Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive: its moral values. – Emmanuel Macron (2018).
He who does not love his mother more than other mothers and his country more than other countries, loves neither his mother nor his country. -Charles de Gaulle (1913).
With the Femen girls doing their usual ‘bare my boobies for alpha males’ routine in Paris for Chad Trump as with Putin, this in Anglin’s comment queue was priceless
https://img.memecdn.com/women-logic_o_885575.jpg
As millions of us attended solemn events today the EUphiles like Macron were using the occasion to take a dump on our nations. The shamelessness of these people shouldn’t surprise me by now yet still it does.
http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/macron-avec-des-danseurs-a-l-elysee-une-photo-qui-continue-a-faire-du-bruit-23-06-2018-7789650.php
https://www.medias-presse.info/fabrice-eboue-des-que-macron-voit-des-noirs-torse-nu-il-semoustille/98805/
https://senego.com/france-ces-poses-demmanuel-macron-avec-les-noirs-doigts-dhonneur-qui-ont-fini-dinstaller-la-colere-au-cote-du-r-national_774635.html
“People are now planting bombs in the tramways of Algiers. My mother might be on one of those tramways. If that is justice, then I prefer my mother.”
~ Albert Camus, 1957
I wonder if Camus would have wept at the death of his mother.
In all frankness, the writings of Camus are vacuous.
He has been propped thanks to his philosemitic leanings and left-wing politics. But other than that, really, there is not much to be said about what he wrote. L’Étranger is just that… strange, in fact silly. And Le Mythe de Sisyphe is pretentious and un-original.
All the talented French writers of the XXth century where part of the Deplorables camp: Céline, Brasillach, Drieu, and of course, the greatest off all in my view… Rebatet !
can’t say i expected anything else from a rothschild’s toady
I wish Emmanuel Macron was francophilic. In truth, he hates his own people.
I wonder if Macron’s comment contains a coherent message. Is this not just “acceptable” words arranged in a grammatically correct way? Seems there’s no argument here.
Patriotism is the love of the fatherland, Nationalism is the ideology of birth-land. Both are seemingly linked to the idea that the people of the fatherland or the people of the common birth are related, have some deep bonds that tie them together, as this was the way things worked before modern transportation technologies. The real French are descended from the Gauls mostly, then from the Romans and the Teutonics. This is the only way France makes sense as a category.
Conventionally, Patriotism is simply a moderated form of Nationalism that tended to be inward-looking rather than expansionist. It’s basically the same thing Nationalist Jiang Jieshi is not so different from Fascist Mussolini or Patriotic Napoleon.
What ties the “French” together? Love of short work weeks and lithe, sweat-soaked negro youths? Bizarre marriages to old women? Doesn’t seem like much of a vision. Our “Great American Flag” and the other saccharine platitudes which appeal to prole Americans sounds a lot better.
https://youtu.be/UmMXyXdXlcM
I think he would.
I just checked and saw that Rebatet wasn’t shot for treason in ’45. Sounds kind of cucky.
The enemies of a nationalist were/are imperialists and their running dogs.
Micron is the perfect nickname for him
OT: Neanderthals appear to have had larger lungs and straighter spines than modern humans. Possibly helped them support larger brains than modern humans as well?
https://www.newsweek.com/neanderthal-thorax-shows-our-ancient-human-relatives-walked-upright-and-1193487?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral
Macron is creepy weird.
His French audience probably knew he was riffing on the earlier De Gaulle quote:
Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first – Charles de Gaulle.
His immense talent saved his arse.
Camus and a bunch of other famous left of vente writers petitioned for him. His death sentenced was commuted to a life one as a result. And then of course he got liberated like everyone else in the early 1950s, as the new order of the day was to fight communism…
I remember this narrative of patriotism meaning supporting world government starting already two years ago. Both the fake conservative outlets like National Review and the standard hard left outlets such as DailyBeast were saying this, so Macron is just repeating the logic what (((those))) that decide what others must think.
Above is the full George Orwell. He probably ripped it off other writers, too.
AK, I think you mean Macron’s Negrophilia.
Not to mention homophilia and presbyphilia.
Macron is francophilic.
That is why he wants others to pay for France and his French-led EU.
I am going to take a guess with that one, this means being a granny f*cker, right?
There is a certain synchronicity between this excellent post and my own thoughts in the last few days. My realization was that current discourse tags as fascists people with exactly the same views on Nation, Race, Sex, Identity, etc., as the anti-fascists of the 1940s.
He was wrong. Nationalism is a belief that you should care first and foremost for you nation, that your nation should have a separate state. Charles De Gaulle is in fact often described as nationalist.
Simply, you should not define nationalism using the descriptions coming from the enemies of nationalism and/or people familiar only with some strains of nationalism.
Hypocrisy is the rule in the immigrant issue.
It seems to me that, although the contrast between the discourses you quoted is obvious, Macron’s actions might be more aligned with De Gaulle’s view than it is commonly supposed. In other words, he arguably expects other European nations to comply with his discourse, but as much as possible he acts in contradiction with it in his own country. That would mean less immigrants for him (and France) to deal with.
So, here’s the real question one should pose regarding Macron, and, retrospectively, De Gaulle: is (was) he Europhilic? From a strictly numeric standpoint, who save more European lives, De Gaulle or Pétain? What about French lives?
And it’s not like Macron does not know of the problems of mass immigration and of African overpopulation. Guillaume Durocher has mentioned this in his article here at Unz.
This is an infinitely problematic issue too, as one could rationalize De Gaulle’s words into a strictly individual sense: I will save my mother first, all the other French mothers be damned. The Central question is, why would anyone establish France as the identitary entity? One could instead be a Normandie or Bretagne “regionalist”, or a pan-European “continentist”. What defines a reasonable scope for one’s sense of identity?
Of course, in modern days many people would add Europe, or ‘Europe’, after the nation-state.
I wonder how different he is to De Gaul. Obviously he is super-cucked, and probably some sort of closet gay, or at least a guy with very low T. But you have to adjust for the times as well.
Didn’t De Gaul preside over the first major breakdown in the French border and what he said against it should perhaps be considered to be platitudes? Not much different as those Angela Merkel once gave.
It’s usually just meaningless argument between people about correct definition of words. So of course, politicians like Putin can just change around the words.
For example, for years, Putin says nationalism is bad and uses it as an insult.
Then last month (and also in 2014), he said he was a “nationalist”, but in the civilized kind, and not like “cave nationalist” who throws mud on other ethnic groups.
Basically Putin is saying the same view as Macron.
Trump says he is nationalist – but he uses a different definition of words : his view is also like Putin/Macron.
In all cases, we are talking about imperial powers, who actually want some control over their sphere of influence, so it’s actually incompatible with romantic, 19th century nationalism.
–
Also look at how the concept changes in different countries and centuries . In the 19th century, in most countries nationalism is about self-determination of peoples from empires, foreign kings, etc. It was a romantic revolutionary movement, which attracts people who would be “left-wing” today. Nationalism of countries like Poland today, is derivative of this concept of self-determination.
Movement like Pan-Slavism in 19th century Russia – supported imperialist objectives, which was finally completely, achieved by Moscow’s direct and indirect control (or at least influence over in Yugoslavia’s case) all Slavic nationalities after 1945. But in Poland, there was always an opposite objective, which was independence of small countries, including from Russia.
Personally, nationalism in a sense of self-determination of peoples, is very attractive still. The horror is when it was combined in 20th century Germany, Italy – with totalitarian dictatorship.
Notice the switch?
AFAIK, de Gaulle claim to fame is that the Brits annointed him as some sort of leader. But there were more French actors playing Resistance heroes than actual Resistance fighters – so he led my ass, just like Horia Sima. Subsequently, the French elected De Gaulle on that silly “leadership” reason, a truth that makes him no different from Macron.
France has managed well their decay, but a decay it is, for the last 210 years.
https://media.springernature.com/full/nature-static/assets/v1/image-assets/nature07331-f1.2.jpg
Macron does have gay face.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/something-queer-about-that-face/
Nationalism > Patriotism.
Nationalism is loyalty to the nation, the people, human beings.
Patriotism is loyalty to the country, the land, dirt.
The French Nationalist is loyal to actual French people.
The French “Patriot” is loyal to whatever random group of people happen to be residing within the boundaries of France at any given moment.
Even at school, when dealing with Orwell’s short stories and other works, our teachers warned us about Orwell’s sophistry and ability to misrepresent. We were told not to take him at face value.
The late 1970s would be the time when Orwell was first taught in schools. British education had not completely declined at this time and there were still excellent teachers about, who would keep you right.
Also, being taught in a Scottish school, we got the customary health warning. Orwell liked to claim he was an English Patriot, which in his case meant being a notorious Scotophobe. He was a Scotophobe in the same manner as someone like Col Ralph Peters is a Russophobe. It took very little to get him going.
Bizarrely, he spent most of his last few years on the Scottish Isle of Jura ( as in the whisky ), where he completed 1984. He was a very strange man.
Presbyphilia ? The correct term is gerontophilia.
Gerontophilia is the primary sexual attraction to the elderly. A person with such a sexual preference is a gerontophile. The word gerontophilia was coined in 1901 by psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing.
And very nasty it can be, too. As in the case of Kenneth Erskine, the Stockwell Strangler.
Erskine’s criminal career began with a number of burglaries. He was able to open ten separate bank accounts with the proceeds of his crimes.[3] Erskine served time in Feltham.[2] During 1986, Erskine murdered at least seven elderly people, breaking into their homes and strangling them; most often they were sexually assaulted. The crimes took place in London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Erskine
He was thought to have been active in the French Resistance, like Sartre. It made them.
No, rather to the centuries of traditions that formed on those lands and towards the peoples who formed those traditions, rather than to the more abstract and modern concept of “nation.” Patriotism is more traditional and conservative than nationalism. Nationalism, love of the abstract concept of “people,” resulting in overturning pre-nationalist authorities such as the Church, the aristocracy, local traditions (nationalism promoted political and cultural centralization, replacement of local dialects with one standardized language). This was a bridge to multinationalism – applying the same principles towards a love of all peoples equally.
Conservative Austria-Hungary vs. Germany provided a contrast between patriotism and nationalism.
A “patriot” is a cuck who doesn’t mind seeing his own people dispossessed from their own land by unlimited unassimilable immigration. (For instance, Macron)
A nationalist, on the other hand, objects to such a thing happening.
A “patriot” is controlled opposition, groveling for a pat on the head from the cultural marxist globalist establishment, which uses him while despising him.
A nationalist, on the other hand, is the unequivocal and unapologetic enemy of the cultural marxist and the globalist.
A man can be a “patriot” in any empire, no matter how large, unnatural or multicultural.
A man can only be a nationalist in his own homeland.
And don’t give me this “nationalism-invented-in-19th-century” baloney.
Any tribe which has ever resisted being conquered by an empire, swamped by diaspora infiltration, or dispossessed by a rival tribe has been nationalist.
Nationalism is as old as humanity, as holy as Christianity, and as natural as family.
I have asked this question numerous times and never gotten an answer. Here it is again:
Why are Femen girls seen as representing women in general?
I’m quite sure if Soros gave me millions of dollars to fund a standing army of young conservative women to make a scene, I could certainly manage it. Alas, no such offer has been forthcoming, either from a Jewish or Goyish billionaires.
That said, it’s a funny cartoon!
The Left’s great advantages is that it is literally impossible to intellectually engage with, or or logically test, their their so-called “ideas.” This is because their “ideas” consist of vacuous slogans about what is good or bad that are entirely circular. These slogans have no defined meanings and there is no set of facts under which they could be falsifiable. (E.g., “Diversity is our Strength,” “White Privilege,” etc.)
This whole “Nationalism = bad; Patriotism = good” rule is definitely in the same category. It’s impossible to debate because the SJW Left won’t even articulate the supposed difference in the meaning of the two words.
As far as I can tell, the whole point of this argument is that “Patriotism” has a nicer ring to it than “Nationalism” so it must be the property of the Left.
The navel-gazing US media is assuming that Micron directed his anti-nationalist comments at Trump. But with his approval ratings tanking wouldn’t it be far more likely that he’s targeting Marine Le Pen, his likely opponent in the 2022 French election?
I’m sympathetic to your idea about nationalism (it is very recent for non-elites), but then I don’t understand the idea that patriotism is older than nationalism.
Both are recent, for ordinary (non-upper or middle class) people, which was always the majority until the 19th century.
During the first world war, when Austrian army was captured, and travelled across Russia to Siberian prison – Austrian soldiers were shocked how peasants were giving them welcome gifts and food, viewing the Austrians as friendly visitors. Many peasants during the first world war, did not even understand the concept of enemy nations or what the war was.
Of course, in some countries the concept of a nation has emerged earlier even for ordinary people. In France, peasants became nationalized following the revolution. In Italy, during the Risorgimento.
But for concept of a wider nation to penetrate the ordinary people, requires modern state capacity, literacy, etc.
The cromagnons (i.e. Paleolithic hunters of our species) had brains even larger than those of the Neanderthals
Offtopic – how did Putin’s face look more cool as years progressed.
In 1990s – looking like a nerd .
https://youtu.be/2MgR_ZKgT4M?t=545
Now looks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mkdQSMrTwg
Something they changed in the eyebrow?
https://cs.pikabu.ru/post_img/big/2013/06/26/8/1372250355_932872353.jpg
http://www.news.ykt.ru/upload/image/2017/08/60343/598273b119ffe.jpg
http://www.allwomens.ru/uploads/posts/2017-12/1514458402_vladimir-putin-foto-do-posle-plastiki-3.jpg
https://cdn.vdmsti.ru/image/2018/b/r2zmp/default-z3l.jpg
http://www.allwomens.ru/uploads/posts/2017-12/1514458457_vladimir-putin-foto-do-posle-plastiki-5.jpg
Women like to show their bodies and men like to fight, so it is very easy to recruit for Femen and for Antifa. I do not think they are that expensive. Still it needs some money and coordination by few smarter members.
I am pretty sure if we combed networks, connections and finances of 19/20 century anarchist, anti-monarchists, socialists and various nationalist groups we would find similar mechanism of financing and recruitment. There are always strings leading to a secret outside control and funding.
Moral derangement sometimes masked by exalted idealism of people involved on the low level is pretty much the same. Dostoyevsky in “The Possessed” and Conrad in “The Secret Agent” had good understanding of type of persons involved.
The full globalist meltdown: first they worshipped Obama. Then they dreamt of Hillary. When she lost, they settled for the frumpy Frau Merkel. Now they are down to this weirdo, Macron. Who is next? Juncker? Or the nepotistic teenager from Canada?
For God’s sake, why don’t they just pretend that they like Trump, rehabilitate him, buy him, feed his ego. Trump isn’t about to change anything anyway, so why have this pointless public fight? Especially since they seem to have just a bunch of clowns and losers representing the globalist side.
Are they so out of touch that they forgot how to play the game that they literally own?
i guess what they’re going for is:
patriotism = love of country, land, magic dirt = civic nationalism
nationalism = from natio, birth = blood nation
an attempt at a counter meme but a bit self-defeating from a globalist point of view
Antifa is surprisingly well coordinated especially insofar as their material is really some of the worst people in terms of competence(often with genuine developmental disorders, many with prison terms, and a huge number of runaways). Its an outgrowth of some of the hippie communes which are indeed “mysteriously” funded and they’ve had the experience to find out how to make such individuals useful after, I don’t know, the last forty years or so?
And yes, everything ultimately is funded by an elite.
You can say that too — there was even the infamous soviet “gerontocracy” in the last couple of decades of the USSR.
In Greek (classical), “gerontos” refers more to the elderly — like in very old.
“Presbys”, on the other hand, refers more to the fact of being older, not necessarily super-old. The “priest” for instance derives from “presbyter” as the leaders of the early Christian communities were taken as belong to the senior men in the community, who had acquired more wisdom and discernment than the juniors. In that sense, I take “presbys” in the sense of “older, elder — but not elderly”.
Granny Brigitte is a an older woman than Macron, she is a “senior” but is not “elderly”. This is why I suggested “presbyphilia”.
That said, it may be that I just invented that term 🙂 Well, in that case, please remember that it was invented here on Nov 11 2018…
Yes, and supposed activity in the “Résistance” has certainly been a key factor in many people’s post-war careers. The prime example was Mitterand himself, who managed to get himself recognized as former resistant, despite having worked as a high-ranking Vichy functionary all the way until 1942!
Sartre’s writing are sh!ttier than Camus’. Nobody even reads Sartre any longer in the Francophone world. Only American liberals seem to be interested in him nowadays.
Incompetent, but loyal. And not smart enough to ask questions. Ideal material really.
Just found it in wiki:
Why would someone who loves his homeland think such a thing?
Nonsense. It was precisely because many nationalists were nationalists in other peoples’ homelands that nationalism led to the stupid self-destruction of European people in the 20th century.
Patriot – loves his lands as they existed for millenia and its peoples.
Nationalist – his own nation is the best. Other nations nearby need to make room for his nation, because it is smaller than it ought to be (it always is, because always some king who never gave a damn about this modern “nation” invention has been adopted by the nation and has some lands somewhere else). Nations mobilize in huge numbers, so slaughters are massive. Other nations living in ones’ nation need to leave or be destroyed.
In this way Ukrainian nationalists slaughtered 100,000 Polish people living in Ukraine, Germans were slaughtered and driven from eastern European lands, etc.
A favorite passage by Celine, about nationalism:
“And yes, everything ultimately is funded by an elite.”
And used by elites. In 1999 they were used to delegitimize 1999 anti-WTO protest in Seattle. It hurt Pat Buchanan who was there with his ani-WTO troops.
Scott Crow who does not seem that young is or used to be an organizer already in 1980s.
I think it would be very easy to roll them up but apparently they have a protective umbrella and there is no political will. I often wonder about Russia before WWI where all kinds of violent anti-state activities were taking place and it seemed as if Okhrana had hands off approach.
Admitting my bias as a Roman Catholic, I must admit it is hilarious for the President of the supposedly legitimate French Republic to make statements about the importance of “moral values.”
The fighting peasants of the Vendee region learned all anyone needs to know about the “moral values” of the French Republican legacy.
it would be very easy – many of them are the children of upper middle class academics with a lot to lose so some well publicized significant jail time would have a big impact but at least in very liberal towns they’re got used to being allowed to do what they like.
I think when I was a young boy I read about Yeltsin blowing the fingers off one of his hands from playing with a grenade, and somehow conflated him with Gorbachev who had that winestain on his head – thinking it was an head injury from the grenade and that Grobachev had played with a grenade.
At least that’s how I remember it now – maybe I didn’t really confuse them.
God helps three kinds of people: fools, children, and drunkards.
I prefer the seedy France typified by French literature to the “moral values” France propounded upon by its current soulless leader.
I wonder what is voice is like. Not being a Francophone, I don’t think I could detect a gay accent out of normal French. But I have known a lot of questionable politicians in the US, who seemed to have gay accents. They seem to be disproportionate share, at least where I live.
It was a brilliant nickname – that guy they used to call Yeltsin’s right-hand glass, instead of right-hand man.
People are generally more patriotic than nationalist. They care more about their land and dirt, their realty, that is real property which they own, than they do about other people besides their immediate family. This is why people don’t let other people live in their gardens for free or give away their farmland to other people, even if other people are desperate. Not just land and dirt and other forms of realty, but people also care more about their personalty, their personal movable property like livestock, tools, money, etc., than they do about other people.
The truth is that both nationalism and patriotism can be diluted and become meaningless in the era of globohomo.
Nationalism cares about the ethnic group, the people, but then often decides that it’s in its best interests to assimilate members of other ethnic groups. For example traditionally Hungarian nationalists were happy about assimilating members of other ethnic groups, with the occasional exception of Jews.
Patriotism cares about the state and traditions and culture more, and those are inherently capable of absorbing immigrants or other ethnic groups traditionally living in the realm.
Globohomo can and does use distorted forms of both for its ends.
People do not know what is the difference between patriotism and nationalism. They only know that one is good or at least acceptable and the other is bad and should be frown upon.
Bringing it up in a political discourse it is a diversion to avoid talking about specific issues which are too controversial to be even spelled out.
These terms largely overlap in meaning anyway.
Raspail doesn’t merit inclusion in your enregistrement du siècle XX ?
Patriotism/nationalism are not clearly defined, terminology which politicians change meaning of for their own rhetoric.
However, we all understand general pattern, of loyalty to your nationality, language, culture and region, and extension of part of people’s personal identity to identify themselves with these larger concepts. In addition, there is psychology of self-romanticization and mythologization.
Without this pattern, and some balance between isolating the country, importing culture, and reworking according to national conditions – the independent civilizations which emerged in modern history, would not function very well or develop separate perspectives and characters.
From objective valuation, though, it depends a lot on the quality of country itself, and whether this country has produced a real civilization.
In case of e.g. France or Japan, it’s desirable (even for outsiders) that local people are very strongly loyal to the long-view (demographic, geographical, etc) conditions which produced their magnificent civilizations. On the other hand, in case of countries Mali, Pakistan or even China, I’m not sure how we (outsiders) should care for their nationalisms, which have not yet produced anything of value.
Something like nationalism of Ukraine, is difficult to decide. Everyone hates their current “cave nationalism”. However, in most optimistic scenario, after a few more decades of economic development, perhaps a style of nationalism in Ukraine could become more civilized and something benevolent.
If you watch earlier speeches of Yeltsin in the 1980s, he was an adequate, charismatic man.
He then completely disintegrated his personality and progressively lost his basic mental faculties from when he was around 60 years old onwards (which was, in some evil comedy of history, coeval with his beginning position as President of the Russian Federation).
A Hungarian nationalist guy who has translated the works of Alain de Benoist to Hungarian has told me that Raspail has unfortunately very low literary value. (Though he said he was politically absolutely correct and rooted in the French hard right tradition.) He thought Céline was the greatest modern French writer. I’m not knowledgeable enough to comment myself.
Make France Great again!
https://i.redd.it/x2dfom7pw3y11.jpg
I’ve heard some interesting stories from connected people of how Yeltsin embarrassed himself on certain visits to foreign capitols. Truth can be stranger than parody.
Neither am I. I was just thoroughly blown away by Camp of The Saints. Maybe I’m just too tabloid low brow.
Yes, calling some of those stories embarrassing would be an understatement.
https://www.independent.ie/life/just-plane-rude-the-day-boris-yeltsin-overslept-30615643.html
I cannot comment because I haven’t read that book. But this Hungarian acquaintance of mine said that it had low literary value, though he liked the political message.
I bought it many years ago. Tried to read it but somehow I could not get the traction. I do not think I will try again.
Both had larger processing centres for vision and large muscle coordination (walking cross country).
The usual explanation for Putin’s modified look is Botox.
Macron can try all he wants, but changing the subject to ‘nationalism‘ is not going to help him. The only time nationalism is unpopular is after a major bloody carnage of a war, like WWI or WWII. Anti-nationalism is today a political loser, almost like being against your own ‘deplorable‘ voters.
My guess is that the weird Emmanuel is positioning himself for a post-presidency sinecure in the global finance. There is probably a new, improved ‘Macron‘ trained as we speak. This time with an actual wife and kids. And some gravitas. What the hell were they thinking with the prune grandma and the emaciated puppy? Political casting isn’t what it used to be…
Raspail has unfortunately very low literary value.
I have read a number of Raspail’s novels (in French) and I would second this, although some are quite interesting. Of the works I have read, I would rate most highly his (non-fiction) account of his 1949 canoe voyage with 3 friends, from Trois-Rivières (just to the west of Québec city) to New Orleans, essentially following in the footsteps of the 17th century Jesuit missionary and explorer Jacques Marquette. It is a mixture of history and real-life adventure that would be impossible to repeat today.
Highly recommended if you read French, I don’t think it has been translated:
En canot sur les chemins d’eau du Roi, une aventure en Amérique
Nina Khrushcheva said (perhaps she was just speculating) in some interview that Putin’s friend Silvio Berlusconi advised him to have plastic surgery. These days Silvio looks like he’s wearing a cheap Berlusconi Halloween mask
His face changed so radically compared to the 1990s, it’s like a different person. Botox doesn’t do so much for you.
In 1990s, he was also unhealthy looking compared to now – being President had the opposite for him than for Yeltsin.
http://www.rospres.com/upload/iblock/d42/putin_spb_1996.jpg
https://cdn.img.inosmi.ru/images/23807/64/238076459.jpg
http://www.kasparov.ru/content/materials/201606/576AAA2157364.jpg
Lol Sobchak with the Adidas baseball cap.
https://otvet.imgsmail.ru/download/247105728_7d4d5138628d61f602841e4fb88cbfaf_800.jpg
When he was in his 50s years (the 1980s), Yeltsin appeared very adequate, self-confident, charismatic.
The moment he became President, it’s like he decided to become a drunken child.
I haven’t read, but I heard in his autobiography he blamed extreme stress for his drinking. Apparently in early 1992 he realized that reforming the Russian economy wouldn’t be the cakewalk he imagined, and he couldn’t cope with the stress. Which means he was incompetent and he knew it, but he was competent enough to cling to power.
The next Macron will be Mohammed Ben-Abbes, a true visionary.
https://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/berlusconi.jpg
http://www.index.hr/images2/H20171126000270.jpg
My wife’s mother met him a few times in the 80s, he was indeed very sharp at that time. The collapse was extreme.
The stories of his drinking date from well before 1992.
in the 80s, he was indeed very sharp at that time.
You can certainly judge better than me, how does he appear to you in this video from his 1989 visit to the US?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6yfUkxkQWI
Typical Celinian statement. Can be understood at several different levels: farcical, allegorical, symbolic, political, etc.
I agree with this. It’s a misleading and imprecise division. In reality, land and nationhood are intertwined.
This is exactly what I was about to respond. Cf. my message to Jim Bob L below.
Not in terms of literary value.
But Raspail of course deserves credit for the prophetic Camp des Saints. A number of his other books are also quite interesting, in particular the one where he describes his experience in the late 1940s with a group of friends, descending the Mississippi valley on the “Voies d’Eau du Roy” (the Royal Waterways):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_canot_sur_les_chemins_d'eau_du_Roi
This book is a testimony to what Midwestern America used to be… and no longer is. I recommend it to anyone who likes history, adventure, and friendship stories (and a real one in that case).
Bad.
But this was inconsistent. He was normal here at the US congress in 1992:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sog2Uq3rooE
And 1991:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zXChf5tEMI
Let us meet here in 2022 and see how your prediction turned out.
My own very prediction is that yours will have been thoroughly ridiculed.
Aside from the comedy, he looked very healthy at 50 years old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BydDpUCTelU
13 years later – face expanded laterally, like an old grandmother.. how you get old, with estrogen from drinking alcohol every day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eiIMZQWkdQ
Imagine this nightmare – they want suddenly change to have America’s economy, when your leaders are generation of idiots like Gorbachev, who was asking American politicians, as in shock, about how they can organize the supplies for so many different types of restaurant in Washington DC.
Then oil prices go down for over a decade, falling to $12 a barrel.
And this clown is Sobchak, Mayor of Saint Petersburg.
http://www.kasparov.ru/content/materials/201606/576AAA2157364.jpg
Well eventually story has the ironically happy ending, when his competent staff, including people like Kudrin, go to Moscow, capture the Kremlin, and then commodity price boom in 2000 saves all.
given what was happening to Russia at the time i wouldn’t be surprised if he was being drugged.
did he have a doctor who ended up with millions of shares in Rosneft?
I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility, although most of the damage appears to have been done by Chubais.
Well, I don’t mind if he likes Presbyterians.
Patriotism is love of land and people, along with love of the culture. Nationalism is blind devotion to the Nation State.
You have it exactly backwards.
Remember it’s France we’re talking about.
Did they go through Chicago? Down the Chicago River and the Sanitary and ship Canal? That would be real adventure.
No, I don’t think so. They went through Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, then Wisconsin – Green Bay, Lake Winnebago, and the Wisconsin River turning south at La Crosse – then on down the Mississippi to New Orleans.
Did they go through Chicago? Down the Chicago River and the Sanitary and ship Canal?
For a map of their route, see p. 4 of the following review (which corresponds to what Matra said, I believe):
http://www.ac-sciences-lettres-montpellier.fr/academie_edition/fichiers_conf/ROUSSEL2007.pdf
I suspect it had more to do with guilt than stress, selling out his country to the international jew is difficult with anyone with even just tiny traces of love for his own people.
https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/596cd260a47cb56b008b4a01-750-477.jpg
Mr Big. Wallet, ego and … expanded chest. Like an alpha male chimp.
Yeah, but he was functional until the early 1990s.
No, nationalism is love of ethnic group, and the idea that the ethnic group should have its own nation state. It’s of course a problem if the nation state has been hijacked by globalists, but the same issue affects patriotism, too.
The two terms are largely overlapping, but normally nationalism is more associated with the ethnic group and patriotism with the culture and the dirt of the land (i.e. things which correlate with, but are not actually, the ethnic group). Nationalism is more prone to revolutions, while patriotism is more prone to acceptance of immigration, but eventually, both can be bad and both can be good, and they can overlap. If your country is an evil empire (to give an uncontroversial example, the USSR in 1930), and your ethnicity is not the ruling ethnic group (might be considered to true for all ethnicities of the USSR at that time), then being nationalistic while being non-patriotic is a good combination. If your country is a nation state of, by, and for your ethnic group, then you can be both a nationalist and a patriot – no contradiction. The only issue might be with a country which is not a true nation state, but might be better than a complete collapse of everything – there were people who supported Austria-Hungary for that reason. (There were some Hungarian politicians who even supported the reorganization of the Dual Monarchy into a confederation of small nations, which would’ve meant Hungary would’ve lost its privileged position along with much of its territory, but they thought it was better than a complete disintegration which they thought likely. These politicians probably didn’t have a lot of support in Hungary, though difficult to know, social democrats and the likes might’ve supported them.) So it might be possible to be a good patriot without being a nationalist.
Anyway, I’m actually thinking that a new ideology needs to be developed based on Frank Salter’s ethnic genetic interests, but with the clan level preferably suppressed (so as to stay high-trust). So we’d have concentric circles of loyalty to family, fatherland, Europe/the white race, and the whole of humanity. This ideology would frown upon genocidal wars against closely related neighbors and wouldn’t even much support the suppression of their cultures. For example in England it’d be more strongly opposed to African than to Polish immigration. It’d be capable of cooperation with other races. Being against immigration doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean hating the wannabe immigrants. I’d want to immigrate to your nice house and become part-owner by virtue of my having moved there, but if you don’t let me in, or only let me in on a temporary basis, that’s no reason for me to hate you.
Guilt causes stress. Certainly he didn’t want to go down in history as the guy who destroyed Russia as a world power. He knew his performance as president was substandard, but didn’t know what to do about it, because he understood he couldn’t just go back to the USSR, and he understood he needed some kind of capitalist economy, but didn’t know how to go about it or changing what he was doing without causing even more damage. Even the Chechen War proved to be a complete disaster. He must’ve felt whatever he touched turned to shit.
Slow down, Guillaume, it was a joke. Have you not read Soumission?
Unfortunately I cannot read French. But I can say bonjour, and s’il vous plaît (I can only write the latter with some help from Google), so my French is not that bad, after all.
Macron is just another soulless, childless European with a Napoleon Bonaparte complex who thinks he can achieve his ambitions on the backs of German savers.
Ah okay then. Sorry if I shot too quickly — but I think that when people of HBD/race realism persuasion go overboard and make ludicrous predictions, they erode the overall credibility of those ideas.
This is because globalists/race denialists use guilt by association as one of their main (and sole, and weak) arguments: « look, these people say that therebwill be a caliphate of Switzerland/UK/France in a few years! They are just a bunch of lunatics, everyone should treat them as such ».
By the way, Mme Le Pen has been recently summonsed by a French court to seek psychiatric evaluation. It’s not even a recommendation: it’s a command.
So, back to our original points: when making a farcical or caricatural statement, it’s best to make it clear that it is such. Not being a native English speaker — and not even a native Germanic language speaker, I have completely missed the second degree tone of Mitleser’s post. Sorry.
BTW I have not: I don’t like MH’s style, I think it’s totally overblown. I read the particules élémentaires and found it lame and tedious.
The fact that MH is the best that France has to offer in terms of contemporary literateurs shows the extent of the cultural collapse. I assume than an American of European tradition reacts in a similar fashion, when he says that Michelle O. attracts crowds of enthusiastic listeners large enough to fill a vast stadium.
Where do you get this quote from? I’ve found no direct evidence that de Gaulle ever said it.
I only read Submission in Hungarian translation, but it didn’t seem to be of very high literary value. Not totally worthless, but not a Dostoevsky. But the political message was mostly okay. Even gems like when the protagonist’s girlfriend being Jewish and packing up to move with her parents to Israel, and then the protagonist telling her: “But I don’t have Israel.”
I vaguely remember having read something similar in his memoirs, which I read at the age of 13.
The way I remember it is that someone who claims not to prefer his own country over other countries is like a person who claims not prefer his own mother over other mothers. Such a person loves no mothers and no countries at all. That’s how I remember, but it was a long long time ago, so my memory might not be totally accurate.
…
Some other people wrote similar things. A Hungarian poet once visited (or claimed to have visited; but I think the story was plausible, because initially the Hungarian poet was chummy with the communist regime until he had a fallout) Bertold Brecht (of “electing a new people” fame) to ask him about a minor (East) German literary figure (or perhaps actor or somesuch) who had just been arrested in East Germany. He wanted Brecht to use his considerable influence with the East German authorities to ask for the release of the guy. But Brecht, having of the purpose of his visit, and unwilling to jeopardize his privileged position within the regime, only sent his valet to the door to send him away. Afterwards, the Hungarian poet wrote a poem about those who love the whole of mankind as a distant abstraction and want to liberate all, but are unwilling to help any concrete man they know in person.
Basically, it’s a requirement for us humans to discriminate in favor of what’s close to us. We cannot love all indiscriminately, and those who claim to do so don’t love anyone or anything at all. Loving all indiscriminately should be left to God.
Yes I agree in terms of political value that’s different and MH makes many excellent points even in the Particules.
He can indeed be witty and funny.
One very negative aspect of MH, however, is his total subservience to the Js.
Submission is my least favourite of his novels. I like the other ones a lot, although the sex can get a bit tedious (even if it is useful for learning vocabulary)
Agree. Austria-Hungary was an example of a relic – a conservative pre-nationalist state whose loyalists were patriots and not necessarily nationalists. I suppose there were people who were more loyal to “Britain” than to Scotland or England. In other places with a dominant ethnic group such as Russia there was a transformation from patriotism to nationalism.
When Europe was full of patriots, it became the greatest place in the history of the world. When it became nationalist, it destroyed itself.
Not accurate:
In point of fact, some nation states are very much comprised of a multiethnic dynamic, with nationalists who love their given nation, as opposed to exclusively liking a particular ethnic group.
In the US, many if not most American nationalists, willingly accept a multiethnic group of folks, who support core US nationalist views. Conversely, these American nationalists will oppose people of their respective ethnic group who take an opposing slant. As an example, Trump comes across as someone who prefers African-Americans and Jews sharing his views over a leftist German-American.
To a good extent, that kind of situation exists elsewhere. Putin comes across as preferring non-Russian supporters of his core views over those ethnic Russians who oppose him, while slanting to Western neolib and neocon preferences.
Modern jargon has corrupted the actual meaning of the two (nationalist and patriot).
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/nationalist
In contemporary PC circles, that particular n word is used to negatively describe people who qualify as patriots.
That is basically what I mean by “nationalism”.
Nation, defined both by common ancestry and by common culture (language, religion, political traditions etc.), is the central link in the concentric circles of obligation which give meaningful purpose to our lives – self, family, nation, family of nations, humanity.
An unbalanced emphasis on any one level leads to pathology:
Self – psychopaths
Family – mafia
Nation – hyper-ethnocentrism, including imperialism (Spartans lording it over helots), diaspora infiltration strategy (Jews, Gypsies), genocidal expansionism (Nazis)
Family of nations – Jesuit’s counter-reformation crusade 1562-1685
Humanity – leftist ideologies
Contemporary “patriots” (Macron) and “civic nationalists” (Marco Rubio) base national identity solely on political traditions, vaguely and tritely defined (Sweden = humanitarian superpower, Germany = overcoming legacy of Nazism, France = liberty, equality, fraternity, America = life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.), which effectively removes the “nation” and “family of nations” levels of obligation from European Christian nations, leaving them as helpless prey for leftist ideologies, hyper-ethnocentric diaspora peoples and psychopathic traitors.
But others (and not only globalists) mean something else, so there’s your problem. We need to dissociate ourselves from petty nationalism. (E.g. Hungarian nationalism whose main goal is a fight against Romanians and Slovaks, while unconcerned about the demise of Western Europe.)
Or Ukrainians 🙂
This show supports my very point on nationalism and patriotism, while ridiculing Macron:
https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/444151-nationalism-patriotism-trump-macron/
He’s quite superficial.