Saturday, December 20, 2008

"Métissage" - Now It's An Obligation!


In a recent post I gave a few highlights of the speech delivered by Nicolas Sarkozy on December 17 to the students of the Ecole Polytechnique in Palaiseau.

But I had missed the best part.

The website of François Desouche provides a short video from that speech, which can be viewed in its entirety (45 minutes) at several websites including Daily Motion.

The excerpt in question centers on the France's obligation to become a mixed country - that troublesome word "métissé" is once again at the heart of his incredibly threatening speech. The verb "métisser" theoretically means to mix blood or to crossbreed, but at times it is used more loosely to mean mix cultures. Sarkozy uses the word, or a form of it, at least 7 times in the first few seconds of the video. Whether he is referring to the mixing of blood or merely destroying French culture by bringing in hostile aliens, it is impossible to avoid the fact that he is telling the French people, in terms that have never been so menacing, that they have to mix, or else.

What madness has the election of Obama wrought in the mind of this unFrench-man?

Here is my rendition of his words. It is far from perfect, because his grammar seems a bit off at times. Except for two places, I have retained the French word "métissage" (crossbreeding), and it's various verbal and adjectival forms, since "crossbreeding", "racial mixing" and other similar terms don't always convey the right meaning. "Crossbreeding" sounds too scientific, as when farmers crossbreed crops. "Miscegenation" is too technical and refers to marriage. "Mongrelization" and "bastardization" are too graphic. It looks as if "métissage" will join "laïcité" and "communautarisme" as French words that are so troublesome, it's better to just leave them.

However, if you have suggestions, feel free...

"(...) the objective is to meet the challenge of "métissage" - the challenge of "métissage" that the 21st century is confronting us with. The challenge of "métissage", France has always been familiar with it, and by meeting the challenge of "métissage" France remains faithful to her history. Moreover, it is consanguinity that has always provoked the end of civilizations and societies.

Note: In the above sentence we see that he IS talking about racially mixing the BLOOD of his compatriots with foreigners (and we know that the foreigners in question are not Swedes or Italians).

In the course of centuries, France has always known "métissage", France has always been "métissée".

Note: This is insanity. France has never been "métissée" in the way he is using the word. He is attempting to equate the mixing of the Franks, Latins and Celts with the mixing of white and black or of European and North African Muslim.

France has crossbred cultures, ideas and histories. France, who was able to crossbreed these cultures and these histories, constructed a universal language, because France herself is universal in the diversity of her origins.

Note: I'm not certain what he's trying to say except that out of the racially diverse mix, comes something universal. That may or may not be true, but it is not the point. Why does he want to destroy the civilization that grew and flourished over the past 2000 years, from the Roman Empire, to the Second World War? What is his complaint about French civilization, other than he doesn't like it very much?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the last thing: If republican will power does not function, it will be necessary for the Republic to resort to even more forcible methods.


Note: It is the above sentence that has Desouche's readers reaching for their guns.

But we don't have a choice. Diversity at the base of the country must be reflected by diversity at the head of the country.

Does this mean he will resign in favor of Dieudonné?

It is not a choice. It is an obligation. It is an imperative. We cannot do otherwise at the risk of finding ourselves faced with considerable problems.

We must change, so we will change.

For a man who only looks to the future, who admittedly cares nothing for the past, Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be completely out of step with the needs of his people. They did not elect him to change the DNA of the country, but to improve their lot, to fight crime, to reduce immigration, and to restore a sense of national pride. Of all the betrayals France has endured, this is the unkindest cut of all.

François Desouche has over 200 comments from readers. They range from "Let's take our families and get out of Europe" to "Send this guy to the gibbet".

I like the second suggestion.

Labels: , , , , ,

32 Comments:

At December 21, 2008 3:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

«I like the second suggestion.»

It´s the best.

 
At December 21, 2008 3:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DUMB: «Moreover, it is consanguinity that has always provoked the end of civilizations and societies.»

 
At December 21, 2008 3:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

eh?!
is he french?!

 
At December 21, 2008 4:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the first suggestion were the only option, where would one go?

 
At December 21, 2008 9:44 PM, Blogger John Sobieski said...

That is a real disturbing statement. The republic will force miscegenation? What is he going to do, tie all the white women up in wards and have the black Muslims rape them over and over until they get impregnated?

 
At December 22, 2008 3:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In answer to the first question, it seems all countries are suffering from the same madness. I rather like the idea of joining up with other like minded Europeans, and decamping to say Iceland. I am sure that with a bit of money and the new technology that is developing that we could build a new society away from people like Sarkozy and the EU fascists.

 
At December 22, 2008 3:42 AM, Blogger zazie said...

How right you are, Tiberge! That man is not merely a foreigner ; he is UNFRENCH.....
How right they are those who think he should be sent to the gibbet!Do you remember the first time I mentioned Montfaucon ? Hanging was the penalty inflicted to vile traitors, thieves and crooks ; quite fitting, isn't it?

 
At December 22, 2008 6:56 PM, Anonymous Nicolas Krebs said...

"France has never been "métissée" in the way he is using the word." (tiberge)

On the contrary, France has always been. Mixing of Celts, Romans, Germanic tribes...

"mixing of the Franks, Latins and Celts"

Indeed.

"white and black or of European and North African Muslim"

North African are white.

"he want to destroy the civilization that grew and flourished over the past 2000 years"

Evidence?

"That man is not merely a foreigner ; he is UNFRENCH....." (zazie)

Evidence?

"How right they are those who think he should be sent to the gibbet!"

What are you talking about?

 
At December 22, 2008 7:51 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

Mr. Krebs,

The question is: What are YOU talking about?

What is your point of view, other than you hate Jews, and that they are responsible for everything that is wrong with France?

Evidence? You always ask for evidence. Do you live in France, or are you in a Middle Eastern country?

State your exact position on:

(1) Immigration of unassimilable aliens into European countries in massive numbers. Do you need EVIDENCE that this is a fact of life in France???

(2) Intermarriage between white and black and European and Maghrebin (even if they ARE technically white, they are from a culture that seeks to infiltrate France slowly to denature her.) And they are Semites. If you hate Jews, why don't you hate Maghrebins? Possibly because you are one? Where you come from, do they encourage their women to sleep with white Europeans??? Or is it only the French women that should be encouraged to sleep with immigrant men??? Do you need EVIDENCE that intermarriage will do irreparable harm to the French nation???

(3) National identity. Do you need EVIDENCE that national identity is being eroded to the benefit of Maghrebin and African minorities, as well as to the benefit of the Brussels dictators???

(4) National pride in historic heritage. Do you need EVIDENCE that France's leaders have worked to destroy national pride as well as her Christian roots??? I suppose you need EVIDENCE that France has Christian roots???

(5) Multi-culturalism that seeks to promote any culture other than French culture. Do you need EVIDENCE that multi-culturalism is nation-destroying???

(6) Affirmative action. Do you need EVIDENCE that affirmative action is an evil trend, that seeks to place immigrants of different cultures and religions in positions that should go to the French themselves?

(7) Police afraid to go into certain neighborhoods. Do you need EVIDENCE that the police are incapable of controlling certain areas????

(8) Indulgent judges. Do you need EVIDENCE that judges have been too lenient on cirminals????

(9) The proliferation of mosques. Do you need EVIDENCE that there is a concerted effort to build as many mosques as possible on French soil??? Possibly you are happy about this. Charles Martel can at last be buried under the dust heap of Christianity.

!0) Nicolas Sarkozy. What is your opinion of him? You seem to LIKE him, otherwise why would you ask for EVIDENCE that he is unFrench? He is working AGAINST the interests of France. He is working IN the interests of Islam, immigration and coercive policies such as affirmative action. So, you are in favor of his policies???

Since you hate Jews, why don't you hate Sarkozy? Possibly because he renounced Judaism and was raised a Catholic? And because his wife is NOT Jewish, but Italian-German???

What is YOUR evidence that Sarkozy is working FOR France????

No Frenchman of any persuasion would need EVIDENCE that France is in a multi-faceted civilizational crisis due to massive immigration, Brussels tyranny, and socialism.

You want EVIDENCE? You always want evidence, because to you none of these problems exist. If you live in France, you should get out more often. If you don't live in France, stay where you are.

Finally, do you need EVIDENCE that I do not need to answer your incoherent and hostile questions. This is the last time I will do so. Please consider creating your own blog to expound your ideas.

 
At December 23, 2008 3:07 AM, Blogger zazie said...

Mr Krebs,
I would have thought my words were clear enough ; apparently, they were not, at least for you ; perhaps because you have no idea whatsoever about the history of France ? The gibbet was a place where criminals, thieves and crooks, were hanged, in the old days before the invention of the guillotine! Near the city of Paris, the place was situated in the suburb of Montfaucon...If you had read a little French literature, you'd know the name because François Villon wrote about it long ago....
I suppose I need not tell you that I second Tiberge in her answer ; You are yourself EVIDENCE that there can't be a dialogue between you (Islam?) and us -Christians.

 
At December 23, 2008 10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

«In Clinton List, a Veil Is Lifted on Foundation

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton has collected tens of millions of dollars for his foundation over the last 10 years from governments in the Middle East, tycoons from Canada, India, Nigeria and Ukraine, and other international figures with interests in American foreign policy.

Lifting a longstanding cloak of secrecy, Mr. Clinton on Thursday released a complete list of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation as part of an agreement to douse concerns about potential conflicts if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state in the Obama administration.

The donor list offers a glimpse into the high-powered, big-dollar world in which Mr. Clinton has traveled since leaving the White House as he jetted around the globe making money for himself and raising vast sums for his ambitious philanthropic programs fighting disease, poverty and climate change. Some of the world’s richest people and most famous celebrities handed over large checks to finance his presidential library and charitable activities.

With his wife now poised to take over as America’s top diplomat, Mr. Clinton’s fund-raising is coming under new scrutiny for relationships that could pose potential conflict-of-interest issues for Mrs. Clinton in her job. Some of her husband’s biggest backers have much at stake in the policies that President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming administration adopts toward their regions or business ventures.

Saudi Arabia alone gave to the foundation $10 million to $25 million, as did government aid agencies in Australia and the Dominican Republic. Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar and Taiwan each gave more than $1 million. So did the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and the Dubai Foundation, both based in the United Arab Emirates, and the Friends of Saudi Arabia, founded by a Saudi prince.

Also among the largest donors were a businessman who was close to the onetime military ruler of Nigeria, a Ukrainian tycoon who was son-in-law of that former Soviet republic’s authoritarian president and a Canadian mining executive who took Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan while trying to win lucrative uranium contracts.

In addition, the foundation accepted sizable contributions from several prominent figures from India, like a billionaire steel magnate and a politician who lobbied Mrs. Clinton this year on behalf of a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement between India and the United States, a deal that has rankled Pakistan, a key foreign policy focus of the incoming administration.

Such contributions could provoke suspicion at home and abroad among those wondering about any effect on administration policy.

Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said donations from “countries where we have particularly sensitive issues and relations” would invariably raise concerns about whether Mrs. Clinton had conflicts of interest.

“The real question,” Mr. Levitt said, “is to what extent you can really separate the activities and influence of any husband and wife, and certainly a husband and wife team that is such a powerhouse.”

Mr. Clinton’s office said in a statement that the disclosure itself should ensure that there would be “not even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, said the president-elect had chosen Mrs. Clinton for his cabinet because “no one could better represent the United States.”

“Past donations to the Clinton foundation,” Ms. Cutter said, “have no connection to Senator Clinton’s prospective tenure as secretary of state.”

Republicans have addressed the issue cautiously, suggesting that they would examine it but not necessarily hold up Mrs. Clinton’s confirmation as a result. Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will consider her nomination, was in Russia on Thursday and unavailable for comment, according to Mr. Lugar’s office.

But in an interview on Nov. 30 on “This Week” on ABC, Mr. Lugar said Mr. Clinton’s activities would raise legitimate questions, adding, “I don’t know how, given all of our ethics standards now, anyone quite measures up to this who has such cosmic ties.”

Still, he indicated that he would vote for Mrs. Clinton and praised Mr. Obama’s team for doing “a good job in trying to pin down the most important elements” in its agreement with Mr. Clinton.

To avoid potential conflicts, the Obama team, represented by its transition co-chairwoman, Valerie Jarrett, signed a memorandum of understanding on Dec. 12 with the William J. Clinton Foundation, represented by its chief executive, Bruce R. Lindsey. The five-page memorandum, provided to reporters on Thursday, required Mr. Clinton to disclose his past donors by the end of the year and any future contributors once a year.

The memorandum also requires that if Mrs. Clinton is confirmed, the Clinton Global Initiative, an offshoot of the foundation, will be incorporated separately, will no longer hold events outside the United States and will refuse any further contributions from foreign governments. Other initiatives operating under the auspices of the foundation would follow new rules and consult with State Department ethics officials in certain circumstances.

Federal law does not require former presidents to reveal foundation donors, and Mr. Clinton had until now declined to do so, arguing that many who gave expected confidentiality. Other former presidents have taken money from overseas sources, including President George Bush, whose son has sat in the Oval Office for the last eight years. The elder Mr. Bush has accepted millions of dollars from Saudi, Kuwaiti and other foreign sources for his own library.

Mr. Clinton’s foundation has raised $500 million since 1997, growing into a global operation with 1,100 paid staff members and volunteers in 40 countries. It said it had provided medicine to 1.4 million people living with H.I.V./AIDS, helped dozens of cities reduce heat-trapping gases and worked to spread economic opportunity.

Mr. Clinton’s advocates said that the disclosure on Thursday showed he had nothing to hide and that most of his largest contributors were already known.

Yet while unprecedented, the disclosure was also limited.

The list posted on the foundation’s Web site — www.clintonfoundation.org — did not provide the nationality or occupation of the donors, the dates they contributed or the precise amounts of their gifts, instead breaking down contributors by dollar ranges. Nor did the list include pledges for future donations. As a result, it is impossible to know from the list which donations were made while Mr. Clinton was still president or while Mrs. Clinton was running for president.

Many benefactors are well-known Americans, like Stephen L. Bing; Alfonso Fanjul; Bill Gates; Tom Golisano, a billionaire who ran for New York governor; Rupert Murdoch; and Barbra Streisand. Bloomberg L.P., the financial media empire founded by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, contributed, as did Freddie Mac, the mortgage company now partly blamed for the housing market collapse.

Another potentially sensitive donation came from Blackwater Training Center, part of the private security firm hired to protect American diplomats in Iraq. Five of its guards have been indicted for their roles in a 2007 shooting that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.

The potential for appearances of conflict was illustrated by Amar Singh, a politician in India who gave $1 million to $5 million. Mr. Singh visited the United States in September to lobby for a deal allowing India to obtain civilian nuclear technology even though it never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He met with Mrs. Clinton, who he said assured him that Democrats would not block the deal. Congress approved it weeks later.

Other donors have connections with India, a potential flashpoint because of tensions with Pakistan. Among them was Lakshmi Mittal, a steel magnate and, according to Forbes magazine, the fourth-richest person in the world. Mr. Mittal, who donated $1 million to $5 million, was involved in a scandal in 2002 in London, where he lives. After Mr. Mittal made a large donation to the Labor Party, Prime Minister Tony Blair helped him persuade Romania to sell him its state steel company.

Another donor was Gilbert Chagoury, a businessman close to Gen. Sani Abacha of Nigeria, widely criticized for a brutal and corrupt rule.

Mr. Chagoury tried during the 1990s to win favor for Mr. Abacha from the Clinton administration, contributing $460,000 to a voter registration group to which Democratic officials steered him, according to news accounts. He won meetings with National Security Council officials, including Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s choice to be ambassador to the United Nations.»

 
At December 23, 2008 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The link to
«In Clinton List, a Veil Is Lifted on Foundation »
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/politics/w19clinton.html?hp

 
At December 25, 2008 3:14 PM, Anonymous Crusader said...

As if it ain't enough Sarkozy has to drive more nails in his coffin. No wonder those voodoo dolls of him sell so well, probably among most who voted for him and then betrayed. If I was French I'd probably buy a dozen of them and do all kinds of stuff with them.

Some politicians sure do have the amazing ability to make people hate them - even the ones who voted for and supported them.

No one likes to be forced into something, and probably many mixed couples will protest against this insanity because they see the injustice in it.

 
At December 26, 2008 8:59 AM, Anonymous Nicolas Krebs said...

"What are YOU talking about?" (tiberge)

I was replying to your article.

"What is your point of view"

I think it's look like you mix with the french far right (including the antisemite Jean Marie Le Pen) and with the anti-France (and a little of crazyness). This does not smell good.

"you hate Jews"

Evidence?

"Evidence? You always ask for evidence."

Is this an issue for you to start with establishing facts before discussing opinions?

"(1) Immigration of unassimilable aliens into European countries in massive numbers. Do you need EVIDENCE that this is a fact of life in France???"

Why not.

"Intermarriage between white and black and European and Maghrebin"

This sound like racial segregation. You estadounidense often prefer multiculturalist society, where people stay in there communities (and don't mix). Me no.

"even if they ARE technically white"

What do you means?

"they are from a culture that seeks to infiltrate France slowly to denature her."

Evidence? Do not forget that Brigitte Bardot has been convicted and fined for claiming that Muslims where ruling France and destroying its culture.

"they are Semites."

What do you means?

"If you hate Jews, why don't you hate Maghrebins?"

Because Maghrebins are not Jews. It's two different words.

"Do you need EVIDENCE that intermarriage will do irreparable harm to the French nation???"

Why not.

"(3) National identity. Do you need EVIDENCE that national identity is being eroded to the benefit of Maghrebin and African minorities, as well as to the benefit of the Brussels dictators???"

Why not.

"(4) National pride in historic heritage. Do you need EVIDENCE that France's leaders have worked to destroy national pride as well as her Christian roots??? I suppose you need EVIDENCE that France has Christian roots???"

Why not.

"(5) Multi-culturalism that seeks to promote any culture other than French culture. Do you need EVIDENCE that multi-culturalism is nation-destroying???"

I don't, because it's obious in USA.

"(6) Affirmative action. Do you need EVIDENCE that affirmative action is an evil trend, that seeks to place immigrants of different cultures and religions in positions that should go to the French themselves?"

Why not.

"(7) Police afraid to go into certain neighborhoods. Do you need EVIDENCE that the police are incapable of controlling certain areas????"

Why not.

"(8) Indulgent judges. Do you need EVIDENCE that judges have been too lenient on cirminals????"

Why not.

"(9) The proliferation of mosques. Do you need EVIDENCE that there is a concerted effort to build as many mosques as possible on French soil??? Possibly you are happy about this. Charles Martel can at last be buried under the dust heap of Christianity."

Why not.

"Nicolas Sarkozy. What is your opinion of him? You seem to LIKE him, otherwise why would you ask for EVIDENCE that he is unFrench? He is working AGAINST the interests of France. He is working IN the interests of Islam, immigration and coercive policies such as affirmative action."

Why not.

"you hate Jews"

Evidence?

"Since you hate Jews, why don't you hate Sarkozy?"

Nicolas Sarkozy is not Jew.

"Possibly because he renounced Judaism"

Nicolas Sarkozy has not renounced Judaism.

"his wife is NOT Jewish, but Italian-German???"

His current wife is not Italian-German.

"No Frenchman of any persuasion would need EVIDENCE that France is in a multi-faceted civilizational crisis due to massive immigration, Brussels tyranny, and socialism."

Evidence?

"You want EVIDENCE? You always want evidence"

Is this an issue for you to start with establishing facts before discussing opinions?

"You always want evidence, because to you none of these problems exist. If you live in France, you should get out more often. If you don't live in France, stay where you are."

Why?

"Finally, do you need EVIDENCE that I do not need to answer your incoherent and hostile questions."

Why not.

 
At January 04, 2009 6:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

North Africans may be "white," if by "white" you mean anyone who is not obviously sub-Saharan African, East Asian, or Amerindian.

However, it's quite clear they are distinct from Europeans

Genetic data.

Compare Mozabites to, e.g., French, Italian, Basque, etc.

Completely different people.

Mozabite man.

There are, of course, some North Africans that may "look white," (but likely differ in ancestry from Europeans), but most resemble the man pictured above.

Regardless of how they may look, Frenchmen and women are under no obligation to mix with them - certainly not to be FORCED to do so.

And by the way, past admixture, of whatever type, does not justify present or future admixture. Certainly, intra-European admixture does not justify inter-continental admixure.

What? If you once had a cold, that means someone with Ebola is justified giving you that disease?

 
At January 04, 2009 7:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The bullmastiff breed is a stabilized blend of bulldog and mastiff. This 'admixed' ancestry does not not mean that nothing would be lost if some dogbreeding Sarkozy decided to forcibly hybridize bullmastiffs out of existence through mandatory interbreeding with, say, great danes.

Regardless of whether the French are an ancient blend of Latin, Celt, and German, there is no reason to suggest that this past mixture of (relatively similar) peoples means that the modern Frenchmen must become admixed with Negroes, Berbers, Arabs, East Asians, etc. One can argue that even the Italian and Portuguese immigration into France has been harmful, not that anything is wrong with those peoples, but that France is the homeland of the autochonthous French people and as such should be reserved for the indigenous ethnic group.

But - of course - indigenous rights do not apply to Europeans...

Sarkozy is a perfect example why "voting for the lesser of two evils" because "they are electable" and "we have to stop the leftist" NEVER works.

One is hard pressed to imagine Ms. Royal making such a speech as did Sarkozy - if no other reason that she would be afraid to push people into voting for "the right."

Ahh... but with the "electable" "respectable" Sarkozy representing the "right." his argument would be: who else does his voters have to vote for?

However, unlike the rigid two party system of America, the French actually do have some choice.

That French traditionalists voted for Sarkozy out of fear that the "far right" was "unelectable" (a self-fulfilling prediction) is their fault, and now they reap the harvest of their cowardice.

They will never learn, however. Given the chance, I'm sure they'd vote for Sarkozy again. Even if Sarkozy mandated by law that every French woman has to mate with a non-European, and enforced this with bayonets, the French "right" would still support him.

We can't have the - gasp! - socialists in office, don't you know. Who knows, those crazy socialists may - gasp! - encourage miscegenation. Unlike the "right"....well, oops...

By the way, commentators constantly puting combative posts that consist of asking "why?" and "why not?" in response to every post by tiberge is not rational discourse. It's just being a pain in the ass.

 
At January 29, 2009 1:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is nothing less than genocide of a people by a foreign ruler. What should be the only sane punishment for such an abominable crime? Et tu, Brute?

 
At February 02, 2009 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Europe for Europeans!

14 words from Portugal

 
At February 02, 2009 5:12 PM, Anonymous Fredrik said...

It sounds like France has the same problems we have in Sweden. Untold numbers of Somalis and middle easterners more or less get a swedish passport from cereal boxes. 1% is workrelated migration, 5% is UN defined asylum seekers and about 94% is bonus immigration without any good reason. We only give out permanent residence permits, no temporary. If one gets entrance, then they have the right to bring in their relatives both up and down. Meaning that we have A LOT of old people getting swedish pension and all social care without ever contributing anything to the society. About 80% throw away their identification so that we don't even know who they are. The somalis have 95% unemployment rate and are hardcore khat-chewing muslims, the iraqis have a 78% unemployment rate after 10 years in my country according to a survey 2005. Everything is based on a MASSIVE resource transfer to the new immigrants and repression(losing jobs, kicked out from unions, bizarre discrimination legislation, called nazi) if anyone protests. In total 4,4 million people have a job in Sweden, our third world immigration rate is 80-100 000 per year of which the vast majority won't contribute to the society but be long term social benefit-takers. Robberies are up a lot. The number of rapes has increased by 15 times since the beginning of the eighties. Schools are collapsing. My country is committing collective suicide and I find it awfully disturbing.

 
At February 02, 2009 5:53 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ Fredrik,

Thank you for the insights into what is happening in Sweden.

I just read that the new president (or is it prime minister?) of Iceland is an openly gay woman!

No place is exempt from the madness.

 
At March 16, 2009 2:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarkozy is Rothchilds puppet. I say hang him to a tree. Let's see if he really got a neck to begin with.

 
At July 25, 2009 9:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

North African are white ?

No, they are arabs and berbers, and berbers again have a high percentage of negro genes.

 
At August 13, 2009 8:59 AM, Anonymous Nicolas Krebs said...

"North African are white ?" (Anonymous)

Yes.

"they are arabs and berbers"

Yes.

 
At September 24, 2009 4:46 AM, OpenID brianakira said...

Re Tiberage's:

"why don't you hate Sarkozy? Possibly because he renounced Judaism and was raised a Catholic? And because his wife is NOT Jewish, but Italian-German??"

Sarko the Magnificent certainly "renounced" Talmudism, since his family cult is Sabbateanism, as is la Carla also. Hardly surprising since these Frankist intermate.

Sark-sark's son, btw, has "returned to the faith of my forefathers", the faih of Jewish supremacicsm. Zut alors.

 
At January 30, 2010 6:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The assassination of Sarkozy would be an heroic act on par with no other.

 
At February 02, 2010 1:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Moreover, it is consanguinity that has always provoked the end of civilizations and societies."

Have you ever heard any greater rubbish? If he had said the end of empires he might have been able to make a case. Of course when one of the Revolting Elites says civilization and society he means empire; consanguinity is a threat to the ruling classes, to the imperial elite. "Diversity" is a blessing to the police state.

 
At February 25, 2011 9:51 PM, Anonymous Francois said...

Miscegenation will kill France's genetic uniqueness. A civilization is built upon a people. A civilization will not outlive (for long) its genetic foundation.

Government forced miscegenation is the Cultural Marxists's wildest dream.

Sarkozy, France's first neocon, being the true Trotskyite he is, is determined to destroy the historic nation of France.

 
At March 07, 2012 9:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"métissage"??? You mean GENOCIDE. Destruction of a race of people by deliberate means. If Sarkozy is promoting this vile garbage then he is no better than Adolf Eichmnann. Genocide by crossbreeding is no different than using the bullet or the gas chamber. Shame on him for this vile speech!

 
At March 07, 2012 9:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leon Degrelle was right!

 
At April 09, 2012 8:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Search on google for metissism which is an idelogy as naz*ism, islamism...
These guys want to genocide us!

 
At May 02, 2014 2:57 PM, Blogger Conrad Gaarder said...

You are not alone. I heard recently that by 2060 Whites will be only 30% of the population of the United States, and "Hispanics" will be the majority. Not the largest minority, but the majority. And the sickest thing of all is that White Obama voters don't see what the problem is.

 
At August 13, 2014 1:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notice that the comment was made

"why don't you hate Sarkozy? Possibly because he renounced Judaism and was raised a Catholic? And because his wife is NOT Jewish, but Italian-German??"

Karl Marx's father also did the same when Marx was a child.

Renouncing something means nothing when lying for ones faith is an essential.

It was also noted that it was said it is preferable to send Sarkozy to the gobbet.
Believe me all the West are thinking this about all their leaders. There is the same talk from all quarters even here in Australia.
We too are being completely Islamisised. (if there be such a word.)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home