Race does exist, blacks hate the white race, and Jews hate the gentiles. What are you going to do about it?

Bravo Marion!

America is as needful of this brilliant, courageous and principled reassertion of the values of the free society as it was some 250 years ago in looking to Enlightenment France to find its identity as a constitutional republic.

Race doesn’t exist? Sounds kinda cucky to me.

I think what France really needs is a Second Amendment: aux barricades, mes amis!

Perfectly stated. Bend a knee to no human being. Better to die standing.

Beautiful. Thank you for standing up for your national heritage, instead of kneeling in shame. Your point of view needs no apology, there is nothing to apologize for.

-R

It’s ok if the oppressed and tortured name the causes for their oppression, which is clearly racism. But that is not to say that the racist logic of the oppressors would be by any means human or correct.

– That is the mechanism, according to which this thing works. it is a little “speech-machine” (Deleuze/ Guattari). Very handy, works all the time, never lets you down, day in day out – a VW Golf of the present-day mentality, so to speak. Very popular around the world, too.

Why is Haiti so poor? Because Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy

She is right about French Theory being consumed at US universities and then being regurgitated into Europe. Many ideas which come out of continental Europe, which sometimes make some sense, find their way into the American academic and student mind. Strangely, something happens to those ideas at that point. They become simplified, strained through the American social filter and then taken way too seriously. Perhaps it is the age-old problem the Anglos have with abstraction. Unfortunately, given the preponderance of US power and its cultural organs, these ideas find their way back into Europe, removed from the environment in which they germinated in the US, after they were discarded 20 years ago and are taken up anew by the masses.

Wow, can we run her for POTUS? We already had one foreigner, so why not another?

“I am personally advocating for French nationalists and identitarians to declare themselves indigenous European groups.”

Guillaume, I sort of like the idea for the grim reason that it recognizes the profound weakness of the Euro-American “position” founded on 2000+ years of “commonality” (yep, interspersed by plenty of blood-letting, too). There ought to be a sober, mainstreamable American equivalent available.

“I do not need to apologize as a white woman and as a French woman”

Absolutely.

Black Lives Matters groups – do not seek respect, but rather humiliation and submission, not tolerance

They seek both, they just won’t find the former where they are looking for it or how they are looking.

They need external respect, because they humiliate themselves in lieu of developing self-respect; just as they feel they need to humiliate others, because they misattribute the ability to do so for actually being respected.

Taking “pleasure” in having the “status of a perpetual victim” is self-humiliation.

This is not to steal responsibility from them, but to point out that they only know what they know; and it seems to be very little.

I wouldn’t blame America. France is the font et origo of all of this: Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, etc., etc. American universities just parrot derivative thinking from the French source.

And let’s not forget the Jacobins. In fact, France is the origin of this “tear these structures down!” kind of revolutionary thinking.

“And yet, a demonstration of just 20,000 people in front of the Palace of Justice was all that was needed – I recall that the yellow-vests represented 250,000 people at the height of the demonstrations – for the government to give way on all the demands….”

Well, the reasons for this should be obvious:

BLM is zionist controlled.

Yellow-Vests are not.

Because blacks so flippantly kill other blacks lives and treat each other like animals, blacks depend on whites to lend value to black lives. Blacks have outsourced the valuation of black lives to whites.

When blacks kill blacks by the bushel in Africa, it’s just business as usual. Blacks are so used to killing other blacks that they figure it’s just how things will be. There’s no way blacks are going to spare black lives. Black kill blacks and laugh and taunt while they’re doing it.

Then, the only way blacks can make black lives matter is by having whites care. It’s like dogs fight dogs and rely on humans to value dog lives. More is expected of higher humans than from fellow dogs who just bark and bite.
So, it is up to whites to care about black suffering in Africa. And even though blacks don’t care about blacks killing blacks, whites must care OH SO VERY MUCH about an odd white person killing a black person. Whites must think and emote from a higher place.

So, in a way, blacks worship whites as the god-race. Without whites to bestow meaning to black lives, black lives are just ugabugans and savages who are whupping and killing one another.

When animals kill animals, we just see it as the natural way, and there’s nothing that can be done about it. But when humans kill animals(or certain animals like lion, gorilla, elephant, etc), we all upset because humans, as higher beings, must have kindly dominion over the animals.
White-black relations is like human and animal OR god and man.

And yet, blacks also see themselves as the god-race that should be worshiped by whites. Why? Because blacks dominate sports and pop music and became the demigods of globo pop culture. Also, as black guys beat up white guys, black race now sees the white race as weak and wussy. And whites are so awed with black athletes and studs that they are a bunch of cucky-wucks.

Still, blacks still sense that whites are nicer, more civilized, and more advanced. And on some level, whites still see blacks as savage, animal-like, and oogity-boogity. So, without nice whites to care about black lives, black lives don’t have much meaning.

Whites are like a weak god, an oxymoron, in the eyes of blacks. Blacks look up to whites to validate black lives, but blacks also see whites as weak and wussy, to push around and bully.

Blacks are like divine animals to whites. Blacks are brutish and thuggish, but because those traits made them the top idols of sports and sex in our debased and degraded pop culture, whites look up to blacks as awesome beings. Whites look up to blacks for low reasons, but the low is the new high in the world of the new normal.

Weak gods and divine animals. This will not end well.

Marion Maréchal is sounding rather civ-nat, rather than ethno-statist … and that may end up an achilles heel in dealing with what is happening in France among the various ethnic sectors who collectively are today’s ‘French’

One thing in Europe that is being increasingly noted, is that it is the EU’s large countries which are being most ravaged by difficult problems and some oppression

Big problems are seen in Spain, France, Germany, UK, Italy

Whereas a certain okay quality of life, and even higher freedom, is maintained, in Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Czechia, Portugal and so on

It’s almost as if the small countries with populations under 12 million or so, and geographically compact as well, have an aspect of being essentially big villages, where it is more difficult to run giant scams on the populace

Whereas in big countries, where the oligarchies have more billions to deploy and more intensity in seeking domination, and actions of the centre government are more remote, things are spinning out of control

France itself was formed over the centuries with some rather authoritarian crushing of regional minorities … is it perhaps partly entropy from that forced ancient project, helping to undermine France now?

Great choice. You already are Israel’s slaves, so another Zionist puppet crushing your neck won’t make a big difference.

Marion Marechal-Le Pen’s is the biological daughter of Roger Auque, a “journalist” and militant Zionist who, posted in Lebanon, was very close to Uri Lubrani, the Israeli governor of the “security belt” in occupied South Lebanon. Auque was later arrested and kept hostage for a few months by Hezbollah for spying for Israel. His friend, Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, documented Auque’s outstanding services to the Zionist state in a whole chapter of his book ” The Secret War With Iran“.

Auque enthusiastically covered all Zionazi imperial wars: Yugoslavia, Iraq. As a nepotistic reward for his life-long efforts, Hebraic arch-Zionist president Sarkozy appointed Auque France’s ambassador to Eritrea, where his best friend was Israel ambassador Guy Feldman.

In his posthumous memoir, Auque proudly revealed having worked as a Mossad spy for all of his life. He also confirmed being Marechal’s father and being very close to her, a fact she had initially tried to conceal by suing a news outlet that made her real filiation public.

Marechal herself is being groomed by Netanyahu to whom she is close. Zionist money has been used to set up an academic institution which she manages despite her and will undoubtedly produce many Israel-friendly “White Nationalists”.

Enjoy the Zio s… on you nose and enjoy watching Black people being murdered. You deserve what you got.

There is this debate about ethno-nationalism vs civic nationalism, but even civic nationalism can work ONLY under a system that is broadly ethno-nationalist or racio-nationalist.

For minorities to go along with the system, they must acknowledge that the nation is generally defined by the dominant majority. That way, there can be peace between majority and minorities. Majority can tolerate the minorities who accept the majority as numerically and culturally dominant. So, civic nationalism can work under a tolerant ethno-nationalist or racio-nationalist system.

When was the golden age of civic nationalism in the US? It was following WWII to the mid 60s.

Whites changed their tune and were willing to be nicer to minorities and be less white-centric. But it was understood US was mostly a white euro-nation. And minorities accepted white America as the dominant Core America and sought to fit in as good minorities.

But things began to change for four reasons.

1. Jews, though a minority, began to gain ruling power, and that meant minority-centrism would rule America. As minority-elite, Jews sought to de-legitimize white Christian majority America.

2. Blacks realized they can whup whitey and that whitey was afraid of them. Thus, they lost respect for the ‘fa**oty ass white boy’ and came to look upon white power as illegitimate.

3. Mass non-white immigration that threatened to turn whites into a minority.

4. PC indoctrination that divided the white race into two broad factions: morally defensive white conservatives and self-hating white liberals who hated white cons even more.

Thus, civic nationalism has no future in the US.

Correct! And I already mentioned that this Durocher guy is Jewish, right?

So she’s basically a French Tommy Robinson?

“race doesn’t exist, kill all white people!!”

I love her so much I can’t stand it. I wish she were some sort of Universal Queen of Real Christians. I might move to Lyon in hopes of catching a glimpse of her.

For those of us who still live in caves, she gave a historic address at a gathering in the U.S.A. called “CPAC 2018.” Her quotation from Mahler was priceless.

If you don’t appreciate her you are a follower of the Dark Lord.

Mais non, mon ami. Haiti is poor because the Knee-grows slaughtered all of the French Whites.
A more appropriate comparison would be that of St. Nelson of Mandela’s ANC land grab, opposed by Zulu King Zwelithini. He understands the Boers are feeding South Africa.
https://caldronpool.com/zulus-are-backing-white-farmers-in-the-fight-against-land-expropriation-heres-why/
Similarly, Khoi-San King Khoebaha wants no part of St. Nelson’s Bantu invaders and has declared independence.
The Khoi-San are genetically different than the Bantu/Zulu invaders.

And so we must from today fight and resist this trend. We must be ready and vigilant.

“Vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vive la France!

I notice you did not refer to the substance of what she said. It is what she says that infuriates you. Your ridiculous post is no more than an eruption of uncontrolled female jealousy.

So she’s basically a French Tommy Robinson?

It is a very relevant comparison, which highlights the larger framework for political control currently deployed in Europe.

Since the end of WW2, the Zionist ideology has been consistently promoted from within the far Left under the Trotskyste faction, very small in numbers but very powerful in influence. Not at all within the far Right, which was extremely ostracised because of its supposed anti-Semitism and alleged Nazi sympathies.

A noticeable political turn occurred after 9/11 with the rise of politicians such as Gert Wilders in the Netherlands, representing a new far Right claiming to represent the voices of native Europeans, but very controlled by Israeli organisations.

At the same time the US was hit by the 9/11 tragedy, a false flag which legitimised a global “war of civilisations” , a parallel political engineering movement was launched in Europe, aiming at setting indigenous Europeans against the Muslim immigrant communities. This cleavage could be much further deepened after the 2008 financial crisis and the economic distress it brought. The GCF also sealed the failure of all traditional political parties, and required the PTB’s to take over any alternative political forces on the rise.

Veteran far Right leaders, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen (Front National) in France or Nick Griffiths (British National Party) in the UK, were too independent, or too notoriously anti-Israel to be co-opted. So Zionists PTB’s went on to create their own “alt-Right” leaders, Robinson in the UK and Marechal in France.

Jacques Attali, arguably France’s Nr 1 tribal shadow kingmaker, even cheekily let it slip in public that France’s next President could be female, a first for the country and a transparent hint to Marion Marechal.

In France, this public Zionist turn and appeal to the far/alt-Right is embodied by journalist and political analyst Eric Zemmour, who is more Islamophobic than any French gentile would ever dare to be. Interestingly, Zemmour is now ALSO involved with creating a far-Left “Front Populaire” with philosopher Michel Onfray. In summary, the inevitable disintegration of the traditional representation is being catered for by taking control of both populist sides of the political spectrum.

At a time where History is accelerating, we seem to completely lack of analytical tools to understand our current predicament; so everybody form their own opinion the best way they can.
Mine is that the greatest danger facing humankind is another World War, and that the Nr 1 force pushing to such disastrous outcome is Israel, even more so than the USA.

The alt-Right will be remembered for what they clearly are: the stupid and obsequious pawns of the Zionist global takeover. The far-Left, for all their flaws, have at least the merit to be anti-war.

