Search Box

Thursday, June 8, 2017

The new Vichy regimes

During World War II, the French government which collaborated with the Nazis was known as the Vichy regime. To this day, "Vichy" and "collaborationist" are regarded by most people as terms of contempt.

What the term means, in its essence, is a government which sides with outsiders against its own citizens.

So what is the difference between such governments  and the current European ones which are welcoming the Muslim invaders en masse? Are these governments not betraying their own citizens?

They are nothing but collaborationists, or quislings, or traitors, or fifth columnists, or whichever term you prefer.

The European people themselves, for the most part, don't seem to want to see their populations transformed.

You never seem to hear the man in the street in Stockholm talk about how wonderful it is that their city is no longer as safe as it once was.

You never hear the man in the street in Denmark talk about how great it is that their welfare system is now being strained to the limit by all the young Muslim men.

You never hear the people of Cologne talk about how much more exciting New Year's Eve is now.

Nor do you hear French people speak about how great it is that the banlieus have now become so dangerous that even the police are afraid to go there.

But the media don't seem interested in interviewing the man in the street. They prefer to quote the politicians, who, led as they are by rich and powerful international interests, don't seem to care.

Time for a change in the language.

15 comments:

Deiphobus said...

Then why do these people keep getting elected? Look at Macron. He was as clear as he could be that if elected he wasn't going to do a damn thing about mass immigration, except maybe increase it. Got elected in a landslide.

John Craig said...

Deiphobus --
I thought about that as I was writing this post and I think they do for four reasons: first, the fact that a lot of Muslims already have citizenship and can vote, and they will vote for their "brethren," even if, say, Algerians, have no particular love for, say, Syrians. Second, that a lot of the Left truly believes that if they show the Muslims "love" the Muslims will stop terrorizing them. Third, that the media used a lot of scare tactics about Marine le Pen, likening her to Hitler, and most Europeans, even young ones, have grown up under Hitler's shadow. (And maybe some of those voters are also afraid to leave the EU for various reasons). And fourth, that there are idiots everywhere who will vote for inexplicable reasons (this overlaps with reason number two).

(Also note that I referred in the post to "the man in the street," not the woman; I'm sure in France there are basic gender differences in voting patterns, just as there are in the US.

I do think that the average Frenchman, even if he voted for Macron for any of the reasons above, in his heart of hearts, would prefer France to remain French.

Deiphobus said...

"Heart of hearts" talk gets us into mysterious notions of false consciousness. There is something going on with the European man in the street. Sad fact is that this man in the street doesn't care that much about the integrity of his nation. Maybe he has a preference for France to remain French but it isn't a strong preference.

John Craig said...

Deiphobus --
That's true, I'm not a mind reader, and shouldn't pretend to be. But I have a hard time believing that the average Frenchman, and to a lesser extent Frenchwoman, thinks those banlieus are a plus to Paris. Etc. I'd also be curious to see what percentage of the current voting population of France is Muslim.

Mark Caplan said...

Voltaire once said, "Nothing is better known than the siege of Malta."

Few Westerners today have even heard of the Great Siege of Malta, in 1565, when 6,000 Christians on the island of Malta defeated an Ottoman invading force of 28,000. Westerners don't know of the great wars and sacrifices their ancestors made over the centuries to roll back the Muslim tide that at one time threatened to engulf the whole of Europe. If anything, Westerners are taught they as Crusaders were the aggressors against the peaceful, tolerant, highly civilized Muslims.

I'm convinced the reason the terrorists haven't blown up the great Gothic cathedrals of Europe is because they know the cathedrals will be mosques in 20 or 30 years.

Anonymous said...

I think the French and other local countries are afraid of losing their known culture to some extent, however, I believe they are more afraid of losing the overall idea of "Western Civilization".

John Craig said...

Mark --
Yes, I've heard that, they plan to Hagia Sophia-ize the West.

And to your larger point, yes, the West has been paralyzed by propaganda.

Anonymous said...

John, do you know any muslims?
I don't really any now on a personal level or run interact much, so what are the ones like you know if you know any?

I did know two classmates, one was of Turkish descent, he was the kind who just listed Islam as his religion on his social media but didn't say anything else, never fasted for Ramadam that I know of. He had a non-muslim girlfriend but his parents didn't care.

I knew two others, both quite Americanized despite the headscarf.

From what I notice, if a muslim is immigrating on their own choice, they tend to be more likely to be radical and won't integrate. If they are running like hell away from something (like a war or famine) they will be more likely to integrate.

-Ga

John Craig said...

Ga --
Before I got married, I briefly dated a girl of Indian descent whose last name was Ali, but I never got the impression she was observant, in fact never saw any evidence of any possible religious aspect to her life other than her last name. When I was sick last year, I stayed at a local Holiday Inn in NJ, and the young guy who worked the desk was from India, and he also had a Muslim name. He was always friends and cheerful, though I can't say I got to know him all that well. I'm sure there are other Muslims I've known, but I can't think of any at the moment.

But to your point, yes, there are certainly plenty of Muslims who are decent people. But the young men from countries which have been breeding grounds for terror, who take their religion seriously, are a different matter. But sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Look at the pictures of the face of that Muslim woman doctor who did the genital cutting in Michigan recently. She has a peaceful, friendly face, and I'm sure she has a pleasant, reassuring manner; and on top of that, she's a doctor. But....

Anonymous said...

I became friends with a Paki muslim while in college. When he needed a place to live in the summer I got him a room in my fraternity house. He was very observant, would often dress in Muslim garb and prayed 5 times each day. Abdul was a very nice, charming guy. Just off the boat, in his first years of a PHD program at Rutgers.

in the 3 months we lived in the same house i got to know him betterl. He never drank alcohol, which was amazing to me as we lived in a Frat house with beer on tap at our huge bar every night. Also had a few girls living in the house during the summer. One morning he came to me is a state of shock and anxiety, I knew immediately something was very wrong. He could barely speak, finally i was able to understand what occurred..at 6 AM he went to take a shower and a girl was walking out half naked, she did not expect to see anyone up so early and came out of the shower without covering up with a towel when he walked into the shower room, he saw her naked (she was well built with DD breasts). When he spoke to me about the incident he was shaking. He told me he had never seen a naked girl before (he was 24 years old and still a virgin). He could not believe how much flesh she had (her breast were actually amazingly large). I knew the girl well, she dated a frat brother and worked as a hairdresser. She laughed about the incident.

one day we were hanging out on the porch watching the college girls walk by in their short shorts and revealing tops. Abdul was looking very intently at the girls. I asked him, it must be culture shock for you living here in New Jersey. He said "in my town if a girl walked down the street dressed like them we would stone them to death" and he seemed to think it was the proper thing to do. He also told me he selected the husbands for his sisters, because his father had died it was his responsibility to be the man of the house. i asked him how he chose, he selected his cousins with the most money. Many other discussions lead me to understand how different they are from us. Very eye opening to hear how much he hated the jews and how Jesus was never crucified, it was a jewish conspiracy...they killed an impostor and distorted the teachings of Jesus...so Christianity was an evil tool of the jews to corrupt the true teachings of Jesus. it made no sense but he truly believed it.

Anonymous said...

That wasn't the point I intended to make, it must have been accidental. I was just sharing before my observation.

I think if you are fleeing from something you will be more compliant and integrate, also those who flee are derived from the population indiscriminately. Which explains why Syrians complained of the very conservative and medieval mosques and imams they found when they arrived in German.

Those conservative, old fashioned, and more likely to be radical types chose to immigrate. Those who immigrate that want to and are permitted have less motivations to comply or settle in, you haven't been gifted the way a refugee is with residence, so they think they don't have to be so careful.

Another thing worth facepalming over, the Muslim population in Britain is using up a ton of their health care due to heavy intermarriage leading to numerous recessive diseases. They take up a disproportionate amount of public funds.

Man may think: Well there are so few of them and they will intermarry like Orthodox Jewish people do. What did you expect?

Orthodox Jewish people do have lots of health problems, but they are careful with screening before marrying, they also tend to be wealthy (stereotypes can be true) and pay for everything on their own when they can. Even with lower numbers, they try to move their children around their communities for marriage.

Primitive tribes like the aborgines have "skinship" codes, like 8 groups, one person from one group must marry from another group, their child belongs to another group, and more rules to prevent inbreeding. If primitives tribes can do this, there is even less excuse.

Well, I google the amount of muslims in the uk...2.5 freaking million, Iceland has 300,000 people and nowhere near as many healthcare problems, they do have apps to check a persons ancestry since they don't have surnames in their culture. Muslims have very complex names, clan names on top of surnames, tells you their heritage easily. The risk of disorder between two cousins in their mid 20s is the same as having a children in your late 30s or early 40s. It's if you keep doing over and over it turns into a big mess, which it has, so it's deliberate by now.

(Late parental age is one of the many reason that explains partially the rise of autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, and other non-mendellian disorders, we need to do something about our economy so educated people or anyone won't put off having children until the quality of their ovo and sperm has mutated dangerously.)

Ironically homogenetity and intermarriage keeps complicated non-mendellian disorders at bay with evolved group protections, many of which are lost with increasing miscegenation among even ethnicities within the same race. Less down syndrome, dwarfism, gigantism, classic village idiots, normal Forrest Gump retardation, or leukemia, but more unexplained organic and idiopathic conditions, yes, the absence of inbreeding may be contributing to autism, ADHD, bipolar, depression, and OCD.

-Ga

John Craig said...

Anon --
Thank you, that was an illuminating story.

And the Left is insisting we need more people like that in our country, people who want to stone to death a woman who wears short shorts and a halter top. Meanwhile, the Left says that a Western man who leers at a woman is guilty of sexual harassment.

This isn't going to end well.

John Craig said...

Ga --
"but more unexplained organic and idiopathic conditions, yes, the absence of inbreeding may be contributing to autism, ADHD, bipolar, depression, and OCD."

I'd never heard that before. So people like you and I are more at risk for those things? I would think it was the opposite. Where did you hear this?

Anonymous said...

https://scienceoveracuppa.com/2016/07/24/is-a-lack-of-consanguinity-uncovering-the-hidden-autism-in-our-genes/

Developmental and molecular biologist, her husband is Manuel Casanova, the pioneer of TMS and a neuroscientist. She leans more towards genetic causes of Autism and disorders while her husband tends to lean towards believing in environmental like toxins or smoking during pregnancy. I think they both are correct, both factors contribute to one another in
non-Mendelian genetic disease.

Bullet plus trigger= bam.

-Ga

John Craig said...

Ga --
Interesting, thank you. You've also seen that there's evidence for ADHD, bipolar, depression, and OCD? From the limited sample size I've seen, I had actually wondered if autism wasn't somehow due to too much inbreeding. Also based on a very limited sample size, off the top of my head, it does seem that a higher than usual percentage of cross-bred people suffer from depression. But my sample sizes are so small as to be almost statistically meaningless.