minute 55:40′
– “What is the principal reason for change ?”
Reynouard: “I think the principal reason is the logic of the ideas.”

Ideas evolving by themselves without human interference ? I fail to understand why Reynouard doesn’t say that the ideology of the human rights is mainly a Jewish thing. In France, it is mainly Jewish activists who say that France is a proposition nation based on the principles of the 1789 revolution. And it is mainly Jewish activists who say that racial awareness is incompatible with the 1789 principles.

The 1948 United Nations declaration of human rights is a Jewish thing. So is the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, and it is mostly about the rights of third-world people to settle in the EU. And it was rejected by the French in the 2005 referendum, together with the rest of the EU treaty for a EU constitution. But the result of the referendum has been disregarded by the European Union.

Next time he is invited, it would be interesting to ask him whether he thinks what he says in his defense has any impact of the decision of the judges. I don’t think it has any influence. I think those trials are a total joke run by Jews. No need to take a lawyer.

A better version of that slogan is this:
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité… ou la mort ! (= or death!)

As seen here.

2)at least, equal opportunity, applied to non-whites, should after relatively short time reveal the failing of the non-whites.

Not necessarily. While Blacks will tend to fare badly without special help, other groups are capable enough to have some success, and if they work cohesively for the advancement of their group while we live as carefree individuals, they will have success out of proportion to their ability.

Another fault in that argument is that Blacks et al. will just go on public support if they fail in the economic competition. You can push for cutting off that public support all you want but it won’t happen because the consequences will seem inhumane and intolerable. We don’t even allow dogs to starve to death in our midst.

I recognize here the tacit theory behind crypto-racist support for libertarianism. It’s not well considered. We need conscious and deliberate racial policies for a real solution.

But
1) WITHIN our own group, the principle of equal opportunity should prevail, so as to enable selection of the best
2)at least, equal opportunity, applied to non-whites, should after relatively short time reveal the failing of the non-whites. That would become obvious after some time (and hence end the employment of non-whites); while with “equal outcome”, it becomes less obvious, can be obscured more.

“Equal outcome”-equality is totally sick, its justification is that the unequal outcome proves the inequality of the opportunity, not the inequality of the contestants. Typical liars-crap to damage Whites.

I haven’t heard of a single Founder who believed that the races are equal in nature or ability.

The assumption that all humans are mentally equal at birth is called the tabula rasa “theory” and Jefferson probably got it from John Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke is recognized as the source of some other features of the Declaration.

Thomas Jefferson was only 33 when he wrote the Declaration. As he grew older he gradually concluded from experience that the races were not equal.

I don’t know that I believe in ‘equal opportunities’ either. What if I have a business, and I want to hire a White who (somehow-lol) happens not to be as good as some Negro. Well, I want to hire the White. It’s my business. (The White, of course, is a much sounder long-term investment, in every respect, not to mention infinitely more enjoyable to be around!)

Thanks Carolyn, I love Vincent Reynouard days.