The Eyes of HALDE

If a landlord in France turns down a potential tenant because of his skin color or ethnicity, he can receive a 45,000 euro fine and three years in prison. This is the result of the anti-discrimination agency known as HALDE (High Authority for the Fight against Discrimination) created in 2005 by the French government (at the behest of the EU institutions in Brussels), and advocated by then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.

While it is normal to sense the injustice of depriving someone of housing because of who he (she) is, it is equally normal to place self-preservation ahead of any unrealizable Utopian considerations, especially when there are so many precedents that point to the likelihood of increased danger for the residents and a greater possibility of neighborhood decline.

Yet, most people will persist in saying that they oppose discrimination. It's an issue of an ideal confronting reality. People will always say what they think they are expected to say, but they do what they must.

HALDE uses techniques similar to spying and entrapment to catch the guilty in the act of discriminating. This article from Le Parisien, dated February 27, provides anecdotes, but does not address the underlying problem of immigration:

Fifteen rental agencies and landlords from Ile-de-France were "set up" last November by HALDE during a "testing". For the first time in the history of the institution that was created in 2005, HALDE has sent incriminating evidence to the courts for litigation. In the department of Essonne alone, there are six agencies and private landlords (three of each) against whom the justice system has opened a preliminary inquiry (...)

The relatively new French word "testing" refers to the entrapment process, where spies are sent to verify that landlords and employers treat everyone equally.
HALDE has certainly been accused before of being a type of special court. At one point it petitioned the French Parliament for judicial powers, but the legislators refused. If the article is correct, this is the first time the agency has actually taken offenders to court.

To check on people's conduct two lawyers from HALDE called 36 landlords, ten minutes apart. "The calls were recorded (...) One had a name that sounded African, with an accent. Both lawyers presented themselves as being in identical situations, with long-term work contracts. They asked to visit the available lodgings," according to assistant district attorney of Evry Michel Lernout. Among the rental agencies cited for refusing to show the lodgings, two took the trouble to fire employees held accountable for improper conduct. One rental agency justified its actions by saying that it had African clients, but that it was following quotas, something that is obviously illegal. "There are clients who ask us to turn away foreigners", admits one agent under cover of anonymity. "We refuse and we explain to them what the risks are. Generally, people are more flexible than they were three or four years ago. There should be no conditions."

If the problem exists in renting, paradoxically when it comes to buying, money is color-free. "There are always racists, but things are evolving," notes another agent from Val d'Orge. "As with apartment sharing, it takes time to become accepted."

Apartment-sharing and house-sharing are not common customs in France.

HALDE stresses that "today people know what discrimination is. Those that practice it do so more discretely."

I think HALDE is really saying: Today people know what will happen to them if they discriminate. So they are more careful.

Two years ago, an investigation conducted by HALDE showed that colored persons had nine times fewer chances of obtaining a lodging than did white Frenchmen.

A related article from Le Parisien calls discrimination "an insidious phenomenon, difficult to quantify, yet more and more wide-spread," and relates the various ways an energetic activism is being employed to respond to the numerous complaints from racial minorities and others who feel discriminated against. Michel Lernout (mentioned above) has been given the job of seeing to it that every complaint receives a response. Form letters have been made available to make it easier to file a complaint in the courts. Is this effective? One representative from Nouveaux Pas, a minority rights association, says that they have been waiting a long time for this progress:

"People must be educated [to learn about the evils of discrimination], but we need also to punish what is after all a crime. There can be no education without constraints!"

It is interesting to note how important education (of whites) and punishment are to minority groups when it comes to discrimination, but when it comes to doing academic school work and classroom behavior, suddenly constraints and punishments are SIGNS of discrimination.

The cartoon (above) posted at François Desouche (FDS) shows a couple watching TV. He says, "Another h..mful minority!" His wife cries, "Be quiet! Be quiet!" while the giant eye of HALDE peers through the window. The second part shows Sarkozy with the chairman of HALDE, Louis Schweitzer. "Another of my success stories!" says the president. At the top we read: "The eye of HALDE is everywhere." At the bottom: "Thank you Sarkozy."
French readers may have seen this video also posted at François Desouche in which a white woman relates how she was forced to leave her home in the neighborhood of les Bosquets, in the city of Montfermeil, in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis.
Time does not permit me to attempt an English translation of the video, but here is the short text that accompanies it:

Amidst general indifference, every day, poorer French families are forced to leave their homes because of the immigration/invasion. A phenomenon that is of no concern to politicians, public authorities and least of all to human rights organizations. What is worse, not only must the victims flee, but the "anti-racist" legal arsenal and moral pressures forbid them to complain, since the mere fact of talking about the phenomenon of which they are victims can be considered as racist.
In short, if you are white, even if you are a victim, you are guilty...

We tend to think of the "suburbs" surrounding Paris as being completely Maghrebin or black, forgetting that many white families still live there. Tough it out would be a better way of putting it. These are the poorer, or lower middle-class whites, who can't afford to move, who have been in their homes for decades and for whom the legal machinery is totally ineffective – in other words, the "Français de souche."
One last remark before I close this post that could go on forever, such is the current volume of articles about anti-discrimination laws and forced diversity.
In a televised discussion Yazid Sabeg, Sarkozy's "commissioner" on diversity, about whom I wrote here, made the following comment:

"There cannot be last names that are ethnically French and others that are not ethnically French, in the name of the unity and indivisibility of this country."

Question: Does he propose to change everybody's name so that all names rhyme with "diversity"? And where is diversity, if the country is "indivisible"? Will Mr. Sabeg change his name to Jacques Dupont? Or will it be Jacques Dupont who becomes Mohammed... ?
For the entire French-language video, from February 3, 2009, see Toutes les France. Or just this one-minute excerpt posted at FDS.

Race and culture # 2

@ KO

You are right in saying that I always value "the primacy of culture and values" over given physical phenomena like 'race'.   To illustrate why I consider the long quote from Auster as "confusing gobbledygook", let's take the opening sentence:

"...the race of a group is necessary but not important".

If something is "necessary" then surely it must be OBJECTIVELY "important".  It's only unnecessary superfluous things or attributes that could reasonably be considered as unimportant.  I understand that certain people are SUBJECTIVELY capable of considering objectively important things as unimportant. And, vice versa, there are also people who are subjectively capable of considering objectively UNimportant things as important. But, neither of these examples are signs of wisdom, and therefore they are not worthy of imitation.

I do not think there is much point in continuing this critique of the long quote of Auster.  I do consider much of it gobbledygook, but I can see that not everybody shares that assesment.     

"Culture" has to do with values and behavior patterns, which are subject to human 'free will' or decisionmaking, given enough time and  'environmental' (both physical and human) conditions.  It derives from HISTORY and GEOGRAPHY.  It does not reflect average weight, height, hair density, skin color, nose-shape, etc...      

Einstein And Bacon In Agreement?

Some many years ago, I was entranced by the life story of Francis Bacon. Being the prodigal one, he was loved, and intellectually appreciated by the Queen of England. Her fascination was not without precedent, for young Bacon had exhausted every learning opportunity Cambridge could offer, at the tender age of 15. Later, he would confess that he had taken all knowledge as his own province, hence, his assertion that Knowledge was Power. Striking, these words were, and to this day, remain. His continental discussions with contemporaries was an amalgamizing event for him, and led him once more to England, concerned with the power of his native tongue being the tool of ultimate change, and beauty.

Such a man, he was, confounded by his very own intellect, but never wavering from the pathways leading him to final understanding of the mysteries of life.

Einstein, on the other hand, seemingly aware of his intellectual limits, strove onward as well, motivated by an intrinsic, albeit insatiable curiosity. His understandings were shared understandings, to the extent that others understood his findings also. That famous French railroad clock puzzle, so taken in a rapacious manner by others, was but a small town stop for this giant of a man. He delighted in the chase for answers, and agonized over the few mistakes he made along the way.

Two men, both sustained by the sinews of their fertile minds, both more in agreement than not with each others dictates of the mind. Both lived independently of the other, yet, had they shared the same space of time, would doubtless have drawn toward each other, as though by some Newtonian force at play. This, too, they would have explored together, and these two minds, in more harmony than not, would have shared a brandy, and perhaps a cigar.

