Vanguard News Network

by Armen Nazarbekov

I suppose I should read the Weekly Standard more often. It is, after all, the political flagship of Yiddischkeit’s controlled press — and thus an excellent source of the ruling ideas. As it is, I turn to it only under the gun. This week’s cover story (dated February 27) is one such case, devoted as it is to Nicholas Sarkozy, France’s Interior Minister and one of the rising stars on the French “right.”

What makes Sarkozy so important is the role he seeks to play in French politics: For France today is very much like Germany in the early 1930s — being, as Trotsky said of the latter, the key to the international situation. The way she goes in the next few years is thus the way the rest of Europe is likely to go; and how Europe goes will determine how the rest of the White race fares. Our fate, in other words, very much hinges on France, where the struggle between White and non-White, Europe’s core and liberalism’s ethnocidal state, First World civilization and Third World chaos, is most acute and most pregnant with possibility.

The title of the Standard piece says it all: “The Man who would be le président: Nicolas Sarkozy wants to wake up France.” With its signature superciliousness, the Standard depicts Sarkozy, neoconservatism’s French hope, as the one man with the ability to “wake up” his country. His ideas (those of U.S. neocons), his dynamic personality (this immigrant Jew), and his distinctly un-French style (eager collaborator of the Yankee globalists) allegedly have the power to shake France from its decadent slumbers and give it “a new morning” (à la Reagan).

To claim, though, that France is asleep is not just immodest, it’s illogical. For the “awakening” which the neocons propose can, in any conventional understanding of the term, only be a re-awakening — something that gets back to the way things were in the beginning, before the decay set in — something, then, that is necessarily native and original to the country. But what the neocons actually mean is just the opposite: They advocate something that is neither native nor original, but universal, cosmopolitan, and applicable everywhere, especially as it accords with the homogenizing dictates of America’s New World Order. Thus it is that the Standard assumes that France is asleep because its state system retains vestiges of its national tradition and refuses to support America in its “long war” against terror — because it has not wholeheartedly succumbed to the globalist vulgate of open borders, privatization, and the abandonment of sovereignty (even upholding certain “protectionist” measures that ensures the country’s control of its vital industries) — because it adheres (if only in word) to an idea of “public” rather than consumer welfare — and because its republican ideology, anchored in an earlier color-blind egalitarianism, frowns on “positive discrimination” and implicitly favors French assimilation over multiculturalism.

True to the neocons’ “Americanizing” agenda, “Sarko” is going to wake the French from their stupor: As if they weren’t already deeply entranced by the flashing lights and low-cost stimulations of a system whose programming ensures their sheep-like acceptance of the state’s corrupt, collaborationist, and ethnocidal policies. Having originated in America and proven effective in keeping White Americans indifferent to their impending demise, the system trumpeted in the Standard piece is re-presented as a means of reviving France — as if these Washington war-gamers and pencil-pushing imperialists had the slightest concern for France’s welfare. Before even reaching the first sentence of the Standard piece, the con is on: Sarko, the American candidate for the French presidency, is going to liberate poor misled France – from herself.

This is not to say that the French aren’t already deep in slumber or that its liberals (on the “right” and the “left”) are not as pernicious as their American counterparts. Her people, alas, are almost as comatose and her institutions as ethnocidal as our own. But what has put the French to sleep — crippling her society and economy and threatening the very survival of her culture, language, and ethnos — is not her lack of America-style modernization and globalization. Rather, it is her own already-installed American system that accounts for much of France’s present malaise — a system which privileges economics überalles, elevates creedal forms of identity over ethnonationalist ones, promotes a virtualist universe of liberal ideals and beliefs flaunting the most elementary historical truths, and imposes entertainments, distractions, and materialist standards which cause them to forget who they are. The solution to France’s somnolence is not, then, to be found in more of what has de-frenchified and de-natured her as a nation, but rather in that which does the opposite.

The Standard, though, is not really interested in awakening France in this sense. It even points out that Sarko is not “a traditional politician.” It quotes him as saying: “I am a man of the right, even if I’m not a conservative in the traditional sense.” Translation: He’s a neocon — a Judeo-liberal who realizes that the old leftist formulas no longer work and that the “liberal” label has become a political liability. As such, this “rightist” wants to introduce affirmative action in order to “overcome the past legacy of discrimination.” He wants to bring Islam into the political mainstream, having already created the French Council of the Muslim Faith (which gives fundamentalists a national stage for their fanatical antics), and he wants to introduce certain Muslim practices into public institutions, like eliminating pork from school cafeterias. At the same time, he is a devoted champion of Israel and opposes Chirac’s opposition to the U.S.-led crusade in Iraq. But above all, he hopes to do away with those lingering vestiges of national sovereignty that have stymied France’s integration into the global economy and prevented her from keeping step with the imperatives of America’s Judeo-liberal system.

Just as U.S. demands for “democracy” in the international arena are actually surreptitious demands for the imposition of pro-American regimes (as Guillaume Faye argues), the Standard‘s neocon visionaries, led by the brilliantly banal Billy Kristol, seek to ensure that America’s democratization of the world bears the distinct Hebraic forms of its tribal elders. This, it goes without saying, is just another variation on the crude, self-promoting chutzpah theme we have come to expect from our controllers. But there’s something else at stake here — something which might be described as the enduring and inescapable pathology of all modern Jewish endeavor and which John Murray Cuddihy was the first to diagnose nearly a generation ago in The Ordeal of Civility (1974).

Given that Jewish intelligence has had a formative effect on the modern world, Cuddihy focused on several of its most prominent representatives — Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Claude Lévi-Strauss, among others — in an effort to both disclose its subversive effects and deconstruct the modalities of its influence. Despite the cerebral endowment of these figures, Cuddihy saw that as products of what Norma Rosen called “the vulgarity and chaos of Jewish life” and what other have seen as the essentially tribal, rather than civil basis of Jewish culture, they lacked the civility and decency to sustain the sort of face-to-face interactions that formed the basis of Europe’s civil order and ensured the stability of its open, dynamic, and trust-based social forms. The Jewish estrangement from what they perceived as the superiority of European culture, combined with feelings of shame, embarrassment, and inadequacy, was transformed in the work of the great 19th and 20-century Jewish intellectuals into an apologetic that attempted not only to excuse the crude, ungracious behavior of emancipated Jews, but to distort, delegitimate, and subject the European order in ways that made it adaptable to their own, alien sensibilities. In Cuddihy’s powerful analysis, the Freudian (that is, man’s primitive instinctual nature, unconsciously identified with the unrefined “yid,”) was imbued with the legitimacy of the “super ego,” whose normative principles govern both individual and collective behavior. If Europe, these intellectuals argued, hoped to be true to itself, it had to give way to its instinctual (that is, Jew-like) desires — as these pariah desires took revolutionary, sexual, or structural form.

This sort of cultural strategy is again evident in the Standard‘s treatment of Sarko. It thus directs its criticism at the notion of “French exceptionalism” (the belief that trumpets the superiority and sophistication of French institutions) and the need to break with it. (Notions of American exceptionalism, born of the Hebraic sense of being Chosen, are, never mind logic, perfectly acceptable and cogent). For the Standard, French exceptionalism has become a source of failure; the French need to recognize that they haven’t escaped from the constraints confronting other peoples and countries. (America, it is assumed, has). Sarko and his French neocon movement thus insists that France has “failed” and needs to make a radical break with its heritage (as if notions of revolutionary rupture were not part of French exceptionalism).

Typical of Jewish thought, and the entire neocon project, is, then, this sophistic transformation of things into their opposite. French exceptionalism is thus made synonymous with sclerosis, mediocrity, and stagnation, just as French notions of difference, identity, and sovereignty are denigrated as quaint, but now harmful vestiges of a heritage that needs to be abandoned. Only the universal levelling that comes with American sponsored globalism and its world-reforming campaign to do away with the significance of national, historical identities offers a way out for the French — that is, offers them a way to cease being French and — ultimately — a way to do a better job serving their masters in Washington and New York.