French history erased in new wave of revisionism

[Storm]

http://a4.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/profile01/150/98b6acbce51d4f739e869ec086c9f333/t.jpg


Parents and teachers across France are up in arms over new textbooks which carry accounts of French history revised to avoid insulting ethnic minority pupils. They say common sense has been sacrificed to political correctness in French schools.

Natives of France now fear their identity will soon disappear along with their history.

A modern French history textbook now boasts no less than 20 pages on the history of black slavery while devoting a mere six pages to the achievements of Napoleon – shown here sitting on a toilet.

France's new history textbooks are enraging parents and teachers who call it political correctness gone mad.

Dimitri Casali, history professor and best-selling author on the newly-banished giants of France warns of dire consequences of the new educational policy.

“If we don't teach our minorities the history of their adopted country, they won't feel French. We're already seeing riots on our streets,” Casali exclaims.

In the new textbook, the Crusades are now called insulting to Muslims, the Sun King Louis 14th is labeled imperialist and Napoleon is mocked as the Colonel Gaddafi of his day. The star of the new school books is Mali's previously little-known King Kankou Musa who ruled over the West African country in the 13th century.

The purge even extends to literary giants like Victor Hugo, author of the world classic, Les Miserables.

France is already breaking up, believes Professor Casali, because its young people have no sense of identity. Parents are deeply concerned too.

Father-of-three Jean-Noel Villemin from Paris says, “We need to study even the worst pages of our history because you cannot understand politics today if you don't understand history, if they want to understand and vote properly.”

Legal action is seen as the only way to stop the erasure of France’s national history.

“Schools now give 10 per cent of their schedule to the medieval African Mali Empire. I've studied it, and what exactly is its contribution to world development?” asks Parisian lawyer Marcel Ceccaldi.

Thousands signed a petition after lessons on the French Revolution were replaced by study of the African kingdom of Monomotapah, which many say they have never heard of. The Ministry of Education refused to be interviewed, but gave RT this statement:

“We are changing the school curriculum to reflect globalization. Monomotapah is being taught because it is important to have a view on other world cultures such as Egypt, China and India,” the statement reads.

A new European Parliament report has backed compulsory school lessons on the benefits of the EU, from “a very young age.” Critics say pupils are learning less and less about their own countries and warn that states which stop teaching their past will simply consign themselves to history.


Source and Video Inside @ http://rt.com/news/french-history-revisionism-political-correctness-889/

[Aces High]

So i imagine Louis Ferdinad Celines classic Journey to the end of the Night has been taken off the curriculum..?:rolleyes:

[Loki]

What a fucking disgrace. French men have the longest penises in Europe, I think they need balls to go along with that. :rolleyes:

[Joe McCarthy]

So i imagine Louis Ferdinad Celines classic Journey to the end of the Night has been taken off the curriculum..?:rolleyes:

It wouldn't be any great tragedy if it were. It's anti-Anglo trash. :coffee:

[Aces High]

The French like the rest of us are reaping the benefits of PAX AMERICANA in all of her glorious forms.

insert projectile vomit emoticon here.

[Argyll]

http://a4.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/profile01/150/98b6acbce51d4f739e869ec086c9f333/t.jpg




Source and Video Inside @ http://rt.com/news/french-history-revisionism-political-correctness-889/

Wow, what such and utter bullshite. Why don't we let the ethnic minorities write our own histories then? You know, so they don't get offended.

[Joe McCarthy]

The French like the rest of us are reaping the benefits of PAX AMERICANA in all of her glorious forms.

insert projectile vomit emoticon here.

Is this a troll post?

First, insert head in rectum. Then blame America.

[Ouistreham]

Journey to the end of the Night:


It wouldn't be any great tragedy if it were. It's anti-Anglo trash. :coffee:

Stupidest opinion ever.

I understand you've neither read the book nor heard of it so far.

You missed an opportunity to refrain from exposing yourself as severely clueless.

[Joe McCarthy]

Journey to the end of the Night:



Stupidest opinion ever.

I understand you've neither read the book nor heard of it so far.

You missed an opportunity to refrain from exposing yourself as severely clueless.

I have read the book. And the opinion stands. He attacks Anglo prudery.

It also insinuates miscegenation with black women.

Ironic that even the French right was decadent. Reading Celine actually did much to turn me off of the whole fascistoid matrix.

[zack]

Is this a troll post?

First, insert head in rectum. Then blame America.

Its is america's fault. We have exported the "melting pot" mentality.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Its is america's fault. We have exported the "melting pot" mentality.

Why doesn't this same revisionism exist in Japan and South Korea then?

Could it be that Western European leaders are the cause of the problem (revisionism and "melting pot" ideology)? Or are they taking all their orders straight from Washington D.C.?

Europeans need to take responsibility for their own governments like the East-Asians have. If your government messed up don't blame America because we didn't mess up all the countries we walked into and influenced showing that you still have some degree of free control- especially in the area of immigration, and history revisionism.

[Joe McCarthy]

Its is america's fault. We have exported the "melting pot" mentality.

The concept of the melting pot came from an English Jew, Israel Zangwill.
:rolleyes2:

[Joe McCarthy]

Why doesn't this same revisionism exist in Japan and South Korea then?

Could it be that Western European leaders are the cause of the problem? Or are they taking all their orders straight from Washington D.C.?

Fascists love scapegoats. First it was the Jews. Now it's America.

[The Ripper]

Fascists love scapegoats. First it was the Jews. Now it's America.

They've always been the same thing, really, in the fascist mind. ;)

[zack]

The concept of the melting pot came from an English Jew, Israel Zangwill.
:rolleyes2:

True...but we are the ones that 'perfected' it..so to speak.

[Joe McCarthy]

True...but we are the ones that 'perfected' it..so to speak.

It seems to me that the French are responsible for French textbooks. We were racially much more intolerant than they were even when Zangwill was around.

The melting pot isn't a proper analogy to this, anyway. Zangwill believed that immigrants should assimilate into the dominant culture. This textbook brouhaha isn't about that at all. In fact, I imagine the critics of this move would agree with Zangwill's aassimilationism as it would mandate immigrants respect French culture rather than belittle and neuter it.

[Magister Eckhart]

Critics say pupils are learning less and less about their own countries and warn that states which stop teaching their past will simply consign themselves to history.

That's the point, isn't it? Destroy Europe and replace it with a hundred little nigger-nations all at each others' throats over drug money. I thought that's what the EU was always about.

Where did these idiots think their silly little revolution was going to lead? Liberty, Equality, Fraternity only ever had one outcome that it was going to produce. The French parents who are outraged out to put down their Hugo and Marat and pick up de Maistre.

