[Adventures in Reaction]
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Indoctrination of the French
The video (thanks to a reader) describes the effort to indoctrinate French schoolchildren into the multicult. The announcer and several interviewees say that the new history textbook is an instance of political correctness gone mad, and while it is that, one can't expect anything else in a system that has imported millions of non-French who feel zero ties to France. PC is just a system of thought control to stop anyone from expressing truths or opinions that might be detrimental to the reigning powers. In this particular case, I assume that it's the French government that has promulgated the textbook, the same government that has allowed those millions of aliens to live in France.
While it's great that some people in France are fighting back, this is a problem that's not going away. At the root of it all is the false notion of what makes a nation, a true nation being one that is largely connected by ethnicity, language, and religion. So long as large numbers of the residents of France share none of these with the historical French nation, and with many of them being actively hostile to French civilization, the problem of how one teaches the next generation will remain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The professor who opposes this indoctrination is saying that non-Whites need to learn the history of their "adopted" country in order to become French. This is just as bad - the idea that France is a "proposition nation" and anyone of any race can become part of it by learning its history and traditions.
ReplyDeleteQuite apart from the effects this will have on the French and their immigrants, it'll make history damn boring. When I learnt about the history of the welfare state at school, it may well have been propaganda, but at least it was about an interesting country (Britain) doing interesting things (the NHS etc.). This propaganda will be so boring and irrelevant no-one will bother with history after it...maybe that's the point.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else notice the Youtube video load extremely slowly and have to stop to buffer a lot? Youtube videos pretty much always load smoothly on a high-speed connection, but lately I have noticed on several occasions that some anti-PC videos take a lot more time to load. I admit, I could be imagining this, but this potential stealth censorship should be looked into.
ReplyDelete@ Poultry Inspector:
I think the idea of a "proposition nation" is better than you give it credit for.
I see no reason why France (for example) should not welcome anyone of any race who believes that traditional France is a great, great thing and who is willing to make their absolute best effort to peacefully co-exist with the traditional French people on THEIR terms.
This is all good. While it may shock some, my attitude is the only correct way to view these events. Otherwise one becomes too gloomy. One must know that the sooner liberalism destroys itself, which it eventually will, the sooner those with heart may make something better of the ruins.
ReplyDeleteTrue civilization and culture will never cease. It may go dormant, or "underground," but it is in essence spiritual, and can thus never be defeated completely.
I know that it is tough on us, now, because we both think and feel. Yet for many of us, our horizons end with our life, hence we are inclined to live and think always in a shorter term. But for those able to think more expansively, and for those that can prepare now for current and future decline, it can be a very thrilling time.
"a true nation being one that is largely connected by ethnicity, language, and religion": France is in some ways a rather recent construct, with the homogenisation of language being pursued briskly in the 19th and 20th centuries by suppression. The religious uniformity was imposed by slaughtering the Albigensians and slaughtering and expelling the Huguenots. The ethnicity bit is more interesting: French schoolchildren, it is said, were taught to speak of 'Our ancestors, the Gauls' - no mention there of the Franks; or of the Visigoths or the Bretons or the Normans, or the....
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if in the 19th century someone part-black should come to France from, say, the French Caribbean, they were not subjected to any "one drop rule" rubbish, and could assimilate in society fairly readily. As could European immigrants from Italy, Poland, Hungary ... and even Britain.
same thing has been going on in India for decades. Muslim and other foreign invaders like the British are given primary place in school history instead of our own rich ancient civilization and leaders. That's changing though as more and more Indians are waking up. Every year it seems our history text books are being revised to appease one group or another.
ReplyDeleteHowever I agree that its important to learn about world history and cultures. The globalization of technology like the internet means the world is becoming smaller and smaller.
Children should be incalculated in their nation's history when young and as they mature, introduced to world history.
science is more important than history. History tells stories from personal, subjective points of view, while science is objective. History often contradicts objective science, as is the case in the type of "history" we East Indians have been taught.
And you deleting my comments - why exactly?
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, if in the 19th century someone part-black should come to France from, say, the French Caribbean, they were not subjected to any "one drop rule" rubbish, and could assimilate in society fairly readily. As could European immigrants from Italy, Poland, Hungary ... and even Britain."
ReplyDeleteThis is not true. France developed a system for quarantining slaves and negroes shortly after individuals began turning up in French ports during the late 1600's-1700's
Remember the wikileaks cable from Paris about USG diversity outreach? This is a US export:
ReplyDelete“[W]e will continue and intensify our work with French museums and educators to reform the history curriculum taught in French schools, so that it takes into account the role and perspectives of minorities in French history.”
http://mangans.blogspot.com/2011/01/american-diversity-outreach.html
Can someone please get this information into the hands of capable French opponents of this revisionism? Heck, just get it into the hands of an RT reporter.
Wow. Twenty years ago this would have been unthinkable in France. Only twenty years can bring this fantastic change - a reminder to those who do not feel that the USA has a real chance to become a very different country within their lifetimes.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the video is from a Russian TV station. I can't think of CNN/FOX/MSNBC airing anything along the same lines. Double cheers for the freedom of press that our liberal democracy ensures!
dearieme @ 4:22 pm ---
ReplyDeleteGet this very simple concept into your head, and remember it always. Ready? Note the punctuation, now...
SCale mATTERS.
That's it. That's the whole thing. You don't have to remember anything else, except ---
scalE maTTERS.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, if in the 19th century someone part-black should come to France from, say, the French Caribbean, they were not subjected to any "one drop rule" rubbish, and could assimilate in society fairly readily. As could European immigrants from Italy, Poland, Hungary ... and even Britain."
This is not true. France developed a system for quarantining slaves and negroes shortly after individuals began turning up in French ports during the late 1600's-1700's
----
That was true I believe during those centuries you mentionned. By the 19th century though, you have people like Alexandre Dumas Sr and Jr. Only late in life did I learn that they were mulattoes. They're considered famous Frenchmen from the 19th century. They thoroughly assimilated. France and the other european countries certainly did all they could to prevent the settling of actual *populations*, but by the 19th century a few, very few black or mulatto individuals could make their way to there and eventually assimilate.
RE: Hindu Nationalist said...
ReplyDelete"Muslim and other foreign invaders like the British are given primary place in school history ... Every year it seems our history text books are being revised to appease one group or another."
So Indian history text books are being revised to give _greater_ prominence to the British role and this is being done to "appease" Britain. Seriously?
"Muslim and other foreign invaders like the British are given primary place in school history instead of our own rich ancient civilization and leaders."
ReplyDeleteThis is as it should be, inasmuch as the Indian civilization never managed to repel a single foreign invader.
This is consistent with what I observed when I worked as an English Language Teaching assistant in a couple of French schools in the banlieue outside Paris.
ReplyDeleteA sample sentence practiced in class, "The boy could not sit on the bench because he was black."
Over 1 million words in the English language and yet that is the sentence chosen to try and convey that particular grammatical construction.
I noticed that the French history texts look as dumbed-down, and as overloaded with frenetic, pointless color-graphics, as American ones.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest lie being promulgated here by the multi-kult, of course, is that learning about the rest of the world requires the trashing of national identity and the gutting of a nation-oriented history curriculum. When someone has to defend spending 10% of a course on Monomatapa with a blisteringly stupid non sequitur about how important it is to learn about the rest of the world ("like India and China") one is moved to wonder if these people talk like this because they really are just that stupid, unable to think their way out of a paper bag, or if they're just so far gone in their arrogance that they no longer even try to dissimulate about their destructive intent.
Funny, I managed to get out of high school, back in the day, having actually been taught a bit about West African medieval kingdoms, in passing, in a more or less traditional history curriculum. Which brings us to the other Big Lie of multi-kult education - that traditional curricula taught only parochial rah-rah cartoon propaganda as history, which they are now going to rectify with the truth. Bullshit.
And the fact is that nobody without an independent reading life is going to come to any worthwhile understanding of anybody's history, anyway; primary and secondary schools have time for only so much. A basic, rigorous grounding in "parochial" history, with literate sources, is a far better lanuching-point for that endeavor than structureless "food court" comic-books that flit from one obscure "vibrancy" to the next.
You can't "get" other cultures if you don't have one of your own. But maybe producing cultureless drones is the point of the exercise.
Hindu nationalist: science is more important than history.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not. A people who don't pass on, and build on, their scientific inheritance, in every generation, will just end up prey for those who do.
But a nation of men who don't know history is a nation of half-men, who will end up doing stupid things like...selling off their own scientific inheritance and letting their own technological infrastructure rot, because they're so ignorant and time-bound that they actually believe the cheap political nostrums of their own age.
Rohan Swee is exactly on target. All Western countries using multi-kult educational materials systematically reduce our students to mindless drones with a superficial "knowledge" of these cultures-really a comic book acquaintance-while the importance of our own history is entirely emasculated.Those who read David Brooks recent piece on public morality should be depressed over the reality of almost universal moral relativity amoung our young.They seem to have avoided Christianity wholesale. This, along with their singular faith in liberal mythology, guarantees furure decline into Brazil-like madness.Those who believe that nations recover in radical ways are likely to be disappointed because of the vast inertia of history. France and the US will look back at a "golden era" in 300 years and wonder how it was that greatness came and went. Then again, pure multi-kult relativists may think their paper-thin culture is the apex of cultural evolution. Sad.They live a lie.
ReplyDeleteThe MSM have recently begun the process of legitimizing pornography, another clue that this nation's very moral fabric is dissolving. As an expert witness for the LAPD in the Sixties, I saw the first ugly appearance of the California-style porn industry. Today ordinary yet brainless women rush to join this cash-rich enterprise.Today, many are those who justify its existance.The primary source of our morality is on its last leg.
So has the French right capitalized on this? It's anti-French and doubtlessly connected to a sinister American sponsored multicult NGO somewhere down the line. Oui! - La France! Non! - L'impérialisme américain!
ReplyDeleteAs a French, this is nothing new to me. You have to understand France doesn't really exist, as an ethnically homogenous nation. It is more a conglomerate of ethnically sometimes very different people (Bretons, Provençaux, Normands, Picards, Alsaciens...). This conglomerate was created by a small Germanic nucleus which conquered France and settled itself in the Parisian region. Only gradually did the French king assert its authority on the border regions, with France going through more and more violent convulsions as it became ethnically more diverse (Huguenots, but also the Burgund wars, and so on).
ReplyDeleteThe culminating point was, of course, the Revolution. A popular interpretation at the time, conveyed by the revolutionaries itself, was that the Revolution was also a revenge of the dominated Gauls against their Frank masters. Thus was born the official legend of "our ancesters the Gauls". It was not accurate per se, as very few was known of the Gauls at the time.
However, what was probably true was : the Revolution was a racially motivated revolt against a Germanic elite which had become weak and bastardized. It saw the ascent to power of a stupid, greedy bourgeoisie composed of sub-par men, constantly in fear of a lumpenproletariat, which itself was replaced in a continuous move by lower and lower quality individuals. Thus began France's decline.
1.
ReplyDelete"So Indian history text books are being revised to give _greater_ prominence to the British role and this is being done to "appease" Britain. Seriously?"
>>> No. To appease the Christian minority in India.
While in the West Christianity is the mainstream majority religion that is denigrated by the left, in India it is a minority and foreign religion that is championed by the leftist cultural Marxists, while our indigenous mainstream majority religion, Hinduism, is given liberal bashings.
See how they work?
2.
"Hindu nationalist: science is more important than history.
No, it's not. A people who don't pass on, and build on, their scientific inheritance, in every generation, will just end up prey for those who do."
>>> I agree. What I meant by "science is more important than history" is that history needs to be based on actual FACTS, not theories to appease minorities like Muslims and Christians, as has been the case in India for decades.
"While in the West Christianity is the mainstream majority religion that is denigrated by the left, in India it is a minority and foreign religion that is championed by the leftist cultural Marxists, while our indigenous mainstream majority religion, Hinduism, is given liberal bashings."
ReplyDeleteThanks for this information. One learns something new everyday.
Vincent said...
ReplyDeleteAs a French, this is nothing new to me. You have to understand France doesn't really exist, as an ethnically homogenous nation. It is more a conglomerate of ethnically sometimes very different people [...]
--
Are there any good English-language history books that you might recommend that treat this subject honestly, i.e., not with the taint of political correctness? I would like to read about this in greater depth, but one can't just pick up *any* "history" book because so many books these days are less fact driven than agenda driven.
Thanks in advance.
Since this was a critical report, most of the sound bites were from opponents of the textbooks, but they did throw in one gentleman who appeared to be speaking in support of the PC books. He was the one on the street speaking in French-accented English.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was amusing that one of his points was that children needed to learn PC history if they were going to "vote properly." He gets cut off immediately after saying that, and he's a non-native speaker, so it's a bit unfair to say with certainty that he meant it the way it sounds.
But it sure seems like a revealing comment, doesn't it?
Great stuff lately. I really enjoyed the Fareed Zakaria post. Thanks Dennis.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was amusing that one of his points was that children needed to learn PC history if they were going to "vote properly."
ReplyDeleteAre you sure he was speaking in support of the books? I thought he meant that the real, non-PC French history is the knowledge required to vote properly (in order to not repeat the mistakes of the past, yadda yadda).
British flash mob attacks French tourist in rural England:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054124/Face-father-left-unrecognisable-gang-robbers-stole-wedding-ring.html
Robert in Arabia
Are there any good English-language history books that you might recommend that treat this subject honestly, i.e., not with the taint of political correctness? I would like to read about this in greater depth, but one can't just pick up *any* "history" book because so many books these days are less fact driven than agenda driven.
ReplyDeleteThanks in advance.
---
There may be Jacques Bainville, and his Histoire de France. Unfortunately, I don't know if it was translated in English. Bainville is a very astute political mind and treats both the ancien Régime and the republic fairly ; but his main problem is that he belongs to this kind of French nationalists ferociously opposed to the notion of race, of ethnical differences, in favor of a mystical approach tending to consider being French as some kind of immaterial quality, transmitting itself through the generations. This is, for me, the malediction of the French. No historian, to my knowledge, had the guts, or the inspiration, to look at French history from an ethnical standpoint. Except maybe some non-historians like Gobineau, or Chamberlain. Then you have Céline.
Most French people are prisoners of a false dichotomy. You have the leftist/republican point of view, which has been officially sanctioned since the IIId republic, and for which France's history starts at the revolution, France being first and foremost the home of Human Rights. For them, France is just an idea.
Then you have the right/conservative point of view. Unfortunately, either they are hypnotized by the left and subscribe to the republican ideology, or they are monarchist. But our monarchy was more like the tsarist one, reigning over a multitude of different races. As such, they too see France as a melting-pot and are also convinced that being French is a state of mind, or a geographical matter.
As such, it's only logical that France is being willingly invaded by blacks, arabs, and the likes. We have no codes, or thought system, to fight against the logical fallacy of the droit du sol. We are a land of bastards and mongrels without pride (France has the highest rate of mixed marriages in Europe). We have nothing to preserve and no model to look forward to. I'm not complaining, just stating a fact. The concept of "France" is becoming more ethereal by the day, and one day won't mean anything anymore.
Vincent, very interesting insights. Thank you for writing. (I noticed that the upper classes in France tend to be blondish. The Frank ancestry?).
ReplyDeleteThen you have the right/conservative point of view. Unfortunately, either they are hypnotized by the left and subscribe to the republican ideology, or they are monarchist. But our monarchy was more like the tsarist one, reigning over a multitude of different races. As such, they too see France as a melting-pot and are also convinced that being French is a state of mind, or a geographical matter.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the monarchist movement a fringe, quasi-ridiculous element anyways? It seems like something that old, traditionalist Catholics care about, but not anyone else. As for the politics of the monarchs, you seem to be right. Charles Napoleon seems to be a typical liberal, if only because he adopted a Vietnamese child with his second wife. Louis XX is interesting; I've seen that he has written some articles trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the Bourbons (this may, however, be entirely self-serving), has cultivated the image of a traditionalist Catholic, didn't attend his mother's third wedding because he disapproved of her divorce, and is Franco's great-grandson to boot. However, if he doesn't understand the reality of race then this doesn't matter a whet. I'd be interested in your input on this, since my survey of French royalism is limited, in part because of my so-so French.
If the French don't say no to this, no Western nation will. And you can forget the non-white immigrants ever feeling "french": most of them will always see themselves as different and adverse to the majority population population and culture, which they will regard as being forced upon them.
ReplyDeleteVincent, very interesting insights. Thank you for writing. (I noticed that the upper classes in France tend to be blondish. The Frank ancestry?).
ReplyDelete---
Thank you :-). You are more or less right, in a very general way. Such things are almost impossible to back up statistically, for a reason that may astonish some readers here : It is in France officially forbidden to raise statistics on races and ethnies. It's because of the "Republican principles", according to which there are only French citizens, no matter what their race, religion, heigth, color of eyes, length of fingers, and whatnot, are. As such, our official national statistic office, the INSEE, doesn't conduct any such studies.
Of course behind the scene there are secret databases whose existence is confirmed, and probably more really secret databases. But for a researcher, it is impossible to conduct studies as the data simply isn't there.
Isn't our Republican government wonderful ? No data, no problem.
To go back to your original comment : yes, the French elite has historically descended from Germanic and Celtic tribes. In the Middle Ages, the French kingdom dominated only the northern half of France, and earlier yet, it was part of the Empire of Charlemagne, which was a German. Only later did France come to occupy its "natural frontiers". But even now, if you travel in France, you will notice the people in the north (Dunkirk, or Strasburg) are completely different from the people in the south, the Provence for example, even with a good dose of melting pot. This also showed itself after the industrial revolution : northern France as since then more or more less always subventioned southern France, a bit like Italy with its northern and southern parts.
Isn't the monarchist movement a fringe, quasi-ridiculous element anyways? It seems like something that old, traditionalist Catholics care about, but not anyone else. As for the politics of the monarchs, you seem to be right. Charles Napoleon seems to be a typical liberal, if only because he adopted a Vietnamese child with his second wife. Louis XX is interesting; I've seen that he has written some articles trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the Bourbons (this may, however, be entirely self-serving), has cultivated the image of a traditionalist Catholic, didn't attend his mother's third wedding because he disapproved of her divorce, and is Franco's great-grandson to boot. However, if he doesn't understand the reality of race then this doesn't matter a whet. I'd be interested in your input on this, since my survey of French royalism is limited, in part because of my so-so French.
ReplyDelete---
Yes, you're right. Royalism is irrelevant in today's France. It's not so bad though, as the few Royalists remaining tend to be strongly minded people of a good stock and have a lot of kids (5, 6 at least). It's a small subculture, but at least it's a lot more fertile than the mainstream.
French Royalism itself however, is totally incompatible with the notion of race. You said it yourself, Louis XX is of very mixed heritage, and the Bourbons, contrary to other houses like the Windsor house or the Hohenzollern, slowly diluted their Germanic heritage through various alliances, mirroring the diluting of the French ethnic base through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
Indeed, I contend that the Ancien Régime let himself be destroyed as it had no ethnical base anymore. It had become too federalized, too detached from the myriad of ethnies in the France of 1789. The fact that Louis XVI was a very likable weakling, his brother Provence a vicious and conspiring coward, his other brother Artois a debauched coward, didn't help. The Bourbons failed because they didn't believe anymore in themselves and had become strangers in their own land. This may be why Royalism never succeeded thereafter (although it came surprisingly close in 1871).
"If the French don't say no to this, no Western nation will. And you can forget the non-white immigrants ever feeling "french": most of them will always see themselves as different and adverse to the majority population population and culture, which they will regard as being forced upon them."
ReplyDeleteI agree that immigrants must assimilate in ways like following the laws, learning the language, working and paying taxes. However as far as assimilation into the wider dysfunctions of a non-family oriented and promiscuous culture such as the one France is famous for - um, no.
People from family oriented cultures where marriage is for life and for the sake of the children should not be expected to take up the sexually promiscuous and wanton ways of the French just for the sake of "assimilation".
France takes pride in that reputation so I highly doubt my comment will offend the sensibilities of any Frenchmen reading this.
That being said, I myself turned down an offer from an MNC to work in France for these very reasons.
@Cornelius Troost. Brazil is a rising star, a powerful BRIC country and don't confuse us with the decadent Euro-area or the decadent North America of the 21st century. And by the way, if you are Dutch you must remember how the Dutch were beaten and defeated by the Brazilians in South America !
ReplyDeleteBrazil is a rising star, a powerful BRIC country
ReplyDeleteHave some perspective and keep in mind that one of the things most HBD-aware Americans (e.g., Cornelius Troost) hope to accomplish is to prevent USA from becoming Brazil of North America. (Not intended as a put-down; there are many good things about Brazil - but let's just be realistic... Demography is destiny and Brazil is perpetually a rising star precisely because of its demography).