Front National: France Rising

"When Joan D' Arc was asked by her judges why as a Christian she did not love the British, she answered that she did love them, but she loved British in their country. In the same way, we do not hate the Turks, we love them, but in their country." -Jean-Marie Le Pen

“When Joan D’ Arc was asked by her judges why as a Christian she did not love the British, she answered that she did love them, but she loved British in their country. In the same way, we do not hate the Turks, we love them, but in their country.” -Jean-Marie Le Pen

The rise of nationalism and the push of self determination is threatening to disrupt the plans of the global elites who are pushing a multicultural and multiracial Europe. One of the quickest rising nationalist movements in Europe is Front National or The National Front in France. After decades of being isolated by a Leftist media and a culture of political apathy, Front National is mobilizing and organizing a new generation of French nationalists to retake their country, and not a moment too soon.

The European Right since the Second World War has faced a series of stumbling blocks to stop any progress of nationalism and tradition against the forces of cultural Marxism. While extremist organizations such as the Communist Party have been able to stand for election in most European countries with impunity, nationalists are continually subjugated by draconian hate speech laws and social pressures. Throughout Leftist terrorist attacks on the political leadership, political oppression, and hard times at the polls, Front National has grown from a small fringe movement to now being a major player in French politics.

Front National was founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen in 1972 and by that point Jean-Marie had already made a name for himself standing against the rising tide of color and communism in France. Jean-Marie Le Pen grew up in a devout Catholic home and learned from a young age to oppose the forces of modernity. Breaking into the nationalist movement through distributing monarchist literature and joining other young nationalists to fight communist and anarchist gangs in the streets, Jean-Marie was grounded in Faith, Tradition, and the reality of the culture war.

After serving in the French Foreign Legion Jean-Marie Le Pen went on to work in various nationalist movements before founding Front National in 1972. From the beginning Front National focused to bring together various Right-Wing and Traditionalist factions into a cohesive political party. As Francisco Franco in Spain was able to assemble monarchists, Traditionalist Catholics, social conservatives, and fascists into one political movement, so Jean-Marie strove to bring together a multitude of factions throughout the spectrum of the Right-Wing to defend France and overturn the perversion of the French Revolution that has been poisoning France since 1789.

While leading the Party for almost thirty years, Jean-Marie paved the way for the rise in French nationalism. Although often criticized for pointing out the role of Jewish power and money in both French and international politics, Jean-Marie never backed down from his beliefs. When asked about the then-President of France, Jean-Marie told the media that President Jacques Chirac was “in the pay of Jewish organizations.” The truth hurts and for statements like this and noting that different races have different abilities, Jean-Marie was furiously attacked by his Socialist opponents and the media.

For strong statements on Jewish subversion of the French State and his observations on the criminality of the Third World immigrants who have been pouring into France for decades, Jean-Marie has faced multiple convictions of hate speech laws. The nature of hate speech laws are not based in the authenticity of the claims, only if they are viewed as having offended a group or told a particularly unpleasant truth to the politically correct system. For speaking the truth Jean-Marie was fined the equivalent of several hundred thousand dollars, stripped of his seat in the European Parliament, and even had a communist place a bomb at his home, narrowly avoiding killing Jean-Marie and his family.

Jean-Marie officially handed down the leadership of Front National to his daughter Marine Le Pen in 2011 after she received nearly seventy percent of the Party vote to take the position. Instantly Marine took her fathers message and worked to use social media, youth outreach, and new political strategy to court a new generation of voters. Voters responded to these developments with supporting FN in record numbers in the recent French Presidential elections. Alongside the success during the Presidential race, Front National elected Marine Le Pen’s niece Marion Le Pen as the youngest MP in recent French history at the age of twenty two.

Marion Le Pen’s election shows that the message of Front National is growing among not only older conservative voters, but the newly emboldened French nationalist youth movement. After Marion Le Pen was notified of her victory she announced, “I am happy to be the spokeswoman for this French youth that tomorrow will be spearhead new hope in the shape of the National Front.” The youth movement of France has been mobilized and they are squarely behind nationalists who are fighting for their future, something Front National has a proven track record of doing.

