As a rule, ownership and direct control of media in France strikes me as rather less Jewish than in the USA. Of course the arms manufacturer Serge Dassault (né Bloch) owns the leading conservative newspaper, Le Figaro, Édouard de Rothschild bailed out the supposedly “left-libertarian” Libération, and Bernard-Henri Lévy presides over the Franco-German cultural channel [sic] Arte. (Probably not coincidentally, Arte has been noted for broadcasting highly degenerate and even pornographic content in recent years.) Jews are of course an enormously disproportional percentage of journalists and even more of “public intellectuals” (pretentiously called “philosophes” in France). If anything Jews, making up 1 percent of the French population, probably are close to an absolute majority of the most media-promoted public intellectuals (just watch a French talk show), but it is hard to get hard data on this sort of thing.
French media are, more than anything else, “statified,” that is, they ultimately revolve around state support and regulation: state TV and radio, highly-regulated private TV and radio, state-subsidies for online and print media, state subsidies for film, official protectionist quotas for French film in the cinemas and French songs on the radio (the so-called “exception culturelle” in trade talks). There is a vast arsenal of “anti-racist” and holocaustian censorship legislation, more or less arbitrarily enforced by the state and by litigious ethnic lobbies. Finally there is the Éducation nationale — the enormously-bloated, infantilizing, and mostly liberal-leftist public education system — spending on which is the single biggest item of government spending, after welfare payments and servicing interest on the national debt of course.
In France therefore, elite and mass culture suffers from the esprit de Cour, the court spirit, which used to predominate in the Ancien Régime: If you have the King’s favor, you will prosper, if not, you are nothing . . .
This has several important implications.
Firstly, we have to emphasize the degree to which French culture is shaped by a tiny politico-cultural minority, really a set of interconnected inbred cliques, who then dictate what are the ideological orthodoxies, fashions, and tastes for the whole country. If a small alien group, a hostile ethnic or plutocratic elite, were to get a commanding position in the network of cultural gatekeepers and producers, this would then naturally distort the entire development of the country.
Secondly, it is obvious that the entire media-cultural space in France is completely politicized. This is particularly true in the current Socialist Government, which is made up in majority of Freemasons, Jews, Zionists, and people of color. Consider some of the members of the “French” government:
- Prime Minister Manuel Valls: A Catalan immigrant, Freemason, and Zionist who is, quote, “by my wife eternally attached to Israel!”
- Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius: A Jew converted to Christianity, architect of austerity and permanent double-digit unemployment in the 1980s, and of the destruction of Syria today.
- Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem: A Moroccan dual national who has made sexual blank-slatism her flagship issue, mandating that boys play with dolls from the youngest age. I would guess she’d be stoned to death if she tried to push this in her home country.
- Justice Minister Christianne Taubira: A Black Guianese, who had previously agitated for the independence of French Guiana. In 1999, she had protested with the slogan “Guiana for the Guianese.” In 2007, she explained Guianese unrest by saying: “We are at an identitarian turning point. Ethnic Guianese have become a minority in their own land.” So, Taubira is both race-conscious and in solidarity with her people, but why is she the “French” minister of justice? Why are similarly patriotic Frenchmen (e.g., Jean-Marie Le Pen) in contrast excluded from power? Taubira has made gay marriage and softening sentencing on her fellow people of color her signature issues.
- Minister of Economy Emmanuel Macron: A young gentile alumnus of the Rothschild Bank charged with making the French economy more “competitive.”
- European Commissioner for Economic Affairs Pierre Moscovici: Not strictly a French government position, this Romanian-origin Jew holds the important job in Brussels of enforcing the European Union’s deficit rules and ensuring all European states repay their debts (with interest of course).
- Minister of Culture Fleur Pellerin: An ethnic Korean who has publicly defended her ignorance of French culture by saying “I am not paid to read books.” Her most recent action has been to maintain politicized state subsidies for pseudo-subversive left-wing publications (Mediapart, Arrêt sur image . . . ) and cut off the same subsidies for right-wing publications (Rivarol, Valeurs actuelles, Minute).
The point is: This is not a government “of, by, or for” the native French people, and there is so much degeneracy in France you are unaware of. I am told things were similarly shameless under President Bill Clinton in your country and are similar under President Barack Hussein Obama.
Thirdly, the political centralization of French culture means that the fight for political office is a valuable objective in France. If Marine Le Pen were to become president and a national government were to take power, this would give nationalists and identitarians enormous tools in the culture wars. France having no equivalent of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, our cultural arsenal of state and state-regulated media, of media subsidies, of public education, and of censorship legislation could then be used for rather than against our people.
There are already indications of the war on the FN to come. State and state-subsidized media routinely disparage and oppose the Front National, violating basic ethics for taxpayer-funded journalists to maintain a certain neutrality. These journalists are then paid by taxpayers to undermine the most popular party in the country, the one with the most support from taxpayers. That’s “French democracy” for you. Marine Le Pen however is set to win the presidency of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region. French regions have rather little power, but this is nonetheless important symbolically, in terms of money, and in acquiring experience in office. Two state-supported local newspapers — La Voix du Nord and Nord Éclair — have openly attacked her candidacy. Logically, Le Pen has stated that regional subsidies for politicized anti-FN newspapers will be removed if she wins the election.
Unfortunately, the FN does not really have any clear cultural doctrine. They would want French education to again promote French identity and knowledge of French history, and to ban protests in favor of illegal immigration. But there is little else. They do not speak of abolishing France’s censorship legislation, for fear this would be misportrayed (as in the case of Bruno Gollnisch) as “holocaust denial.”
Le Pen has said she could conceivably make the Jewish quasi-nationalist pundit Éric Zemmour her minister of culture. While readers of The Culture of Critique may be shocked by this, Zemmour has promoted in the mainstream media a fairly constructive form of French nationalism and, especially, has condemned Judeo-centricity and the Shoah as “the official religion of the French Republic.” I do think nationalism will only be able to progress if it is no longer equated in public opinion — through the Pavlovian conditioning our cultural elites have created — with the real and imagined horrors of the Shoah.
Florian Philippot — Le Pen’s talented right-hand man, spin doctor, and technocrat — has been responsible perhaps more than anyone else for the FN’s shift towards an explicit civic nationalism that is economically on the left. For this and because of his overweening presence, he is resented by many of the old and not-so-old guard. Philippot is also said to be “very anti-Zionist” however, which suggests he may understand more than he lets on . . . .
The point is: Le Pen’s potential conquest of the Élysée Palace and the National Assembly would immeasurably transform the conditions for cultural struggle in France.
(Things are rather different in the United States. Read Tocqueville’s Democracy in America: In America the society — or rather the cultural and oligarchic masters of society — govern the state, not the other way around. As such, even if a man as independent, media-savvy, and wealthy as Donald Trump were to win the presidency, there would be limits to what could be done. Trump would still have to depend on a finance-dependent Congress and be constrained by the narratives of the mass media, protected by the First Amendment. President Trump would then be limited to the powers of the executive, which admittedly have consistently grown to rather massive proportions over the years, but would not have the autonomy of the nationalist leader of a European nation-state. White Americans could, in my view, save the European world through a cultural revolution, rather than a political one. Europe being heavily Americanized culturally, an American cultural revolution in favor of nationalism would naturally and very rapidly spread across the Western world.)
In a nationalist-ruled France, the debate would no longer be between homophile “Socialist” and race-baiting “conservative” advocates of the same economic/migratory borderlessness, multiculturalism, and globalism, in short, of the same destruction of the French nation and state. Rather, the debate would be between the pro-European Identitaires and the anti-globalist/anti-Zionist Égalité & Réconciliation.
It would be rough. A substantial percentage of the French people are not ready. The leftists will shriek “fascism” until they turn blue, and will find ample support in the United States and among rootless oligarchs like George Soros to agitate against the French national government. Judeo-American cultural influence, through Hollywood, the Ivy League universities, and the Anglo-American media, would also continue to be felt and would attempt to undermine the emerging national French culture. Conversely however — just as Michel Houellebecq, Alain Soral, and Dieudonné today have a certain international influence — so the new national French cultural-media complex would spread nationalist, identitarian, and pro-European culture abroad as well.
The hostile elites which govern the West have worked very hard to portray all ethnocentrism and nationalism as backward, low-class, and stupid. But everyone knows the French, with that je ne sais quoi, are classier, more sophisticated, and more philosophical than down-to-Earth and pragmatic Anglos. If France began promoting le nationalisme chic, there is little doubt this would have an electrifying effect throughout the Western world.
Dimitri Koros, “Y a du porno sur Arte : Et du non-mémoriel, le pied !,” Égalité & Réconciliation, November 27, 2015. http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Y-a-du-porno-sur-Arte-36363.html
Just how arbitrary is the French “État de droit,” you ask? Well, Alain Soral has been sentenced to pay 30,021 euros in fines and damages for performing a quenelle in front of the Berlin Shoah memorial blocks. There is obviously no mention of the quenelle in any French law. But the French courts decided that the Berlin Shoah memorial — a favorite hangout for homosexuals performing public sex acts — was too sacred a place for the blasphemy of a quenelle. At over 30,000 euros, the most expensive quenelle in world history!
Nasseem Taleb has written insightfully on the apparent paradox of “stubborn minorities” having more agency, influence, and power among political elites than apathetic majorities. Naseem Taleb, “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority,” draft chapter of Skin in the Game (2015). http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf
Guillaume Durocher, “Éric Zemmour of the Suicide of France,” North American New Right, May 14, 2015. Éric Zemmour, “The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic,” The Occidental Observer, May 12, 2015.
Philippot is also a homosexual, but this is not the primary reason for hostility towards him.