Quote note (#224)

This needs to be up here as a reference point:

… [L]et’s admit it: Globalization does not automatically benefit France. […] Globalization develops according to principles that correspond neither to French tradition nor to French culture. These principles include the ultraliberal market economy, mistrust of the state, individualism removed from the republican tradition, the inevitable reinforcement of the universal and “indispensable” role of the United States, common law, the English language, Anglo-Saxon norms, and Protestant — more than Catholic — concepts.
— Hubert Védrine, February 9, 2002.

NRx is not French (all confusions apart).

February 25, 2016admin 20 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

20 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Globalization develops according to principles that correspond neither to French tradition nor to French culture.

    Which is why the French Revolutionaries gave it its original name, “internationalism.”


    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 1:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Rucoi Says:

    I spend my summers in the bucolic hills of the Ardèche, makeshift ruins tuned to living quarters. Cattle graze peacefully, sheep likewise. The local farmer makes his living off chestnuts and livestock, still uses an outhouse and lives with his widowed mother. The furthest he’s traveled is an hour east to Valence for a funeral. No one speaks English which provides a welcome opportunity to remain silent. When the house cat dies they toss it over a cliff. The wind never lets up.


    Alrenous Reply:



    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 1:08 am Reply | Quote
  • SydneyTrads Says:

    the republican tradition

    That… “tradition”… was the first step into modernity.

    Welcome to the future you chose, Mlle. Françoise.

    As for “Anglo-Saxon norms“, the tradition of Bolingbroke, Carlyle, Salisbury an even Burke offers a better counter to globalist modernity that anything the French Revolution excreted into the modern world.


    Bob Reply:

    To be fair, France hasn’t really chosen anything. It’s been losing for more than a century and has been going along for the ride. It had no chance of being dominant in Europe with a united Germany, let alone in the world.


    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 1:47 am Reply | Quote
  • D. Says:

    Globalization is in the eye of the beholder, and in any case was an exceptionally vague term to begin with, used to combined various trends that didn’t necessarily have anything to do with each other, generally those viewed negatively by whoever was using the term. As such, it’s not strange to see Hubert Vedrine, the French socialist leader who coined the word hyperpuissance; referring to the United States, complaining about globalization’s supposed threat to France of an “ultra-liberal market economy”, “Ango-Saxon norms”, and so on. Really, he was just angry that the Cathedral wasn’t more French in orientation, and the rest is posturing.


    Bob Reply:

    Right, a lot of the French criticism of “mondialisme” boils down to it not being very French. They’re annoyed that the only people who speak French around the world are Maghrebis and West Africans.


    D. Reply:

    I find these criticisms of globalization from the French particularly ironic in the understanding that much of what they consider globalization stems ultimately from the 18th-century French Enlightenment, following from the notion that cultural and national particularisms should be destroyed in the name of universal Rationalist principles. The French wouldn’t be content with French ideas conquering the world unless their ideas took the French language with them.

    But, as you say, the French find themselves heavily outnumbered by the English-speaking countries, and they’ll kvetch endlessly about this. The Gaullists aren’t much different from the Socialists in this regard (or most other regards).


    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 2:15 am Reply | Quote
  • Stebbing Heuer Says:

    ‘Globalization develops according to principles that correspond neither to French tradition nor to French culture. These principles include the ultraliberal market economy, …’

    Quesnay? de Gournay?



    Jean-Baptiste Say?

    The tradition and culture that gave us the phrase ‘laizzez-faire, laissez-passer’.

    There people really do speak a load of self-serving rubbish.


    Duder Reply:

    In my opinion France is the center of pretty much every problem in the world right now.

    They’re keeping it rather well hidden though.

    The French have a way of avoiding taking responsibility for anything. I hardly see them as Anglo. I am not sure WHAT they are.


    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 3:42 am Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    “Conservatism” of the French Revolution is a new kind of reaction, for sure. Perhaps it would be best described as the twitch of a corpse; however, this has proceeded into digression and this is only the second sentence. In truth, we must devour all claimants to ‘new’ reaction and subsist upon their essences, debased as they have become. In the fourth sentence (here), I will make a claim that this is the arc of the strong arm of neoreaction itself; and in the fifth (yet to come) I will make a shocking statement. To wit, making shocking statements at the end of comments has no point, and you should be ashamed of yourself for hoping I would say something like, “neoreaction IS the cathedral!”

    I’d rather you read my poetry than my insipid commentary any day!


    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 4:15 am Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#224) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 5:35 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    If one day they will ask in which hell I want to go, I going to chose french hell over anglo-saxone one. Much more misérable much less espérer.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Btw in French hell everybody speaks English.


    SVErshov Reply:

    dont know, it is my first time


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Makes sense though. And in English hell, everyone but you has a perfect Oxford accent.

    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 6:42 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    it signifies nothing explicitly if youre going to conflate “french culture” with the Terror. But if you’re honest you know damn well what they mean and really ought to agree that globalization is a common enemy of the proletariat and reactionary. Globalizations not a free market, its labor and capital arbitrage shorting the effects of communist and oligarch while cynically playing the cultural marxists against what these capitalists ought to consider their own people. Its extractive and only sustainable as long as unfree markets exist, and the western nations have anything left to loot. These lower wages which profit multinational or rather antinational corporations and their shareholders are subsidized [to the tune of 30K in the US a year per immigrant], in addition the Natives are subject to higher taxes, job displacement, wage suppression, and inflation of real estate, education, medical care, etc. The cultural costs are incalculable. But worst is that no form of positive incentivization can be used because by definition that would expose the ethnic difference and shortfalls which is racist so instead the incentivization is negative and these newcomers become worse every generation.Extreme forms like jim crow and apartheid are not sustainable over and over they have been abolished. Globalization is an unholy alliance of cultural marxists and bandits looting western nations and splitting the profits between.
    My limited grade school understanding of the french revolution is it was a typical revolution plotted by elites and intellectuals against other elites and intellectuals with better titles, its interesting the monarchy I believe ran the money into the ground and looted the country so much for conservation and monarchy.Im sudenly reminded of an american bumber sticker you see on quarter million dollar RVs- ‘spending our kids inheritance”

    That said France still has the socialist disease and they dont think as straight as they used, these needn’t be fatal; its Globalist multiculturalism that makes it existential and that locks these countries on doom course.They go hand in hand and impose a one size fits all model on every country.The countries are lured in by possible wealth and eventually find out they have signed a variable rate mortgage that cant be paid without their new sect 8 tenants. Sure its stupid of them not to have read the fine print. But who exactly does Soros et al think they are going to sell these quadrillion dollars of CDOs too , aliens? How do these elites think they are going to escape the fates of the South African farmer in 50 years? And does anyone even care about the quality of ones life.
    a patch ought to be able to make choices about its priorities France is known for optimizing culture to an insanely granular level over profit many are willing to pay dearly for the result not a bad model, maybe the Scandinavian are more communal and prefer to forgo the possibility of extreme wealth for the security of socialism, they either are evolved to get away with that or they are not, the whole idea of patches or nations is to find out for oneself and observe what has worked for others and may or may not work for you. culture is part of the evolutionary feedback loop. Its reasonable to think ideas just might work across ethnic lines that are close to you; yes even the Hajinal line [lol] we have some evidence in America and the Anglosphere of this. We also have a lot of evidence northern models do not work out for southern peoples whether the culture is transplanted to their land or their people are transplanted to the norther culture with varying amounts of discipline tried from jim crow to Black lives matter its simply doesnt work.


    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 2:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ahote Says:

    Strange to denounce the US, considering the fact that neocohns are probably the greatest heirs to the French tradition that there are.


    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 4:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    if you dont have neoreaction on your side just create one. it looks like dangerouse precedent. if every party on the right (money not problem) going to create pet neoreaction project for themselves it soon can become neo circus and discredit the real thing.


    Posted on February 25th, 2016 at 5:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nota de Citação (#224) – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on August 9th, 2016 at 8:20 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment