On the occasion of Jérôme Bourbon's fifty-seventh interview in October 2023, I deemed it useful to return to his other contributions since the fifty-sixth, and in particular his intervention on Radio Athéna in June 2023, responding to the invitation from Henry de Lesquen. Favoring transcriptions and/or comments on quality content, I believe that these videos deserve to be reviewed carefully, with the benefit of months and even, in some cases, years, because they are based on in-depth work. which always makes them current and worthy of reflection.

Concerning Lesquen, I have the same position as on the subject of Pierre-Yves Rougeyron elsewhere. Both of them have in common that they are at the crossroads of the French Republican right and the extreme right, like Charles Pasqua (1927-2015) before them. We can share some of their analyses, and it is for this reason that I cite them even if, by belonging to the extreme right, I prefer the point of view of the French Nationalist Circles around Philippe Ploncard d'Assac (or, moreover, of Rivarol around Jérôme Bourbon and other editors).

Ploncard d'Assac had also warned the readers of his works, in this case the Enquête sur la Nouvelle Droite et ses compagnons de route, concerning Lesquen (among others, because he is not the only one: Alain de Benoist, Dominique Venner (1935-2013), Louis Pauwels, Robert Hersant, Jean-Pierre Pierre-Bloch, Patrick Gofman, Yves Blot, Jean-Yves Le Gallou, Pierre Vial, Guillaume Faye, Bruno Mégret, Christian Bouchet, etc.). At issue: their crypto-Masonism (or even their Gaullism, which amounts to the same thing), to the detriment of Catholic heritage.

The question arises of the specificity of the far right as a political family. To this question, one of the answers (and this is the choice I made, like other nationalists before me) is to clearly condemn gnosis, catharism and freemasonry. Even if, personally, I am not Catholic, I see in fraternal humanism (and even in humanism quite simply) the breeding ground for laxity and complacency which must be combatted with rigor, in order to maintain or restore strong nations in our interest.

However, one of the problems of the extreme right is that of its unity. Whatever one thinks of Jean-Marie Le Pen, he had the merit, at a given moment, of succeeding in uniting contradictory currents to establish the National Front as a major political force. Unfortunately, this opening ended up being to the detriment of nationalism, which indirectly explains why we arrived at the National Rally of Marine Le Pen, then at Jordan Bardella accused of opportunism by his nationalist detractors. This is a point to consider.

Another point, to which I wish to return, is that of the difficulty in getting Catholics, pagans and atheists to agree. Within the extreme right, if, as Ploncard d'Assac explains in his conferences, the fact of each person pulling the rope on their side results in a force of inertia and, therefore, in an incapacity in terms of decision-making, it would have been necessary for the various representatives of the extreme right to accept negotiation, by agreeing on at least one non-negotiable point: the freemasons must be excluded (and, by elsewhere, people with deviant morals).

Because, and this is an essential element for understanding what happened, it is because of the limits of Jean-Marie Le Pen's action, and because the culture of internal negotiation was not quite developed among the French extreme right, that the freemasons took the opportunity to infiltrate this political family, by implicitly presenting themselves to it as the mediators, within it, between believers and non-believers. It is therefore necessary that right-wing extremists, for political interest, unite to fight Freemasonry and defeat it legally.

It is appropriate to complete Ploncard d'Assac's reference against the New Right by reading his other works, including, in this case, Charles de Gaulle, de la légende à la réalité and FN, histoire d'une trahison. These books are of major importance for understanding the reservations that one may have concerning Lesquen and Rougeyron (because of their Gaullism and, let us say, their crypto-masonism). With the dividing lines clearly drawn, what remains of Radio Athéna's broadcasts? Documentary interest.

This long preamble on my part, in favor of a civilizational order conducive to the solidity of the nation, should allow a better understanding, from an extreme right perspective, of the transcription and the comments which will follow, of the content of the Radio Athéna broadcast itself. When I read the comments on YouTube, I note, several times, that some listeners criticize Lesquen for talking too much to the detriment of his guest. I find that Bourbon's words stand out all the better.