Two men, two minds. Of one, Bacon, Thomas Jefferson would profess as having been profoundly influenced. Of the other, Einstein, I am sure that Jefferson would have included him on his list of great minds along with Bacon, Locke, and Newton.

The point is unambiguous, and patently clear. The greatest of minds dwell not in the arguments of the moment, but rather, in the mysteries of all that is unclear at whatever time in their lives.

Latter day pseudo-intellectuals infer that answers are ever forthcoming. They just can not tell us on which particular day the answers will present themselves to us, and to them as well. So is it with false arguments that crowd upon today's minds that have little time for the exploration of vexing problems, and settle for something decidedly less. Entertaining perhaps, but no way to solve problems.

Thank you, Atlanticist911, and thanks also to Akira. Personal opinions have their place at the table, but the table has not yet been set. Meanwhile, let us acknowledge that there must be no arrogation in contemplative discourse. Real problems amply deserve our very best efforts, sort of like the approach that might be taken by Bacon and Einstein. If all is truly relative, then possibly we have a theory in the making here, do we not?

By the way, there is nothing wrong at all with stridency in all manners of thought formulation, or is there?

The Man Behind The Monkey Mask

aka Why 'The Prisoner' Endures


@ Armor


Don't worry, before the 'final episode' is played out, I promise I'll remove the monkey mask and then you'll get the chance to see for yourself just who was the monkey all along, number 6, number 1, or perhaps even ...

(Check out the photo accompanying the text of the article)


Btw. I'm not averse to using Gorilla tactics myself when needs must.


Namibia (?),

Be seeing you   ;-)) 


Sanity (temporarily) restored

@ Atlanticist

I guess you took the right course and responded with a 'good laugh' at so much (a) confusing gobbledygook from a certain Lawrence Auster and (b) pathological obsession with 'whiteness' from the Breton redoubt.

Race and culture

Marcfrans: I was surprised to see your reference to the Lawrence Auster quotation below as "confusing gobbledygook." I thought the primacy of culture and values asserted by Auster was your position in every debate on this website about race and culture. "The primacy of culture, the reality of race" seems to me to summarize the quotation. I'm not sure what part you object to. The culture is what it is because the people are who they are, and a major part of who people are is their race. "Necessary, but not important" seems to be a formula you would approve.

That does not mean that tiny numbers of carefully selected immigrants cannot adopt and participate in their host culture, even if they are of another race. But the realities of race cannot be ignored any more than other significant realities. The citizens of a country under classical liberal government should be treated as individuals, and it is likely that there is no need for any race-related laws. However, the racial aspect of the civilizational suicide that is occurring in the West needs to be recognized as much as the cultural aspect.

I don't know if you read Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities. He says that you can't understand black policemen in New York until you realize they are actually Irishmen.

A Simple Solution

KO, You forgot one important aspect of racial relations in host countries i.e. the US, or the UK, zum beispiel!

"Assimilation, or emigration" These are reasonable choices for unreasonable people. Not only that, it would eliminate the life staining stigma of being characterized as a simple "Trespasser". Unfortunately, most liberated liberals can't bring themselves to make such distinctions, not now, not ever.

Atlantic911's picture

A lamentation found at Takimag, by JD, aka the Derb:

"Today's omnipresent demand to lie about social realities in the name of 'celebrating diversity' is fully endorsed by mainstream conservatism, both in Britain and the U.S.A. The discord and rancor that inevitably accompany ethnic diversity are spoken of by mainstream conservatives in only the most careful, guarded terms. The slow ethnic disaggregation one sees all around, everywhere in the world — it is the most striking human phenomenon of our age — goes unmentioned. Mainstream conservatives are just as locked in to soothing myths and pleasant falsehoods as are liberals — the same myths and the same falsehoods, in many cases. There is no Reality Party. Perhaps the citizenry does not want one. Establishment elites most certainly don't."

Atlantic911's picture can be seen here. (top left-hand corner)

the last word

My thoughts are crystal clear both with regard to the issue of mass legal and illegal immigration and the word most appropriate to describe your views on the issue. Yes, I did say that I would support a moratorium, but I also went on to make it perfectly clear that my opposition was a practical objection and an objection that was NOT based upon skin colour.


"That is what makes them persona non grata for me".


And the word I believe best describes your views on the issue? I'll tell you that word and it will be my last word to you on the matter. That word is...3,2,1



the last word (3)

Here is an interesting statement from Lawrence Auster's VFR that is pertinent to the recurring debate on race and culture on this website. I think it can narrow the gap between those conservatives who aspire to race-blind universalism and those who believe race is an essential part of our understanding of human beings. Mr. Auster writes:

"To put it another way, the race of a group is necessary, but not important. For example, we need to eat every day. Eating is necessary, but not important. We don't make a big deal about eating and say that the act of eating provides the meaning of our lives and that we derive our morality and our values from the act of eating. Similarly, my distinct physical body is indispensable to my existence, but my distinct physical body is not important in the sense of being the source of my morality and values. In the same way, a group's race is indispensable to its existence and needs to be preserved, but it's not important in the sense of being a source of morality. The group cannot derive its values and meaning from its race.

"Which is not to say that a group's physical qualities do not matter culturally and aesthetically. The Greeks' ideal of beauty was inseparable from the way the Greeks looked. We cannot imagine northern Italian Renaissance painting apart from the distinctive physical appearance of the human figures in the paintings. Certain physical types may become ideals, and those ideals carry not only aesthetic but moral meanings. But those physical types take on their particular meaning in a particular cultural/spiritual context. If you reduce the meaning of a culture to a physical type you end up with the kitsch of Nazi sculpture.

"The various historic peoples of Europe were distinct racial-national groups. If they didn't have those particular racial-national qualities, they wouldn't have been what they were. But those groups didn't create the nations and cultures they created out of values derived from their mere race. Their race provided the indispensable 'substrate' of their existence, not its telos, purpose, and meaning. The purpose and meaning came from elsewhere. Thus, according to Bede, the English became a nation when they adopted Christianity. They didn't become a nation from the bare fact of being Anglo-Saxons; in fact they were divided into several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. It was their Christianity, added on top of their common substrate of ethnicity-race, that made them the English nation.

"Or as Samuel Francis said in his speech at the 1994 American Renaissance conference, the whiteness of the white race was indispensable to the creation of Western civilization, but it was not sufficient. Similarly, through all of American history up to the mid twentieth century, white Americans were frankly aware of themselves as whites and saw America as a 'white man's country.' But they didn't make a big deal out of whiteness in itself. Their whiteness was part of the substrate of what they were, it was not a source of values. Now it could be argued that their failure to make a big deal out of whiteness was the reason they precipitately and disastrously gave up their racial identity at the time of the civil rights movement. But that can't be it, because there were white peoples who did make a big deal out of whiteness, such as the South Africans, and they also gave up their racial identity under the pressure of racial egalitarianism. So the failure was not the failure to make race the source of values; the failure was the failure to see that their race was an indispensable part of what they were."

The last but one word

Thank you for having the last word, although...
I think we forgot to write the last but one:

The word for you is just, plain crazy.


To put it politely, there is good and bad in most people, but there is good, bad and even worse than bad in some.

comparative classification (2)

I suppose it takes one crazy idealist to recognize another, especially if your ideal happens to be an ALL-white, racially-PURE European populace. And just how crazy and idealistic does someone have to be to believe that:


i  this 'ideal' is either attainable or universally desirable within the rest of

   the white community


ii to persistently and wilfully misrepresent the views of others with whom

  they happen to personally disagree

  e.g strictly controlled immigration = race-replacement, or that pro (Iraq)

  war (always) = pro neocon (policies)?


