Those Racist French

Eric Zemmour, a French journalist who writes for Le Figaro, is at the center of a storm of controversy following comments he made on television November 13. Zemmour, born in Paris, is from a family of Jewish Berbers who left Algeria after the Algerian war. Zemmour’s main point was that there are different races distinguishable by skin color. Both the French paper press and the blogosphere have had a field day with this story, accusing him of resurrecting the Nazi theory of race, of being a “Lepeniste”, of making comments that emit a nauseating odor, of being a promoter of ethnic separationism, of triggering a “civil war” between Jews, blacks, and Arabs, of expressing the malaise of French “Negrophobes”, of seeking a return of “a white France”, etc...
The entire conversation can be found on the website of François Desouche, however it is entirely too long to translate. A portion of what he said – the most incriminating part, is posted at several websites. If there is racism in this story it is certainly not on the part of Zemmour. Rather this outpouring of venom is an indication of the repressed racism boiling below the surface in the kingdom of the French media and its various talking heads, intellectuals and “philosophers”.
Here is a small portion of the whole conversation between Zemmour; Isabelle Giordano, the moderator of the show; Rokhaya Diallo, a black woman from Senegal and president of an organization called “The Indivisable Ones”; Vincent Cespedes, another of many long-winded French philosophers who have nothing to say and take an eternity to say it; and Renan Demirkan, a German actress and writer of Turkish origin:

- Eric Zemmour: There is racial “métissage”, that is, the mixture, physically, of races.
- Rokhaya Diallo: What are races? What do you mean by “races”?
- Eric Zemmour: If there are no races, there's no “métissage”!
- Rokhaya Diallo: Well, no, because maybe it’s the second type that you were talking about... [She is referring to the “métissage” of cultures]
- Eric Zemmour: So there is no problem in that case!
- Rokhaya Diallo: No, because you are talking about the two types of “métissage”, so perhaps the second type exists.
- Eric Zemmour: Yes, the second...
- Isabelle Giordano and Eric Zemmour together: Because for you Rokhaya, races do not exist?
- Rokhaya Diallo: No, well, I...
- Vincent Cespedes: Nor do they exist for scientists.
- Isabelle Giordano: We’re listening to her... [The meaning of the French text is not entirely clear.]
- Eric Zemmour: What interests me in this story – I’ll be quick, is that I have the feeling that the consecration of races during the period of the Nazis and before has been replaced by a denial of the existence of races. And to me, one is as ridiculous as the other. What do you mean they don’t exist? You can clearly see that they do exist!
- Rokhaya Diallo: But how can you tell? I don’t understand what you are seeing...
- Eric Zemmour: Well, skin color, quite simply...
- Rokhaya Diallo: And so according to you, skin color means that I belong to a race different from yours?
- Eric Zemmour: Of course you do! No, but... that you would rediscover...
- Rokhaya Diallo: Oh well, this is interesting...
- Eric Zemmour: It’s obvious, I belong to the white race, you to the black race!
- Rokhaya Diallo: No. I belong to the French community and...
- Vincent Cespedes: Maybe that reassures you, Eric. Does that reassure you to belong to the white race!

Acrimed, a French Media Watch website, comments:

Consistent in his denunciation of everything that threatens virile France, these scandalous remarks from Eric Zemmour are not, in his case, a blunder, but the logical outcome of a career dedicated to the restoration of “eternal” France, i.e., white, phallocratic and heterocentric.

While anti-racism may be “the Communism of the 21st century” (in the words of Alain Finkielkraut), the French have taken the whole thing a step further by insisting that there is no such thing as race itself. But, folks, if there is no such thing as race, then there can be no such thing as racism. When it suits the Left to denigrate the white man, there is certainly such a thing as race – who colonized the poor blacks and Vietnamese, and Maghrebins, if not WHITE MAN? When it does not suit the Left to speak of race, then there is no such thing.
Eric Zemmour is a rarity among rarities: a journalist who speaks openly about Islam, race, immigration, the harmful consequences of the feminist movement, and other taboo subjects. In a recent interview in the monthly magazine Le Choc du Mois, not available online, Zemmour spoke of immigration. Joachim Véliocas’ website Islamisation reported about the interview:

Eric Zemmour, questioned exclusively on the phenomenon of migrations and their consequences, was not afraid to affirm: “What is happening is a demographic tsunami.” He also revealed the confidential remarks of a minister, unnamed, who confided in him that “We are witnessing the end of the Roman Empire.” [...]
In addition, Zemmour declared himself in agreement with a quote from General de Gaulle:
“It is good that there are yellow, black and brown Frenchmen. They show that France is open to all races and that her mission is universal. But on the condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would not be France. We are above all a European people of the white race, of Greco-Latin culture, and of the Christian religion [...] Do you believe that the French body can absorb ten million Muslims, who will perhaps become 20 million tomorrow and 40 million after that? If we allow integration, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered as Frenchmen, what would prevent them from coming and settling on the continent where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises, but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées!”

These famous words were uttered by de Gaulle in 1959.
What few admit openly (although Zemmour clearly hints at it) is that France is being conquered, not merely immigrated to. And so there will not be assimilation of foreigners into the French population, but the reverse – the partial assimilation (through rape and intermarriage), and the partial integration through ghettoization, of the French population into a foreign population.

The two cartoons above were posted at Le Conservateur who does a great job of keeping up with satirical journalism, especially illustrations. The cartoonist is Monsieur le Chien (Mr. Dog), and these are among his last postings, since it seems he will be discontinuing his website.
The cartoon at the left reads:

So, as I was saying, in France we are all racists. (Except for singers and television).
- I wonder if in foreign countries they are as racist as we are...
- No, I don't think so, seeing as how they're not French.

The cartoon at the right reads:

Unfortunately for us 60 million racists, we are a bit harassed by television.
- I propose a TV series where a girl from Cameroon goes to live in a village and finds she's the target of the villagers' racism, but at the end they see she is OK.
- Yeah, super great idea. They're often racists in the villages. Not like us in the cities.

The big 2 refers to French TV Channel 2.

@KA: not quite right..


Thnx for your short reply, appreciate that. I'll also try to be brief (and you know I'll fail once more, don't you ;-):

I'm afraid you're wrong again.

"One should not confuse Communists and the anti-racists associated with the abolitionist movement."


Exactly. So don't.

"Proponents of revolutionary socialism tried to conceal blind ambition and hatred behind a facade of conviction."

Nice to see that you've managed to get a backstage pass behind the "facade", but until you substantiate this claim, it's nothing more than that.

"in the West, they emphasized class rather than ethnicity, nationality, race or religion in a bid for a popular and transnational base."

Wrong again.
Adenoid Hynkel and Benzino Gasolini both were revolutionary socialists who rejected the class struggle of orthodox Marxism and emphasized either the socialist religion of race (as the vehicle for progress, hence the love of eugenics) or classless nationalism. The National Socialist Workers party in Germany emphasized both, though they were somewhat sloppy revolutionaries or perhaps the first to discover a democratic path to absolute power.
Both "modern" heterodox socialists were preceded by socialists in the US who also rejected the orthodox Marxist idea of a class struggle. They were socialist racists and nationalists, firmly believing in modern "progress", calling themselves "military socialists", "Progressives" and so on.

And to aid you in not mixing things up KA, here's a reading tip to look into the history of the leftist political movement of the US "Progressives" (about 1880-1920), before you confuse it again with the more general label.

So I repeat (with capital P):

.."the concept of racism" hasn't become "politicized", for the simple reason that racism already was a politization in and of itself: the political religion of race, and the idea that a masterrace should rule. That is the original leftist, Progressive and politicized religion of race, promoted by the likes of Marx and Engels [and Wilson], preferrably enforced by a dictatorial collectivist State.


Kind regs from Amsterdam,


In Reply

@ Sagunto:

Proponents of revolutionary socialism tried to conceal blind ambition and hatred behind a facade of conviction. On the one hand, in the West, they emphasized class rather than ethnicity, nationality, race or religion in a bid for a popular and transnational base. Yet, the advent of Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union and its allies supported nationalism where necessary to remain in power, including ethnic cleansing of various minorities, bordering on genocide. One should not confuse Communists and the anti-racists associated with the abolitionist movement.


@ Gilbert:

Your comments on arguments linking "race" and culture stand in firm opposition to the racial and cultural relativism implicit in multiculturalism, and especially to denigration of White peoples and Whiteness. If you agree with these arguments, then by contemporary popular and academic standards, you qualify as a "racist".

genetic heritage

A liberal pluralist democracy is ultimately dependent upon the quality, the intelligence and character, of those who compose its content. How can the preservation of our culture be maintained without the survival of our genetic heritance? Consider the following consideration to validate that presumption:

"The Map of Freedom" (published annually by Freedom House) graphically demonstrates that free forms of government generally track population concentrations of people of European descent, a strong suggestion that freedom has a genetic origin. The world of the free is largely the world of the Western European. The European tradition of ordered, self-governing liberty is probably part of our genetic heritage.

Throughout the third world, governments range from anarchy to dictatorship. That too, is surely genetic. Those few non-European countries that appear to be free have generally maintained democracy through intimate contact with the West. If Europeans are marginalized and ultimately absorbed by the third world, the idealism of Western liberalism that permitted the third world invasion will have proved to be a lethal genetic flaw. - cf. "The Morality of Survival" by Michael W. Masters.

I agree with Murray Rothbard's definition of the nation as "a collective identity based on language, etnicity, race, and religion. [cf. Lew Rockwell in "Speaking of Liberty" (page 447)]

@ Kapitein Andre

All the races of humanity have certain accomplishments that would likely not have been if they had not been. These accomplishments are appreciated and valued in different degrees by different people.

I am concerned with the preservation of the European peoples, who happen to be the peoples whose continued existence is currently under assault.

The antithesis of the racial empath is the interracist who does not value his race, nor even care if it lives or dies, survives or is destroyed, continues or suffers extinction, but selfrighteously denies and negates his racial loyalty, feeling and identity, the essence of his being, past, present and future, all that he was, is, or even will be.

Quote, unquote 2

The first condition of understanding a foreign country is to smell it.

(Rudyard Kipling)


This morning the world awoke to the stench of death in Mumbai.

A double mission

I propose in this letter to conclude my observations on India... A country not only divided between Mahommedan and Hindoo, but between tribe and tribe, between caste and caste...Such a country and such a society, were they not the predestined prey of conquest? ...

The question, therefore, is not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton.

England has to fulfill a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia.

Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun India, soon became Hindooized, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subjects...

That unity, imposed by the British sword, will now be strengthened and perpetuated by the electric telegraph. The native army, organized and trained by the British drill-sergeant, was the sine qua non of Indian self-emancipation, and of India ceasing to be the prey of the first foreign intruder...

From the Indian natives, reluctantly and sparingly educated at Calcutta, under English superintendence, a fresh class is springing up, endowed with the requirements for government and imbued with European science.

Mr Kipling makes exceedingly good cakes...

"The cannibalism of America's natives only proves their isolation from the rest of the word, as civilizations in Egypt, the Middle East and CHINA*** already had given up these rituals long before".


Indeed, and I have no doubt that Mr Kip- Ling really does make exceedingly good cakes too.





@ Atlanticist911

That's an easy one, they didn't read Kipling.

How in God's name do you find those things?

eating flesh 2

@ kappert


btw: The question isn't whether or not the Mexicans would return to cannibalism if they were not guided by Rudyard Kipling, the question is why it is that the overwhelming majority of educated Mexicans today would prefer to eat tapas with their Kipling rather than the other way around.

Mageiricophobia and the fear of questions

@ kappert


The Q: Would you characterize THE AUTHOR of this book 'racist'...?


The A: I suppose the taste (of human flesh) is just the same (everywhere) and CANNIBALS WERE NO RACISTS at all".




Your answer is 'armoronic'. Eat your lunch and try again.

eating flesh

History proves that in humanity many cultures are possible, each one with their own scale of values. And what a vast scale! To eat man, either to worship a great leader or simple devour the enemy, has been part of human culture for a long time and was only abandoned by enhanced communication means in the last few millenniums. The cannibalism of America's natives only proves their isolation from the rest of the world, as civilizations in Egypt, the Middle East and China already had given up these rituals long before.
Yet, 'The Blame of Those Ye Better' appears as icon of white race nationalism in the U.S., as if today Mexicans would return to cannibalism if they were not guided by Rudyard Kipling! As for the 'white man', it's the only culture who tries to establish 'races', 'Übermenschen' and 'Untermenschen' 'scientifically'. The author forgot to mention that point! I suppose the taste is just the same and cannibals were no racists at all. I'm going to prepare my lunch now ...

Rudyard Kipling

There is an essay by Roger Kimball on Rudyard Kipling in The New Criterion, Volume 26 April 2008, on page 22. It puts into perspective Kipling’s call on the West to accept "the white man’s burden" and guide the uncivilized masses out of oppression and ignorance.

Says Kimball:

Kipling was called an imperialist and racist for his dedication to progress, but as David Gilmour points out in "The Long Recessional: The Imperial Life of Rudyard Kipling", the word “white” “plainly refers to civilization and character more than to the colour of men’s skins. The ‘white men’ are those who conduct themselves within the Law for the good of others: Gunga Din may have a ‘dirty’ hide, but he is ‘white, clear white, inside.’”

The key word is “civilization.” Kipling was above all the laureate not of Empire, but of civilization, especially civilization under siege. Henry James once sniffed that there was only one strain absent in Kipling: that of “the civilized man.” It’s a frequent refrain. But in a deeper sense, Kipling was about almost nothing else—not the civilization of elegant drawing rooms, but something more primeval and without which those drawing rooms would soon be smashed and occupied by weeds.

Kipling, Evelyn Waugh wrote toward the end of his life, “believed civilization to be something laboriously achieved which was only precariously defended. He wanted to see the defenses fully manned and he hated the liberals because he thought them gullible and feeble, believing in the easy perfectibility of man and ready to abandon the work of centuries for sentimental qualms.” Kipling endeavored to man those defenses partly through his political oratory, but more importantly through a literary corpus that taught the explicit lessons and the implicit rhythms of emotional continence and restraint.

Reposted from:

@KA: pseudoscience of the racist religion

Well @Kapitein,'re wrong. First and foremost about Dawkins.
One can't leave aside his zealous anti-religious rantings, and only part of his first work ("memes" excluded) has been considered noteworthy by some dedicated researchers in the field of biology (where's his body of scientific research, by the way?), but his other works are mainly considered "notorious" by his followers, not carrying a lot of scientific weight. But then again, you don't really need a genuine interest in biology as a science to have an opinion about race, do you?

Secondly, "the concept of racism" hasn't become "politicized", for the simple reason that racism already was a politization in and of itself: the political religion of race, and the idea that a masterrace should rule. That is the original leftist, progressive and politicized religion of race, promoted by the likes of Marx and Engels, preferrably enforced by a dictatorial collectivist State.


That's why Eric Zemmour doesn't promote anything "racist". He just exposes the usual PC reflexes among leftists when someone merely talks about race. Before Hitler and since Marx, many progressives, socialists and what have you, were ardent racists in the abovementioned sense. The postwar generation of leftists opted for "anti"-racism, the only racism for those elitists allowed being US campus multiculturalism, i.e. racism 'lite' by proxy.

Perhaps those indignant progressives at that French tabletalkshow are subliminally reminded by Eric Zemmour of their inter-generational collectivist guilt.



Marx and Engels

Marx and Engels: their open racism speaks for itself.

"the Germans and the Scandinavians - who both belong to one overall race - will only pave the way for their hereditary enemy, the Slavs, if they fight with one-another rather than uniting."

"the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way."

"The most interesting acquaintanceship I have struck up here is that of Colonel Lapinski... His sympathies are all on the German side ... He cares nothing for the struggle of nationalities and only knows the racial struggle. He hates all Orientals, among whom he numbers Russians Turks, Greeks, Armenians, etc., with equal impartiality."

"Behind every tyrant stands a Jew just as there is a Jesuit behind every Pope."

"If, for instance, among us the mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child, and in no need of proof from experience, this is solely the result of "accumulated inheritance." It would be difficult to teach them by a proof to a bushman or Australian negro."

"The possibility for definite economic development taking place, [depends], of course, upon favourable circumstances, inborn racial characteristics, etc."

[Germany] "must at all risks become the avowed tool of Russian aggrandisement, or, after some short respite, make again ready for another 'defensive' war, not one of those new-fangled 'localised' wars, but a war of races — a war with the combined Slavonian and Roman races."

"As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery. I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America."

"And if during eight centuries the 'eight million Slavs' have had to suffer the yoke imposed on them by the four million Magyars, that alone sufficiently proves which was the more viable and vigorous, the many Slavs or the few Magyars!"

"The real point at issue always is, Turkey in Europe - the great peninsula to the south of the Save and Danube. This splendid territory has the misfortune to be inhabited by a conglomerate of different races and nationalities, of which it is hard to say which is the least fit for progress and civilization."

"[The]physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors;... this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent."

"We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines historical development. But race is itself an economic factor."

In Response


The concept of "racism" has become politicized and biased beyond all attempts at objective or universal use. A preferable alternative is "racialism", which can indicate a fixation on race irrespective of whether that fixation is classified as pro-miscegenation, anti-racism, racial supremacism or racial preservation. Employing "racialism", one can argue that all of the participants in the interview were fixated on race.


Dawkins' atheistic ranting aside, his works on evolutionary biology are noteworthy.




The key question is whether or not physical characteristics correlate with other individual and group traits such as intelligence and behavioral patterns. F.e. why do the trains run exactly on time in Germany but not nearly so in France or Italy? What are the causes of the differences between Germanic and Romantic culture? Are they due mainly to environmental factors such as climate, etc.? Does culture correlate at all with physical characteristics?

genetic endowments

Does culture correlate at all with physical characteristics? - Kapitein Andre

I agree with the observation of Murray Rothbard, "that individuals, ethnic groups and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.”

Buchanan argues quite explicitly that only whites have the appropriate "genetic endowments" to keep Europe and America from collapsing.

Sam Francis said that Western civilization was superior and that only Europeans could have created it. If Western peoples perish, as they are doing today, Francis was implying, we must expect our civilization to die with us.

Here is what he stated: "The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted by a different people."


Certainly true, according to the gene-centered view of evolution, are the facts that 1/ genes are capable of statistical influence on traits; 2/ some of those traits influence reproductive success; 3/ genes pass mostly intact through reproduction.

 Controversial is indeed the claim, that organisms, groups and species are not replicators, or at least not evolvable replicators.

Is the copying fidelity of these replicators high? Is selection acting at these levels strong enough to overcome the effects of gene selection and random drift?

It seems that groups, species, etc., are both under very weak selection pressure and very sloppy replicators. But genes are under strong selection pressure and are high-fidelity replicators; selection on genes, therefore, rules.

Neo-Darwinism or sociobiology?

I agree that there's no racism whatsoever in the story on the part of Zemmour. It's rapidly becoming sort of an indicator of truthfulness. Best guess is that when today's political/cultural elites cry "racist!" during a debate, the accused is probably right and winning the argument.


Strictly speaking, neo-Darwinism is quite old, sort of an update on Darwin's theory after the rediscovery of Mendel's Laws. Genes (more correctly: genepool) and phenotype + system (selective pressure) are just different sides of the same coin.

"Fitness" in the old neo-Darwinian sense is a way of describing a snapshot in evolutionary time, a momentary impression of the "fit" between species and environment and how that, through natural selection, affects the genepool. The amount of variation in the total genepool can tell us something about "fitness", but even more about (the absence of) selective pressure.

In other words: the "fitness of a gene" as such isn't sound biology. It must always be described in direct dynamic relation to the factor "species under (selective) pressure". 

Dawkins is a sociobiologist and somewhat of an anti-religious pamphleteer, as far as I can see.



traveller: I just had breakfast when I read your drivel. You are responsible for ruining a perfect good breakfast.


This comment is the high point of my day...


I am fully aware that genes control phenotype.

My argument is that the concept of race (outside of Coon's primary and subraces, which emphasized hard features over skin color) is largely based on observable characteristics, a factor that leads both to blurred lines and complete exclusion.

Neo-Darwinian fitness is

Neo-Darwinian fitness is defined in terms of genes, not phenotypes; that is, fitness is defined as the success of genes in being replicated, and hence passed down to future generations.

The works of Dawkins - The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, etc. - explain many of these concepts in greater detail and are highly recommended.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the ultimate biological replicator, the ultimate biological concern, is at the level of the genes.  In real-life, this manifests itself in a concern for genetically similar organisms, related by ancestry (i.e., "kin").

RE: "Those Racist French"

I wouldn't characterize M. Zemmour as belonging to the "white race". Certainly, M. Zemmour is Caucasian - as are the subraces Armenoid and Irano-Afghan - but he is not White.


Certainly, Southern Europeans and their descendants who believe in phenotypical and sociologial races, identify themselves as White. Under this definition of Whiteness that encompasses every indigenous European people, Swedes and Sicilians are equally White. However, so are various individuals and peoples outside of Europe i.e. in West, Central and South Asia.


Yet the definition of Whiteness promulgated by various anthropologists during the 19th and 20th centuries, associated Whiteness with Northern Europe, and excluded Southern Europe as well as parts of France and East-Central Europe. Indeed, the pre-1939 concept of Whiteness held that Sweden was White and Sicily was not.


It is somewhat disturbing to hear an Algerian Jew identify himself as White and pontificate on Whiteness. One must bear in mind, that neither Hitler, Goering nor Goebbels bore any resemblance to their ideal Aryan. In fact, racial anthropologists early on concluded that only 5% of Germans fit the description, which caused Hitler to embrace German supremacism, not that this hurtle prevented him from abducting Aryan-looking children from East-Central and Northern Europe to be raised as Germans. In examining the National Socialists' pre-war planning with regard to Eastern Europe, the Slavs were targeted not due to race - despite the propaganda for domestic consumption - but because of the intense nationalism that would make impossible any sort of Anschluss with the East.


Perhaps one day, fair, blond-haired and blue-eyed people will have their own voice, and not be drowned out by covetous admirers and jealous detractors...


"Certainly, Southern Europeans and their descendants who believe in phenotypical and sociologial races, identify themselves as White." Kapitein Andre

It's the other way around!

You ignore the importance of genes and ancestry. It is genes, not phenotypes, which are the ultimate replicators of life.
Genes encode phenotypes, not the other way around. Phenotypes may change in the course of a lifetime, but genes remain the same.

Familial and group loyalties focus around a common ancestry (shared genes) rather than shared phenotypes , although of course, similar genes and phenotypes are often observed together. To quote van den Berghe: "The genetic propensity is to favor kin, not to favor those who look alike" (The Ethnic Phenomenon).

By singling out phenotype as the principal criterion of in-group membership, it is theoretically possible that white-looking mulattos be considered Nordish, allowing for an unperceived influx of Sub-Saharan genes into the Nordish gene pool. This makes it an insufficient criterion for deciding in-group membership.

@ Kapitein Andre

I just had breakfast when I read your drivel. You are responsible for ruining a perfect good breakfast. You missed a very good opportunity to keep away from your PC.

gobbledygook 2




Small talk?

Uuh, where precisely...

Ahm, no, not there either...

Gobbledygook, indeed.


so who 2

Turks. Why not? Now that we have been given a free pass. Now it can no longer be considered racist.


... for your confirmation that all the racism crap is a bunch of arbitrary (what was marcfrans' word, 'gobbledygook') small talk with a lot of hmms, and ähms, and uuhs.

so who

... are we going to discriminate?
People with spectacles, artificial teeth, aristocrats, hawked noses, red skin, green hair, fat earlobes, dirty fingernails, illiterate, bad car drivers, FOX watchers, north African immigrants from the 60s, Truganini, ..., the list will never end.


"[The] widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, [has been] driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since." - Murray N. Rothbard

The irony is that those blockheads who deny that races exist, favor "positive discrimination" (affirmative action). This policy however - to "redress the ethnic balance" - selects candidates for a position or a job on the basis of race, ethnicity or color, rather than merit alone.

Another irony is that famous fascists such as Yockey, Evola and Lawrence Brown also ignore race as a biological reality or dismiss race as a non-issue.

Eric Zemmour

is for the moment probably the best and most courageous journalist in France. What is even more important, he is still getting a big forum(Le Figaro, France 2, I-tele, Laurent Ruquier).
I hope it stays that way.