Correct! And I already mentioned that this Durocher guy is Jewish, right?

Is he? He does not sound as a Zionist anyway.

I like Durocher’s articles: he is cultured and courteous, displays much originality in his ideas and covers a wide-ranging scope of subject on which he writes very pleasantly. It is always interesting reading him. And he definitely is a genuine reflection of the French alt-Right’s state of mind, just more cultured

I think Durocher is victim of the catastrophist mindset which is created and maintained by Zionist mind-control organisations in order to submit people into abject fear and make them accept the unacceptable: curtailing liberties, fascism, war.

The PTB’s are obviously trying to convince us that it is their way or no way: Moi ou le chaos, my way or chaos, to paraphrase Charles de Gaulle. Well, the truth is that there won’t be chaos for anybody if the Zionazi global order collapse, not even for Israel.

An intelligent writer like Durocher should understand that it is Zio-dominated Western elites’ pre-eminence which is doomed, NOT Western people, who have incomparably contributed to human civilisation and will remain indispensable to its future for centuries to come.
He should look towards the East, look forward for the coming multipolar world, and get rid of Zio-instilled nihilism.

Some will object: this phenomenon is not really catching on and the excesses are only present in the United States. Yes and no. Unfortunately, the trends that we experience are for the most part are merely imported with ten years’ delay from the United States. And so we must from today fight and resist this trend.

Since the US is in the lead – with some luck, it will spectacularly go down the tubes, giving a warning to Europe before it’s too late.

Victorian England was built on the fear induced by the French Revolution.

Our complete lack of analytical tools.

There are those educated minds, even now, in America, who have the knowledge and tools? What they lack is a platform where the truth may be told.

The blacks have ruled Haiti for over 200 years. Interminable night. Without whites, all blacks would live in bleakest darkness, but they would be unconscious of their inferiority.

There is no such thing as a “zionazi”. The world order we see today is a direct result of the National Socialist defeat in the Second Zionist War. You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.

Haiti as an example is widely underrated. I agree. One could name a few African states, too.

And what really hurts is the obvious inferiority, I agree too. What would a decent society have to make of it? – I think this is a serious question and it is utterly dumb, to turn it into a taboo.

PS
Or of Rap-music? – What is it good for? – For sure a minor thing, but even though – to not even ask such questions seems to not work out in the end.

Zionist? What’s that? The guy is a Hungarian Jew trying to pass off as a Frenchman!

Look guys, to make all of your lives easy, even in moderation: Cioran was a Romanian (of Transilvanian (old Hungarian) origin) philosopher that was pretty much fascist in the 1930s, and wrote a lot then. Later on, this guy Durocher translated from ROMANIAN (the original and only existing versions) in French some of Cioran’s writings. Now, who would have enough local culture to translate the language of a Cioran (repressing the Romanians, of course)? Moreover, who would have been allowed to do this? I think the reply is pretty obvious: a Hungarian Jew!

Also, he’s supposed to be pretty old now but he keeps writing faster and faster…

There is no comparison here mon ami between the way Haiti was brought to eat mud cakes nowadays and South Africa. The Haiti’s economy was totally destroyed in the prolonged wars they sustained against the plantation owners, the French Royal Army, the British Army, the French Revolutionary and then Napoleon’s armies. Utter destruction. Then they were forced into compensation. That is not the case for South Africa.

The only country that could be used as a comparison for what blacks could do is Ethiopia, which was the only independent African polity ever. And from what I have been reading, their economy is booming now…

Wake up mon ami. See how much abandon had the French in exploiting others, i.e. Indochina, Algeria, and probably had a hand in Belgian Congo. The French were the biggest promoters on the overthrown of Qaddafi in Libya, with the intention of getting possession of all the waterworks done in southern Libya by the former regime.

The French were the biggest promoters on the overthrown of Qaddafi in Libya

All correct, but I would like to bring a small precision on the subject of Libya.

In a nutshell, the late President Qaddafi signed his death decree on the day he publicly revealed to having funded Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidential campaign.

After this declaration was made, a colour “revolution” was masterminded by Sarkozy’s tribal fellow Bernard-Henry Levy in Paris in Oct and Nov 2010, three months before the alleged Benghazi insurrection.
Levy secretly worked with Nouri El-Mesmari, who was Qaddafi’s head of protocol and betrayed him. Levy also enrolled disgruntled businessmen from Cyrenaica whose drug and people trafficking had been repressed by Qaddafi.

When fleeing for his life during his last hours in Syrte, President Qaddafi was hounded by French planes, which communicated his exact position to the NATO pet executioners, after spreading his convoy with soporific gases to make sure he would be caught.

Sarkozy and Levy are Israel-firsters and fanatic Zionists: they killed Qaddafi primarily for Israel, while hiding behind the French flag.

To honor Madam Marion Maréchal Le Pen and her eminent, brilliant, courageous, and beautiful mother, Madam Marion Anne Perrine (“Marine”) Le Pen — and ALSO the France I knew (1963-1995) while it (save post 1980 Paris) remained a great nation of sublime culture — I shall set this comment’s beginning text in the most beautiful language, French.

Ayant travaillé deux fois en France (une fois en tant qu’agriculteur, une fois comme un membre de la faculté de droit d’une université française) et ayant visité la France plusieurs fois, je suis amoureux de la magnifique culture FRANÇAISE, de son art et son art de la diplomatie, de la philosophie [Descartes, Voltaire, Rousseau, Albert Camus (pas seulement un romancier), Jacques Derrida, Paul-Michel Foucault…….], de son architecture, de sa littérature et de sa poésie, de ses films, sa musique baroque et renaissance……. Je suis une francophile.

Alas, I forgot to block-quote my June 14, 2020 at 11:39 pm GMT comment’s two quotes of Madam Marion Maréchal Le Pen. Here are corrections:

Per Madam Maréchal Le Pen:

I do not have to excuse myself for the death of a criminal, Adama Traoré, an accidental death which took place following an arrest which was not linked to his skin color, but to the crime which he and a part of his family apparently committed.

Per Madam Maréchal Le Pen:

I do not have to excuse myself because I did not colonize. I have colonized no one. I have enslaved no one. In the same way, none of these political groups and activists have been colonized or enslaved.