On reflection, perhaps the word "crazy" doesn't quite describe it, and if that is true, can anybody think of a word that does?

clarity required

Atl911: "if your ideal happens to be an ALL-white, racially-PURE European populace"

What we are moving towards is a 100% non-white population.
You said earlier that you "would support" a moratorium on immigration (you are not even sure !). But what are the chances there will be a moratorium on immigration if you are afraid to speak up against race-replacement? You are arguing for the wrong side. Immigration is now at record levels. Even if there is a moratorium on immigration starting tomorrow, what do you think will be the percentage of non whites in England in 50 years? I don't know the figures: maybe 50% ? (Tell me if you have better information). Is that the right proportion for you? Do you think it will be a stable situation and intermarriage will not occur? Maybe what you want for your country is 100% of mixed race people + 0 % white people? Why? Please try to explain why you need non-whites in the first place, it will help you clarify your own thoughts. I think once the whites are down to only two thirds of the population, it won't stop there and they will eventually become a tiny minority (if no action is taken).

comparative classification

Then, according to Akira's classification, I would say the neocons can be compared to the first Class of the Obamites.

I would suggest the following subdividing for the neocon family :

1) cynical frauds and hijackers who want to destroy the conservatives, take their jobs, sleep with their daughters, attack Iran, and race-replace everyone in the West.

2) crazy idealists who really believe in things like the proposition nation, and democracy for the Muslims.

@ Armor (2)

Who could  argue with that? That being that  "Genuine fakes" are still phony. Carry On Regardless.

@ Armor

Surely, if somebody is  a "phony fake", they MUST be genuine. Agreed? 

Left-wing, Right-wing, Phony fakes

Marcfrans: "neocons and Obamanites do NOT hold "nearly identical views"

I suppose Obamanites are the naive people who voted for Obama because he is black and looks friendly? I don't think neocons and obamaites are comparable categories. The neocons don't even exist as a group of voters. They are mostly columnists who write in formerly conservative magazines. The article I quoted says that the so-called right now holds nearly identical views as the so-called left. At least, the statement is limpid, even if you think it is an exaggeration.

There is still a difference between Republican and Democratic voters, if not between Republican and Democratic politicians. I think Republican voters are more reasonable and hold stronger opinions than the politicians they vote for. Most politicians do not stand for their principles. They tend to align their positions on what the media say is acceptable. For example, the Republicans are supposed to be immigration restrictionists. In fact, most people who vote for either party are opposed to more immigration. But what happened in reality is that Bush tried to flood the USA with Mexican immigration, and the Republican Party did not denounce his betrayal. McCain was another specimen of an insane Republican. If Ron Paul had been the Republican nominee, I think he would have had more votes than McCain.

There has been a similar evolution in the USA, Britain and France, with the American Republicrats, the British LibLabCons, and the French UMPS (= UMP (sarkozy) + PS (socialist) ). And we have the same phenomenon in Belgium, where a forum poseur named Marcfrans pretends to criticize leftism, but quietly accepts that his own people will soon become a beleaguered minority in his own country.

Sarkozy, Or Socrazy?

Not even the great Groucho himself, would bet his life on the outcome of this one. ESP is the operative phrase here, (European Suicidal Politics).

My world view is of one staring through rose colored glass windows, but then confusing myself with reality when thrusting the window upward, and open. To where have all the European intellectuals gone these days?

Arguments pro and con, are but antithetical to real discussions. Premises are accepted, it seems, and then the hogwallowing begins in earnest. The American "experiment" is fast becoming the American "reaction" to Obama, and his obamaites as they shall vainly attempt to mirror the "European Model" in America.

True patriots are not so much interested in engaging in debate with those whose aims are too, too clear. Their sole interest lies in defeating the agents of false change. It has ever been thus, and will be so within the near future. Yes, almighty God, yes, we stand alone on the shores of indifference, with the tide steadily rising, but as a greater one has uttered: "This too shall pass away."

Great Mosques rise from the ashes of an abandoned Christendom, and the people are left to wonder: What will become of us? Where, oh where, did we go wrong?

Yazid Sabeg: Con (artist) or Connoisseur?

Devil's Dictionary: connoisseur


n. A specialist who knows everything about something and nothing about anything else.



"Question: Does he (Yazid Sabeg), propose to change everybody's name so that all names rhyme with "diversity"?".


If so, I can only think of FOUR possibilities:Perversity, Adversity, Biodiversity and Sorbonne.


