The French Presidential Finalists

I see the situation as follows –

Although after Trump and Britain’s exit I would not exclude the possibility completely, it seems Marine Le Pen is unlikely to win the second round regardless of who her opponent is because (though she does not admit it on the campaign trail) her victory would, in practice, mean France surrendering the welfare benefits and wealth transfers from Northern Europe their membership in the EU provides them.

If Fillon makes the second round he will probably win.  If he does I envision France undergoing periodic ISIS inspired attacks for a few years, but not outright civil war.  Fillon’s platform sounds reasonable, unfortunately the history of the French center right is not promising:  The author of the thoroughly anti-nationalist EU Constitution, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a member of the Center Right.  Former Center Right President Jacques Chirac cautiously endorsed Turkey’s entry into the European Union.  But, to be fair to Fillon, it isn’t clear how much of a real difference even a Le Pen Presidency would make.

The most interesting question is who represents the Left if Fillon is eliminated in the first round.

The Left is currently split between the Comteian Progressive Emmanuel Macron and the Proleterian/Communist Socialist Jean-Luc Mélenchon.  This division has manifested in ways that neatly align with how we define the difference between Progressive Bureaucracy and Communism

This goal now made clear by the passage of time, Dictatorial Bureaucracy could well be defined as “Communism” for “Communists” who want to destroy the proletariat and govern a highly class stratified society led by high-priest sociologists.

Mélenchon is a Proletarian Socialist because he is a prole, Macron is a Boutique Liberalé because he is bourgeois; and their class markers are more than enough to explain why their policies diverge on trade, immigration, and diversity.

Mélenchon wants France to become a fortress of Soviet-style economic independence and self-sufficiency (Autarky) to defend the working class from Capitalism and free trade regardless of how many enslaved German pensioners die in the process.

On diversity this old dinosaur Communist may be the most dangerous threat short of Le Pen to the criminal “immigrant” community of France based on his own politically incorrect statements and the established, politically incorrect, track record of the Soviet sphere.  On immigration he has been skeptical because he, as Proletarian Socialist, senses it is bad news for fellow proles.

From this Guardian article warning other EU Progressives that Mélenchon is not on board with immigration or EU trade and economic policy –

Nor is Mélenchon as refugee-friendly as some would like to think. He’s suggested that he’d prefer to see “10,000 doctors” settle in France rather than a wave of huddled masses. “I’ve never been in favour of freedom of arrival,” he’s said. He’s also on record accusing some foreign workers of “stealing their bread” from French workers. There is much more of Italy’s firebrand populist Beppe Grillo about him than Spain’s Podemos.

The record of the Eastern Bloc in suppressing native Islamic insurgencies is fairly robust and gives reason to think Mélenchon might not be as intransigent on the topic as standard French Socialists like Macron.  Chinese Muslim separatists were quite timid during the Mao era (the Great Helmsman’s torture chambers would challenge the faith of the most devout Muslim insurgent), while Stalin officially classified Chechens as a “criminal nationality”.

Macron is simply an unreformed Comteian Progressive (AKA EU Supranationalist).  This means he expects the French working class to vote overwhelmingly for him so that he can get on with destroying the last of them with open trade and open immigration of Third World lumpenproles.

Because the mainstream Technocrat Left can no longer hide the fact they despise white proles, no one except Progressives should be stupid enough to be surprised at seeing what remains of the French working class waver between the (wrongly labeled) “Fascist” Le Pen and the (rightly labeled) Communism of Mélenchon in a mirror image of the 1932 and 1933 German elections:

Modern observers who look back at the Progressive movement from the late 19th to early 20th centuries are often surprised at how freely that movement’s leaders spoke up in favor of Communism. Leaders such as Upton Sinclair were obfuscating for Stalin’s purges as late as the 1930s –

It is also true that I have been studying the problem of Russia as earnestly as I know how for twenty years. There have been few days during that period that I have not sought some new facts and pondered them. I have had many a heartache over the things which have happened in Russia— so different from what I hoped for. I watched Gorky all through this period, and I know how he suffered and how more than once he wavered. But in the end he made up his mind that the Soviet regime was the best hope for the workers of Russia, and that is my conclusion today.