Snif. She’s right:

Some will object: this phenomenon is not really catching on and the excesses are only present in the United States. Yes and no. Unfortunately, the trends that we experience are for the most part are merely imported with ten years’ delay from the United States.

It used to be the other way around. We would catch radical ideas from the French 10 years later.

Of course the French Rev was an American revolution manifesting a decade later in France.

As Mathieu Bock-Côté[5] says, by categorizing people solely by skin color, we abolish nations, peoples, religions, and civilizations. I think this is an absolutely atrocious world in which we first of all have to look at skin color before judging each of our acts.

Yes and no. Blacks adopt the broadest category (race) because their nations, peoples, religions, and civilizations haven’t amounted to much. And I dont see how it abolishes it. I dont see why you cant have both/and.

Skin color is a big, big deal, though. It’s not superficial at all. Blacks know it isn’t. Time whites recognize it, consciously at least.

Ethiopia, which was the only independent African polity ever.

Ethiopia was a USSR satellite from 1974-1991

These attitudes are un-optical for the purposes of a Third World audience.

I believe we have to encourage the growth of “Anti-Emigration” sentiments, in addition to anti-immigration movements in the First World.

For reasons of demographic heft, along with the dominance of Third Worldism by Western liberals, we will be paying an indemnity whether we like it or not. Perhaps it will be in the form of nationalizations, which would be the mildest result. Or it could be a permanent head tax, along with “migration as a human right”

I see less evidence that colonialism explains the wealth disparity of First vs Third, as financial data seems to indicate that colonies were largely a waste pursued for elite prestige. But feelings don’t care about your facts.

The better argument would be to point out the decadence of Western society, as a reason to deglamorize the vision that many migrants have.

Jean Raspail is dead, unfortunately his dystopian vision is not.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ny-jean-raspail-dead-20200613-v2y44k7nrzb5les3l5fk5ydiim-story.html

RIP author of The Camp of the Saints.

@Iris

Since the end of WW2, the Zionist ideology has been consistently promoted from within the far Left under the Trotskyste faction, very small in numbers but very powerful in influence.

I know that Trotskyites are unpopular but there is absolutely no need to lie about this. All prominent Trotskyists and their parties: Vanessa Redgrave and WRP, SWP, Fourth International, etc. have been staunch enemies of Zionism and Israel to the point of giving unconditional support to all Palestinian groups and Arab regimes fighting Israel regardless of their leadership.

Whereas a certain okay quality of life, and even higher freedom, is maintained, in Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Czechia, Portugal and so on

I would definitely exclude Belgium from the list. Things are worse than in France. Also, the Republic of Ireland is another small country with a massive “diversity” problem. Portugal and Spain have, pro rata, similar problems. Generalisation is difficult.

These attitudes are un-optical for the purposes of a Third World audience.

I am ancient. I adhere to the contents and philological bent of the Oxford English Dictionary’s second edition. I contemn advocates and advocacy of drift-grammar and drift-usage. I require that assertions obtain form sound logic worked with punctilious analysis of pertinent facts. Therefore, I cannot credit, or even understand, (a) your proposition “These attitudes are un-optical” or (b) your proposition “for the purposes of a Third World audience.”

Proposition (a)’s term “un-optical” is not, and could not be, an entry in any intelligent English-language lexicon, and, being conscripted to act as predicate-adjective modifier of the nominative term “attitudes,” the term “un-optical” plummets into some intelligence-swallowing black hole — and pulls the term “attitudes” with it. Cf. “un-circumcisional perceptions.”

I am no defender of the French. DeGaulle was asked to leave Canada after meddling in internal affairs. Their history of colonialism makes the British and Spanish look like saints in comparison. I`m not even suggesting the slaves were wrong to revolt. Yes, there has been a newer colonialism with the US, but there have been a heck of a lot of corrupt Papa Docs and Baby Docs with their Tonton Macoute`s over the years, as well.

In the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of my comment of June 15, 2020 at 10:52 pm GMT (comment # 48), the term “form” of “I require that assertions obtain form sound logic” ought to be the term “from” — hence: “I require that assertions obtain from sound logic worked with punctilious analysis of pertinent facts.”

I apologize for committing the typing error.

Sarkozy and Levy are Israel-firsters and fanatic Zionists: they killed Qaddafi primarily for Israel, while hiding behind the French flag.

But, explaining why she would not genuflect to Black Lives Matter, Madam Marion Marechal Le Pen said:

I [Marion Marechal-Le Pen] do not have to excuse myself because I [Marion Marechal-Le Pen]did not colonize. I [Marion Marechal-Le Pen] have colonized no one. I [Marion Marechal-Le Pen] have enslaved no one. In the same way, none of these political groups and activists have been colonized or enslaved.

Sarkozy and Levy are, alone, responsible for their own criminal acts. Their criminal conduct is not the conduct of French culture or the FRENCH people. The same is true of the conduct of monsters like Charles de Gaulle.

You may argue that French culture and the FRENCH people share criminal responsibility because they did not act to stop Sarkozy, Levy, de Gaulle, Marshal Philippe Pétain, Napoleon, Louis XIV, Catherine di Medici, Louis XII, ……Charlemagne……

But, if you are honest, you will admit that, in any nation, THE PEOPLE very rarely have power enough to prevent the nation’s leaders’ committing their immense criminal acts, partly because THE PEOPLE lack power or ability needed to resist the propaganda and leadership-contrived warped education systems that disable THE PEOPLE from apprehending the criminality of their leaders’ acts.

Like Madam Marion Marechal Le Pen, I, too, will not genuflect to Black Lives Matter. I am not responsible for the hurts or deprivations Blacks have suffered or suffer now. And while I have worked, even suffered economic loss, to resist manifest anti-Black racism, I deny that I am obliged, legally or morally, to do more than avoid hurting Blacks simply because they are Black.

If an armed Black tried to rob me as I walked dark a street late at night, I (an Aikidoka) would kill him, instantly, without feeling a pinch of regret, even for a millisecond.

Aikidoka? See this:

See also my comment of June 14, 2020 at 11:39 pm GMT (comment # 39).

Her national heritage is White – she took a knee on that.

Tepid civic nationalism is the center which cannot hold in the inevitable polarization that multiculturalism & globalism has unleashed.

