By Way Of Le Pen: How Political Correctness and Immigration Are Destroying the West

August 16, 2006

According to recent reports, French
politician

Jean Marie Le Pen
is being summoned to a French
court to stand trial a second time for remarks made to a
reporter from the rightwing newspaper

Rivarol
in

January 2005.

In his

controversial interview
, Le Pen expressed the
opinion that the

German occupation of France
"wasn`t particularly
inhumane, even if there were some blunders, which were
inevitable
."

The new suit for group defamation
and, by implication, for criminally denying the official
facts about the Holocaust that were issued by the
international
Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946,
is being brought by the

Sons and Daughters of Jewish Deportees of France,
an
organization with long-standing and transparent
connections to the French Left.

A convenient peg for suits of this
kind is the Loi Gayssot, legislation, passed with
the help of the Mitterand government in July 1990. It
builds on a law against collective defamation going back
to the early 1970s. This important law,—both sponsored
by and named for a Jewish Communist deputy in the
National Assembly,

Jean-Claude Gayssot
—criminalized speech that might
offend self-designated victim minorities, while making
sure that denials of Communist mass murder, however
explicit, would be exempted from prosecution.

In a response to anti-Communist
critics in the French Assembly in November 1997 (see
Le Monde
, November 17, 1997), French premier Lionel
Jospin

refused to condemn
the

mass killing
done by the

"anti-fascist"
Joseph Stalin. Nonetheless,
Jospin did not run the risk of being accused of a

délit d`opinion
(a crime of opinion). The
premier, by this act, was not condoning

anti-Semitic
or anti-Islamic deeds or opinions but
doing something deemed less reprehensible, refusing to
be judgmental about

Stalin`s efforts
to deal with a

class enemy.

Although most of the Loi Gayssot
designates and criminalizes hate speech against
religious and ethnic groups,

Article 9, Title 2
condemns specifically the public
expression of views that conflict with the condemnation
of genocide and crimes against humanity enumerated by
the Nuremberg Tribunal. In this postwar judgment by,

among others
, Stalin`s handpicked judges, only
certain kinds of mass murder and violence could incur
legal action. In fact, only those crimes that the
Communist condemned as "fascist" would be subject
to criminal prosecution.

If the

Communists
, who were the coalition allies of

Jospin`s Socialists,
had nothing unkind to say
against Stalin`s or

Mao`s
campaigns to rid their countries of "fascist"
collaborators, what right then do French progressives
have to raise objections?

In his response to the national
Assembly, Jospin accused his critics of treating on an
equal basis two "incommensurable phenomena": a
set of not particularly blameworthy Communist blunders
and the most evil of all evils, "fascist racism."

In Germany, such vile mistakes can
bring legal actions in addition to professional
ruination. Those with insufficiently anti-fascist
opinions can be listed as a "danger to democracy"
by the

governmental Protectors of the Constitution or
else
be dragged into court for "trivializing the Holocaust."
This last misstep might include paying excessive
attention to Stalin`s mass murders, which has been
interpreted as deliberately diverting public attention
from the inexpiable enormity of German fascist crimes.

Whatever may have been Le Pen`s
reason for uttering his statements— including an
irresistible urge to rattle Jewish (and other leftist)
practitioners of a double moral standard—his historical
judgment is certainly defensible.

The Nazi occupation of France was
not exceptional for twentieth-century occupations
carried out by unfriendly invaders. A comparison with
the Soviets`

takeover of the Baltic countries
may be instructive.
There the French Left`s "anti-fascist" former Big
Brother,

then allied to Hitler
, succeeded in carrying out a
far higher proportion of political murder and
deportation than those committed in France during the
German occupation.

Almost half of the Balts were

deported and/or killed under Stalin,
a figure that
was reached in France only for foreign born Jews during
the German Occupation. Most of the French Jewish
indigenes (over 190,000) managed to escape with their
lives, and the vast majority escaped deportation,
largely because of

French Christian
assistance. Of the 330,000 Jews who
were in France before the War, 170,000 stayed in France
and almost all of them survived the Occupation.
Moreover, the German occupation was far less destructive
for French Christians than the German presence in Poland
or Russia was for inhabitants there. And if one takes
into account during WWII, the hideous slaughter wrought
by the

Japanese
on the

Chinese
and

Filipinos
, or the

far worse slaughter
of Jews in the East than in
France, Le Pen`s statements were not as outrageous as
one might guess from looking at the press.

Certainly they are not the sort of
thing that a

civilized country
should throw someone in jail or
threaten with a huge fine and public disgrace for
uttering.

Note, Le Pen`s assertions are also
far less questionable as historical statements than the
Holocaust-denial that they are imagined to illustrate.
They should not be compared to those greatly reduced
figures for the Holocaust that were

associated
with British historian David Irving,
before his recent arrest and incarceration in
anti-fascist

Austria.
This comparison is worth making, despite
the fact that Irving`s fate for his politically
incorrect history was both outrageous and typical. It
was outrageous, given the self-promotion of Western

"liberal democracies,"
which have become
controlled hothouses of

politically correct opinion.
And this jailing of an
aged scholar for his historical judgment made in a
different country at a different time is all too
typical.

Such facts are, not surprisingly,
the stuff of my last two books,

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt
and


The Strange Death of Marxism
,
both of which deal
with the political victory of political correctness.

What I argue in both—but more
explicitly in my last book—is that the victory of

multiculturalism
in the "Western democracies"
has given rise to a totalitarian domination as loathsome
and intrusive as the real Marxist-Leninism that it is
replacing. Whether it goes by the name of
multiculturalism,

sensitivity-training,
or

cultural Marxism
, this combination of ideas and
sentiments has taken over Western administrative states
and their cultural industry.

There is no way of combating this
danger, save for an angry mass rejection of what the
destroyer preaches, and a disempowering of the
mind-snatching states that impose

"tolerance"
by force and through

public education.
Immigration

from the non-Western world
and particularly of

Muslims
, who are now

streaming
into Western and Central Europe, has been
a tool for breaking down the pitifully little that
remains of Western social and cultural authorities.

My books try to understand
immigration expansionists for what they are. Not all of
them are misguided fools. Many of them dislike or fear
what Western societies were and did in the past, and
have set out to reconstruct it by supplanting its old
core population. Others of those who are now engaged in
this enterprise are, of course,

useful idiots
. Here, one thinks of the leadership of
the

Republican Party,
who seem to be reaching out in the

wrong direction
even strategically, as Steve Sailer
points out, by joining the vanguard of the immigration
expansionists.

But the effect of such politics, no
matter what the motivation, is to aggravate the trend
toward cultural breakdown, thereby helping along the
multicultural experiment that is now unfolding
throughout the West.

The demographic erosion of Western
peoples, the war waged by state and culture against
inherited structures of authority, and the "celebration
of diversity
" all belong to the same process of
orchestrated change that has contributed to the legal
difficulties of Jean Le Pen.

It would be an oversimplification
to present his problems exclusively as the result of
Gallic chutzpah, the return of

French Communism,
or the never-ending parade of
Jewish special pleaders who are eager to flail Christian
countries for Nazi crimes.

My works try to contextualize such
a development, and I apologize for the discomfort
that they might cause movement conservatives who bother
to read them
. Like the majority of the
opinion-makers here and in Europe, these "moderate"
conservatives and Republican cheering galleries are on
the wrong side of the real cultural war.

As my late friend

Sam Francis
never tired of pointing out, the

stupid party
may have become an even greater
obstacle to

Western survival
than the

evil party
it formally opposes.




Paul Gottfried
is Professor of
Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the
author of



After Liberalism
,

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt

and


The Strange Death of Marxism
.