Over the years since its inception Front National has worked to spread a message of Tradition and French identity to a large audience. Developing an economic policy that protects French industry and workers, the opposite of what the supposed American Right does, is a message that resonates with the French blue collar workers and their families. Strong checks on immigration to keep French culturally and ethnically French is a platform that more and more French citizens rally around as the flood of African immigrants has begun to transform French cities and countrysides into pieces of the Third World.

Front National has pushed for France leaving NATO and other entangling foreign alliances that have cost France both financially and in blood. Marine Le Pen made it clear that France should be free to chart her own destiny, without other nations having troops on her soil and influencing her politicians. The French nation and the French people gain nothing from a NATO alliance other than American occupation with a smile, something that has to be reversed in the eyes of any nationalist. Prior to the French Presidential elections Marine was asked about NATO relations and she told French media that, “I have opposed France’s involvement with the Alliance since the very beginning. In this sense, I fully agree with the opinion of General de Gaulle, who was against the idea of subjecting France’s national interests to any other foreign power – including the United States.” A Front National government would be able to steer a course for France, free from American influence and control.

Alongside working to remove France from the sphere of influence of Brussels and the United States, Front National has made a move towards solidifying relations with Russia. As Russia grows to be the defender of Christianity and a bulwark against globalism, Marine Le Pen has publicly supported Russian moves over the past several years. Given the push for globalism by the elites of Europe and America, Le Pen told reporters that a nationalist France aligning with Russia should be done for “obvious civilization and geostrategic factors.” As Professor Dugin of Russia has pointed out repeatedly, the worldwide struggle is not one limited to mere political labels and ideologies but one where nationalists “must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ or, in other terms, Kali-Yuga.” A growing alliance between French nationalists and Russian nationalists can only benefit both sides by taking a united stand in defense of the fundamental right to self determination and Tradition against the forces of modernity and globalism.

The tyranny of the European Union has put Front National at the forefront of the eurosceptic movement in France because of the Party’s push for French self determination and nationalism. As the European Union works to use free trade to smash local industry while shipping in millions of migrants to uproot the local population and culture, Front National has increasingly took a stand against France’s involvement in the European Union. Current Party leader Marine Le Pen told reporters that the EU was “the Trojan horse of ultraliberal globalization” and that the European Union was turning the continent into “a European Soviet Union.” The policies of Front National are built upon the strong foundation of true nationalism, resistant to the economic bribes and threats of the EU leadership in Brussels.

One large issue of contention between Front National and the EU is the fight over Traditional marriage. While the EU proclaims that homosexuality is a “human right” and has threatened sanctions over countries who refuse to follow the leftist line, Front National has organized hundreds of thousands of French citizens to unite with their churches and other nationalist organizations to march against the legalization of homosexual marriages in France.

The growth and development of Front National has been one that shows a development in style and rhetoric, without changing the core message of asserting Traditional French and Catholic values. While there is some controversy among White nationalists and Traditionalists around the world on the fact that Marine Le Pen has not been as strong on issues as her father, a justified criticism in my opinion, we cannot dispute that the growth of Front National as a viable political party is a two-fold benefit to nationalists in France. As the Overton Window shifts towards French nationalism in the psyche of the French electorate, more hard-line views and values are becoming increasingly accepted.

The growth of youth movements such as Generation Identitaire that have declared war upon liberalism and modernity in French society shows that the decades of work done by Front National to pave the way for resurgent French nationalism is paying off huge dividends. The stand for Traditional marriage and opposition to Islamization of French culture led by Front National has also led to a growth in Traditionalist Catholic organizations vowing to fight for their Faith alongside their nation.

A rising tide lifts all boats and while a more moderate Front National led by Marine Le Pen may not be the final solution to the battle for the salvation of France, it is still a force to be reckoned with and respected for the contributions the organization has made in planting the seeds of a more nationalist France.

  • Homosexuality isn’t a “human right” any more than heterosexuality is. They’re both simply naturally occurring romantic and sexual orientations. On the other hand, human rights like housing, education, food, clothing, freedom of assembly, freedom from persecution and violence, the right to love and be loved in return are consistently denied to homosexuals. It’s not only heterosexual who have these rights. These are human rights, not homosexual rights, that is unless you don’t think I am human, in which case this argument may never be resolved..

