their own damn business and just about none of mine.

And second, the French political system is fundamentally very different from the American one.

In America, people vote for candidates for any number of reasons, but once the primaries are done, it's a simple straight-up choice between two people, and that's it. From my observations, Americans vote generally with their hearts, their wallets, and their heads- in that order, descending.

In France, however, people vote with their hearts first and their heads second. It seems to me- and this is just my opinion- that this is why the run-off system exists, so that the Frogs can give their establishment the metaphorical finger in the first round and feel like they've accomplished something meaningful (when in reality, they haven't, at all), and then they are forced to fall into line whether they like it or not and vote for an Enarque in the second.

Marine Le Pen is not a member of that establishment elite. Emmanuel Macron is. Simple logic, and the patterns established in previous elections, indicated that he would win.

Readers are, of course, free to accuse me of using hindsight to pretend that I made a correct prediction. That is entirely fair. I will simply state for the record that I expected him to win before the election because I didn't see sufficient evidence to indicate a Trump-like upset in a country as locked into establishment politics as France. It was not a brilliant insight of any sort on my part and I do not claim to be any sort of political pundit as a result. In fact, my track record of predicting political results is average, at best.

The broader implications for France, however, are much more important.

Make no mistake- the establishment won yesterday in France. I expected as much. The French electorate has voted to continue the exact same policies that have sold their national sovereignty away, that has flooded their cities with Muslim barbarians, that has caused their economy to stagnate and wither, and that has destroyed the very concept of the nation-state in a country that was once one of the proudest and strongest in the world.

For, as much as I dislike the French, I will readily admit that much of what we call "modern civilisation" would not exist without them. The world owes a great debt to France- indeed, so too does America, for this country would not exist were it not for that one. (Which is something that Americans hate being reminded about, of course.)

But this year, the French voted in a candidate who couldn't be more of an establishment patsy if he tried. This spells disaster for France's political system.

Like most of the French elite, he went to all of the right schools- from what I understand of the French political system, if you haven't graduated from the elite Ecole nationale d'administration, which is their equivalent of Harvard's Kennedy School of Public Administration, you're  pretty much condemned to a lifetime as a nobody in the political sphere.

He's a former banker, with backing from some of the wealthiest names in high finance. The French media gave him an even more extreme monopoly on favourable news coverage than the legacy media did to the Hilldebeast here in America in 2016. His entire career has been in service to a system that exists, like all bureaucracies, to perpetuate itself.

Everything about him reeks of weakness and servility- indeed, if the latest revelations can be believed, he might be even more of a closet chocolatier than the homo-suspect Obarmy.

France is almost certain to face five more years of Islamist violence, internal instability, economic malaise, and further erosion of public trust in its own institutions.

And yet, I am not overly concerned- and not just because I don't particularly care about the French.

Some members of the Manosphere argue that this is it- the West is done. Stick a fork in it. Do not resuscitate. Send the corpse to the glue factory. It's kicked the can, carked it, bought the farm, taken a dirt nap, gotten over its air addiction.

Others- most notably Vox Day- argue that this is merely the latest round in a long war.

Those others are right. Truly pivotal moments in the histories of nations are rare- I reckon that you can count most of the really consequential ones for Western civilisation on the fingers of both hands, with names like Plataea, Chaeronea and Gaugamela, Chalons, Tours, Manzikert, Constantinople, and of course Vienna.

In reality, nationalism comes and goes in waves, and those waves take decades to build and crest. We are in the midst of just such a cycle now.

To those of us who take the long view, and who are not inclined to hyperbolic overreaction, this is merely a crescendo in a symphony of destruction. (So I love MEGADETH. So what?)

This is not the conclusive knockout blow for nationalists that the French and global media would like you to believe it is. When historians look back, decades or centuries from now, at this particular French election, they will likely judge it as one of a series of desperate rearguard actions by a failing establishment to protect its own interests.

You see, the nationalist tide cannot be stopped. The forces that dictate its movements have been in motion for decades and will not be easily slowed or countered. Globalism cannot work because it ignores fundamental realities of human nature and psychology; anything that attempts to ignore such axiomatic conditions will always and everywhere eventually fail.

What you are seeing is not the failure of nationalism as a movement. It is merely the failure of civic nationalism- the idea that differences in race, ethnicity, and genetics can be erased through simple devotion to an ideology and a colourful rag, and by arriving on a nation's soil and just sort of staying there for a while.

This notion has always been unworkable; devotion to a nation is devotion to a people, to a national compact, to a common set of principles and ideals that were written, almost everywhere, in blood and fire and steel.

It doesn't matter where you look in human history. Every civilisation, every culture, has been defined as much by what it opposes as by what it embraces.

And that is where real nationalism comes in.

Real nationalists win in the end because, to perhaps state the blindingly obvious, they provide a vision of a nation- a commonly held set of values and principles that a people, who define themselves as a distinct entity different from all other peoples, can embrace.

They win in the end because their point of view is much more closely aligned with simple facts of human nature. We are a tribal species. We naturally trust those who look and act and sound most like us. We are xenophobic because we are supposed to be.

And if nationalists don't win through the ballot box, they win, eventually, through other, less democratic means. One way or another, the nation-state wins out over the globalist empire in the end.

This is not to say that I want nationalists to come to power through violence. When this happens it is usually because the ties that bind people together- those "mystic chords of memory", to resort to an overused phrase- have frayed so badly that terrible, catastrophic violence is the inevitable outcome.

And when that happens, the innocent die with the rest- which is an outcome that every one of us here in the Alt-Right should fervently pray will not happen.

That is why I am not overly worried by what happened in France. It wasn't a catastrophic defeat. It wasn't a strategic loss. It was, at best (or worst, depending on your point of view), a tactical setback, one which I am confident that history will remember, if it is remembered at all, as the last attempt of the French establishment to stave off its own destruction.

And that destruction is coming. Be under no illusions about this. The velvet-gloved empire that is the European Union is not supported by any military victories, common culture, common language, or common ideology, except among the people at the very top of that heap. The moment that its constituents start breaking away and refuse to remain content under German and French rule , the entire edifice will begin to crumble.

It is already happening- we simply aren't seeing the overt signs yet.

So do not be troubled by the fact that the National Front was defeated. In reality, this was a warm-up round.

If they lose in 2022, then it will be time to really be worried. But by then, I wager that the concept of the French "nation" will be in so much peril that the National Front will not merely be an alternative to the establishment, they will be the only alternative for white French people who are sick and tired of seeing their country being sold down the river.

Comments

  1. https://pics.me.me/if-you-strike-medown-ishallbecomemore-powerful-than-you-could-possibly-20052240.png

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts