Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
200206 American Renaissance

200206 American Renaissance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 37|Likes:
American Renaissance, June 2006. France Sets the Tone; Le Pen in His Own Words; Europe on the March; The Anatomy of Ethnic Conflict; What the Kurds Can Teach Us; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers
American Renaissance, June 2006. France Sets the Tone; Le Pen in His Own Words; Europe on the March; The Anatomy of Ethnic Conflict; What the Kurds Can Teach Us; O Tempora, O Mores!; Letters from Readers

More info:

Published by: American Renaissance on Dec 30, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/12/2013

pdf

 
American Renaissance - 1 - June 2002
Continued on page 3
There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.— 
Thomas Jefferson
Vol. 13 No. 6June 2002
France Sets the Tone
American Renaissance
The National Front shakesup the political establish-ment—again.
by Jared Taylor
O
n April 21, the head of the Na-tional Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen,astonished the world by comingin second in the first round of the French presidential election, and winning a place in the runoff against the incum- bent Gaullist, Jacques Chirac. In the fi-nal round, running against the united op- position of the entire French politicalsystem, Mr. Le Pen went down to a dis-appointing defeat, winning only 18.04 percent of the vote against 81.96 for Mr.Chirac. Still, the 73-year-old former  paratrooper’s breakthrough in the firstround was hugely encouraging for allEuropean (and American) nationalists,and once again showed that millions of Europeans are prepared to fight againstThird-World immigration and for thereassertion of national sovereignty. TheLe Pen campaign and others like itthroughout Europe show that vigorousracial and national sentiment can rise tothe surface when political systems per-mit it.
History of Steady Growth
Despite the constant accusations of “fascism” and “Nazism,” the programof the National Front has always beenone most American conservatives of justa few decades ago would find conge-nial. Besides his wish to preserve Francefrom waves of non-white and Muslimimmigrants, Mr. Le Pen supports thedeath penalty, opposes abortion, wantsgreater independence from the EuropeanUnion, and thinks social welfare ben-efits should favor native Frenchmen.Mr. Le Pen founded the NationalFront in 1972 and made his first of four runs for the presidency in 1974, winningless than one percent of the vote. Thefront’s first real breakthrough came in1984, ironically in elections to the Eu-ropean Parliament. In balloting based on proportional representation, the frontgained 11 percent of the national vote,and Mr. Le Pen led a front delegation tothe parliament in Strasbourg. In the 1988 presidential race, Mr. Le Pen won 14.4 percent of the vote, and in 1995 he won15.2 percent.The party’s representation in the Na-tional Assembly has been kept artifi-cially low because all the French par-ties gang up against it in the two-roundelection process. After splitting the votein the first round, parties of both the leftand right ordinarily withdraw candidatesfrom the second round to improve the better-placed “right” or “left” candi-date’s chances of winning, but no partywill play that game with the NationalFront. Only in 1988, when PresidentFrançois Mittérand introduced propor-tional representation in an attempt tosplit the conservative vote, did Mr. LePen find himself at the head of a 35-member legislative bloc. The next elec-tion, when Mr. Chirac as Prime Minis-ter reintroduced the two-round system,the front lost all but one seat in the as-sembly, despite winning 400,000 morevotes.In 1997, the front’s 3.9 million voteswon it only one seat in the legislature,and because the front and the “conser-vative” Gaullists did not withdraw ineach others’ favor in the second round,the left, whose Communists, Socialists,and Greens all withdrew candidates infavor of each other, went on to a mas-sive and undeserved victory.The next year, the front suffered aterrible internal rupture, with Mr. LePen’s number-two man, Bruno Mégret,walking out to form his own NationalRepublican Movement. It was a very bitter, very public divorce (see AR Feb.,1999), which so weakened the patrioticright that many observers thought it wasfinished. It was therefore as somethingof a return from the dead that Mr. LePen entered the 2002 presidential elec-tion—and he almost failed even to geton the ballot.To enter the election, a candidatemust win the endorsement of at least 500French mayors, who are courted andfeted in the runup to the election. De-spite his standing as one of the mostdurable and popular political figures inFrance, Mr. Le Pen almost failed to gethis 500 signatures. Officials electedfrom Mr. Chirac’s Gaullist party, theRally for the Republic, boycotted Mr.Le Pen in the hope of keeping him fromsplitting the “conservative” vote.It was finally Socialist mayors whomade up the difference for Mr. Le Pen’s500, mouthing high sentiments about theneed for democratic recognition of all points of view, but in fact delighted tohelp field a candidate who would drawvotes from Mr. Chirac and improve thechances of the Socialist candidate,Lionel Jospin. The fact that no fewer 
Vigorous racial and na-tional sentiment rises tothe surface when politicalsystems permit it.
 
American Renaissance - 2 - June 2002
 Letters from Readers
Sir — While there is much in everyissue of your splendid publication fromwhich I can learn, the essay by MichaelLevin on reparations stunned me by its brilliance. As I read this study, I was leftwondering whether anything I had pub-lished in over thirty years could equal itin depth or analytic courage. Instead of leaving the argument against reparationsto blacks where others had brought it,Professor Levin boldly pushes on. Heexplains why civil rights advocateswould necessarily demand reparationsfrom a guilt-ridden but affluent whitesociety.In the process he looks at the groupdifferences and group dynamics out of which this demand has arisen. Withoutthe cognitive and social problems en-countered by the black majority inadapting, even with quotas, to a profes-sional meritocracy, and without the prevalent racial self-loathing in whitesocieties, reparations to blacks wouldnot be a serious political issue. Michaeldeserves praise for meticulously devel-oping the critique associated with DavidHorowitz but then going well beyondit, into politically incorrect waters.Paul Gottfried, Elizabethtown,Penna.Sir — I read with much appreciationyour articles on the reparations question,and was particularly interested to learnmore about Randall Robinson, who isclosely associated with the reparationseffort. This man clearly hates white people! By what sort of suicidal logicare we supposed to listen to argumentsfor or against reparations from a manwhose thinking is driven by racial ani-mus? Only white people could write of him, as the
Washington Post 
reportedlydid, that his comments are “an unfil-tered, uncensored, smart black voice inyour ear.”My offer of reparations to blackswould be free passage to the Africannation of their choice. If six whiteschipped in to pay boat fare for each black, they could all leave and it wouldnot be too great a financial burden.Fred Hooper, Mussel Shoals, Ala.Sir — I was struck by the wisdom of Prof. Levin’s warning that the size of the current majorities of whites opposedto paying reparations is no guaranteeagainst Congress deciding to pay upanyway. I suspect that if, in the 1960sor 1970s, whites had been polled on their willingness to suffer the consequencesof racial preferences in jobs and collegeadmissions, they would have opposedthem by the same large majorities withwhich whites now oppose reparations—  but we got anti-white preferences any-way. Reparations could be yet another example of our presumably democraticsociety flouting the will of the majority.I disagree with Prof. Levin, however,on the necessity of bringing the IQ ques-tion into the debate. It is certainly true,as he points out, that it is insufficientsimply to say reparations would cost toomuch. However, I suspect that if theother points he makes—about fairness,apportionment of blame, legal prece-dent, and matching of alleged victimwith alleged victimizer—will do the jobif argued vigorously. A congressman, for example, who read Prof. Levin’s argu-ments from the floor of the House mightwell bring others to his point of view.However, as soon as he got to the partabout low black IQ, I suspect he would be met with so much outrage (much of it artificial?) that the credibility of thenon-IQ arguments would be lost.Please do not misunderstand: I am allfor airing the facts about race and IQ.However, there are times when it can backfire. There are so many good non-IQ arguments against reparations that if they fail, it is a sure sign whites are hope-lessly cowed. Whites who are preparedto write a check despite the excellent,non-IQ reasons not to are precisely thekind of denatured, craven whites whowould probably be only encouraged incapitulationist folly if anyone dared to point out the inherent limitations of  blacks.Peter Philbin, Boston, Mass.Sir — If whites were not so intimi-dated, it would be obvious to them thatthe black preoccupation with slavery haslittle to do with the presumed evils of the institution and much to do with seek-ing advantages from whites. If blackswere genuinely outraged by slavery,they would be working to end it in Af-rica where it still exists. But attackingtoday’s slavery in Africa has no attrac-tions because it gives blacks no lever-age over whites. Slavery, like everythingelse blacks bring up when they “speak truth to power” as they like to put it, isabout softening us up for yet more hand-outs. All this would end immediately if whites showed some backbone.Pablo Alvarez, Newport Beach, Cal.Sir — If one were looking for proof of the sickness of our times, one needgo no further than the “O Tempora” itemin the previous issue, “Looking for Mr.Right.” The fact that there are whitewomen who believe they can becleansed of “bad karma” by becomingthe sexual servants of a black man tellsus white Americans are steeped in self-loathing. There is, of course, plenty of other evidence of this; the spectacle of whites “celebrating diversity” is a rou-tine and disgusting display. In the ex-cesses of those women who degradedthemselves with Winnfred Wright wefind only an extreme form of the racialself-abasement that has come to be ex- pected of us. In that sense they are vic-tims of these evil times.Joan Peterson, Lexington, Va.
 
American Renaissance - 3 - June 2002
American Renaissance is published monthly by the New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $24.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $36.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.amren.com Electronic Mail: AR@amren.com
Continued from page 1
American Renaissance
Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor James P. Lubinskas, Contributing Editor George McDaniel, Web Page Editor 
than 16 candidates managed to get their 500 endorsements—including assortedTrotskyites and a hunters’ and fishers’ party—shows how steeply the politicaldeck is stacked against Mr. Le Pen.According to the French presidentialsystem, if no candidate wins a majorityin the first round, the two who did bestface each other in a runoff two weekslater. Virtually everyone except Mr. LePen himself expected the two winnersto be Mr. Chirac and Mr. Jospin. TheGaullist president and Socialist PrimeMinister were both colorless men withvirtually identical platforms, but repre-sented the two traditional centers of po-litical gravity.
The Thunderclap
In the field of 16 candidates, how-ever, the three Trotskyite candidates, to-gether with the Communist and theGreen, took nearly 20 percent of thevote, virtually all of which would havegone to the Socialist Jospin in a head-to-head left/right race of only two can-didates. This vote-splitting on the left pushed Mr. Le Pen past Mr. Jospin, withthe following results:Chirac: 19.65%Le Pen: 17.06%Jospin: 16.05%.The other 13 candidates trailed in far  behind, all with single-digit showings.If the 2.37 percent of the vote that wentto Mr. Mégret were added to the Le Pentotal, the National Front vote would havecome within a fraction of a percent of edging out even Mr. Chirac. It was thefirst time since 1969 that no candidatefrom the left had survived into the sec-ond round.In fact, it was not so surprising a re-sult. There was a very high abstentionrate of 28.4 percent in the first round,with many voters bored at the prospectof the Chirac/Jospin contest the polls predicted. Mr. Le Pen himself did notwin that many more votes than the 15.2 percent he had won in the first round of the previous presidential election, andhis supporters are committed peoplewho vote even when others stay home.As much as it was a victory for the National Front, the vote was even morea slap in the face of the French rulingclass. There were more non-voters thanever before—six percent more than inthe previous worst case in 1995—andalso more spoiled ballots (2.4 percent).Mr. Chirac got fewer votes than any sit-ting president in the history of the FifthRepublic, and for a sitting Prime Min-ister not even to make the second roundwas so deep a humiliation that Mr.Jospin promptly announced his retire-ment from politics. The high vote totalsfor nationalist candidates and for thehard left also demonstrated the disgustthe French feel for their rulers. Even theCommunists, who have been a consid-erable force in French politics since the party’s founding in 1920, were flattened by the steam-roller of protest against politics as usual. Their candidate, Rob-ert Hue, got a miserable 3.41 percent of the vote.Mr. Le Pen was the top vote-getter in35 Departments (out of 100) and in nineRegions (out of 22). His strength wasgreatest in those parts of the countrywith the highest concentrations of im-migrants, and he came in first in suchcities as Marseille, Perpignan, andAvignon. Much to the chagrin of theSocialists, he was the favorite of theworking class and the unemployed, andhe also polled well with mid-level man-agers.Mr. Le Pen appealed to many voters because he was the only candidate tospeak bluntly about the issue that mosttroubles the French: crime. Hard as itmay be for Americans to believe, Parisnow has a higher crime rate than NewYork City. There are Arab housing projects so tough and dangerous the police never go near them. Burning carsin the street has become something of anational sport. Virtually every squareinch of wall in Paris outside the touristareas is covered with
le tagging 
, thespray-paint graffiti that used to make New York so ugly. No fewer than 58 percent of voters said crime was their  biggest worry, and this was followed by39 percent who said unemployment wastheir biggest concern.Mr. Le Pen blamed both problems onimmigrants, many of whom work for sub-standard wages and many of whomcommit crimes. Ever since Sept. 11, andthe realization that Muslims intent onmurder had been living freely in Europe,a sense of siege has settled upon theFrench. The Socialists, for whom it wasconsidered “racist” even to talk aboutcrime, left the issue almost entirely toMr. Le Pen and Mr. Chirac.
Jacques Chirac.Robert Hue, the Communist, was flattened.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->