    In 78 countries of the world, same sex relationships between homosexuals are punished by imprisonment, and 7 exact the death penalty for same sex relationships. In most of these countries, LGBT people can be legally evicted from our homes, disowned by our parents, expelled from our schools, excommunicated from our churches, sacked from our jobs, bashed, or even killed – all in the name of religion. These draconian abuses have never caused homosexuals to cease being born, and they have never been based on any evidence that we are harming other people by merely loving each other.

    • Jeff

      Homosexuality isn’t natural. For it to be natural it has to be biologically determined. There is not scientific evidence that conclusively determines the biological attributes that make people homosexual.

      By the way, also from a biological standpoint, the bodies of a man and woman are physically complimentary whereas the bodies between two women and two men are not. If homosexuality were natural males would have an organ that is conducive for insertive sex. Homosexual men who do engage in sexual intercourse use a part of the body that is dedicated for the expulsion of waste. From a biological perspective, what is natural about using a part of the body for expelling waste as a sex organ? The high rate of contraction of HIV amongst homosexual men is attributed to engaging in sex using the rectum. Because this part of the body is used for something that it wasn’t designed/evolved for, there tends to be a higher rate of physical trauma, which can introduce blood, which is the easiest way to transmit HIV. Additionally, the rectal area of the body is highly infectious, which results in higher rates of contraction of other STDs. Once again, this is the result of inserting a sexual organ into a place that isn’t intended to be used for sex.

      So, from a biological/physiological perspective, homosexuality is not natural. Convincing people otherwise isn’t just immoral, it is unethical because they will likely be exposed to incurable STDs.

    • Niemca

      Lesbians have a lower rate of contracting HIV.

      So should all women go gay?

      I for one cannot fathom how anyone digs anal sex, straight or gay, male or female. I find it repulsive, not that anyone asked.

      But I’m not sure there’s no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. I think scientists found evidence that it happens in utero, and that antibodies have something to do with it.

    • Jeff


      If you can get past the fact that without heterosexual women none of us would be here, there is no problem with them all going gay. The best measure of what is and what is not natural as it relates to sexuality is to determine what is necessary for humanity to survive. Humanity could survive if there were no homosexuals. But humanity cannot survive if there are no heterosexuals. By the way, there could be fewer heterosexual women who contract HIV if they didn’t “hook up” with former prison inmates who got turned out in prison.

      If you scour the internet you will find many news stories touting various scientific studies that “may” “suggest” how homosexuality is biologically determined. But of course, they never mention that the studies are largely inconclusive. The public has manipulated into believing that homosexuality has been found to be biologically determined when all there exist are various theories and hypothesis that have not been validated through real world data.

    • Leslie H. Higgins

      Homosexuality is only natural in the manner blight in plants or mental illness is. If you don’t accept that as a fundamental you (whom I am not singling out: Lady Gaga, Madonna, Nikki Minaj, and almost every other public figure qualifies) are not worth arguing with or tolerating in civil society.

      It is inherently disordered, and as such can be said to be naturally occurring. However, as we humans are rational animals, I would argue that by embracing the lifestyle sodomites forfeit their human dignity (human rights are a manmade invention, and hence do not exist in nature).

    • Niemca

      Art is disordered; perhaps it should not be tolerated in a civil society as well.

      Selling out your people to jewish greed and hatred isn’t Christ-like, Matt.

      Do you think the woman who was home, and body, invaded and murdered by blacks in December in Baltimore isn’t a victim of jewish evil? Do you think when a black politician said the woman had paid for the price for her ‘white privilege’ that the jews hadn’t co-written most of the script?

      She was a middle class, hardworking person who deserved better. So did all the other innocent Whites who’ve been maimed or beaten since you came here. How about the Jacksonville lady who was recently tortured for two days by some black animal? They say she’ll never see again, for starters. She said she kept hoping he would kill her.

      White people getting murdered and maimed and injured beyond repair at the hands of Diversity Cult happens every other day in this country. Some girl just got her teeth knocked in at Temple University…

      Yet there was no WSU to prevent it or even help her.

      But you do god’s work or something here at TradYouth.

      I don’t get it.

    • Homosexuals are and always will be a minority. People do not “go gay”, they’re either gay or they’re straight. It is not something I chose, it was something I discovered at puberty, just like you discovered that you are attracted to the opposite sex. You have contempt for homosexuals like me, both as citizens and as parents, so I can’t understand why you think I should marry a female I have not the slightest interest in, and make babies with her.

      Sexual attractions aren’t chosen, they’re innate. In a free society, people choose a spouse they actually love, not because someone told them that’s what they’re supposed to do or they read it in a book, but because they actually WANT to. Heterosexual men get erections when in the presence of a female they desire, homosexual men don’t. But we do respond sexually to a man we have desire for.

      Nature will always ensure that only a minority of humans will be born gay, unless population becomes so great that human existence itself is placed at risk, in which case Nature may flip the orientation switch to “gay” on more people.

      Sex for procreation is an animal function, whereas sex for love is what makes us uniquely human – regardless of gender, along with compassion and mutual respect, two qualities you might well consider adopting for yourself. The love expressed between two human beings is a beautiful thing. It’s really sad you do not presently understand this.

      There is nothing homosexuals do that heterosexuals do not also do. Do you not kiss? So do we. Do you not embrace in love? So too do we. Oral sex? Yep, us too. Do you hold hands walking down the street with your partner? Well, we’d like to, but risk being abused in the street by hateful people like you.

      As for your preoccupation with anal intercourse and homosexuality, lesbians don’t practise sodomy. Come to that, statistically speaking, most anal intercourse is practised by heterosexual couples, and not all gay men prefer it.

    • @Jeff. Monogamous homosexuals don’t transmit STI any more than monogamous heterosexuals do. The computer isn’t “natural” either. Stop using it.

    • Jeff


      If you consider your attraction to men to be “natural” why shouldn’t other forms of sexual attraction that heterosexuals have traditionally deemed to be deviant also be considered natural? Should pedophilia be considered natural? Obviously, no one chooses to be a pedophile. Pedophiles know that engaging in their sexual desires would cause them to be considered the lowest form of pervert. How could anyone choose to be a pedophile when they know their actions will land them in prison where they will likely be raped and/or murdered. Also, they will be shunned by their families and friends.Obviously they cannot help their sexual desires. Therefore, pedophilia must be natural. Right? Or how about bestiality? Who would choose to be a zoophiliac? Zoophiliacs know that engaging in their sexual desires would cause them to be considered one of the lowest form of perverts. How could anyone choose to be a zoophiliac when they know their actions would cause them to be ostracized, excluded from polite society and thrown into jail? Obviously they cannot help their sexual desires. Therefore, zoophilia must be natural. Right? Or how about necrophilia? Necrophiliacs know that engaging in their sexual desires would cause them to be considered one of the lowest form of perverts. How could anyone choose to be a necrophiliac when they know their actions would cause them to be ostracized, excluded from polite society, severed from all of their family and potentially thrown in jail where they would be treated very harshly? Obviously they cannot help their sexual desires? Therefore, necrophilia must be natural. Right? Or how about voyeurs? They know that engaging in their sexual desires would cause them to be considered one of the lowest form of perverts and possibly land them in jail. How could anyone choose to be a voyeur when they know their actions would cause them to be ostracized and excluded from polite society and potentially be treated harshly in jail? Obviously they cannot help their sexual desires. Therefore, voyeurism must be natural. Right? Or how about exhibitionism? Exhibitionist know that engaging in their sexual desires would cause them to be considered one of the lowest form of perverts and possibly land them in jail. How could anyone choose to be a exhibitionist when they know their actions would cause them to be ostracized and excluded from polite society and potentially be treated harshly in jail? Obviously they cannot help their sexual desires. Therefore, exhibitionism must be natural. Right? Or how about an involuntary sadist/rapist? How could anyone choose to be a rapist when they know their actions will land them in prison where they will likely be raped and/or murdered. Also, they will be shunned by their families and friends.Obviously they cannot help their sexual desires. Therefore, the behavior associated with involuntary sadist/rapist must be natural. Right?

      Before you go flying off the handle, no gays should not be thrown in jail and I do not think of gays as I do pedophiles, rapists, zoophiliacs, necrophiliacs, ect. I am just applying the same logic gays use to argue that their sexual attraction as natural. Using this logic, all sexual desire no matter how objectionable should be considered to be natural.

      Nature will always ensure that only a minority of humans will be born gay, unless population becomes so great that human existence itself is placed at risk, in which case Nature may flip the orientation switch to “gay” on more people.

      If nature determines sexuality can you cite any scientific studies that conclusively determines the biological attributes that makes people gay? Please don’t site any news articles that “may” “suggest” fill in the blank is the biological basis for same sex attraction. I want conclusive scientific studies.

      Come to that, statistically speaking, most anal intercourse is practised by heterosexual couples, and not all gay men prefer it.

      Do you have a link or can you cite a survey that confirms that higher percentage of heterosexuals engage in anal sex than do homosexual men?

      Sex for procreation is an animal function, whereas sex for love is what makes us uniquely human

      Sex for procreation is also a human function. Humanity can survive without gays but humanity cannot survive without heterosexuals. Also, rationality is a human function. What separates humanity from animals is that we are not to simply react to our emotions. Humans are suppose to use logic and reason to control their behavior.

      The computer isn’t “natural” either. Stop using it.

      Bad, bad, analogy. My computer is not natural but it is designed. I use my computer for the purposes it was designed for. I don’t use my computer for something that it is not designed for (e.g. a hammer to fix my car.) As a person who believes in God, I believe the human body is designed. But from reading your post I don’t think you believe in God so from your perspective our bodies are not designed but rather evolved. Virtually all our parts, organs with exception of the appendix and spleen serve important functions. Out hands, feet, ears, eyes, nose, throat, organs all have useful functions. I can say with 100% confidence that the rectum is not naturally oriented to serve as a sexual organ.

    • The point behind my challenging your allegation that I am “unnatural”, is based on the very grounds you cite that all sorts of things good and bad are “natural”. So it’s irrelevant whether something is natural or not, because as you point out, natural doesn’t always mean good. So that begs the question as to why you think that something which is “unnatural” is bad, since we agree the pedophiles are that way naturally, yet we don’t support their behaviour.

      The point is that whether something is natural or not merely means that it occurs in Nature. I play the piano, but there’s nothing in Nature that suggests that is the natural use for my hands. As regards your contention that use of parts of the human body should be restricted to the evident biological design, the penis was designed for urination too, and is used far more often for that purpose than for procreation. If you want to restrict the use of your penis to urination and procreation, then your married life is going to be pretty dull after you’ve had your 2.2 children necessary to replace yourself population wise. After that, your use of it is for pleasure only. That cannot be justified on procreational grounds, because it doesn’t make babies. Nor does the intercourse between heterosexuals over 50 years of age. So why is it so important to you that when I make love to my male partner, that we should produce a child as a result?

      Your terror at homosexuality wiping out the population simply is not borne out by population statistics. When I was born, the population was 2.6 billion considered by some scientists to be the maximum sustainable population for Planet Earth. It has nearly trebled since then, and will have trebled again by the time of my death in 2050. In what way does it serve your interests for me and the hundreds of millions of gays alive today to mate with an opposite sex partner, so as ensure that my sexual apparatus serves its biological imperative? How can you be so sure that Nature intends every human to be a parent, and to serve no other sociological function? There is no explanation for my homosexuality other than that it is inborn. If I were a heterosexual as you claim all humans to be, then I would have an erection at the thought of females, but I have never experienced this, not even once.

      It sounds to me as though you’re stating that you yourself only desire men, and choose to mate with a woman because of your religious belief, and your idea that parts of the human body have just one purpose, and that I should “man up” and do likewise. You portray heterosexuality is a grim duty that you have to put yourself through to serve your idea of a god. This doesn’t resonate with any of my knowledge of heterosexual people, which is considerable, since the vast majority of my friends and 100% of my family are heterosexual, and unlike you, do not judge me as immoral because I love someone of the same gender as myself.

    • Jeff


      You are missing my entire point. In my discussion concerning what is and what isn’t natural I tried to objectively relate the usefulness human organs to their functionality and by extension their naturalness. Objectively speaking, a penis and vagina are biologically compatible and complementary for sex. Additionally, evidence of their useful functionality is procreation. A penis and an anus are not. Yes, sex isn’t just about procreation but based on functionality of heterosexual sex organs, one can conclude that heterosexual sex is natural. Is gay sex natural? No. I do acknowledge that all gay men do not engage in gay sex. My physical attraction to women is also natural. For example, I love the softness of a woman. I love and I am also highly attracted to femininity. Everything about a woman from their shape, the way they sit, they way they walk, their soft voice, their long hair, their small stature are highly attractive to me. This attraction serve a functional usefulness in that it would result in my desire to mate with a woman and procreate. Granted, based on my morals sex outside of marriage is immoral so I temper my attraction to other women. But still, the biological components of my attraction are still there. To repeat again, my attraction to women serves a useful function for humanity for the purpose of procreation. Without procreation, neither you or I would be here. Can the same be said about gays? No. Your attraction to men is only self serving (I don’t begrudge you for this) but it does not serve any useful function. By the way, I am not terrified that homosexuality is going to wipe out humanity. I am using functionality/usefulness as a means to determine whether homosexuality is natural since there aren’t any conclusive scientific studies that determines the biological attributes associated with same sex attraction. My opinion is that same sex attraction is psychologically determined but I am open to reading any studies that can conclusively determine if there any biology associated same sex attraction.

    • i am reading your point loud and clear, It is actually you who are missing my point, that the procreative function of sex is currently being taken care of in numbers so great that it threatens civilisation itself. Who is to know whether Nature might ramp up the incidence of homosexuality to prevent catastrophic overpopulation when available resources on Earth finally run out?

      The procreative function of sex is but a heartbeat of its overall benefit of emotionally and physically bonding two human beings and all the joy that brings. Since you missed my point before, i will say it again. If you are going to restrict use of your sexual apparatus to its function of procreation, than once you have had children, you should cease having sex with your woman, because no children will result. Sex with your wife after you have made all the babies you want serves “no useful function”. Your copulation with your wife after that is no less “self serving” than a lesbian or gay couple who engage in love making because in neither case is a pregnancy going to happen.

      Given your obsession with our sexual practice, it may shock you to know that most of the time we’re not actually having sex at all (not that it would be bad if we did), but sharing our lives in ways I suspect are very much comparable to the way in which heterosexuals share theirs. As with straight relationships, sex may all but vanish in the twilight years, yet we remain together, because we love each other in a way that no-one else can.

      You asked for links (delete spaces to open):

      American Psychological Association, which with over 173,000 members is the largest professional body of its kind in the world:
      w w w .apa . org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

      The University of California:
      h t t p ://psychology.ucdavis. edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html (not a mental disorder)

      Conflicting religious views on homosexuality:
      h t t p ://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

      Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays:
      h t t p ://community. pflag. org

      Evolutionary imperative for homosexuality:
      h t t p ://chronicle. com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762
      h t t p ://w w w . bbc. co. uk/news/magazine-26089486

      Genetic predisposition:
      w w w . independent. ie/world-news/europe/gay-gene-is-only-one-part-of-the-story-in-determining-sexuality-30008711. html
      w w w . mirror. co . uk/news/technology-science/science/homosexuality-dna-say-scientists-3145703
      w w w . dailymail. co. uk/sciencetech/article-2559794/Could-EARWAX-reveal-youve-youve-eaten-GAY-Scientists-say-substance-overlooked-source-personal-information. html

      Homosexuality in animals:
      h t t p: //en . wikipedia. org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
      w w w . youtube. com/watch?v=VUwza5Grxos

  • KO

    Thanks for writing on this very important story, Mr. Heimbach. The FN’s victory in several French cities is certainly cause for celebrating. The much greater success of the UMP, however, would be like having little Jeb Bushes (I pick the name at random) elected all over the country — party men with no national loyalty.

    Marine Le Pen is a prudent and capable leader. She kept her distance from the Manif pour tous, the national grass-roots upraising against homosexual marriage and in vitro fertilization. I don’t think it’s correct to say that the FN led that, but even better, huge numbers of French citizens rebelled against the socialists without party leadership.

    It is disgusting to see the FN mischaracterized as fascists, Nazis, and racists. For the most part they are decent patriots.

    A good source on French news is here:

  • Niemca

    Matt, Marine Le Pen is a sell out to the jews. This is my opinion and what I hear from prominent officials in some of the european nationalist movements. Why on earth are you shilling for her?

