European National Democracy: Diametrically Opposed to Us

Ever since attention was paid to the fact that the French National Front will use a Jewish candidate in the upcoming elections, the issue of whether they still could be regarded as a White nationalist party or not has been debated -- at least in the USA. In Europe, however, it has been a known fact that the National Front has used Jews in its ranks for decades. This being so, the party is considered neither nationalistic nor pro-White by pro-White nationalists in Europe.

I think that there are two underlying reasons for this Trans-Atlantic confusion.

First of all, the very concept of nationalism can be deceptive. There are many connotations that we instinctively associate with that word, many principles that follow from it -- from our point of view. When someone else uses it, however, he may have something completely different in view.

This most certainly is the case when it comes to European ‘national democracy.’ They are nationalists by name, not by ideology. When these parties call themselves nationalist or discuss nationalism, they have something completely different in mind compared to us. As I have pointed out before, race, for instance, is completely irrelevant to the nationalism they advocate. A mongrel state is just as good a state as a racially pure state according to their ideology, according to their connotations of the word nationalism. It is true that they to a large extent are opposed to multiculturalism, but they have nothing against multiracial states. Whenever they criticize immigration policies, it is the pace not the phenomenon they attack.

In Sweden, our equivalent of the French National Front is called the Swedish Democrats -- a party that actually is partly funded by the National Front. According to their rhetoric, miscegenation is to be considered ‘positive assimilation’ since it may reduce the cultural gap dividing different people living in our country. This is an example of archetypal national democratic thinking; both existent and persistent in virtually all of these so-called nationalistic parties throughout Europe. They are worried that the current immigration pace will make it difficult to assimilate the newcomers to the prevalent culture and its customs. In a true Marxist-Boasian manner they argue that all races and cultures are more or less ‘equal’ -- and at the same time claiming that, while the question of race is a trivial one, differing cultures may cause problems between different sections of the population, and therefore they would really like to maintain their native culture.

Besides the fallacy in their approach to racial matters, they are equally ignorant when it comes to culture. Most of them actually consider the universally decadent lifestyles widespread in every European country to be part of the culture they want to maintain. Their nationalism is in all its essentials different from our nationalism.

While I do think pragmatism is sometimes acceptable when it comes to strategy, compromises are unacceptable when it comes to principles or ideology. However, the lapses of the ‘national democrats’ aren’t due to pragmatism. It is self-deception to think so, a chimera stemming from misinterpretation of the unfortunately slippery ‘nationalist’ label.

They consider democracy the only acceptable governmental system. They are fundamentally anti-evolutionary in their outlook, believing that the survival of our race is unimportant and condemning eugenics: They certainly aren’t striving towards the stars. They have no concept of honor as a leading guide in life. Talk about eternity to them and they stare blankly at you.

The first underlying problem, then, is the total misunderstanding of in what sense the European so-called nationalists use the word ‘nationalism.’ I will get to the second problem in a moment, but would first like to make a digression and refute a statement in defense of Le Pen that really stunned me. This statement also is an example of the second problem.

In part, the statement urged us to overlook Le Pen’s unwillingness to deal with the Jewish question head on because this question really isn’t very obvious in France. However, the claim that Jews historically ‘played little role in French political life’ is simply not true, and that’s something on which I would like to expound a little.

There have been influential court Jews in the area off and on since Frankish times. It was, however, in the post-1789 revolutionary era that Jewish influence came out in full bloom. No fewer than four Jews have served as Prime Minister in France since then : Leon Blum (1936-37, 1938, 1946-47), Rene Mayer (1953), Pierre Mendes-France (1954-55) and Laurent Fabius (1984-86).

Jews were important players in the establishment of both the Second and the Third Republics in 1848 and 1871. The Jews Adolphe Cremieux and Michel Goudchaux served as Ministers of Justice and Finance respectively in the Second Republic. In the interim between the Republics, during the Second Empire, Jew Achille Fould succeeded Goudchaux as Minister of Finance. Fould later on served as both Minister of Culture (1852-61) and again as Minister of Finance (1861-67).

In 1870 Cremieux was re-appointed Minister of Justice. Jew Narcisse Leven, one of the founders of Alliance Israélite Universelle, became his Secretary General. Leven was later on succeeded by Jew Leonce Lehmann as Secretary General. In the same period Jew Hendlé was private secretary to Jules Favre, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Jew Eugène Manuel was appointed Secretary General to the Minister of Public Instruction, Jules Simon; and Jew Camille Sée became Secretary General to the Minister of the Interior. At the same time Jews were extremely influential in the French economy. As Paris grew to become the financial center of Europe, one third of all Paris bankers were Jews, and Jewish financiers gained influence all over Europe from their Paris headquarters.

Later on, Jews were very influential in the radical movements of France. Actually, Jews Claude Levi-Strauss and Jacques Derrida were the chief ideologists behind the intellectual left, not only in France, but also all over Europe. During the students’ and workers’ revolts in 1968, Jew Benny Levy, the Communist leader who turned Orthodox Jew, was a prime instigator of the disturbances. Among the four official student leaders, three were Jews: Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Alain Krivine, and Alain Geismar.

Jewess Simone Veil served as Minister of Health (1974-79) and used her time to liberalize the abortion law, making it possible to annihilate hundreds of thousands of healthy White children in the womb. Veil was the first elected president of the European Parliament (1979-82) and has served as a member of that parliament both before and after her presidency. Later she served as housing and urban and social affairs minister (1993-95). Jew Lionel Stoleru has held positions as both Minister of Labor (1976-81) and Minister of Planning (1988-91), while working fervently for advancing Zionist interests, serving as chairman of the France-Israel Chamber of Commerce among other things. Jew Robert Badinter served as Minister of Justice (1981-1986) and later on as President of the Constitutional Council of the French Republic (1986-1995). Badinter is currently serving in the French senate.

Lately Jew Jack Lang has served as Minister of Culture (1981-86, 1988-92) and as Minister of Education (1992-93, 2000-02); Jew Dominique Strauss-Kahn has served as Economics and Finance Minister (1997-2000); Jew Laurent Fabius served as Minister of Industry and Research besides being Prime Minister (1984-86), he became president of the Socialist bloc in the National Assembly in 1995 and was president Lionel Jospin’s Minister of Finance (2000-02). Jospin is by the way married to Jewess Sylviane Agacinsky who has a son with Jacques Derrida from a former relationship. Likewise, the former Minister of Interior Jean-Pierre Chevenement was married to Jewess Nisa Grunberg, and their two sons both identify as Jews.

Currently Jew Jean-Francois Cope is Secretary of State for Relations with Parliament and Spokesman for the Government; Jewess Nicole Guedj is Secretary of State for the Justice Ministry Property Program; and according to sources in France the Minister of the Interior, Internal Security, and Local Liberties, Nicolas Sarkozy, has a Jewish mother and a Hungarian father.

Of course there have also been a lot of Jews who have served as advisors, as members of parliament, as financiers, as media owners, and so forth during all this time, but perhaps I already have gone too far into the details trying to prove my point so I'll stop here. I do hope it is clear to all readers that Jews indeed have had and still have a significant influence over French politics.

Now to the second problem underlying the discussion of European so-called nationalist parties. Most of the defenders of the National Front’s and other political parties’ choice to use Jews as party representatives seem to totally miss the principal consequences of that choice. Using wishful thinking, they see only a stratagem -- when they are actually witnessing a diametrically opposed worldview in action. Picking Jews as party representatives is one of the unacceptable principles of that worldview, but what is important isn’t that they allow Jews in their cadres but that they allow non-Whites to hold power over our race at all.

What we must do in order to survive and fulfill our racial imperative is to establish true sovereignty for our people, and a living space where our race can live and thrive, a living space free from the influence, power, or control of other races. That is the prime fundamental principle they violate when they let Jews advance in their party ranks, ranks that should never include Jews or other non-Whites in the first place.

Some argue that there indeed may be some Jews who sympathize with our cause, that they can contribute to our struggle, our people, and our nation -- well, that is the very same argument mainstream politicians use to defend their multiracialist paradigm. The Jews in our ranks are just as good as anybody from our own stock, they claim. Racial descent isn’t relevant, what matters is the individual -- as all liberals agree, from their atomistic point of view. Of course, individuals with strong personalities are indeed those who shape the course of history. But as one of the strongest individuals of our race pointed out in one of his American Dissident Voices broadcasts: in racial competition it is the color of the uniform that matters, not how the individual soldier may view things.

We must never allow any non-White individuals, Jews or others, to wield any power over us; not in our daily lives -- and certainly not in our own ranks. We must never be distracted by such details as whether a handful of Jews or other non-Whites are with us or against us. And we must never accept any political party that does not realize this fundamental principal.

M. Eckehart
National Socialist Front (NSF)