[Supreme American]

This is only the beginning, folks. Textbooks in the US are much the same.

[Tel Errant]

Where did these idiots think their silly little revolution was going to lead? Liberty, Equality, Fraternity only ever had one outcome that it was going to produce.
I fail to see the link between the Revolution and what's happening nowadays.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was more about ending the unjust class hierarchisation and privileges than anything else.
1789 and 2011 are two different contexts, you cannot put the blame on the former for the problems we're facing in 2011.


Textbooks in the US are much the same.
Indeed, many countries with an important immigrant population will eventually have or already had to partly change textbooks.
The good thing is that in France it sparks protests.

[Peyrol]

Textbooks here are still normals, but already some words changes: when i was in primary school, about italian Libia and italian Somalia/Eritrea were written: "...we brought civilization to these lands...". Now you read: "...we conquer these lands...".

Is a little changement, but also here the multicult-anti white philosophy begins to be "heard"

[research_centre]

Is this a troll post?

First, insert head in rectum. Then blame America.

He isn't wrong. They didn't dream that shite up it alone. It started with the PC crowd, especially out of America, especially of recent. It won't last ...nothing so outlandish ever does.

No one in their right mind is going to accept this bullshite long-term.

[Saturni]

While as intellectually repulsive as these acts of Cultural Terrorism are, they do serve a purpose and that is to rouse the complacent middle-classes out of their slumber. No real change for the better can occur until the "silent majority" finally decides that enough is enough.

[Saturni]

He isn't wrong. They didn't dream that shite up it alone. It started with the PC crowd, especially out of America, especially of recent. It won't last ...nothing so outlandish ever does.

No one in their right mind is going to accept this bullshite long-term.

This is Cultural Marxism, and Marxism is a Jewish, not American, invention.

[research_centre]

Why doesn't this same revisionism exist in Japan and South Korea then?

Could it be that Western European leaders are the cause of the problem (revisionism and "melting pot" ideology)? Or are they taking all their orders straight from Washington D.C.?

Europeans need to take responsibility for their own governments like the East-Asians have. If your government messed up don't blame America because we didn't mess up all the countries we walked into and influenced showing that you still have some degree of free control- especially in the area of immigration, and history revisionism.

As pertains to America this is entirely incorrect and correct as described. The so-called American "Melting Pot" mentality was devised and referred to Europeans marrying once in the States. It did not mean European and Negroid race mixing. Let us be clear on that phrase before it gets misused.

[Joe McCarthy]

As pertains to America this is entirely incorrect and correct as described. The so-called American "Melting Pot" mentality was devised and referred to Europeans marrying once in the States. It did not mean European and Negroid race mixing. Let us be clear on that phrase before it gets misused.

You're correct, though Zangwill did include Jews in the project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zangwill


Zangwill supported the feminist and pacifist movements,[7] but his greatest impact may have been as a writer who popularized the idea of the melding of the races into a single, American nation. The hero of his widely-produced play, The Melting Pot, proclaims: "America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians - into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American."

Teddy Roosevelt was a fan of Zangwill, as he saw it as a way to assimilate troublesome Irish and German immigrants.

[research_centre]

This is Cultural Marxism, and Marxism is a Jewish, not American, invention.

Good point. I stand corrected.

[Magister Eckhart]

I fail to see the link between the Revolution and what's happening nowadays.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was more about ending the unjust class hierarchisation and privileges than anything else.
1789 and 2011 are two different contexts, you cannot put the blame on the former for the problems we're facing in 2011.

Where does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights originate? Where the world-wide melting pot, except in the voices of the "Fraternity of Mankind" so popular on the continent at the turn of the 19th century. Liberty for all, from all! Equality is universal, and there is no inequality! Fraternity of mankind, we are all from Africa, we are all equal, we are all the same, culture means nothing, race is a social construct, -- the list of catchphrases and ideological one-liners goes on, and on, and on, and they all descend from a common liberal/republican source.

There is no way you can divorce the present leftism that seeks to destroy culture from the mob of spiritual peasants and mental pygmies who invaded churches and turned them into "temples of reason"; you cannot separate the legacy of the Revolutionary Calendar from the present Marxist attempts to re-write history. Even in the days of the Revolution, history was already being rewritten! Where do you think the term "Whig History" comes from, but from republicans and liberals going through history in the 19th century to re-interpret and revise everything such that all of humanity was marching toward a glorious final stage in which all the world was a democracy. The first major attempt at eliminating the BC/AD time scale was the Revolutionary Calendar; the only difference between this and BCE/CE is the fact that the Revolutionaries were too stupid to be so insidious as the contemporary Cultural Marxist: history has taught the anarchist and the traitor well; it has not been so successful in educating the traditionalist and conservative.

The Revolution is a central cause for the collapse of Europe; it may not be the sole cause, after all, the French have no monopoly on "Enlightenment" or the liberalism that would give rise to the Marxist dialectic, but to deny the centrality of the revolutionary mob to the rise of the cultural anarchy in which the Euro-American world presently wallows is blindness.

[Ouistreham]

Zangwill supported the feminist and pacifist movements,[7] but his greatest impact may have been as a writer who popularized the idea of the melding of the races into a single, American nation. The hero of his widely-produced play, The Melting Pot, proclaims: "America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians - into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American."

Teddy Roosevelt was a fan of Zangwill, as he saw it as a way to assimilate troublesome Irish and German immigrants.


Looking at Israel Zangwill, you grasp at once how anxious he was to melt his tribe and himself into a superior European gene pool.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Israel_Zangwill.jpg

http://yankeedoodlesoc.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/zangwill.jpg

[Argyll]

Why would anyone support pacifiscm?

[Joe McCarthy]

Why would anyone support pacifiscm?

The horrors of war. Even the American eugenicist and racialist Lothrop Stoddard became fervently anti-war due to WW1.

[morski]

Where does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights originate?

Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and others.

[Tel Errant]

Equality is universal, and there is no inequality! Fraternity of mankind, we are all from Africa, we are all equal, we are all the same, culture means nothing, race is a social construct, -- the list of catchphrases and ideological one-liners goes on, and on, and on, and they all descend from a common liberal/republican source.
Some of these catchphrases are very christic.



The Revolution is a central cause for the collapse of Europe; it may not be the sole cause, after all, the French have no monopoly on "Enlightenment" or the liberalism that would give rise to the Marxist dialectic, but to deny the centrality of the revolutionary mob to the rise of the cultural anarchy in which the Euro-American world presently wallows is blindness.
The central causes for the collapse of Europe are political correctness, the feeling of guilt for the colonial past, and the condamnation of any remotely nationalist idea because of WWII.

[Loki]

This is Cultural Marxism, and Marxism is a Jewish, not American, invention.

I disagree. Marx was no ordinary Jew, he was thoroughly Germanized. As for Friedrich Engels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels) - he seems German to me, I have seen no indication that he was Jewish. Correct me if wrong.

[Turkey]

^I personally think karl marx meant well. As opposed to his opposite, goldman sachs type jews

[Joe McCarthy]

^I personally think karl marx meant well. As opposed to his opposite, goldman sachs type jews

Depends what you mean by 'well'. He wanted to abolish 'exploitation' of children by their parents, for one. He was hostile to the family.

[Turkey]

actually i've never read his book so I'll have to get back to you:)

[Argyll]

The horrors of war. Even the American eugenicist and racialist Lothrop Stoddard became fervently anti-war due to WW1.

People need to understand that war is inevitable and violence is natural.

[Joe McCarthy]

People need to understand that war is inevitable and violence is natural.

I agree with that, but war has nearly destroyed the West. War needs to be brief, limited, and localized, when fought at all.

[BeerBaron]

I agree with that, but war has nearly destroyed the West. War needs to be brief, limited, and localized, when fought at all.

the west could start by getting rid of many Geneva convention rules on war and stop limiting itself.

[GeistFaust]

the west could start by getting rid of many Geneva convention rules on war and stop limiting itself.


I agree with this partially but in a sense these restrictions were put in place so big wars like World War 1 and World War 2 would not happen again. It was all a remedial way to make sure that civilized countries did not self-destruct we can see the horrid impact both those wars has had on the development of the Western World. In a way it has softened us up so much that we are becoming less capable of fighting at the same time if we get rid of certain restrictions imposed by the Geneva Convention than we would be risking a lot especially since this age of nuclear warfare. Its all a game where we need to weight the options cautiously and realize certain political decisions could have dire consequences in the context of today's modern world.

[Magister Eckhart]

Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and others.

Magna Carta is a political document, not a social document. It is transformed into political ideology by Liberals during the Enlightenment, but reading Enlightenment ethics into history has long been discredited as a historical practise, though it survives in the vulgar histories sold by politicians to the mob.


Some of these catchphrases are very christic.


The central causes for the collapse of Europe are political correctness, the feeling of guilt for the colonial past, and the condamnation of any remotely nationalist idea because of WWII.

The Christian "equality of man" is a spiritual equality, as anyone who has looked at even the most generic medieval document would see. It is completely divorced and unlike the material "fraternity of mankind" sold by the atheistic Enlightenment.

Further, seeing the collapse of Europe only in the post-World War world is an incredibly shallow and short-sighted vision of our Civilization's history. Things like this do not simply happen after a war, or even two wars, no matter how destructive. Wars are catalysts, they are not causes. The causes are buried deep in history, and the rise of materialism, found in the Enlightenment, found in particular in the culture-destroying ideology of the revolution(s) in France, where also the origins of Marxism are found.

[Joe McCarthy]

Further, seeing the collapse of Europe only in the post-World War world is an incredibly shallow and short-sighted vision of our Civilization's history. Things like this do not simply happen after a war, or even two wars, no matter how destructive. Wars are catalysts, they are not causes. The causes are buried deep in history, and the rise of materialism, found in the Enlightenment, found in particular in the culture-destroying ideology of the revolution(s) in France, where also the origins of Marxism are found.

Don't underestimate the power of wars to shape history. They've been much more decisive than ideological nuances. For example, it was Tamerlane's smashing of the Golden Horde that weakened it and set the stage for Ivan III to throw off the Tatar yoke. The French held Algeria for over a century before mass immigration began, and this was after 1789, and they crushed at least one rebellion. Moreover, they were the first country that began experiencing low birthrates and still didn't import large numbers of them as immigrants. Only after the effects of two world wars did this begin in earnest.

[morski]

Magna Carta is a political document, not a social document. It is transformed into political ideology by Liberals during the Enlightenment, but reading Enlightenment ethics into history has long been discredited as a historical practise, though it survives in the vulgar histories sold by politicians to the mob.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in my opinion is also a political document. Actually what exactly do you mean by "social document"?

[Tel Errant]

The Christian "equality of man" is a spiritual equality, as anyone who has looked at even the most generic medieval document would see.
Meaning that the only thing that is relevant to God is spiritual and that one's race and ethnicity doesn't matter, as anyone who has looked at the gospels would see.



Further, seeing the collapse of Europe only in the post-World War world is an incredibly shallow and short-sighted vision of our Civilization's history. Things like this do not simply happen after a war, or even two wars, no matter how destructive. Wars are catalysts, they are not causes. The causes are buried deep in history, and the rise of materialism, found in the Enlightenment, found in particular in the culture-destroying ideology of the revolution(s) in France, where also the origins of Marxism are found.
So are revolutions.

[Magister Eckhart]

Meaning that the only thing that is relevant to God is spiritual and that one's race and ethnicity doesn't matter, as anyone who has looked at the gospels would see.

You miss the point, which likely has to do with your atheistic outlook on Christianity. Christianity is not wholly spiritual in the way that secularism and atheism are wholly material: it is not so simple-minded as that. "Equality" was reserved by Christians, true Christians who understand the traditions of the Church and the message of the Gospels, for the spiritual realm. Spiritual equality does not, and cannot, equate to material equality; this is the fault of the material-minded heretics who tried to abolish serfdom and slavery.

Let me call on the blessed Anselm of Laon, who writes:

"Servitude is ordained by God... for servitude is of great help to religion in protecting humility, the guardian of all virtues; and it would seem to be pride for anyone to wish to charge that condition which has been given him for good reason by the divine ordinance"

And St. Anselm of Canterbury:

"What does it matter them [monks] who serves whom in the world, or under what name? Is not every man born to labour as a bird to flight? ... and is not he who is called a serf in the Lord, the Lord's freeman; and he who is called free, is he not Christ's serf? So if all men labour and serve, and the serf is a freeman of the lord and the freeman is a serf of Christ, what does it matter apart from pride - either to the world or to God - who is called a serf and who is called free?"

Social, racial, and material inequality matter nothing to God, and any attempt to destroy these inequalities is not only futile but blasphemous. It is solely the work of heresy and atheism present in the Enlightenment, of which the Revolution is emblematic, that created the idiotic notion of the material fraternity and equality of mankind. Inequality is the natural state of man, and ordained by God's hand; this is exactly because all men are equal in the sight of God that they need not be equal in the sight of man. Therefore, the materialist "equality of man" or "equality of races" is purely the invention of heretics and atheists, not true Christians.



So are revolutions.

Revolutions are much more far-reaching than wars, since revolutions spawn many wars and many social and ideological changes. Look only to the way the revolution in France slaughtered innocent Catholics and drove religion out of the country, then sought to turn on Europe and submit the entirety of the continent to this atheistic, leftist regime of mob-rule. The revolution acted out a continental decline into immoral social chaos that has ultimately resulted in exactly the situation in which we today find ourselves: racial levelling follows closely behind social levelling, until the whole of society is completely "equal" and Marxism of all shades, the child or, indeed, the sibling, of the Revolution(s) reigns supreme over the West and over the world.

[Tel Errant]

Social, racial, and material inequality matter nothing to God, and any attempt to destroy these inequalities is not only futile but blasphemous.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24



Revolutions are much more far-reaching than wars, since revolutions spawn many wars and many social and ideological changes.
So did WWII that was nazism against communism both eventually beaten by capitalism.

[Peyrol]

I don't want open an entire thread, so i ask here...there are some bonapartists in modern France?

[beeee]

I don't want open an entire thread, so i ask here...there are some bonapartists in modern France?

never heard...

[Tel Errant]

I don't want open an entire thread, so i ask here...there are some bonapartists in modern France?

The closest to it politically would be a gaullist like NDA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Dupont-Aignan) (the guy in my avatar), republicanist, centralist, sovereignist.
Some kind of Marine Le Pen light so to say.

[Argyll]

The closest to it politically would be a gaullist like NDA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Dupont-Aignan) (the guy in my avatar), republicanist, centralist, sovereignist.
Some kind of Marine Le Pen light so to say.

Does he support an independent Brittany?

[Tel Errant]

Does he support an independent Brittany?
Of course not.

[Argyll]

Of course not.

Do you think it would be bad for Brittany to be independent?

[Tel Errant]

It would be bad for both Brittany and France.

[ikki]

nah, as long as islam does not separate between church and state, its not possible to integrate them as muslims.
Therefore the muslims should be gathered up, beaten and forcibly converted to christianity.

And should they cease to be christians by practicing any of their heathen religions, they must be killed.

[Turkey]

nah, as long as islam does not separate between church and state, its not possible to integrate them as muslims.
Therefore the muslims should be gathered up, beaten and forcibly converted to christianity.

And should they cease to be christians by practicing any of their heathen religions, they must be killed.

why on earth would you want to assimilate arabs? wouldn't that make it easier for them to breed with us?

[Argyll]

It would be bad for both Brittany and France.

I don't think it would culturally though. Economically, unfortunately, probably.

[Magister Eckhart]

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

You're missing the point of that passage, which is not about social inequality but about exactly the problem those who seek to establish social equality have, and what distances them from Christ.

Here is the entire passage, to make the context of the passage clear and remove any illusions anyone might have about Jesus being some kind of Communist:

The passage appears in both Mark 10:21-15


Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Godand in Matthew 19:21-26


Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Now then, there are several key points in these passages that deserve more attention that the famous "camel" quote. First and foremost, to whom does Christ speak? The rich young man who follows all of the rules by the letter and wants to guarantee his place in the Kingdom. Why does he seek this, and how? He seeks a place in the Kingdom the way one might seek a fine jewel, and wants to secure it the way one insures an extremely valuable item. He does not seek it for itself for what it is, but in terms of what it means to men. "With men this is impossible," Christ says, for indeed the worldly outlook of humans precludes any possibility of understanding the wholly spiritual nature of the Kingdom of Heaven.



Now, let us turn specifically to Mark: "how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!" A man trusts in what is palpable, in what he has in his hands, like riches and wealth. He trusts in the Kingdom of Heaven if it is something made tangible to him - which is what the rich young man seeks in approaching Jesus as if he were a wise man. He trusts so much in the tangible that he is unwilling to part with it in his heart and embrace the intangible out of faith - this is what is being addressed here. They that trust in, or elevate, the spiritual as material or they that look to the physical solely are of the same sort, and commit the same error. It is they, "who trust in riches" who cannot enter the Kingdom.


He who seeks material equality because "God has made us all equal" is one who values the spiritual as material - he cannot see that physical, material, and social inequality are perfectly natural and therefore ordained by God, regardless of the universal spiritual equality of man. This is what Christ is warning against: placing faith in the material rather than the spiritual. Christ would never have condemned slavery any more than he would condemn racial science, so long as no one saw in these things some kind of spiritual truth, for there is nothing spiritual to be found in the material world.



Christianity understands this, and therefore true Christianity makes no efforts to eliminate social inequality, because there is no need. It is, rather, the work of heretics like those of New England leading the abolition movement or of atheists like those of the Enlightenment who proclaim "all men are created equal" as a material reality that are responsible for the quite foolish and unrealistic belief that there is or should be material, physical, and racial equality and fraternity.



So did WWII that was nazism against communism both eventually beaten by capitalism.


"Capitalism", i.e. Western Liberalism, National Socialism, and Communism are all results of the same source, which is the Enlightenment. For all of its efforts to combat the Enlightenment with Romanticism, Nazism could not escape the fact that it was a mass movement and both rhetorically and politically founded on the notion of popular sovereignty. All forms of government which take sovereignty from God and give it to the people ultimately stem from Hobbes and the beginning of the Enlightenment in Europe. This means, ultimately, that the same forces of which The Revolution is the highest expression are those forces which drive Western Liberalism, known ironically as "the free world", as well as Communism and Fascism. There is nothing truly pre-Enlightenment or spiritually Western (i.e. in terms of Western Civilization rather than merely Liberal ideology) about them; they are all tied to a common strain of thinking that ultimately breaks down culture and civilization and leads to the same end: absolute equality as the goal of culture, sentimentality as the principle drive of society, and mob tyranny as the form of government.

[Lurker]

Where does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights originate? Where the world-wide melting pot, except in the voices of the "Fraternity of Mankind" so popular on the continent at the turn of the 19th century. Liberty for all, from all! Equality is universal, and there is no inequality! Fraternity of mankind, we are all from Africa, we are all equal, we are all the same, culture means nothing, race is a social construct, -- the list of catchphrases and ideological one-liners goes on, and on, and on, and they all descend from a common liberal/republican source.