You Bet Your Life

@ traveller


You bet your life... for as Groucho Marx once observed, history repeats itself, first as farce, second as tragedy.


Confessional? aka Hanson's Zulus

@ marcfrans


"Most of the young Obamanites have no clue about what is coming".


True. And when it does arrive will they conduct the necessary post mortem and reach the correct conclusions, or will they act like Hanson's Zulus and fail to understand the reality before their own eyes? I think we both already know the answer to that question.


After the terrible Zulu defeat at Kambula, the surviving warriors were convinced of the intervention of supernatural creatures on the British side, and so quizzed Cornelius Vign as to why "so many white birds, such as they had never seen before, came flying over from the side of the whites? And why were they attacked also by dogs and apes, clothed and carrying fire-arms on their shoulders?..(C. Vign, Cetshwayo's Dutchman, 38). In later attacks against Europeans tribal attackers shot their rifles at artillery explosions, believing that shells contained little white men who burst out to kill everyone in their midst...


Excerpted from VDH's book "Carnage and Culture" p 317.


Obamanites? it's their political culture, stupid!


"Identical Views?" # 2

@ Akira

I think I can broadly subscribe to the view that both the 'neocons' and the Obamanites are interventionists by inclination, with regards to domestic policy as well as to foreign policy.  I am also willing to go along with the notion that both groups have a rather utopian worldview about the perfectability of human nature, which is at odds with a conservative worldview.  But, these are all rather abstract notions, whereas my comment was concerned with practical politics and specific living individuals.  I think that my contention stands: neocons and Obamanites do NOT hold "nearly identical views" on practical policies.  Muscular power projection is very different from soft power wishful thinking. In that sense they are two different "schools" of foreign policy". Susan Rice and Condi Rice do belong to different schools of thinking about the world.

Since the Wilsonian Obamanite reflex is rooted in leftist cultural self-hatred and naivete about the world, we cannot take it seriously.  So, the real debate for conservatives w.r.t. foreign policy should be about a proper balance between isolationism and interventionism in the persuit of the national interest and the survival of one's own cultural values.   That 'balance' concerns both (1) the degree or extent of intervention and (2) the methods and specific goals of any intervention.  I think that a sensible conservative should adopt a pragmatic attitude and make judgments about that proper balance in the context of specific problems and issues of the day.  Clearly, Ron Paul's pronouncements on the subject are extremist and not pragmatic, in the sense that they preclude virtually any intervention at all (coupled with a lot of self-flaggelation and misrepresentation about his own society's goals and motivations).  History teaches that one ought not be dogmatic like that, and that one cannot afford to ignore the (future) consequences of inaction today.  The true conservative will counsel caution w.r.t. methods and goals, but not inaction.


@ Atlanticist

As usual, V D Hansen' s analysis is on the mark, and it is easy for both of us to endorse his call for a return to conservative principles.  With reference to my latest tango/discussion with Traveller on economic matters, I am glad to see that also VDH is predicting stagflation for the foreseeable future. As VDH says, "if we are lucky" we are moving back to "Carterism".  Those of us that are old enough to remember, do have sufficient empirical observations and should thus know what to expect.  Most of the young Obamanites have no clue about what is coming.  

@Atlanticist911 & marcfrans

Hansen is right, except that I expect that what we saw under Jimmy was small beer compared to what we can expect now.
I honestly don't know where and when it's going to stop. I fear a total system breakdown with grave social consequences. All the idiots combined haven't done anything correct so far. Even my closest partners, professional financial people in the business since 30 years, don't dare to pronounce themselves.
I am convinced that we will have hyperinflation plus monetary breakdown.
Since the combined losses are more than the BNP of all countries the "economists" will decide to go for inflation to cover the nominal amounts.
5 years? 6 years? 10 years like Japan?

Recessional (2)

With its references to "squirrels", "Yin-Yang", "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"and "screaming to (in?) the wind", I think there is much here for everybody to sink their teeth.

"Identical views"? Really?

There has always been something unwordly, even fantastical, about the presidential campaign of Ron Paul.  So, it is not surprising to encounter 'fantastical' stuff among his followers on the internet in the current malaise that is affecting much of 'conservative' America today.  Armor's purported "interesting article" is such a fantastical item.   

After 6 long difficult years of war, it was not surprising that Obama managed to get his campaign as anti-war candidate going  (in 2007) by running AGAINST the infamous "neocons".  Initially, Obama was the anti-neocon par excellence!  It is, therefore, no exaggeration to label as ludicrous anybody who claims that Obama and the infamous "neocons" hold "nearly identical views".   In a free country, I guess, anybody is free to put their brains in quarantine or on nonactive.

It is of course true that both Obama and Paul were against the war(s).  The first because he is a typical unprincipled blame-America-firster in spirit (and by 'education'), and the second because he is a principled (and libertarian) isolationist.  Paul does not believe in the US 'wasting' resources on providing the world with 'public goods' (like keeping totalitarians in check).  Obama, by contrast, is a leftist 'globalist' who believes that the US should take the lead in the provision of 'public goods' to the world, as long as this does not involve the military and does not advance 'narrow' US interests.

The notion that advocates for a 'hard' American foreign policy, i.e. people like Perle and Wolfowitz (and their political bosses like Rumsfeld and Cheney), wanted to take the US "down the Obama road" of wishful thinking and 'soft' power projection, is utterly nonsense. 

Yet, some people cannot resist.... By the way, Obama never bothered "resisting" Ron Paul.  He must have experienced him as an amusing 'gadfly' in the opposing camp. Sort of like the way McCain must have looked at Biden and/or Dennis Kucinich.

re: faintheart and fair lad(d)ies ...

@ Armor


I oppose the current policy of uncontrolled i.e mass immigration to the UK, and would support a policy of forced repatriation for all illegal immigrants to their respective countries of origin.


I would support a policy of forced repatriation for all immigrants, legal or illegal, who are found guilty in a British court of law of terrorism acts to their repective countries of origin, irrespective of whether or not their own governments might submit them to torture upon their subsequent return.

It's THEIR culture, stupid!


I would support the introduction of a moratorium on all further immigration to the UK until such time as the current mess has been sorted out.



The fact that the vast majority of these people are likely to be non-white is precisely that, a FACT, but it is NOT the colour of their skin I object to, it's their physical presence I find objectionable. That is what makes them 'persona non grata' for me.


So, there you have them, my opinions in black and white and I have nothing, repeat, NOTHING more to add.


"I would support the introduction of a moratorium"

Great! You should say so more often.

"It's THEIR culture, stupid!"

No, it's a racial problem.

Why Are You Complaining?

My post has nothing to do with the sinister Halde, but I read an interesting article today: Why Are They Complaining?

Many neocons are complaining about Obama, but they are largely responsible themselves for taking the USA down the Obama road. As the article says: "What else can you expect when the so-called right holds nearly identical views as the so-called left?" In fact, the neocons have put more energy resisting Ron Paul than Obama.

Obama will keep on dispossessing the Whites. The same policy is enforced in Canada, Australia, Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and other European countries.

The article I quote made me think of some of the commenters here. I can understand why a writer at the Brussels Journal would rather stay cautious if he thinks there is too much immigration. But I wonder why simple commenters who write under pseudonyms (for example: Traveller and Atlantic911) are so fainthearted. They will try to build a moderate, conservative image for themselves by ignoring the most important question. They will never say that we must send immigrants back to their homelands. They won't clearly say that we must stop non-white immigration. In fact, they won't even acknowledge that a racial war is being waged against the white race, as saying so would expose their pseudonyms to the phony charge of "racism". If they get mugged in the street, I suppose they will also be afraid to complain to the police. I can understand a gutless politician behaving like that, but I would expect more honesty and stronger opinions from anonymous commenters who write on internet forums.

Appellation Control, eh?

"There cannot be last names that are ethnically French and others that are not ethnically French, in the name of the unity and indivisibility of this country".


In theory this sinister push to ethnically harmonize French society by means of name control is doable, as there already exists a precedence. Well, a precedence of sorts, I suppose. I wonder if anybody else is 'singing from the same hymn sheet' as myself on this one. There's a clue there.