As much as Ms. LePen would apparently like to deny it, she was born wearing her uniform and will die wearing it as well.

Her grandfather, a much more admirable and courageous man, took pride in that.

“including Louis Althusser, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault. Critics contend that much of this intellectual current represents nothing more than pompous gibberish”
Althusser & Foucault have some value, if read with common sense. Derrida (& Lucan & Barthes) is not only gibberish, but toxic gibberish. Their books should carry (psychological) health warnings, like tobacco products.

“. Blacks realized they can whup whitey and that whitey was afraid of them. Thus, they lost respect for the ‘fa**oty ass white boy’ and came to look upon white power as illegitimate.”
This is where the problems came in. By the 60’s it should have been clear that the tide of history was turning against overt signs of racism.
In theory, had white America been seen to be willing to give up some of the more crude displays of racism (ie lunch counters, back of the bus, voting, housing etc) White America may have been better able to control the pace & kind of change.
Unfortunately, reactionary elements, not only in the Sth, made the whole process an agonising inch by inch retreat from Moscow saga.
In short, blacks were offered up a feast of resentment, which lasts to this day.
So — today — there is essentially nothing that can be done, except, to deal with the more crude, overt behavior that can be interpreted as “racist”.
Winding back police power & brutality would be a positive for everyone. The police are the cutting edge of Elite power: blunting that power a little will also send a message to Elites. (I am NOT suggesting anything as inane as “defunding the police”. However, the ease with which police can brutalise the public without consequences does need change. Civil asset forfeiture is another egregious example of police powers.)

You haven’t looked at Calvinism or the English reformation then.

The US amplifies this nonsense across the world, even if it originated in France.

I know that Trotskyites are unpopular but there is absolutely no need to lie about this.

Completely irrelevant. We are talking about actual political power, not celebrities, nor fringe organisations without any leverage.

The UK being historically and intrinsically very conservative, Trotskyist presence in the British political system is zero. The only minimal exception is possibly Alistair Darling who, allegedly, was a Trotskyist during his years at University. If true, he made great amend by joining the most Zionist Labour government that ever existed under Tony Blair.

In France, on the contrary, Trotskyist parties have had a continued presence in the presidential electoral process; their role is of course to divert voter constituency from their Communist foes.

Furthermore, many individuals covertly formed in Trotskyist factions later joined the socialist Left as moles and spies, and have had stellar mainstream careers in government: Dray, Moscovici, Hamon, Melenchon, Cambadelis, Sapin (Economy Minister), Rebsamen (Head of Parliament), Jospin, for example, with the latter being so successful as to become Prime Minister.

None of these people support the Palestinians: Melenchon, a fake leftist, was a strong proponent of the imperial war on Libya. Jospin is notoriously an ardent Zionist, to the extent that his official protestant faith was often questioned. His power is so great that he selected Francois Hollande as his succession as head of the Socialist Party, a position that later got Hollande elected President of France.

The Trotskyist parties in France had an influence far-exceeding their numbers and popular support. They covertly spearheaded the take over of executive power by unidentified Deep State actors. They had a very specific ethnic make-up too, to the extent that one of their leaders (Alain Krivine, I think), once joked that in their heydays (the 1960’s-1970’s), their adherents could have held their Paris party meetings in Yiddish.

Trotskyist parties are historically the enemies of the working classes and of the oppressed. They were of course adhered to by principled individuals unaware of this role, and who were negatively influenced by the “Stalin’s crimes” information war.

Wipe out the Zionist s*** off your pink glasses.

Like Madam Marion Marechal Le Pen, I, too, will not genuflect to Black Lives Matter.

Marion Marechal is a Zionist proxy clown who did not produce any interesting thought, apart from a new method for licking Netanyahu’s a**.

She did not devise her response to the current situation either, just copied and pasted outstanding Black intellectual Frantz Fanon’s and his famous 1950’s writing on slavery. She should have quoted him and given him credit instead of trying to pass for the intellectual she is not.

Don’t I have anything else to do on this Earth but avenge the Blacks of the 18th century? […] I have no right, as a man of Colour, to wish the Whites to bear a burden of guilt because the past of my race. I have no right, as a man of Colour, to worry about the means that would allow me to trample on the pride of the former master. I have neither the right nor the duty to demand reparation for my enslaved ancestors. […] Will I ask the White man of today to be responsible for the slavers of the 18th century? […] I am not a slave to the Slavery that de-humanised my fathers.1 »

In Frantz Fanon, “Peau noire, masques blancs”, Paris, Le Seuil, coll. « Points-Essais », 1971 (1re éd. 1952)

Marion Marechal is a Zionist proxy clown who did not produce any interesting thought, apart from a new method for licking Netanyahu’s a**.

I note that you did not include a quote of Madam Marion Marechal Le Pen or citation of a quote of her. So, your assertion is just that, a bare assertion.

I have not read anything that suggests Madam Marechal Le Pen differs with her mother’s politics, which clash dramatically with Zionism’s designs and methods. Given the power, Madam Marechal Le Pen’s mother, Madam Marion Anne Perrine (“Marine”) Le Pen, would free France from the toxic grip of the European Union [“EU”] and United States and exclude from France all presumptuous foreign influence, especially Zionists’ consistently corrosively intrusive, manipulative, and greedy influence-efforts.

You might argue that Marine Le Pen’s politics parallels that of Zionist Israel, which spits in that face of all international law, which would vanish from Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza all non-Jews and which invades, regularly, its neighbors, Lebanon and Syria.

But Marine Le Pen would not expel current French citizens of non-French ethnicity. Merely would she have France freed from foreign rules and policies and not further diluted by foreign ethnicities and cultures.

She would not have France invade other states or intrude in other states’ internal affairs. She would have the EU and U.S. cease dictating policies or rules to France.

She [Marion Marechal Le Pen] did not devise her response to the current situation either, just copied and pasted outstanding Black intellectual Frantz Fanon’s and his famous 1950’s writing on slavery.

Again, bare assertion. I do not see in your quote of Frantz Fanon any basis of asserting that Madam Marion Marechal Le Pen “copied” any part of Mr. Fanon’s essay.

I can deduce only either that you speak from ignorance or that you hate or, for irrational motive, contemn Madam Marechal Le Pen and your hatred or scorn causes you to hallucinate Madam Marechal Le Pen’s holding positions she does not hold or her uttering propositions she has not stated.

Marion Marechal Le Pen’s position is simply that she is responsible only for any wrongs that SHE commits and, hence, feels not guilt for Blacks’ suffering maltreatments wrought by racists. Her position is reasonable and held by many other healthy, rational people, including myself (though I differ with Madam Marion Marechal Le Pen concerning some details. See my comment of June 14, 2020 at 11:39 pm GMT (comment # 39).

6 out of 10 for the comic content.

As for the discussion, you have the most basic fact wrong: Marion Marechal Le Pen is Marine Le Pen’s niece, not her daughter, so there’s no point arguing further with you “insightful” opinion. Cheers.

I cannot spare time enough to proofread this comment. I type badly. I apologize now for any typing error I commit.

I appreciated, much, your comment of June 16, 2020 at 10:40 am GMT (comment # 54), though I should have preferred a bit more fact/evidence refinement and supplementation.

But you exhibit some unfortrunate (potentially dangerous) ignorance by stringing together the names of Louis Althusser, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault.

To explain as a competent scholar ought, I would need to put a disquisition-length exposition. But. since this venue is a mere comment-thread related to a journal article that is, itself, just a 1300-words-long piece, I must limit my exposition to a set of hyper-abbreviated abstracts. Sorry.

Althusser was a Marxist and for 42 years (1948 until 1990, his death-year) a member of the French Communist Party. His epistemological/psychological/ideology-effects writings do not stray far from the pronouncements of Lenin.

Unlike the great philosophers of ancient China and Greece (Lao Tzu, Socrates……) or the renaissance and “enlightenment” philosophers of Europe (Spinoza, Voltaire, Rousseau, Loke, Hume, Hegel, Kant, Marx……) Althusser constructed a cloyed, practically useless that did not question, materially, its Marxian roots.

Alas, however, Althusser’s writings influenced many away from healthy-and-healthful critical analysis of the real sociopolitical and economic machinations and forces of the “elites” who dominate society, politics, and economic trends and experience — though among those influenced, many had, already, chosen Marxism as their religion.

Althusser was a punk among philosophers.

Unlike Althusser, Michel Foucault did not suffer a tendency of adopting a philosophy as if a religion. Early, Foucault devoted much mental energy to comparative analyses of Hegel, Marx, and existentialism’s notables — Jean Hyppolite, Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre. But soon he rejected much of the thinking of those minds, especially that of Marx and Sartre. Foucault rejected the “transcendental narcissism” and “inviolable-individual-freedom” principle of Sartre and Nietzsche and the intrepid unreality of Marx.

Even did Foucault reject Kant’s method of critique of knowledge: Kant maintained that if a critical epistemological analysis reveals the limits, or contingencies, of human power of knowledge that same analysis would indicate the conditions necessary to effective manifestation of that power. Foucault would quasi-reverse Kant’s method of critical analysis, thus: Where a condition is identified to be “necessary,” one must ask what may be a limit or contingency.

Also, Foucault argued that universal scientific truths — human nature truths, physics truths, math truths — are, ultimately, mere expressions of ethical and political commitments of a particular society. To appreciate, or, perhaps, test Foucault’s argument, one might compare Karl Popper’s science-assessment method “Falsification” and Professor Leonard R. Jaffee’s argument that math and exact sciences rest, ultimately, on emotional premises.

Though Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Foucault differed much with each other, they would agree that his much is (ironically) sure: A “fact” is a “finding” that some mind derives from that mind’s perception that certain events constitute “evidence” from which that mind believes it can derive a “finding” of a “fact.”

Karl Popper (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ ] believed the solution was “falsification” — the endeavor of attempting to disprove a “finding” of “fact” or an hypothesis.

If a “fact-finding” or hypothesis withstands, or withstands substantially, a relentless, rigorous endeavor of proving the fact-finding or hypothesis false, then the fact-finding may be “true” or the hypothesis maintainable — at least pending any further falsification.

But — Foucault might have asked — “true” or maintainable in what context or for what purpose or to what extent? And what determines the context, purpose, or extent? And what determines the existence, truth, or content of the context, purpose, or extent? And what determines the “what” that does, or determines, the determination? And was the falsification submitted to falsification; and, if so, was the falsification’s falsification submitted to falsification; and, if so,………..?

My colleague, Professor Leonard R. Jaffee, has argued:

Scientists, mathematicians, and logicians choose premises, theorems, axioms (which bear no premise but desire), definitions, observations……..that fit their emotional imperatives.

Emotional imperatives?

Craving to make a system “symmetrical” or “consistent” or picturing “the universe” and its phenomena in ways that satisfy a wish of controlling nature or attaining public acclaim.

Leonard R. Jaffee, Mad-e-matics, Reader Supported News (7 April 2014), https://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/398-science/23003-mad-e-matics

Professor Jaffee demonstrated his assertion with several examples drawn from physics, mathematics, statistics, and, even, law. I have not encountered a refutation of Professor Jaffee’s argument.

Foucault hated and scorned French bourgeois society and culture. He showed sympathy for lunatics and those imprisoned on premise of criminal conviction — likely because “lunatic” is an ambiguity imposed according to greed or personal taste and too many criminal convictions are false and too many criminal laws empathically illegitimate.

Foucault contemned Sartre’s judging society according to supposed “universal moral principles,” because no morals or principles can be universal or justifiable per any “universal’ standard or logic and all “universal.” To assert a “universal moral principle” is to be supremely narcissistically presumptuous.

Madam Marion Maréchal Le Pen said:

And I don’t think this is very surprising because this entire ruling class has been nursed on these delirious theories, emanating from American universities and which themselves derive from French theory.

Guillaume Durocher added a footnot [footnote 4] in which he asserted:

Maréchal said this in English. A reference to postmodern French philosophers who have had a great influence in the English-speaking world and beyond, including Louis Althusser, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault. Critics contend that much of this intellectual current represents nothing more than pompous gibberish.

Guillaume Durocher’s footnote does not quote, or reflect, an opinion of Madam Marion Maréchal Le Pen. Rather, the footnote expresses Guillaume Durocher’s own fascist philosophy and world-view?