There is no way you can divorce the present leftism that seeks to destroy culture from the mob of spiritual peasants and mental pygmies who invaded churches and turned them into "temples of reason"; you cannot separate the legacy of the Revolutionary Calendar from the present Marxist attempts to re-write history. Even in the days of the Revolution, history was already being rewritten! Where do you think the term "Whig History" comes from, but from republicans and liberals going through history in the 19th century to re-interpret and revise everything such that all of humanity was marching toward a glorious final stage in which all the world was a democracy. The first major attempt at eliminating the BC/AD time scale was the Revolutionary Calendar; the only difference between this and BCE/CE is the fact that the Revolutionaries were too stupid to be so insidious as the contemporary Cultural Marxist: history has taught the anarchist and the traitor well; it has not been so successful in educating the traditionalist and conservative.

The Revolution is a central cause for the collapse of Europe; it may not be the sole cause, after all, the French have no monopoly on "Enlightenment" or the liberalism that would give rise to the Marxist dialectic, but to deny the centrality of the revolutionary mob to the rise of the cultural anarchy in which the Euro-American world presently wallows is blindness.

Well, this "equality" question is also very christian. Christianism aims to convert everyone, independent of race, and doesn't mention race at all. Only certain sects of christianism are racist and speak about inequality, considering blacks to be inferior (like british israelites or mormons). So, we could say that this thing about everyone being equal, etc comes from Christianism, which is a religion of love and in several instances aims to be universal (catholic church, for example). Old, pagan european religions were more racist and exclusivist.

[Magister Eckhart]

Well, this "equality" question is also very christian. Christianism aims to convert everyone, independent of race, and doesn't mention race at all. Only certain sects of christianism are racist and speak about inequality, considering blacks to be inferior (like british israelites or mormons). So, we could say that this thing about everyone being equal, etc comes from Christianism, which is a religion of love and in several instances aims to be universal (catholic church, for example). Old, pagan european religions were more racist and exclusivist.

See my above post re: Christianity and material equality. Christianity is neither racist nor anti-racist, because theologically neither of those things are significant.

I'd repeat everything I've said on the subject, but instead I'll point you to Part II of St. Augustine's City of God against the Pagans.

[Lurker]

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

Also, the beginning of that part is important as well:


Jesus said, “Why do you question me about what’s good? God is the One who is good. If you want to enter the life of God, just do what he tells you.”

The man asked, “What in particular?”

Jesus said, “Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie, honour your father and mother, and love your neighbour as you do yourself."

The young man said, “I've done all that. What’s left?”

“If you want to give it all you've got,” Jesus replied, “go sell your possessions; give everything to the poor. All your wealth will then be in heaven. Then come follow me."

[Magister Eckhart]

Also, the beginning of that part is important as well:

Uck. What version are you quoting from? Talk about robbing the scripture of its poetry.

Anyway, I've responded to all of these concerns already, and should have laid them well to rest if anyone would bother reading my posting.

[gandalf]

The closest to it politically would be a gaullist like NDA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Dupont-Aignan) (the guy in my avatar), republicanist, centralist, sovereignist.
Some kind of Marine Le Pen light so to say.

Why do you want a Le Pen light , she is not that fat ! :rolleyes:

[Lurker]

See my above post re: Christianity and material equality. Christianity is neither racist nor anti-racist, because theologically neither of those things are significant.

I'd repeat everything I've said on the subject, but instead I'll point you to Part II of St. Augustine's City of God against the Pagans.

Have you read Quadragesimmo Anno by Pope Pius XI?

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html

Private property has moral duties, and governments have the right to expopriate it for redistribution purposes. Too much inequality in society is seem as bad. Why would the Church make donnations and charity if not for that, to ease the burden of those who live in the bottom of society? It's not the call for complete equality of some radicals, but the Church still cares how people are materially and strives for a society where inequality isn't big.

[Magister Eckhart]

Have you read Quadragesimmo Anno by Pope Pius XI?

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html

Private property has moral duties, and governments have the right to expopriate it for redistribution purposes. Too much inequality in society is seem as bad. Why would the Church make donnations and charity if not for that, to ease the burden of those who live in the bottom of society? It's not the call for complete equality of some radicals, but the Church still cares how people are materially and strives for a society where inequality isn't big.

Christ's Church on Earth is not a government. That it does charitable works seems little surprising to me; nowhere, however, has the Church ever claimed that Christ was wrong when he said "For the poor always ye have with you" (John 12:8, Mark 14:7, Matt. 26:11) or when he proclaimed "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." (Luke 20:25, Mark 12:17, Matt. 22:21)

Ultimately, the well-being of others is the concern of every individual; it is not, however, the concern of governments, insofar as governments are not individuals. Governments exist to govern, to distribute justice, not to distribute goods, which do not belong to governments.

As far as I can tell, the only thing Pope Pius XI did with his encyclical was issue an old and long-standing view of society in which they who have much are duty-bound to they who have little. As the Lord looks out for his Serfs in return for their service to him, likewise businessman should look out for his employees. I don't see anything socialist or subversive here, or anything embracing government social welfare programs, or anything seeking equality. Fair treatment and equality are not the same thing, as anyone seeking equality will tell you.

[Turkey]

What is it with TA. Threads either get hijacked by homosexuality or religion.

Doesn't anyone want to preserve european genes instead of pushing their own petty agenders?

[Laubach]

I don't want open an entire thread, so i ask here...there are some bonapartists in modern France?

yes, there are few monarchists, but most of that group would be in favor of the house D'Orléans and not the Bonaparte

[Magister Eckhart]

What is it with TA. Threads either get hijacked by homosexuality or religion.

Doesn't anyone want to preserve european genes instead of pushing their own petty agenders?

To be fair, the discussion I'm having does relate back to the situation in France, which is not entirely, but mostly the fault of the Revolution.

[The Ripper]

What is it with TA. Threads either get hijacked by homosexuality or religion.

Doesn't anyone want to preserve european genes instead of pushing their own petty agenders?

LOL :D

[Tel Errant]

Christ would never have condemned slavery any more than he would condemn racial science, so long as no one saw in these things some kind of spiritual truth, for there is nothing spiritual to be found in the material world.


Christianity understands this, and therefore true Christianity makes no efforts to eliminate social inequality, because there is no need. It is, rather, the work of heretics like those of New England leading the abolition movement or of atheists like those of the Enlightenment who proclaim "all men are created equal" as a material reality that are responsible for the quite foolish and unrealistic belief that there is or should be material, physical, and racial equality and fraternity.
What about Christ himself cleaning the feet of the apostles showing that there must be no masters no servants in this world then?

Or Saint Paul preaching to the gentiles showing that there are no chosen people, or the parable of the good Samaritan that confront the ethnic prejudice towards Samaritans? Christianity does preach racial fraternity.



"Capitalism", i.e. Western Liberalism, National Socialism, and Communism are all results of the same source, which is the Enlightenment. For all of its efforts to combat the Enlightenment with Romanticism, Nazism could not escape the fact that it was a mass movement and both rhetorically and politically founded on the notion of popular sovereignty. All forms of government which take sovereignty from God and give it to the people ultimately stem from Hobbes and the beginning of the Enlightenment in Europe.
Nazism and Bolchevism were racial and marxist nationalisms and as such based upon mass movements. Nothing to do with the Enlightenment.

[Tel Errant]

Why do you want a Le Pen light , she is not that fat ! :rolleyes:
A vrai dire Marine n'est pas le problème, c'est le FN qui l'est. J'ai des doutes en ce qui concerne le parti, les orientations idéologiques de certains de ses cadres comme Gollnisch et ses capacités en tant que parti de gouvernement capable de proposer une politique économique sérieuse. Sans parler de tous les problèmes qui vont nous tomber dessus de la part de Bruxelles, ou les mouvements sociaux à répétition qui suivraient inévitablement une victoire du Front de toute façon improbable.
Dupont-Aignan c'est l'aile souverainiste de l'UMP, un souverainisme "propre et respectable" qui n'aurait aucun problème pour trouver des personnalités compétentes afin de former un gouvernement.

Le vote FN reste quoi qu'on en pense un vote protestataire dirigé contre l'inaction du système UMPS. On devrait d'ailleurs dire le vote Marine, et avant elle le vote Jean-Marie tant ce parti repose sur la forte personalité de ses chefs. Même remarque pour l'extrème gauche soit dit en passant, le NPA capitalisant entièrement sur les excellentes prestations télévisuelles du facteur de Neuilly, redoutable débateur il faut bien le dire, et non sur son programme.

On verra quand le FN aura fini sa mue, en attendant je préfère supporter celui qui représente un recentrage de la majorité à droite.

[gandalf]

Un petit reste de politiquement correct ....

Les soi-disant souverainistes de l'UMP ou du PS

ne servent à rien puisqu'ils sont dans des partis qui sont clairement mondialistes .

Quand tu seras assez fort tu viendras au Front ,
Dieu vomi les tièdes .

[Magister Eckhart]

What about Christ himself cleaning the feet of the apostles showing that there must be no masters no servants in this world then?

You're the one claiming that it shows that there are no masters and no servants; considering your own religious affiliation, I should say you are in an odd position to do Biblical interpretation. Trust me, as a Christian and as a Roman Catholic specifically, the meaning of Christ's actions is not that there are no masters and no servants; in fact, St. Paul asserts very strongly himself that there are masters to be obeyed and servants to obey. Never in the Gospel is there an assertion that no social hierarchy exists or that no social hierarchy should exist.


Or Saint Paul preaching to the gentiles showing that there are no chosen people, or the parable of the good Samaritan that confront the ethnic prejudice towards Samaritans? Christianity does preach racial fraternity.

First of all, Christ himself said that the vineyard would be taken away from the first tenants and given to new tenants who would bear greater fruit. St. Paul preaching to the Gentiles only fulfils this teaching and warning of Christ. As for the Good Samaritan, I fail to see how it's a commentary on racial prejudice: the Samaritans were ethnically Jews - the difference was in their religion. They were considered evil people; the parable shows that good can be found even in the places where it is expected the least.

Christianity does not preach either racial fraternity or racial segregation: it doesn't touch the issue.


Nazism and Bolchevism were racial and marxist nationalisms and as such based upon mass movements. Nothing to do with the Enlightenment.

No post-Enlightenment nationalist movement can be divorced from the Enlightenment: the Enlightenment and the Revolution invented modern nationalism. See Eugene Weber Peasants into Frenchmen, Eric Hobsbawm Nations and Nationalism since 1790, and Cf. Anthony D. Smith, The Antiquity of Nations for arguments in support of this position; I unfortunately don't have the time to write them all out right now.

[Tel Errant]

Un petit reste de politiquement correct ....
Rien du tout. Je n'aime pas les cathos traditionalistes, je méprise les skins, et les révisionnistes me répugnent. Avant Marine le FN ne se distinguait que par les bouffonneries de Le Pen père ou de Gollnisch sur la collaboration, l'holocauste, les Durafour crématoire et autre conneries du genre.
Si tu te retrouves dans l'une des catégories précitées moi je ne veux rien avoir à faire avec ces gens-là.



Quand tu seras assez fort tu viendras au Front ,
Dieu vomi les tièdes .
Quand Marine aura suffisamment tiédi le FN et l'aura transformé en quelque chose de politiquement potable autre qu'un parti de beaufs simple exutoire à la grogne sociale, on verra.

[Tel Errant]

You're the one claiming that it shows that there are no masters and no servants; considering your own religious affiliation, I should say you are in an odd position to do Biblical interpretation. Trust me, as a Christian and as a Roman Catholic specifically, the meaning of Christ's actions is not that there are no masters and no servants; in fact, St. Paul asserts very strongly himself that there are masters to be obeyed and servants to obey. Never in the Gospel is there an assertion that no social hierarchy exists or that no social hierarchy should exist.



First of all, Christ himself said that the vineyard would be taken away from the first tenants and given to new tenants who would bear greater fruit. St. Paul preaching to the Gentiles only fulfils this teaching and warning of Christ. As for the Good Samaritan, I fail to see how it's a commentary on racial prejudice: the Samaritans were ethnically Jews - the difference was in their religion. They were considered evil people; the parable shows that good can be found even in the places where it is expected the least.

Christianity does not preach either racial fraternity or racial segregation: it doesn't touch the issue.
'Love your neighbour like yourself', 'christian charity', 'Jesus died for our sins', etc... Christianism is a religion of love, compassion, forgiveness, universalism and fraternity of mankind. The rest is just your rhetoric trying to make Roman Catholicism match your political and racialist stances.
And btw from a pure rhetorical point of view, something that has no definition, that you can't perceive with your senses nor conceptualize with your reasonment; this something -God- doesn't exist.



No post-Enlightenment nationalist movement can be divorced from the Enlightenment: the Enlightenment and the Revolution invented modern nationalism.
The Enlightenment is not about nationalism and the Wars of the Revolution only gave it a republican shape.

[gandalf]

Rien du tout. Je n'aime pas les cathos traditionalistes, je méprise les skins, et les révisionnistes me répugnent. Avant Marine le FN ne se distinguait que par les bouffonneries de Le Pen père ou de Gollnisch sur la collaboration, l'holocauste, les Durafour crématoire et autre conneries du genre.
Si tu te retrouves dans l'une des catégories précitées moi je ne veux rien avoir à faire avec ces gens-là.


Quand Marine aura suffisamment tiédi le FN et l'aura transformé en quelque chose de politiquement potable autre qu'un parti de beaufs simple exutoire à la grogne sociale, on verra.

Ah effectivement je reconnais le crédo de l'UMP ,
et les clichés habituels sur le FN .

:D:D:D

[Magister Eckhart]

'Love your neighbour like yourself', 'christian charity', 'Jesus died for our sins', etc... Christianism is a religion of love, compassion, forgiveness, universalism and fraternity of mankind. The rest is just your rhetoric trying to make Roman Catholicism match your political and racialist stances.
And btw from a pure rhetorical point of view, something that has no definition, that you can't perceive with your senses nor conceptualize with your reasonment; this something -God- doesn't exist.


The Enlightenment is not about nationalism and the Wars of the Revolution only gave it a republican shape.

It's impossible to argue with a French atheist about this. I might as well try to tell a 4th century Greek that the Earth revolved around the sun or an Egyptian labourer that his Pharaoh was not the son of the sun-god. You are so immersed in the ideology you have grown up in that you are impervious to all arguments that challenge your beloved republic or its mandatory godlessness. The Revolution was an evil, and the French Republic was and remains an abomination. That it still exists is a mark of shame on every generation of Europeans who had the opportunity to slay the beast. Instead it has survived and like a cancer, destroyed every healthy social institution in Europe, replacing order with anarchy, religion with irreverence, and noble culture with vulgar nationalism. Europe can only perish at the hands of such a beast-- just as the defenders of its traditions did in the Vendée.

[Tel Errant]

Ah effectivement je reconnais le crédo de l'UMP ,
Sauf que DLR n'est pas plus UMP que le Nouveau Centre ou le MPF ne le sont et que c'est le crédo de tout monde; personne en dehors de son propre électorat ne veux rien avoir à faire avec le FN, il n'y a qu'à voir le report des voix entre les deux tours en 2002 pour s'en rendre compte.




et les clichés habituels sur le FN .

:D:D:D
Les procès habituels tu veux dire, l'ex-président et vice-président du FN sont des habitués du 'dérapage' sur la seconde guerre -souvent à caractère antisémite- et cumulent les condamnations. Ils sont les seuls responsables de la tricardisation médiatique du FN et de la honte sociale associée à ce vote.

Ensuite en ce qui concerne les "clichés" proprement dit il faut bien faire la distinction entre le parti et les électeurs.
En ce qui concerne ceux sur le parti d'abord, les cathos tradis, les skins/fafs, les révisionnistes/pétainistes/exOAS/antisémites paranos, bref la droite radicale, représentent une part importante du parti, ceux qui ont voté Gollnisch pour succéder au vieux, ceux qui comme Soral dans ses vidéos accusent Marine et ses partisans de mener une guerre de courants et de trahir le parti pour se faire accepter par le système.

En ce qui concerne ceux sur les électeurs maintenant, en dehors de la droite dure les principales catégories qui votent FN sont les ouvriers, les jeunes, et les retraités. C'est à dire un vote contre, contre les conditions de vie misérables auxquelles on est confronté quand on doit faire vivre sa famille avec 1500 euros par mois tout en ayant à supporter les joies associées à la vie en logement social; contre le racket, la violence et le racisme anti-blanc qu'on a eu à supporter au lycée et contre lesquels on se venge dans les urnes une fois qu'on a le droit de vote; contre la France qui fout le camp alors que c'était mieux avant.
En somme les prolos/beaufs, les victimes/boloss, et les grand-mères à moustache. Un vote protestataire -et je ne dit pas qu'ils ont tort- mais pas un vote d'adhésion à un projet politique.

[Tel Errant]

It's impossible to argue with a French atheist about this.

You are so immersed in the ideology you have grown up in that you are impervious to all arguments that challenge your beloved republic or its mandatory godlessness.

And yet your arguments are so balanced and unbiased... :


The Revolution was an evil, and the French Republic was and remains an abomination. That it still exists is a mark of shame on every generation of Europeans who had the opportunity to slay the beast. Instead it has survived and like a cancer, destroyed every healthy social institution in Europe, replacing order with anarchy, religion with irreverence, and noble culture with vulgar nationalism. Europe can only perish at the hands of such a beast-- just as the defenders of its traditions did in the Vendée.

[Magister Eckhart]

And yet your arguments are so balanced and unbiased... :

To that point I made a clear effort to be patient and try by argument and reason to convince you of something your cultural and historical moment will not allow you to believe. Any half-witted gutter-snipe could see the clear change in tone between that posting and those preceding it.

[gandalf]

Sauf que DLR n'est pas plus UMP que le Nouveau Centre ou le MPF ne le sont et que c'est le crédo de tout monde; personne en dehors de son propre électorat ne veux rien avoir à faire avec le FN, il n'y a qu'à voir le report des voix entre les deux tours en 2002 pour s'en rendre compte.

AH la fameuse élection de 2002 , où Chirac a refusé le débat ,
où tous les médias criaient au retour de la bête , où les prof emmenaient les gamins dans la rue , etc ,

honte à toi petit bourgeois " du moindre effort " que de tirer argument
de cette farce antidémocratique .

Les procès habituels tu veux dire, l'ex-président et vice-président du FN sont des habitués du 'dérapage' sur la seconde guerre -souvent à caractère antisémite- et cumulent les condamnations. Ils sont les seuls responsables de la tricardisation médiatique du FN et de la honte sociale associée à ce vote.

Je crois que tu dates un peu ,
plus personne n'a honte d'assumer ce choix .

Ensuite en ce qui concerne les "clichés" proprement dit il faut bien faire la distinction entre le parti et les électeurs.
En ce qui concerne ceux sur le parti d'abord, les cathos tradis, les skins/fafs, les révisionnistes/pétainistes/exOAS/antisémites paranos, bref la droite radicale, représentent une part importante du parti, ceux qui ont voté Gollnisch pour succéder au vieux, ceux qui comme Soral dans ses vidéos accusent Marine et ses partisans de mener une guerre de courants et de trahir le parti pour se faire accepter par le système.

Tu oublies les gaullistes , et des tas de gens venus de la "gauche" et de la "droite" , pour ne retenir que ceux qui justement n'étaient pas
chauds pour introniser Marine

En ce qui concerne ceux sur les électeurs maintenant, en dehors de la droite dure les principales catégories qui votent FN sont les ouvriers, les jeunes, et les retraités. C'est à dire un vote contre, contre les conditions de vie misérables auxquelles on est confronté quand on doit faire vivre sa famille avec 1500 euros par mois tout en ayant à supporter les joies associées à la vie en logement social; contre le racket, la violence et le racisme anti-blanc qu'on a eu à supporter au lycée et contre lesquels on se venge dans les urnes une fois qu'on a le droit de vote; contre la France qui fout le camp alors que c'était mieux avant.
En somme les prolos/beaufs, les victimes/boloss, et les grand-mères à moustache. Un vote protestataire -et je ne dit pas qu'ils ont tort- mais pas un vote d'adhésion à un projet politique.

Encore des clichés ; s'il est vrai que le FN est le parti du peuple
comme l'était le parti communiste en son temps ,
il ne se réduit pas à cela , et tu le sais .
( Il n'y a qu'à voir l'équipe de campagne de Marine )
Tout patriote a vocation à rejoindre le front , ou bien n'être
qu'un poseur , un rebelle de pacotille .

Comme toi ?

Il y a un vote d'adhésion bien sûr et tous le reconnaissent ,
sauf les aveugles ou les fourbes .

Maintenant si le programme ne te plaît pas , soit ,
mais alors soit clair et assume tes choix de bourgeois ,
de bobo , ou de lèche babouches .

Des tas de gens sur ce forum nous envient la popularité de Marine
et voient en elle le salut de la France , mais ,
comme dirait Goldman : " Mais pas toi " .

Voilà ce petit laïus pas pour te convertir ,
ça m'importe peu , et j'aurai été plus diplomate ,
mais pour ne pas laisser dire n'importe quoi .

[Tel Errant]

To that point I made a clear effort to be patient and try by argument and reason
Faith. We're talking about religion.



Any half-witted gutter-snipe could see the clear change in tone between that posting and those preceding it.
A change in the form but the content remains the same.

[Tel Errant]

AH la fameuse élection de 2002 , où Chirac a refusé le débat ,
où tous les médias criaient au retour de la bête , où les prof emmenaient les gamins dans la rue , etc ,

honte à toi petit bourgeois " du moindre effort " que de tirer argument
de cette farce antidémocratique .
Oui, l'élection de 2002, la seule qui nous ait donné une idée de la capacité du FN à convaincre les électeurs ne faisant pas partie de son électorat de base.
On pourrait aussi comparer les scores du FN avec ceux du PC depuis 1981 (Marchais faisant alors un peu plus de 16%) et constater que l'on a en gros affaire à la même base électorale populaire, la seule différence étant le parti. Ce qui renforce aussi en passant la thèse du vote protestataire, vu la différence idéologique qu'il y a entre le PC et le FN.


Je crois que tu dates un peu ,
plus personne n'a honte d'assumer ce choix .

Par chez toi peut-être, pas ici.


Encore des clichés ; s'il est vrai que le FN est le parti du peuple
comme l'était le parti communiste en son temps ,
il ne se réduit pas à cela , et tu le sais .
( Il n'y a qu'à voir l'équipe de campagne de Marine )

Justement, en parlant de l'équipe de campagne de Marine, j'écoutais Gilbert Collard sur RMC il y a deux semaines qui disait toute la peine qu'il avait à convaincre des personnalités d'afficher publiquement leur soutien à la candidature de Marine Le Pen, tant ils avaient peur de potentielles répercussions sociales et professionnelles.


Tout patriote a vocation à rejoindre le front , ou bien n'être
qu'un poseur , un rebelle de pacotille .

Comme toi ?
Tout patriote a vocation à rejoindre le parti qu'il juge le mieux à même de défendre les intérêts de la France.


Il y a un vote d'adhésion bien sûr et tous le reconnaissent ,
sauf les aveugles ou les fourbes .

Maintenant si le programme ne te plaît pas , soit ,
mais alors soit clair et assume tes choix de bourgeois ,
de bobo , ou de lèche babouches .

Oui mais un vote d'adhésion à quoi? Les arabes dehors? La France hors de l'Euro? Assez avec les dictats de Bruxelles?
Ca ne fais pas un programme, de plus le FN n'a aucune expérience du pouvoir, aucune chance d'être élu non plus. Pour l'instant en tout cas.
C'est le constat que je fais. J'aime bien Marine Le Pen, mais le FN ne représente pas encore suffisament à l'heure actuelle mes opinions et l'idée que je me fais d'un parti souverainiste. (Il faut t'y faire, tout le monde n'est pas nationaliste radical)
Je préfère voter Dupont-Aignan, c'est le plus proche de mes idées, c'est un vote qui envoie un signal à l'UMP, et accessoirement vu le score qu'il va faire une voix pour lui compte proportionellement autant que dix voix pour le FN.

[gandalf]

OK Tel Errant , je respecte tes choix ,
on en reparlera bientôt ...
et je salue ta retenue en réponse à mon post
un peu agressif dans la forme .

[Magister Eckhart]

Faith. We're talking about religion.

Faith and reason are twin sisters; sun and moon: different sides of the same unified day. Reason, when deployed totally rather than selectively, supports and embraces faith. The notion that the two are opposed is both thoroughly modern and thoroughly wrong, as centuries of Christian (and pre-Christian) philosophical tradition testify.

[Tel Errant]

Faith and reason are twin sisters; sun and moon: different sides of the same unified day. Reason, when deployed totally rather than selectively, supports and embraces faith. The notion that the two are opposed is both thoroughly modern and thoroughly wrong, as centuries of Christian (and pre-Christian) philosophical tradition testify.

Reason is based upon theorically and empirically verified facts, faith upon the lack of it. Those two notions are enemies, not twins.

[Magister Eckhart]

Reason is based upon theorically and empirically verified facts, faith upon the lack of it. Those two notions are enemies, not twins.

You are confusing the human capacity called "reason" with the Enlightenment ideology called "Rationalism". I thank God I did not grow up so near the heart of the Revolution, to have such a twisted view of history and humanity. Ne vous venez de Paris? It is the only explanation I can think of for such an erroneous world-view stemming from poor education.

[Tel Errant]

You are confusing the human capacity called "reason" with the Enlightenment ideology called "Rationalism".

Rationality (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rationality#Noun): the quality or state of being rational; agreement with reason; possession of reason; due exercise of reason; reasonableness.

Those, are real twin sisters.

[Dead Eye]

This reminds me of what the left wing retards were trying to get done here in Britain a few years ago.They wanted to stop history teachers teaching children anything beyond the 1700's which would ignore practically all of our history.You can see from the timeline what they want to teach: whites enslaved black people,Hitler killed the Jews etc etc.