Thoughts On France

I received a comment a while back at the post entitled "Another Website Withdraws". I needed time to think about my answer, but could not really come up with anything substantial. Here is the comment:
The real problem in Europe is the passing comment "France is still the center of Europe." It is, but by all rights it should not be - Germany is the real core of Europe. France lost both world wars to Germany only to have "the Anglos" salvage an illusory victory for them. Huge, HUGE, mistake to allow DeGaulle to march into Paris. France should have been occupied and de-Nazified with the same vigor as Germany. When have the French confronted Petain and the concentration camps on French soil? Instead it was allowed the pretension of a victor. Its poisonous pacifist, misunderstood existential crap still pollutes academies across the world. Culturally, in matters of thought, philosophy, music and yes ART, France has been a backwater to Germany since the Revolution.
France still punches way above its weight politically. In time, Germany must reassert itself and assume its rightful place in the world. Part of the problem today is that France remains dominant artificially. It owes everything to America and Britain, and so has profound self-doubt expressed as passive aggression against us, its betters. Modern France is a sham...and the French know this deep down.
The fight to keep the light burning will go in central and eastern Europe, in Denmark and Italy, long after France succumbs to Islam, which it effectively has already done through its foreign policy and Eurabian project. Eurabia is a French creation, literally: 1973 France decided on dhimmitude. Why not? What did they do in 1940 after all? Behave like modern Frenchmen, that's what.
This is my rather vague response. Some readers may have something to add, either to what he said, or to my reply:
This is a very late answer. I wanted to think about what you said before responding, but I have not come up with anything really substantial to add. Economically, no question Germany has been the center of Europe. No question, the rampant, and now almost congenital socialism, has destroyed the will of the French to create enterprise and the desire to enjoy the fruits of one's own labor. And it has lured to France's shores the millions of greedy and violent immigrants who want a piece of the cake.
I still regard the America's gesture to allow DeGaulle to march into Paris as an example of gallantry and elegance on our part. But this is a subjective feeling. Your analysis is probably more accurate, and I'm sure many Americans feel as you do.
When I was in France in the 60's they certainly had confronted Pétain, though they sometimes hated to admit it. With time, and a lowering of educational standards, they came to "forget", and to hate America and to sympathize with the anti-American forces of the world, whatever they may be: Islamic countries, environmentalists, pacifists, Cuba, socialism, etc... Then Chirac began a policy of repentance, forcing them to repent excessively and artificially for crimes they did not commit, creating a new social pathology - false guilt and overcompensation through pandering to minorities, affirmative action (both official and unofficial).
This entangled mess will probably worsen under Sarkozy.
The French "philosophies" that are taught in our universities are the responsibility of our universities, not the French themselves. No college is obligated to teach "Deconstructionism" or whatever... The colleges are to blame for that.
As for French vs German culture, I'm no expert. In music, yes, Germany certainly is the towering contributor, thanks in part to Wagner. But I have great fondness for both Debussy and Ravel and Bizet. There are other fine French composers... but of course, Richard Strauss, Bruckner, Mahler (if you count him as German - he was Austrian) dominate the 20th century musical scene.
I know little about 19th century German art, so I cannot even express a subjective opinion. But (subjectively) French art of the 19th century remains one of the glories of their cultural output.
"Modern France is a sham..." Yes, I agree. It has lost its soul. The monarchy should be restored.
I'm aware of the "Eurabia" project - it has been much talked about at the French websites since I began reading them 4 years ago. They are fully aware of the plan to destroy their country through population substitution - at least those who live in heavily Islamized areas of France are aware. They are the ones who voted (naively I'm afraid) for Sarkozy.
The reason why I don't feel that we are their "betters" (although I do understand why historically someone might feel that way) is that we have the same process of cultural destruction here - only it is less obvious and less concentrated. My prison term in the public schools brought me into daily contact with: population substitution, forced guilt for crimes I didn't commit, violence, daily degradation, affirmative action (giving high grades to low achievers), cultural Marxism, destructive educational theories akin to deconstructionism, etc...
I feel I know what they are going through. The counter-cultural revolution of 1968 set into motion the process of cultural decay, both here and there. But we unquestionably had a superior economy and we surged ahead economically, thus kindling French jealousy. Without the cultural upheaval of the 60's things would be quite different. We all would have had the fortitude to fight Islam and other enemies.
The old photo of the great day is on auction at e-bay for those interested...
Also, here is a long webpage of discussions about France's role in WWII, posted at Lawrence Auster's VFR. It is not complimentary to France, but provides much food for thought and conversation.
Labels: Culture, Germany, History, United States, WW ll

10 Comments:
Now you have given me a new perspective. I'm surprised of your low opinion of Sarkozy, but I believe is well-founded, since you seem to know a lot more than I do about France.
I will post something about it on my blog tomorrow.
I agree with you that if France wishes to survive her best hope is a restoration of the Monarchy. But I see several issues in relation to such a restoration.
1. There are two pretenders to the throne, which should be King?
2. Is there a third party that can pick between the two pretenders?
3. Among the staunchest of Royalist groups is Action Française, they are also a viciously anti-Jewish group, to the point of supporting groups that wish to destroy France so long as they are also anti-Israel. I am not sure if this is the position of most Monarchists or only Action Française. But any movement which is obsessed with fictional enemies to the point of ignoring real enemies will probably never gain power.
4. While a restored Monarchy would no doubt again instill pride in France, many of the difficulties facing France and all of Western Civilization stem from the people running the MSM and the Universities, who daily fill the minds of the people of their respective nations with guilt and self-hate, how will a restored Monarchy deal with these problems?
@ politisktinkorrekt
Let's not jump the gun. If I seem to have a low opinion of Sarkozy it is because of his actions up to now. He has done many things that indicate that he will not restore a sense of French identity, rather that he will advocate a mixing-together of races and ethnicities, promote affirmative action, and grant amnesty broadly. He has already done these things. People voted for him because during the campaign he began to sound more like a real right-winger would sound. But this may have been just to win votes.
However, we must give him a chance. I don't have high hopes. My biggest fear is that he will be hated for the wrong reason - for his own ethnic background. While this is certainly a cause for discussion, it is not a cause for alarm. If he fails it will not be because he is a Jew, or a Catholic convert, or a Hungarian, or whatever else, but because he is the inevitable product of what preceded him. He wanted the job, he got the job; now let's see what he can (and cannot) do.
@ kahaneloyalist
I'm familiar with Action Française, unfortunately. It's not a new group. They are potentially very dangerous. They could conceivably collaborate with Islamics to rid French soil of Jews. (Then I presume the Muslims would get rid of them - or maybe not, who knows?)
Any monarch would have to be enlightened enough take into account the events from 1789 to 2007. In other words we cannot go back to 1789 and start from there. All the wars, the deportations, the
errors and the hatreds have to be part of the monarch's education. He would have to disable the ultra right that could damage the country, as well as the entire Left. He would have to return Catholicism to its rightful place as the moral basis of the country, but at the same time allow minority religions the freedom to flourish on French soil. This may have to include a small number of Muslims. But that is the problem. France already has 15 million Muslims (this figure includes the immigrants and those born in France of immigrant parents). So the monarch would have to return them to their homelands (I have NO idea how such a plan would play out in reality).
The universities theoretically would be under royal control, wouldn't they? Or it's possible that they would be under Church control as they once were. But if they proved recalcitrant to change, the new king could do what François I did when he created the College de France - an independent university under royal sponsorship for purposes of providing more enlightened education than the Church-controlled Sorbonne.
I have no idea what the status or the accomplishments of the College de France are today. At one time it was an experiment in intellectual freedom.
As far as the media are concerned it's the same thing - the monarchy would have to have its own media independent of the socialist media. But if a monarchy were restored, it would mean, ipso facto, that the media had already been disabled or discredited.
But you know more about monarchies than I do. In view of the Muslim population, the intense hatreds of all the ultra-ultra groups, is there any way a monarch could take control without great violence?
Thoughts on France.
Yes France has serious troubles.
As the Ferguson quotation shows the decay and rot was deep by 1939. To understand something about how this state came to be
I would recommend reading the comments about World War One by Andre Tardieu mentioned in Robert A. Doughty's Pyrrhic Victory. You can read them in the book's introduction.
But whatever the past the question now is can the West be saved.
A couple of notes on the war:
On CDG marching into Paris, de Gaulle explained to Eisenhower that he had to be been seen marching in as a leader, because of the strength of the Communist Maquis and other disparate groups of the FFI. Gallantry may have played a part, but their were strong political concerns at the time which were in the American interest as well.
As to the "Surrender Monkey" website, I believe there were 90,000 killed + 20,000 wounded in the first 2 weeks of the war and it was a very bloody surrender. My one uncle who survived the war, was the last man standing in his platoon in May 1940 and he was a hard-headed guy. After several escape attempts as a POW, he was sent to a mine in Silesia for 3 years. The other part of the surrender had to do with the impossible civilian situation, with the Germans intentionally choking the roads with them. Antoine de St. Exupéry gives a vivid first-hand account in his book "Pilote de Guerre" ("Flight to Arras" in English).
Yes, there was already deep rot in French society by 1939, and WWI had probably depleted the creme of the young French officer corps, along with over a million and a half killed of the military and civilian population, and many more wounded. This was out of a population of approx. 39 million.
I think if America had had proportional casualties and enormous destruction on its own soil, it might have had less stomach to fight again as well. As compared to Germany at the time, neither France nor America had particularly martial cultures in which war was exalted.
Tiberge, you asked what the fate would be of Action Française in the event the Muzzies take over and Action Française is allied to the Muzzies at the time. If you want to know what happens to Muzzie allies after a Muslim victory look at the Iranian Revolution. The Tudeh, the Iranian Communist Party, was allied with Ayatollah Khomeini before and during the Revolution. As soon as the Ayatollah was strong enough he liquidated the Tudeh, it seems likely Action Française would share the same fate.
As for restoring the Monarchy without violence, it wouldnt be easy, but I dont think its impossible if things continue to get worse in France, which is very likely, and there is a well organized campaign to show a restored Monarchy as the solution to France's difficulties, without gangs of Royalists beating people up. A "mainstream" politician like Sarkozy who is interested first and foremost with staying in power, might adopt the idea as his own. That is one of the few non-violent methods that even has a chance of working.
You mentioned in brief sending the Muzzies back to their home countries and that it would be difficult. The actual method of dispossing of them will take actions that are cruel and would be condemned, I think you should follow Rabbi Kahane's zt'l plan(tragically never encated) for dealing with our own Muzzie problem.
1. Those Muslims who arent citizens immediately have their visa's revoked, they are all to return to their home countries now.
2. Those who are already citizens be offered compensation for their property as well as assistance in moving to another country. But they must renounce their citizenship.(According to polls in Israel 80% of Arabs/Muslims would take such an offer, I dont know the numbers in France)
3. Those who stay are given a choice take a public vow of loyalty or be expelled.
4. Of those who take the oath the slightest infringment on the oath results in immediate expulsion with zero compensation, and a seizure of that persons property.
In all these measures the army which takes orders from the central government and tends to be very patriotic is used rather then local government forces whose exact loyalty will be unclear.
I am aware this sounds cruel but you have to view it in this light, if you dont rid yourself of the Muslims while they are still relatively weak just think what they will do to you when they have the strength. Look to the Zoarastrians and Maronite Christians to know what your fate will be...
Ms. tiberge:
I do not think my alcohol induced rant was worthy of such serious consideration, really, but thanks anyway. I do not believe everything I said, or rather I would use a different tone. I do not hate France, which is why I read your website, read and speak (badly) French, and generally find its women the best of all. And though I am of Lombardian-Austrian ancestry, I find French culture in the broadest sense very pleasing and more civil than Teutonic stoicism or Anglo-Saxon roughness. I am and like the Latins. At heart, I'm just a Roman.
It is perhaps because I do like France that it's present condition bothers me so. I cannot agree on the monarchy for the reasons Tocqueville gives: the French aristocracy was never circumsribed by Parliament the way the Brits were. Check out the works of the late Francois Furet, a professor I had at Univ. Chicago (one of the forty "immortals" of the French Academy) who explains the Burke-Tocqueville dispute and the place of the French monarchy in creating the centralized conditions, under Richlieu, that so plague France today. It is not the first time a nation's greatest strengths are also its weaknesses. It's true of America.
I was feeling very German after listening to the Pastoral Symphony and drinking Spaten bier. I apologize for the tone and continue to enjoy your website.
PS the one thing I DO NOT regret are any nasty comments I have made about French lawyers: sont insupportables!
@sebastian
The fact that individual kings may have made errors that contributed to modern French problems is in no way an argument against restoring the monarchy. The monarchy, "warts and all," is an integral part of French heritage from the fifth century through the nineteenth and must be restored for France to be any kind of authentic nation. Monarchists such as myself argue that monarchies are better than any alternative, not that they are perfect.
@kahaneloyalist
There is a supporter of Action Francaise on my forum, hubertgaston, and he is neither pro-Muslim nor anti-Jewish. AF supports Henri d'Orleans (Henri VII) who is not at all anti-Jewish.
The succession dispute is a real problem, and I am not sure how it could be resolved objectively in a way all monarchists would accept.
If you were still registered at Monarchy Forum, we could talk about these things there. :) I think you might find it a bit more congenial now than it was.
To Sebastian and Tiberge,
It is sometimes very pleasant to be right ! and right I was when I decided to take a deep breath and the time for thinking twice befor entering this discussion ! Otherwise I might have used unkind words to Sebastian.
As for monarchy, I am a staunch supporter of Louis XX ; I would find it rather difficult to accept a descendant of Philippe-Egalité...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home