    People criticized you for some youthful experimentation with dating a jew. But then somewhere in your journey you seemed to have learned, although here I wonder if you’ve really studied and researched what judaism and jews are.

    The french are between a rock and hard place, in terms of being forced to either ally with the jews who have turned towards the right or the north africans/muslims. Either is a pact with the devil.

    Maryland, where my grandparents retired after raising their family in the north, then in their older years the south, isn’t where you’d learn interpersonally about jewish hatred.

  • Ingoldo

    The grass always seems to be greener on the other side of the fence:
    Personally I’m not sure whether civic (pseudo) nationalist movements are stepping stone or safety valves, cul-de-sacs. Fighting them even more bitterly the raging liberal Left seems a bit like Bolshevik approach. Then again it worked out for them, didn’t it?

  • Orthodox Mike

    Post-Enlightenment forms of nationalisms are dead ends. Only medieval organic forms of nationalisms that were rooted in Traditionalism can save a people. Hopefully, the Front National understands this.

    • Cesar

      No, it doesn’t. It definitely doesn’t.

  • Jeff


    What you cited is not at all conclusive. For example, in the Independent article, read this text:

    Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.

    Richard Lane, of Stonewall, said that while studies into the origins of homosexuality have yet to produce firm evidence, they do indicate a biological root.

    Notice the use of the word “may.” That’s not conclusive. By the way, there was a very comprehensive study involving zygote twins in this paper. Here is a key quote:

    In a nutshell, if you take pairs of identical twins in which one twin is homosexual, the identical co-twin (a monozygotic (MZ) twin) is usually not homosexual. That means, given that identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No-one is born gay. The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors. Hold on to this simple thought as you navigate the complex world of twin studies in the pages of this chapter

    It’s an interesting read. Regarding the “homosexuality” in animals, I think your are anthropomorphizing apparent homosexual behavior in animals. Although the following site in not gay friendly, it does seem to be well cited so I will link to it here. Here is a key quote:

    Explaining Seemingly “Homosexual” Animal Behavior

    Bonobos are a typical example of this “borrowing.” These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:

    There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo’s answer to avoiding conflict.

    First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

    Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter’s mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]

    Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, “When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.”[8]

    Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

    Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance–in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]
    Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

    Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent…. And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]
    Other animals engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

    In other words, you cannot link apparent homosexual behavior in animals with homosexual behavior in humans.

    • Here’s the thing. I am homosexual. I have zero romantic or sexual feelings for females. Denying me the right to express my romantic and sexual feelings for my same sex partner, by calling it “sin”, ought to be based on evidence that it would be better for me to mate with a female, that I feel nothing for, or for both my partner and me to separate and live in isolation.

      You failed to demonstrate how this will benefit you personally, society at large, or most importantly, me personally. The only thing you can “offer” is that misery in this life will be rewarded by misery in eternity, because “Heaven” as you portray it, is filled with bigots who hate what I am. Not only that, but your religious belief that this is so, is solidly rebutted and challenged by a significant number of other schools of theological thought, and by atheists, who believe the whole idea of religion to be nothing more than organised superstition playing to people’s insecurities, for extraordinary personal financial gain, and soaked in hypocrisy.

  • Matt, next time you write about Front National, please consult with me first, for there are serious factual errors in your article:

    1. Front National has played no role in the anti-gay marriage protests. On the contrary, Marine decided to stay out of the protests, a chief reason for that being that numerous Front National leaders are homosexual, Florian Philippot, Front National’s vice-president, being the most famous one.
    2. Jean-Marie Le Pen has never been stripped of his seat at the European Parliament. What he has been deprived of is his parliamentary immunity, just like his daughter by the way. But both are still European MPs.
    3. There are no US troops in France. There haven’t been since 1966, when De Gaulle left NATO commandment (Sarkozy reversed that decision, but without having new US troops coming).

  • Cesar

    “As the European Union works to use free trade to smash local industry while shipping in millions of migrants…”.

    There is no single rule in the huge body of EU law that obliges any Member-State to accept millions of immigrants from extra-European countries. Those decisions were made by individual Nation-States. So, from a purely nationalist/ethnic vantage point, combating the EU is absolutely useless.

By: Matthew Heimbach

%d bloggers like this: