REFLECTIONS ON THE FRENCH ELECTION: THE FLIP SIDE OF THE "POZ"

by Andy Nowicki

Marine Le Pen's loss in the French election, while expected and predictable, has nevertheless provoked an avalanche of unseemly (but also sadly predictable) social media "sperging out" amongst nationalist-minded West-defenders opposed to globalism and mass Third World immigration.

Comments on Facebook and Twitter range from the despairingly "black-pilled" ("France is over," "France is cucked,") to the forlornly resigned ("So long France, it was nice while it lasted"), to the openly angry ("Fuck you, France!") to the humorously ironic ("France surrenders again!" "Can we have our freedom fries back?")

Some indulgences in unreflective hyperbole can be cathartic and is to be expected, of course. In some ways, it is a product of our times; we receive our news instantly, and we engage in instant, emoji-laden reactions: if it's what we wanted, then we aren't just pleased, we are giddy; if it isn't what we wanted, then we aren't merely disappointed, we are such that the end must be nigh.

In truth, the Le Pen loss, while of course an unwelcome turn of events, marks a fit occasion to observe the flip side of what I referred to in a recent article as the "poz paradox":

"Now one inherent contradiction of the sort of thinking characterized by the 'pozz'-fed mentality—more formally known as Cultural Marxism—is that its adherents are as reflexively ethnomasochistic and xenophilic as they are smugly assured of the superiority of their own values. Pozzers, that is, find their own whiteness to be a curse and are forever irritatingly eager to signal how enlightened they are in accepting and promoting a 'diverse,' that is, a less white, West.

The problem is that the nonwhites whom they fetishize tend not to dig the 'pozz,' especially when it comes to feminism and the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism, or whatever the latest deviancy-fad might be. In fact, nonwhite cultures are, in their treatment of women and gays. mostly quite objectionable by even moderate Western standards, much less a fully-fledged “pozzed” perspective.

This paradox at the heart of the 'pozz'—which endorses an unquestioning inclusivity towards multiculturalism, and employs censorious ostracization of every native Westerner who objects, even in some offhand manner, to the notion of being ethnically replaced by cultural outsiders—can be located in the fact that non-Western cultures are invariably male-chauvinistic and perversity-averse to a far greater degree than even the most repulsively sexist and violently homo-hating cultural Westerner."

In that article, I recalled how, during a family trip to Europe in 1997, I wondered what would happen once Muslim immigration reached "critical mass," to the point where, due to the sheer numbers of the "immivaders," the modern European tenets of secularism and moral permissiveness were threatened.

This matter wasn't at all clear two decades ago. In fact, pre-9/11, some Christian conservatives even flirted with the possibility of forming a sort of cross-cultural alliance to take a stand against the repugnant corrosiveness of the "cult Marx" cult. A book by Catholic author Peter Kreeft, provocatively titled Ecumenical Jihad, made the case that believing Christians, Jews, and Muslims should team up to battle cultural ills like abortion, contraception, and the push for mainstreaming of deviancy. 

For a time, it seemed to some that the "browning" of the the Occident may in fact be a blessing in disguise, since the nonwhite immigrants tended to be traditionalist in orientation, and might bring a measure of balance to an increasingly out-of-control liberalized, degenerate, "pozzed" white West. 

Between the two irreconcilable poles of political correctness--xenophilia on the one hand and the enforcement of liberalized sexual mores on the other--something had to give. And recently, as I noted, something has given, particularly in the light of the new migrant crisis, which has accelerated the general scope of the Third World immivasion taking place:

"Now, of course, I no longer wonder about how this pozz-paradox will resolve. It has been overwhelmingly decided—by whom, exactly, I can’t say I know—that the West must accept an innumerable incoming tide of Third World migrants and “refugees.”

A blind eye has deliberately been turned to the violent and misogynistic behavior indulged in by many of these people—who also seem, for some reason, to overwhelmingly be men, instead of families—and one is commonly smeared as a “Nazi” if one so much as notices that the participants in atrocities like Cologne, or Paris, or Brussels, or… London, are always of a certain non-Western ethnic makeup and theological mindset. Rapes of women and children are ignored by those who are supposed to be concerned about “rape culture,” since it would ostensibly be racist and hateful to draw anyone’s attention to those hordes of badly-behaving brown-skinned men. Violence against gays are only discussed if the gay-bashers in question don’t hew to the Muhammadan mindset; Muslim-on-gay attacks, meanwhile, all but get the all-clear."

Recently we were treated to a prominent European minister of state stating that he might favor forcing ALL women of his country to wear the hijab, the better to show proper deference to the Muslim population.

Again, something had to give. Feminism, even of the modest, old-fashioned non-obstreperous kind (say, the kind that thinks it's okay not to cover your head in public), must give way to mandated acts of ethnomasochistic virtue signaling on behalf of the dusky-complexioned exotics now among us.

*************

But the flip side of this shift must also be considered. Today, we have candidates like Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen who are lefties to the max, except on the question of Muslim immigration. Yet their dissent on this one issue has become so critical that it obscures all others. 

Some will defend this standpoint, on the basis that at this point we must prioritize this matter, since it is now a sheer question of survival, a struggle to conserve Western identity in some recognizable form. Yet thinking this way only ignores the question often raised by Alt-Righters in a different context; when opposing American "conservatism," it has become a commonplace to scoff and ask, "What about contemporary America is worth conserving?"

Well, could not the very same question be asked about Europe, as it is currently constituted, or about the white West, generally speaking? Do we want the West to survive, even if it is drenched in degeneracy, even if it has lost its honor and integrity to the appalling anti-values of hedonism, the cult-Marx cult, even, that is, if it remains "pozzed" as ever?