“French Values” and the Burkini


The center-Right of European politics loves to signal racial awareness, while keeping everything entirely kosher. One cannot help to see that every time there is a true nationalist movement in Europe that is gaining ground, a pop-up alternative will emerge that is highly funded, has slick graphics and materials and is trumpeted by the media as a better choice for nationalists than the other true nationalist party.

As soon as the true nationalists have taken a ding in the polls due to the moderates in the public shifting to the more “socially acceptable” movement, that alternative disappears faster than the old snake oil salesmen would leave from a town before the people realized his concoctions wouldn’t really cure cancer or make them lose one hundred pounds overnight.

We have seen this in the United Kingdom when the British National Party under the leadership of Nick Griffin was attacked by a whole host of Zionist and civic nationalist movements like Britain First, the English Defense League, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and others.

In Germany the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands or NPD has been fighting for the German people since 1964 but now that Germans are growing tired of Angela Merkel’s genocidal policies, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is being propped up by the German media as the “acceptable face” of German nationalism. The German media while declaring they were worried about the recent gains of the AfD, were celebrating that the NPD lost a percentage of their vote. When the Jewish media declares a party as the “lesser of two evils” you know that you cannot trust that kosher alternative.

In order to placate the masses who are tired of mass immigration and demographic displacement, the center-right movements and the kosher populist movements throw the people bones against the boogeyman of Islam.

These lawmakers might call for halal slaughter bans, but never kosher ones. These parties complain about Islamic men having anti-alcohol Sharia patrols in their neighborhoods but never go after the Jewish paramilitary Shomrim patrols that enforce Jewish law in their neighborhoods and on any Gentile that passes through them.

Kosher Conservatives are nothing more than snake oil salesmen

Kosher Conservatives are nothing more than snake oil salesmen

They might call for stricter anti-terror laws against Muslims to prevent immigrants from committing crimes but never condemn the Jewish oligarchs who bring these immigrants here in the first place. And of course these politicians say drawing pictures of Muhammad is bad but Free Speech, but make it an offense or hate crime to draw “anti-semitic” cartoons or pictures.

These civic nationalists know where their bread is buttered, so they are in a constant balancing act of having enough meaningless proposals to silence the rising cries of nationalism, but not alienating their Jewish paymasters.

While these movements would never call for actually deporting the millions of non-Europeans from our lands, the legislation and ideas proposed always works to just make them “more European” to promote assimilation while not solving the real demographic, economic and social problems that mass immigration, open borders, globalism, and demographic displacement has on the people and the nation as a whole.

According to kosher conservatives, this is the main threat to Western civilization, not mass immigration

According to kosher conservatives, this is the main threat to Western civilization, not mass immigration or Jewish control of our economic and political institutions

The most recent attempt to placate the masses while doing nothing to stop the demographic invasion of Europe has been done in France. Several French towns have banned the “Burkini” as it is known, swimwear that covers the body and head of women who wear it, allowing Muslim women to go swimming at the beach while protecting their religious view of modesty.

These bans have been done in the name of “French Values” that include women being forced to wear essentially their underwear in public if they choose to go to the beach. In France it is totally legal to wear a wet-suit to the beach, but not a burkini; a clear dog whistle to concerned French citizens about Islamic immigration, with no other real meaning behind it.

The so-called conservative politicians never issue a call for a restriction on immigration, closing down Wahhabi mosques that preach violence, deporting those affiliated with Islamic extremist movements or even severely punishing those caught trying to join the Islamic State (the man who beheaded a Catholic priest had been convicted of wanting to join ISIS but was eventually released with only an ankle bracelet to track him) only addressing the most minor of things, that the majority of Muslim women in France don’t even wear.

The Burkini issue is the same as the burqa. Only a tiny percentage of French Muslims ever wore the burqa, but part-Jewish former French President Nicolas Sarkozy who kept a huge open borders policy, made a move to restrict students from wearing religious symbols or clothing.

This not only included the burqa or Islamic head scarfs, but Christian students from wearing visible crosses or other signs of their religion. Many of these laws made out to be simply anti-Muslim also make it illegal for various Christian expressions of Faith. Traditional Catholic women in France wear headscarves to Mass, but under the law, to do so outside of the Church would be a criminal act.

These laws are very similar to the ones passed by the very anti-Christian Mexican government of President Plutarco Elías Calles to attempt to destroy all public expressions of religion by enforcing the anticlerical articles of the Mexican Constitution of 1917. Clergy and believers in Mexico were banned from wearing vestments, large crosses, or other religious symbols.

French, English and other European "conservative" parties have supported Leftist backed bans on Christians publicly wearing Christian symbols

French, English and other European “conservative” parties have supported Leftist backed bans on Christians publicly wearing Christian symbols

When Mexico did this it was demonized by the Christian world for their persecution of Christian believers, but when France does it in the name of “secular French values” there is nothing but silence, even support from some of the factions of the supposed right-wing.

As the French people are justly angered by frequent Islamic terrorist attacks on their soil, the politicians focus on trying to make Arabs or African Muslims “more French” instead of realizing that assimilation is impossible. A leopard cannot change its spots, and dying its spots orange doesn’t make it a different species.

Perhaps we should actively encourage Islamic women to wear the burqa or burkini, turn the mosque calls to prayer up even louder, and plant halal butcher shops on every corner. That will awaken us to the fact that our people are being demographically and culturally displaced, integration only hides the problem; it doesn’t fix it.

The kosher conservatives want to pass laws to hide demographic displacement, to make the optics of daily life less jarring to their countrymen so the people don’t resist the globalist plan to destroy every European country. The politicians on the supposed Right are aiding and abetting the Jewish oligarchs and globalists with their laws to make non-Europeans integrate more into our society so by the time that Europeans realize they have been overrun with a foreign people, it will be too late.

Multiculturalism will always end up disunity, conflict and animosity between the various factions. The only way to have a stable and peaceful nation is to reject the siren song of globalism, not attempt to put some sugar in the poison of multiculturalism to make it go down easier by making different peoples, religions, and cultures look a little bit more like each other.

In France, the definition of “French Values” is all post-Enlightenment, the opposite of true French values. As The Guardian wrote on how these bans are made specifically to go after religious institutions due to the ingrained secularism of France, “Laïcité is the hardest for people outside France to understand: our words “laity” and “secularism” fail to express the depth of allergy to all things theocratic, which is endemic to French societal fabric since the revolution.”

In the French Revolution the very identity of France as the daughter of the Catholic Church and a nation that was traditional, religious, hierarchical, and organic was blown apart by the Revolutionaries who spent just as much time, if not more, beheading priests and nuns, destroying churches, and persecuting faithful laity than they focused on the political elites. France for two hundred years, with the exception of Vichy France, has defined itself by the Enlightenment and liberal values of liberté, égalité, and fraternité.

Radical feminists of Femen throwing water and attacking Catholic clergy, the true "French Values" of the modern French State

Radical feminists of Femen throwing water and attacking Catholic clergy, the true “French Values” of the modern French State

Some French feminist are even joining the civic nationalists in attempting to ban the burkini, claiming that it oppresses women. This is further proof that any attempt at modesty that a woman chooses for herself is an affront to radical Third Wave Feminism. Radical Feminism doesn’t actually care about empowering women, it believes in turning women into sex objects and attacking traditional values. If a woman chooses to be modest, feminists determine she doesn’t have agency to make her own decisions and back laws and regulations to force them to dress immodestly.

Modern “French Values” are anti-traditional through and through. When French Catholics want to pray, they are harassed or they have their churches bulldozed. When hundreds of thousands of French Christians join together to oppose homosexual marriage being forced on the nation, the media ignores the protest and the politicians call them “fringe bigots” and other insults.

“French Values” are more about continuing the enslavement of France to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution than to the traditional France, the France that most French people believe in and live every day of their lives in small communities and farming towns throughout France.

These “French Values” are what began building the modern liberal Europe that we face today. The French Revolution unleashed secularism, egalitarianism, civic nationalism, Freemasonry, and other plagues upon the continent. It is important for true nationalists to remember that these values are contradictory to our own.

The original term “right-wing” spoke of the “seating arrangements in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Ancien Régime. The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.” To be on the Right is to support hierarchy, tradition, religion as a crucial part of the nation identity and culture. It’s not merely Leftism wrapped in the flag.

It is crucial that we not be fooled by these token gestures to maintaining our national identities, the scraps thrown to us by the elites to shut us up. Banning the burqa or burkini is not the way we save France, only deportation of the non-French and a reinstatement of traditional values will save France. These laws are not “stepping stones” or “a step in the right direction” because these laws can just as easily be used against our people and they don’t identify that it is an ethnic problem that Europe is facing from the massive influx of non-Europeans.

Only through true nationalism and the belief in Faith, Family and Folk can we save our people, our culture and our families. The burkini or other Islamic dress is not the problem, globalism is, and it is globalism that we must work against.


  • Pingback: “French Values” and the Burkini | Aus-Alt-Right()

  • Matthew Heimbach, you are absolutely correct that the attack on the Burkini is a stupid and pointless distraction from the major problems facing Europe, and you are equally correct. At least in my never very humble opinion, that what Nigel Farage and UKIP did with Brexit, Nick Griffin and the BNP would have done better. (I supported Nick Griffin evrn before he was a successful candidate for MEP, and was an overseas, dues paying, member of the BNP as my only political affiliation for a very long time. I would point out that Nick Griffin was not a dogmatic Jew-Hater and the BNP had prominent Jewish members, even party-office holders.) I also agree with you about the weakness of the AFD compared with the NDP, which I have also long admired.

    But I have to take exception to and disagree with your continuing pointless and really counterproductive attacks on the enlightenment. All of us are children of, products of, the enlightenment to a greater or lesser degree. You, for example, repeatedly endorse the socialist programs of income tax and wealth redustribution which I oppose. You’re in reasonably good company: Hitler’s party described itself as “socialist” and in fact did a better job implementing socialism in the 1930s than FDR did here in the USA. You attempted to work for a government bureau of social services a couple of years ago which wouldn’t have you once they found out your politics.

    But your economics are way more “enlightenment” than mine.

    I think we BOTH respect the philosophical precepts and scientific theoretical basis and research findings of biology, Palaeontology, and genetics, none of which have pre-or-anti enlightenment lufe, viability, or vitality at all. Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley. Charles Lyell, Richard Wagner, Count Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Kevin MacDonald, would all have been hanged, beheaded, or burned at the stake as heretics before the enlightenment. The concept of a biological, evolutionary, basis for race and culture is absolutely, positively 100% a result of the scientific enlightenment of Europe and Western Civilization.

    On the other hand, I respect both the French and Mexican traditions of anti-clerical secularism, shared by many in Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Finland I might add, way more than you seem to. Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon III, Marshall Petain were fundamentaly secularists, as were Oswald Mosley, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Goebels, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Hermann Goering, just to name a few early 20th century nationalists of great notariety and renown. Francisco Franco was not, and he lasted longer than any of the rest, dedicated to Spanish Catholicism.

    But I don’t think there is any point in or value to rejecting everything that has defined the past 250-300 years of Western History, all of which encompasses “the enlightenment.”

    You have said and written repeatedly that Christians and Pagans should walk shoulder’to-shoulder in this fight against the invasion of Europe and America, against the destruction of the White Race. You (Traditional Youth) have specifically endorsed David Duke in Louisiana—he is an avowed secularist.

    So I would suggest that you stop this anti-intellectual “enlightenment bashing” and endorse the scientific and philosophical enlightenment which made YOU and Traditional Youth even remotely possible, and realize that Christians, Pagans, and anti-clerical secularists can all match together and should respect each other as we strugle to save the West. Not the ignorant late Mediaeval West of Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh and the Church of Ireland, Cotton Mather of Harvard who endorsed spectral testimony at the Salem Witch Trials, or hose who would have burnt Copermicus and Galileo at the stake, but the glorious real West in which we live, the West of the Scientific and Philosophical ENLIGHTENMENT!!!!

    • Ben Sanderson

      In a perfect world your ideas work, but they won’t work now. The world is going full-scale tribal. In a war between Islam and the enlightenment, Islam wins. Men won’t fight for ideas and propositions; they fight for women and land. Tell a Muslim he will get a wife and family if he follows Islam, and he will follow Islam. Tell him to embrace equality and he will blow something up. Tell a western white Frenchman he will get a wife and family if he follows Islam, and he will convert. The enlightenment was great at the time, but it’s useless now. Young white western men are depressed and porn-addicted; they know there is slim chance for a wife. They cannot reproduce and their culture is dying. Islam wins hands down unless the West goes back to pre-enlightenment Catholicism.

    • But the Catholic Church appears to me to be under communistic command and control, so you seem to be saying that…. what exactly, we should all convert to Islam and have fifty wives and forty nine porcupines if we want to reproduce? Your explanation is so depressing and out of touch with the reality of the Western Church, and anything that coukd imaginably hapoen, it sounds like total defeatism. More potential white nationalists could be sold on secularism that following Pope Francis….

    • Ben Sanderson

      Yes, I see I didn’t make myself clear. I also should have stated that the entire Catholic Church needs to return to the way it was pre-Vatican 2. Traditional Latin Mass, etc etc. Civitas France is leading the way.

    • Advocating a Roman Catholic return to the Latin Mass and Pre-Vatican 2 is really quite a modest goal compared with Matthew Heimbach’s rejection of the entire post-Mediaeval enlightenment!!!!

      I repeat my challenge and questions above: how can we believe in the biological reality of race if we reject biological evolution and genetics? From who, where, and what did Madison Grant and Kevin MacDonald get their ideas, methods, and tgeories if not, ultimately, from Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley?

      To reject the enlightenment is to reject all of modern science, as well as economics, and thus basically to rule put any and all prospects of real social or political success.

    • Ben Sanderson

      I think you don’t have a proper understanding of what we all mean by The Enlightenment. What we mean is we reject “enlightenment values”; that is, that all men are created equal. We do not reject science. We reject the Proposition Nation, the American and French Revolution, and so forth. It isn’t the enlightenment itself which is the problem, it is enlightenment values that are the problem.

    • Who allegedly said, “e pur se muove”? To whom did he say it, when, where, and why?

      It was the “Traditional” political authority of the Catholic Church, especially after the mid-16th Century Council of Trent, to set and decide the “value” of scientific work.

      Violations of Papal dogma and Catholic evaluations were legally punishable, by the inquisition or otherwise. Strangely enough, the Reformation Protestants were at least for their first two hundred years quite as willing to enact dogma into law as the Catholic Church.

      But then there came a legal and political “enlightenment” which liberated science and scientific values such as the truths deducible from observation and experimentation from charges of heresy.

      Copernicas, Kepler, and Galileo were all born Roman Catholics, and were all prosecuted by the office of the Holy Inquisition as being just as heretical as peasants who engaged in traditional fertility rites and magical ceremonies inherited from Pagan ancestors. Matthew Heimbach says that Christians and European Pagans are and should remain natural allies, but you say that the values of the enlightenment, including free inquiry, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, conscience, and reason, such as led to the American Revolution, are wrong? I see a serious historical problem and internal logical contradiction here.

      The enlightenment was largely about freeing science from traditional clerical control in both Catholic and Protestant Europe. The economic ascendency of Protestant Europe was in no small way correlated with technological advances made possible by relative freedom of scientific inquiry.

      The French Revolution was in large part a disaster, laying the foundations for Communism, Economic and Cultural Marxism, pushing the opium-fed illusions of equality.

      But the French Revolution collapsed into Napoleon Bonaparte’s Empire, and what was honestly so bad about that? The timeless structures of aristocratic and elite governance were restored with new blood. Napoleonic France ended up being not that different from Georgian England.

      Amd as for the American Revolution, it too was basically an elite separatist or Independence movement rather than anything like the early stages of the French Revolution.

      The United states never suffered though anything like “the Terror” until Karl Marx’ admirer, pen pal, and political follower Abraham Lincoln became President and waged war to destroy and overthrow the elite power structure of George Washington and his fellow Virginia, Kentucky, and Carolina, and Georgia aristocrats who had brought America into existence and given it shape and form.

      The tripartite political structure of the American Constitution of 1787 was as ancient as the Indo-European peoples themselves, conformong as it did to.the Ancient Aryan Tri-functional paradigm studied and interpreted as emblematic of our most remote heritage by Georges Dumezil and his students.

      Anyhow, I challenge you to answer how the scientific enlightenment could ever be separated from the political and legal dissolution of Roman Catholic Inquisitorial and Papal control over scientifuc and industrial progress?

      What we should fear most today is the new and now burgeoning anti-Enlightenment suppression of historical dialogue and scientific research and inquiry.

      Cultural Marxist political correctness now mounts its modern inquisitorial attacks, with the same or even a greater degree ferociously abusive legal and political backing as the old inquisition, on racially conscious dialogue in American and European Political arena and universities, on the one hand, and the manipulation or manufacture of political history on the other though attacks on 9-11 and Holocaust “Truthers” like Ernst Zundell, Arthur Topham, Germar Rudolf, Alfred and Monoka Schaeffer, who are in their own small ways as brave, and as much about sharing the “Enlightenment” of Science even in the face of brutal modern forms of excommunication and outlawry.

      If you reject the political and legal enlightenment of open debate and research, in short, how can you be sure that the current political elite of Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and Israel will not prevail?

      White Christian Americans, Australians, and Europeans should follow always that great revolutionary apostle of the American Enlightenment, Patrick Henry, to say, “Give me Liberty or Give me Death.” Henry advocated always from Church Pulpits in the name of Christ and our British Heritage.

    • Ben Sanderson

      I’m beginning to wonder if you have autism. Do you truly believe that I meant I am against all science, in toto? This is real simple: we in the alt right, neo-reaction, and white nationalist movements are against the proposition that all men are created equal, which is quite possibly the quintessential enlightenment sentiment. If you think that also means I do not believe in the laws of gravity, or of physics, or of velocity, mass and volume, then I don’t know what to say to you; at that point I can only surmise you have autism.

    • Don’t start with the insults, because I guarantee you will lose. I can out-insult you or anyone all day long. And I dodn’t start it, so I won’t pickmup.on it now until andvunless you force my hand further.

      So no, I am not at all autistic, but you lack an even marginal basic education in Enlightenment history and the socio-cultural setting of Europe if you imagine for a moment that “all men are created equal” is the “quintessential enlightenment sentiment.” That shows an appalling ignorance of even the scope or focus of the Enlightment, which was all about scientific progress and rolling back the power of both the Traditional clergy and traditional superstitions to shape knowledge and approve new ideas and education or research.

      Matthew Heimbach and others on this sight have repratedly gone off on “the Enlightenment” and it’s not just a matter of definitions. Read any, no read all, each and every, history of the enlightenment, broadly defined as the 17th-18th centuries in Western Europe, ending sometime between 1790-1815, and cite to me one author from or student of the period who said or wrote that equality was the central concept of the period.

      FREEDOM from censorship, especially liberty from Church repression and prior restraint on education, publication or writing religious authorities, was much more widespread and “quintessentially” important.

      But no one in the 17th or 18th centuries except very marginal or ephemeral groups like the “levellers” in England or some participants in the French Revolution, either started off or arrived at any absolute or communistic notion of equality.

      Equality is not central to or even essential in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, or even to Thomas Jefferson with whom most people associate the phrase because of the rhetorical framework of the first line of the US Declaration odf Independence. You will find “equality” nowhere in the US Constitution nor in most period writings.

      So go back to the books young man, learn your history, and give up your attacks on the “Enlightenment”. The Alt-Right needs to show itself more literate and aware of and familiar with the intricate details of Western European history than to focus on a few absolute rhetorical assertions made for politically dramatic effect at the margins, which may be famous today but were actually quite shocking and controversial when written.

      I am sorry, but to the educated mind and ear, repeated attacks on “the Enlightenment” read and sound like the writings of Troglodytes–Cave Dwellers who have just barely discovered fire.

    • Ben Sanderson

      You don’t seem to be able to “get it”. I won’t read an exegesis so if you will, please condense your words to a paragraph or two. It’s very simple: read Nick Land or Mencius Moldbug. Then get back to me. But I won’t debate the meaning of the Enlightenment with you. I think you’re in the wrong place. This is a white nationalist website and we have concluded, via consensus, that the Enlightenment values as encapsulated in both the French and American revolutions, were wrong-headed and mistaken. Period, end of, full stop. Either accept it or not. That is the deal.

    • Well, you just screwed the pooch, then.

    • Ben Sanderson

      In a war between a secular, liberal, post-enlightenment West and Islam, Islam wins. It’s that simple. No babies, no family, no folk, no faith = no future, and death. It really is that simple. You either accept it or you do not.

    • How do you explain then that for the entire duration of the Enlightenment, and for over a century thereafter, until the end of World War II, really, White Christian, Caucasian Europe’s population grew and outpaced that of the Islamic world by an immense factor, and in fact for the most part conquered, dominated or established protectorates or spheres of influence over all the Arab, Turkic, and other Muslim nations of Africa and Asia as colonial.powers?

      Who among us would not be satisfied by a return to the world map and political order of either 1914, perhaps ideally, or 1920-1939 as a second best? Where was the failure of the enlightenment during the reigns of Napoleon I, Napoleon III, Queen Victoria, Edward VII, or George V?

      Seems to me that the falling white birthrate has everything to do with post World War II, largely Jewish inspired anti-Western pro-Communist Cultural Marxism, especially feminism, and next to nothing to do with the Enlightenment.

      Clive conquered and we ruled India during the Enlightenment, creating Victoria as Empress in1867. The Dutch conquered and ruled Indonesia during the enlightenment.

      Where is your evidence that the declining faith of enlightened Western Europe prevented Spain and France and Britain from dividing all of (Islamic) North Africa three ways during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries?

      Where is your evidence that the White Europeam birthrate and population growth did not dramatically outpace the entire Muslim world until roughly 1965-1975?

      By 1975, cultural Marxism and feminism were demoralizing America, Australia, and Europe, NOT THE ENLIGHTENMENT. This argument is turning absurd and retarded. The enlightenment was the greatest period of European Supremacy before the apogee, Europe’s triumphant Zenith, in 1815-1945, which woukd have continued until today but for World Wars I and II and the advent of the Zionist World Order.

      Please get over it! Stop bashing the Enlightenment….

    • Ben Sanderson

      You don’t know much about the Enlightenment it seems. The Enlightenment can be summed up in one sentence: “All men are created equal”. This is a lie. I’m sorry but you are ignorant in this matter. If you choose to reply, do so in one or small two paragraphs, please. I’m not interested in reading an entire essay. Make your point in a couple of sentences and then stop.

    • You have a political agenda, NOT an understanding lof the enlightenment and its history. As a matter of fact, to say that “The Enlightenment can be summed up in one sentence: “All men are created equal”” is so completely ognorant and stupid it defies the imagination. Frederick the Great of Prussia was one of the great apostles of the Enlightenment. Do you really think King Frederick believed that “all men are created equal”? How about Emperor Leopold of Austria?

      Your understanding, framing, snd presentation of the Enlightenment in this narrow, out of context, preposterous manner is exactly analogous to reading a few lines out of Leviticus about dietary taboos, plus a few limes about Jesus and the Gardarene Swine from the Gospels Matthew and Luke, and concluding that the Bible as a whole was written and created a Hog-Haters’ Blog on the internet. Yes indeed!

      I refuse to engage in any further battle of the wits with an utterly unarmed individual. I suggest you read the French Encyclopedie, plus the collected works of Immanuel Kant and Isaac Newton and get back to me in about a year.

      Your penance will be that you will be required to think for yourself on all subjects in true enlightenment style until your head explodes and then we will see whether you were created equal to me!

    • Ben Sanderson

      You are wrong about the Enlightenment. Go back to school. That is all.

    • I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology & History (1990) from Harvard University and J.D. in comparative law from the University of Chicago (1992). I have a few other degrees from Tulane (where I took a triple major in Anthropology, Biolog, and Classics) and Harvard, where I defied massive amounts of pressure to retain the “Faith of our Fathers”. I have received grants and fellowships from the National Science Foundation and National Geographic Society. I have given lectures on Anthropology and History from California to Florida and half the states in between.

      What’s your educational background to blow me off like a fly on Mayo?

      You ever finish that Associates Degree you were working on at the local CC?

    • Ben Sanderson

      You should have taken a course on the Enlightenment; apparently you skipped it.

    • I take it you actually dropped out of the local CC and never finished that associates’ degree? Was it embarassing when all the Brothers and Sisters from the Hood were the teachers’ pets and you couldn’t get a single “Sieg Heil” in sideways?

    • Ben Sanderson

      All that education and yet all you could land was that assistant prof job at $20/hr.. so sad. But what the hell after u picketed and the union was formed u managed to get a few bennies. Nice job, now u better get back to correcting those intro to English essays… genius.

    • I love the high intellect you are displayin but in fact, the last time I worked for as little as $20/hour was in 1991-1993 when I was a judicial law clerk to a federal judge famous for refusing to repudiate his membership in a Country Club which banned Jews from membership……. he was part of a dying breed…..of real American jurists….

    • Ben Sanderson

      Yes, I can see you in the servile position of clerk. Seems appropriate.

    • Judicial law clerks definitely carry a heavy burden, indeed an immense load in any court, analyzing cases, interpreting the law of the land , recommending decisions regarding the disposition life or death… but so long as we are comparing careers, how’s that job as head dishwasher going? Any cute little mestizas or jungle bunnies “working under” you? Or are you one of those “Pink Swastika” types?

      Could this conversation possibly get any deeper or more meaningful? I daresay you’re becoming an embarassment at this point. Let’s drop it while we are just disgusting now, and before we make it to a level which is totally revolting.

      I THINK YOU are entitled to your abysmally uneducated opinion precisely because I believe in the Enlightenment. You would like to censor me and shut me up because you don’t.

      That’s my last word on the subject. I wish you well. We are both on the same side of the modern struggle, I think, except over the interpretation of history. Let’s just leave it at that, Mr. PINK swastika busboy…..

    • Ben Sanderson

      Buh bye… clerk.

    • Post Script: in true enlightenment style, I don’t follow instructions from woefully uneducated party-line hacks about how much, how long, or what to write from anyone.

      I rely on my own reason, I think for myself, and as my son always says to me, somewhat annoyingly but validly, “I do what I want.”

    • Micene

      What we need is a RACIAL religion, like Ben Klassen recommends: http://www.creativityalliance.com/

    • Cobbett

      Griffin was a disaster for British Nationalism…a dictatorial, money grabbing, self serving sh*t….”socialism” as in ”Union of the People” Goebbels

    • I have heard all of the stories about Nick Griffin, but it still seems to me that, whatever his faults or flaws, the BNP under his leadership was inspiring a lot of English and Welsh people and scaring a lot of people in the Establishment.

      Griffin was elected to the European Parliament and it was beautiful to see how upset certain people were about that, and the outcry and uproar when he was invited to tea with the Queen.

      Correct me if I am wrong, but seems like Nobody Else in the British right has come anywhere close to Nick Griffin.

      Nigel Farage may have achieved a politically correct, non-racist Brexit, but will this really save the British people from Extinction?

      People say a lot of the same things about Griffin as about Louisiana’s David Duke. What both Duke and Griffin have in common is a modicum of real historical electoral prominemce and minor, though not major, success.

      Who in the US has the prominence of David Duke? Who in England can replace Griffin as an effective leader to create a party even as prominent as the BNP was under his leaderdhip???

  • Pingback: 9-9-16 News – National-Satanist Worldview()

  • AnAnon

    “instead of realizing that assimilation is impossible” – Their goal is a deracinated, and defanged islam, and that goal is obtainable. They won’t assimilate, but will instead join the permanent underclass, where they can continue to be used as a club against us, but will never go after the oligarchs or threaten them in any way.

  • Cobbett

    I’m all for the Burkini…and the Burqa and anything else that distinguishes Muslims from the rest of us…but then they shouldn’t be here in the first place.

burkini

By: Matthew Heimbach



%d bloggers like this: