Oct. 27, 2012
Vincent Reynouard, well-known French revisionist returns to tell Carolyn’s listeners about his newest video “Le mariage homosexuel: une conséquence logique des droits de l’homme,” in which he explains that it is simply the logical consequence of The Rights of Man (from the French Revolution in 1790′s) and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Vincent’s reasoning is impeccable as he discusses with Carolyn:
- Why there is no other possible outcome of these rights than to legalize marriage to whomever or whatever an individual wishes;
- How the “Natural Order” and/or “God’s Order (Law)” differs from “Human Rights;”
- Why we the people are at fault because the “first law of advertisement” is: If people don’t want it, they won’t buy it;
- Why Adolf Hitler was the only leader who stood against this trend because he said “The common good comes before individual good”;
- Economic ideas are 2nd in importance to cultural ideas in changing society;
- Comments on Robert Faurisson, Bishop Richard Williamson, Fredrick Töben, and travel to Germany;
- Vincent is currently on probation and has a new trial on Nov. 6 in Paris, meaning that life is very difficult;
- Donations are needed and greatly appreciated. Go to http://phdnm.org for latest information.
- 1209 views
Comments (1)
Original comments on this program
carolyn
11 Responses
Hadding
October 27, 2012 at 6:33 pm
This is the comment that I sent, which I think is easy to understand if it isn’t cut short:
For Americans, a good illustration of how “the logic of an idea” forces change would be the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
The men who approved that statement in 1776 may have had a very limited idea, or a complex idea, of what it should mean, but after 1840 it became a weapon in the hands of Radical Abolitionists, and in the 20th century, in the hands of Negro agitators, who addressed a public that had only a simple understanding of what the statement meant.
Those egalitarian agitators pointed to the Declaration of Independence and asked, Do you believe this or not?
The American people would have been ashamed to say that this document was in error. They could claim that Thomas Jefferson did not mean exactly what he said, but this was a very difficult argument. And so the equal-rights agitators prevailed.
Peter
October 27, 2012 at 7:47 pm
“all men are created equal” :
I always see that as: equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.
Wouldn´t such an understanding of equality be adequate?
Carl
October 27, 2012 at 8:38 pm
I haven’t heard of a single Founder who believed that the races are equal in nature or ability. It was really dumb not to put something explicit into the Constitution. The Founders were versed in political and social conflict, having seen it in European history. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was certainly a good step, but it wasn’t enough, apparently.
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.
Hadding
October 27, 2012 at 11:26 pm
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.
Peter
October 28, 2012 at 4:53 am
In the sense of “Taking our own side”, equal opportunity is certainly not the right thing to do; as we take our own side and have no reason to give anyone who is not “we” any opportunity.
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.
Carolyn
October 28, 2012 at 10:45 am
“Taking our own side” is vital for Whites to understand. How many times and in how many places at crucial times in our history have we taken up for the “underdog,” against our own interests? Maybe more on this Monday night.
Hadding
October 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm
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.
Armor
October 28, 2012 at 8:22 pm
“Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité…”
A better version of that slogan is this:
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité… ou la mort ! (= or death!)
As seen here.
Armor
October 28, 2012 at 8:31 pm
“Vincent is currently on probation and has a new trial on Nov. 6 in Paris”
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.
Armor
October 29, 2012 at 11:36 pm
There have been polls showing that French people support gay marriage, but it’s hard to believe in the honesty and neutrality of the poll takers.
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.
Alexander from Flanders
November 5, 2012 at 12:19 am
I agree with Vincent that video is the way to go. You can reach more people with a short and clear video then a book of 300 pages. Some do not want to hear that, but it is the simple truth.