The title of the interview is also: “The fight against the decadence of France and the Christian West”. Lesquen first returns to the death of Jean Haudry (1934-2023), a great specialist, with Georges Dumézil (1898-1986), of Indo-European languages ​​and their civilization, author in particular of a work entitled La Triade pensée, parole, action, dans la tradition indo-européenne. The host of the show therefore notes an Indo-European influence in the Confiteor prayer, which speaks of sin in thought, word and action.

Bourbon recites this prayer from memory in Latin: "Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Joannni Baptistae, sanctis apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis et tibi Pater, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo and operates". The second subject addressed is presented as that of a symbolic hero, Henri d'Anselme, "this young Catholic who had repelled a man attacking children in Annecy" June 8, 2023. The public of our time quickly forgets, consumes the news.

Bourbon points out that the secularist media highlighted the so-called Christianity of the knife attacker, Abdalmasih H., to denounce religious fundamentalism, while Lesquen wonders if the Syrian criminal is really Christian, hence the hypothesis, in fact, of an act of Islamist provocation. After these first two points, Lesquen and Bourbon come to that of the cancellation of the Rivarol banquet on June 24, 2023. I myself had planned to go and had registered, before deciding to convert into donate my reservation.

This period is particularly important for me, as for others. Without specifying the reason (because I do not go into detail about my political commitments in the professional sphere, both out of reserve, modesty and ethical compliance, unlike the wokists who put pink everywhere), I had informed my work of my unavailability “due to travel to Paris”. However, with the Rivarol banquet cancelled, there was nothing to encourage me to go to Paris that day. It was the only event likely to concern me.

This explains why, on June 24, 2023, I took advantage of this planned unavailability to go to the Hautes-Alpes, in order to see other professional contacts (in fact I have several activities) and, at the same time, continue the exploration of my region, which promises to be a broader exploration of French territory, contributing, in addition to my nationalist and conservative convictions, to the title of Objectif Nation which occupies, even more than yesterday and less than tomorrow, a first-class place in my life. It's a convergence.

I thus alternated professional visits and local discoveries. Left on 06/23/23, I saw in particular: the Massif du Dévoluy; Notre-Dame de Bois-Vert, in La Fare-en-Champsaur; the Grand Pic de la Meije, in the Écrins massif; on 06/24/23: Lac Vert, in Névache; the Cerces massif, at the French-Italian border; on 06/25/23: les Gondrans and the Birth of Durance, in Montgenèvre; on 06/24/23: the Asfeld bridge, la Collégiale, la cité Vauban and the Cross of Toulouse, in Briançon, the highest city in France. I was therefore unable to hike the Cross de Toulouse.

Having visited the places mentioned and worked on the same day, I did not, in fact, have the time necessary to walk to this high site. So I went there by car, on a narrow and steep road strongly discouraged for motorists (which I learned afterwards, understanding why having had the experience). I then reflected on what the Cross of Toulouse could mean something to me. I am white, European, of Christian culture, attached to France and the South region, extremely conservative.

The Toulouse Cross is not, in my eyes, the symbol of tolerance that some want to see it; it is simply the conjunction between two cultural affiliations: that to Christianity and that to Occitania (in the broad sense, of the land where the Occitan language is spoken, and not in the current, more restricted administrative sense). The Toulouse cross is therefore the representation of a double belonging, a way of saying that the Occitan land wants to be Christian. The Hautes-Alpes are also a profound experience for a Nice resident, a different notion of distance than that given by the Riviera coastline.

On the site of the Cross of Toulouse, next to a statue of the Virgin, we can read a message saying that, from these heights, she watches over us, and protects us from darkness. I let myself think that this message, which geographically first touches Briançon, resonates at least as far as Nice. Subsequently, I returned to my town in Nice, taking, for part of the route, the Route de la Bonette, the highest asphalt road in France. Arriving at the Fourches camp, in Saint-Dalmas-le-Selvage, I was already in the Nice Côte d'Azur metropolis.

I also subscribe to the Mistralian thesis according to which the Hautes-Alpes are not only Occitan, but also Provencal, at least for part of them. The name Croix de Toulouse is, in fact, linked to Provence, thus naming the Occitan cross by recognition of Toulouse as a cultural capital, once again in an extended sense (Marseille can be considered, more specifically, as the capital of Provence). This stay also confirmed, in my opinion, the importance of the automobile in our lives.

When I talk about cars, I'm obviously talking about the one that runs on gasoline, and the autonomy that this private and practical means of transportation has always provided, especially at a time when Germany plans to abandon the objective of “all electric” in the automobile by 2035, and where the Macronian French republic finds itself more and more isolated in its punitive and counterproductive eco-pathological ideology, all the more so since climate skepticism turns out to be well-founded, because CO2 is beneficial to the planet.

This makes me think that, if I had gone to Paris to attend the Rivarol banquet if it were to continue, I would probably have taken my car there too. By personal conviction. And because the gasoline car must be part of the demands of the extreme right, just like the consumption of meat: we fought to become a dominant species on this planet, and have built, for our own comfort at the cost of considerable work, our right to circulate there and maintain our omnivorous consumption.

Lesquen, for his part, had attended the Rivarolien banquet in 2016, which I remember from the report that Canal + devoted to it, with, among other speakers, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Robert Faurisson (1929-2018), Pierre Sidos (1927-2020) and Pierre Hillard. I quote what Lesquen said then: "I am a nationalist, a traditionalist, an identitarian and, I dare say, a populist. The five big ideas if I were president? First, the reestablishment of democracy (which does not exist). Second, restoring freedom of speech (I'm not an admirer of Adolf Hitler, but if people want to say they admire Adolf Hitler, they should be free to do so like in the United States)."

He adds: "Third, remigration (I immediately initiate a policy of remigration and remove from France immigrants or non-natives who are not assimilated into the national community). Fourth, I leave the European Union. Fifth, I restore a national currency. As for marriage for all, it goes without saying that I suppress it (including retroactively, because it is an aberration)." I quite agree with these five points, particularly with regard to remigration and the restoration of traditional marriage.

As I regularly have the opportunity to argue in favor of these positions, I will summarize these arguments here in two words: coherence, balance (cultural coherence emanating from people having been sharing, from their childhood, the same European ethnic origins, the same language and the same legal references; the natural balance that the union between man and woman brings to civilization). Here is the proof: was France a more solid nation, more assured of its interests, when it was white and heterosexual? The answer is yes.

Where I could disapprove of Lesquen, and this precision ties in with what I said above when I referred to the warnings of Ploncard d'Assac, is on the subject of what Lesquen does not say. The problem with a cryptic approach is, by definition, what is left unsaid. However, we have seen that what is left unsaid which poses a problem, in Lesquen, would be his attempt to legitimize freemasonry. Because if he defends this point, he discredits all the others, as it is true that freemasonry is the weakening of the right by the left, which results in "at the same time".

One of the symptoms of this crypto-Masonism could be the fact that Henry de Lesquen and Yvan Benedetti do not seem to like each other, which they both confirmed, the first in the video that I summarize here, the second in a brief interview given to the Parti de la France (in the Faf & Curious series), revealing all the better, by contrast, the more unifying position of Jérôme Bourbon (appreciated by the two protagonists). After a digression on the depravity of certain elected officials, we arrive at the reasons for canceling the Rivarol banquet.

This banquet was to celebrate the seventy years of the newspaper, two years late (because of the health constraints of 2021 and 2022). But the cancellation was done preventively, due to the circular of May 10, 2023 from Gérald Darmanin, aiming to ban all far-right and ultra-right demonstrations. This circular originates from the scandalized politico-media reaction to the tribute to Sébastien Deyzieu (1972-1994) of the Union Defense Group (GUD). Bans indeed followed, which were already discussed here in another topic.

It is in this context that, although I have always had positions compatible with the far right, I decided to openly join the legal and philosophical fight led by this political family to advance our ideas. I said to myself that, in a France increasingly degraded by a political class devoid of the will to redress the situation, authentic far-right activists are courageous people, the only ones now willing to defend projects favorable to the interests of our country and real French people (not only on paper, but also on culture, language and tradition).

This is why the first blog article I wrote in this regard dates, precisely, from 05/10/23. A second article is dated 05/26/23, as the third article from my hand. The fourth article, the fifth article and the sixth article date from 02/06/23, with photos taken from my Instagram account. In the same vein, I then created this forum, Objectif Nation, including the oldest topic dating from June 11, 2023. In fact, I have always been far-right; it just took me a while to become fully aware of it (although I have always been aware of being heterosexual, probably because I am more interested in women than in politics).

One of my blog articles mentions the cancellation of the Rivarol banquet. Coming back to the GUD activist who died in 1994, Lesquen points out, regarding the Celtic crosses seen in certain demonstrations, that the Celtic cross, although of older origin than Christianity, was integrated by the latter. As for the swastika, it is the swastika that was found among the Greeks and that we find in Hinduism and Buddhism. Lesquen had even, in Japan, found a city map dotted with swastikas (indicating Buddhist temples).

Lesquen then cites freemason Jules Ferry (1832-1893, see what is said above about Lesquen's crypto-Masonism), Georges Clémenceau (1841-1929), Paul Doumer (1857-1932), Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970) and others to show that there is a patriotic feeling in the republican tradition, to which Bourbon responds that the context was different before 1945 and the Nuremberg tribunals. The two interlocutors, however, agree on the fact that the Pleven law of 1972 qualified national preference as an offense.

The disagreements between them nevertheless remain on the fundamental difference which exists, according to Lesquen, between the counter-revolutionary spirit of the third republic and that of the first two from which it is distinguished, while Bourbon is right to point out that, in any cas , all French republics have always been deeply anti-Catholic. For Lesquen, since the decline of xarxism, the main divide has been between nationalism and cosmopolitanism (in this case after May 1968). I am not convinced that xarxism has declined as much as it should have, given the burden of persistent taxation, debt and public spending.

To a question asked by a listener on the links between the Third Republic and Protestantism, Bourbon recalls the context of the struggle between freemasonry and Catholicism in France, especially between 1879 and 1914, having culminated with the 1905 law known as separation between Church and State, which became the owner of all churches created before 1905. Lesquen adds that freemasonry was created in England in a Protestant context but that, once it arrived in France, it became essentially anti-Catholic.

To another question asked about the so-called progressivism of the left, Lesquen replies that the left is a degradation (and in this I agree with him, because the left manages poverty and therefore exploitation of the latter as a privileged source of income, like a parasite on the vital forces of work, concomitantly with a disintegration of lifestyle habits). However, I do not want to attach the term progressivism to the right, preferring conservatism and solidity (without rejecting, of course, progress).

The right is a conservatism of mores which integrates technical progress; the extreme right too, with the advantage, compared to the right, that the extreme right refuses to procrastinate under leftist pressure, rightly preferring to remain consistent with its guiding ideas. With the far right in power, we would put an end to the endless amendments and debates, and we would straighten out the country along a robust political line. This is why Freemasonry is a vector of decadence which must be hated, and why, when one is a nationalist, it is more appropriate to prefer, in terms of ideas, the point of view of Bourbon to that of Lesquen, although both are interesting.

The show then addresses the content of the newspaper Rivarol. There was a time when the latter was in competition with Minute, with, among others, Serge de Beketch (1946-2007) and François Brigneau. At Rivarol, created in 1951, there were, before Jérôme Bourbon, authors like Lucien Rebatet (1903-1972) or Pierre-Antoine Cousteau (1906-1958). Lesquen recognizes the intellectual and editorial qualities of Bourbon, whom he holds in high esteem, as well as those of Hannibal (Martin Peltier), François-Xavier Rochette, Scipion de Salm, Jean Terrien and all the others.

There is at least one other point where I agree with Lesquen, it is the fact that the current political emergency invites us, in a way, to vote for the party least distant from what we wish to implement, and it seems for the moment that it is the RN, even if this party has unfortunately tolerant and inclusive members (among other faults: Gaullism, support for Ukraine, denial of far-right groups), because we must keep in mind that it is worse in the other parties. We must therefore proceed in stages towards a political exit.

The true author of war, wrote the historian Auguste Mignet (1796-1884), is not the one who declares it, but the one who makes it necessary. Bourbon remains more reserved than Lesquen (who is pro-Russian) on the question of the Russo-Ukrainian war and, while condemning positions favorable to mores minorities, I agree with the publication director of Rivarol (as with Yvan Benedetti moreover) on the fact that this conflict does not directly concern the interests of France, which must remain our priority.