Madam Marion Maréchal Le Pen observes correctly that American “philosophers,” university students, inferior of gravely biased law professors, radical feminists, homosexuals, transsexuals, and radical “progressive” politicians have misapprehended, oft-intentionally, “French theory.” One example is some radical feminists’ asserting, on premise of grave misapprehension of Foucault’s writings, that ALL heterosexual sex is a male’s raping a female, and the in ALL heterosexual sex, the male’s penis is a knife that stabs and subjugates the female.

Foucault would rail against the U.S. deep state’s and American politicoeconomic elites’ steady impairment of liberty and privacy. But he would not find current Black Lives Matter riots defensible, because they involve irrational violence that does not attack the real sources and causes of the growing sophisticated oppression and high-brow economic rape proliferating in our time.

Derrida’s “philosophy”? It is simply an acknowledgment and means of accounting, rationally, the inarguable reality that virtually zero utterances state anything unambiguous and that such disregarding such reality has wrought, and will continue to cause, most or all of the suffering humans experience related to language — legal language, cultural language, political language, scientific language, religious language — all language.

Derrida’s works sought to help humanity understand, and work to minimize the harms threatened by, that problem. His demonstrations are irrefutable. They have advanced, substantially, the cause of justice — because they have shown illegitimate the many judicial (even legislative) assertions that this or that legal-language-interpretation is clear and certain though it is, at best, debatable.

No reader can argue, legitimately, that Derrida’s writings is “pompous gibberish.” His writings are incandescently brilliant and among the most Benthamian-utilitarian philosophic offerings of all time.

My genealogical mistake (daughter rather than niece) does not impeach the content of my showing that your comment is dross; and if your psyche bears some fibre of honesty/integrity, you will acknowledge so. Your genealogical observation cannot defend your reply’s utter lack of relevant substance — a lack explained by the impossibility of legitimate counter-argument.

I very much doubt that French Trotskyites differ much from others elsewhere as they are about the most internationalist of all the leftists. So what if some neocons and Labourites were once Trotskyists? It’d be like saying that Mussolini was a Marxist, which he was, until he became a Fascist. I may disagree with Trotskyists on many issues but as far as questions of Zionism, Israel and Palestine go they have been about the most consistent and principled of any groupings on the left or the right.

this Americanization of our minds.

Does she refer to the US, or to the hemisphere?

Nothing is more American, in the hemispheric sense, than the idiotic idea that the presence of Africans in your country could add value. This has never happened at any time in history, anywhere. However, Latin Americans, from Cuba to the River Plate, were even more intent on this fantasy than were Anglo-Americans.

However, the laïcité and (pseudo)republicanism of which the French are so proud have got to be the most significant imports from the US. Why are these two holies-of-holies never questioned, particularly by the anti-American strains? When will France return to her King and her Church, and abandon these clearly American fads?

Sarkozy and Levy are Israel-firsters and fanatic Zionists: they killed Qaddafi primarily for Israel, while hiding behind the French flag.

The Colonel said the most intelligent thing anyone has said about the Middle East this century, perhaps any century: “Arabs are the joke of the world.”

For a while there, he seemed to favor black Africans over his own tribe race. Now that’s as deep an insult as one can make.

And why, why, why, why, wherefore, why do Parisians celebrate the imperialist monster war criminals Wilson, Roosevelt, and Kennedy with boulevard names? Is this to mock us?

Really, the names of the Lindberghs, father and son, should grace those streets. They fought to keep us out of France.

I suspect we have divergent philosophic views.
I do not wish to assert that so & so philosopher is the “gold standard” but that their work contains material sufficient to be considered interesting or, indeed, perhaps valuable.
Althusser: is useful for his illumination of the fact that Elites “use” ideology as one of their primary methods of maintaining/reproducing the mechanics of capitalist production & the social system which is both its foundation & its product.
Foucault: has value in so far as he illuminates the real (historical) intersection between power & knowledge.
He over cooks the whole “discourse” subject, but he has value to the extent he shows that real history has (some) foundation in the Elite’s ability to codify reality via new “knowledge” — ie the changes in the uses & meaning of the concept of “punishment”.
Your views on Derrida I find quite astounding. For me he is the font of Post Modern poison. Derrida created the term “differance” — which means that words have no external signification; their only meaning is in their ever shifting difference from OTHER words. Reality is essentially a trip through a dictionary & thesaurus. “Blue” doesn’t have meaning b/c it refers to an actual colour, but b/c it is not red, green, yellow etc. Derrida rejects objective truth (we can always argue & not agree that “this” shade is “blue”. Obviously he rejects the scientific method & “Truth” with a capital “T”.
All there is, is discourse. We are discourse (ie our subjective self). Given all this we get “deconstruction” the puerile game of taking texts apart on the basis of the self contradiction. (No external reality ? All words are equal ? Then there’s no context. The words in a text can be made to mean almost anything….& thus every writing is equal (Shakespeare & a box of corn flakes).
So, Derrida…no Truth…wow, who knew ? That Newton — what a wanker ! Can’t imagine how we ever came down from the tree tops….

You mis-describe Derrida’s writing and philosophy and misjudge its sociopolitical utility. Your errors find best illumination in the field of law.

On 15 June 2020, six U.S. Supreme Court Justices held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that an employer cannot fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender:

…[I]n Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

I need to change the paragraph that is the second before the final block-quote of my comment of June 19, 2020 at 11:48 pm GMT (comment # 67). That paragraph must be this:

Give the reader strong feeling of events, conditions, reactions, effects. In like, felt, tangible ways, give the reader the feeling of the cost we would suffer should the reader create a scene that opposes the normative story you present— a story like the one put here-below. Appeal to the reader’s EMPATHY.

Thank you for your extraordinary reply, with it’s emphasis, almost obsessive discursion into statutory interpretation & the inherent ambiguity of language
To sum up: essentially what you are saying is there is no “TRUTH”. No foundational, unquestionable eternal “TRUTH”.
This is a disturbing observation. Derrida, & 2500 years of philosophers have sought to deal with this problem. Indeed, you could almost say that it’s Philosophy’s raison d’être.
“Cure is impossible. All rules are incompetent — much as they are pathological and spawn pathology. What shall society do?”
Do ? We “do” what we always do — we muddle through. Its all we can do.

I have appreciated our brief colloquy, because you show you are well-educated and markedly intelligent and your comments are not frenetic or tainted by Alt Right or pseudo-Progressive madness — as are the comments of too many commentators, and authors, one meets at Unz Review.

Still, I must chide you for two of the asse4rtions of your last-previous reply.

(1) You wrote:

…almost obsessive discursion into statutory interpretation & the inherent ambiguity of language

One can find several “definitions” of “discursion.” Four are:

You write…a lot. Too much for me to deal with in detail. Way too much.
I’ll deal with just with one bit:

“The only TRUTH is FEELING.

Feeling?”

Fine __ I dont dispute the primacy of “feeling”. But, again, you enter well walked paths.
“Feeling” in toto, is pure subjectivity. Its a positive step, your mate Derrida wouldn’t have had a bar to do with it.
Cognito ergo sum — is the “modern” base line for subjectivity.
Problems ?
I think therefore I am — “I” think ? There’s quick sand — who thinks ? You ? Really ? Thoughts often just — appear. Thoughts think themselves.
Same with feelings.
But, even more problems — you have a feeling….you call it “anger” or “pleasure”….Is it really ? Truth
is, often we have to analysis our own feelings. Feelings are complex…if they are foundational – then they are ALSO problematic….not foundational — although better than the P.M discourse runaround.
Pure subjectivity is a blind alley. Life is somekind of combinaton of the Objective & the subjective. Don’t ask me — it’s defeated philosophers who are as a giant to an ant to me.

.

Once, a boy, dying, dreamt that stiffening his limbs could make him fly.

Alas, you disappoint, animalogic. The more because your last two posts belie your pseudonym.

A parting gift:

The Feet, mechanical, go round –
A Wooden way
Of Ground, or Air, or Ought –
Regardless grown,
A Quartz contentment, like a stone –

This is the Hour of Lead –
Remembered, if outlived,
As Freezing persons, recollect the Snow –
First – Chill – then Stupor – then the letting go –

[Second and third stanzas of Emily Dickinson’s “After great pain, a formal feeling comes“]

Adieu, poor sir or madam.

Sic Transit Coatimundi.

“Sic Transit Coatimundi.” — Reminds us of “”sic transit gloria mundi” ?

But, clever : thus passes the animal world ? Unfortunately the coatmunidi is a mistake of zooological definition (similar to early mistakes with the Eclectus parrots). Nor is coatimunidi Latin, but a Sth American language.

Try W.B Yeats (nothing personal, it just seems to fit with your quote). The Rose of the World (2nd stanza):

We and the labouring world are passing by:
Amid men’s souls, that waver and give place
Like the pale waters in their wintry race,
Under the passing stars, foam of the sky,
Lives on this lonely face.

I could also reference “April is the cruelest month…”

Sorry to disappoint….although, maybe not. “The Feet, mechanical, go round –
A Wooden way”. That’s no gift, its just – mean….

But, clever : thus passes the animal world ? Unfortunately the coatmunidi is a mistake of zooological definition (similar to early mistakes with the Eclectus parrots). Nor is coatimunidi Latin, but a Sth American language.

You are flawed, egregiously.

A coatimundi is a raccoon-family mammal that inhabits northern South America, Central America, and Mexico, and in the lower southwest U.S. (especially souther Arizona).
https://www.animalfactsencyclopedia.com/Mexican-raccoon.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_coati
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coati

I put “Coatimundi” with “Sic Transit” to mock the warning “Sic Transit Gloria Mundi” [SEE BELOW].

The term Coatimundi is not a zoological mistake. YOU are a zoological mistake.

The term Coatimundi is not a formal zoological term, but a name South Americans and Central Americans use to identify the raccoon-family animal that they gave the name. The The South American varieties’ zoological name is Nasua nasua. The Coatimundi is a member of the family Procyonidae, genera Nasua and Nasuella.

But all that zoological crap is irrelevant. The relevant matter is your not perceiving the play on words that parallels, ludicrously (but with dark, contemptuous humor), “Sic Transit Coatimudi” with “Sic Transit Gloria Mundi” [SEE BELOW]. Your egregious flaw is your lack of wit combined with your lack of knowlege of much history— in this instance, your lack of knowledge of the Roman Church’s Pope-appointment ritual.

“Sic transit Coatimundi” references, farcically, a fictive line of the fictive Jesus of the “Gospels” of the “New Testament”—the “Jesus” created by the Roman Church’s inventions, which rested on materials like Thomas À Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (circa 1400 AD). See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation.all.html

Inventions? The Roman Church discarded two “Gospels” that did not fit, but clashed critically with, the Roman Church’s designs. The discarded Gospels reflected the nearly Vegan & very communistic teachings of Jesus & underscored his never having asserted that he was Son of God or that his flesh or blood would save anyone from anything.

Even the original of the saved Gospels [Mathhew, Marc, Luc, John…….] do not assert that Jesus was Son of God, but observe that Jesus said he was the son of Man. One must be amazed by how the Roman Church’s aplopgists have tried to argue that “son of Man” means “Son of God.” (Here is not a place appropriate to exposition of the absurdity of the arguments.)

The fictive line is “Sic transit gloria mundi” (“Thus passes the glory of the world”), which seems to have derived from Kempis’s proposition “O quam cito transit gloria mundi” (“How quickly passes the glory of the world”).

When a new Pope is installed, a master of ceremonies falls to his knees before the new Pope while he holds a silver or brass reed bearing a piece of smoldering tow (untwisted bundle of continuous fibre filaments). Three times, as the tow burns away, he says, loudly and mournfully, “Sancte Pater, sic transit gloria mundi!” (“Holy Father, so passes the glory of the world!”).

I ought to have added:

(a) “Sic Transit Coatimundi” cannot mean “thus passes the animal world,” since the Coatimundi is merely one species.

(b) Vis-a-vis the Roman Church’s invention of its Christ Jesus, a beneficial read is Eric Zuesse, CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007Q1H4EG , which exposes the pre-Roman-Church Christ-invention that contributed to the Roman’s Church’s Christ Jesus invention.

See my comment of June 23, 2020 at 5:43 pm GMT (comment # 74). That comment was intended to reply to your comment to which this comment replies. But that intent does not show with the usual “@animalogic” reference.