Though this is not well understood today, the reason why early Progressives got away with this was because Communism was seen by many Proletarian voters at the time as an ordinary workers party. Proletarian voters often identified with a number of its objectives even if they did not vote for it.

And proletarian voters were no inconsequential force. 19th century Proletarian radicalism had significantly broader popularity and momentum than Sociology did. This would continue to be the case throughout most of the 20th century and left Sociology in a position where it had no choice but to hug close to the rising force of Proletarian Revolution.

The working class vote was once so important that even Hitler, though on the extreme right, had to make his case to them.  A little known, and ironic, fact about the German elections of 1932 and 1933 was that Hitler competed with the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands for segments of the same working class bloc. Hitler’s effort to incorporate them into his electoral coalition was so successful that the KPD leader, Ersnt Thällman, felt compelled to adopt some of Hitler’s nationalist propaganda in order to restrain the defections of normally Socialist and Communist voters to the Nazis.

If the French Left makes an appearance in the second round I prefer it be Macron who takes the stage on their behalf.  Since EU Supranationalists have pretended Islam is compatible with Western society regardless of every fact loudly saying the contrary, it can only be, in my view, fitting that when civil war finally breaks out in France for the man at the ship’s helm be the Comteian Progressive Macron who, by all accounts, has sincerely convinced himself Islamic terrorism does not exist.

If Macron wins Islamic immigrants will be given carte blanche to prove otherwise with enthusiasm.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “The French Presidential Finalists”

  1. Good analysis. I look forward to a similar one with Corybn.

    What are your on thoughts on Turkey now?

    I was looking at the wiki bio of Bibi last night. Impressive. He has a very good background in the military, he has an engineering degree and a business one.

    Do you think that it is necessary or desirable that Presidents etc have a military background?

    On a different topic, do you believe in God, or do you think that religion is important for social order and thus support it that way?

    As a Jew, I want to ask you why do you think that the Anglo-Protestants have, with caveats, gotten along so well with Jews?

    Yes, I know that you can and could bring up plenty of counter-examples; however, it is my impression that Anglo-Protestants seem to have had a better track record and, of course, a very long and deep working relationship.

    (Maybe you disagree with this however.)

    For instance, Cromwell welcomed Jews back to England, you said Hamilton was positive on Jews. Roosevelt hired a lot of Jews. And, of course, the English elite had a lot of Jews in elite positions for quite some time.

    No doubt, there is the utility argument. However, given the suspicion and hatred of Jews, why is it that the Angelo’s were different?

    Like

  2. What are your on thoughts on Turkey now?

    Briefly, Islam and Democracy are incompatible systems. I will have more on Turkey at a future point.

    Do you think that it is necessary or desirable that Presidents etc have a military background?

    It is a positive but not necessary.

    On a different topic, do you believe in God, or do you think that religion is important for social order and thus support it that way?

    An agnostic who has settled on the latter.

    As a Jew, I want to ask you why do you think that the Anglo-Protestants have, with caveats, gotten along so well with Jews?

    Possibly because Protestants emphasize the Old Testament and the Bible compared to Catholicism. Also because Protestants have a better track record of property rights and respect for individuality.

    Like

  3. A permanent agnostic in principle, because the question can never be settled or a temporary one?

    Temporary agnostic pending evidence one way or other.

    So far, the evidence for the “pro” side is inconclusive and circumstantial. But so is the “con” side.

    Like

  4. What facts, logic or both would convince either way?

    One more idea for universities. The right seem to be “invading” safe space with R students inviting speakers to campus, then you get threats and a shutdown, then a right-wing reaction, then either the uni caves or stands fast – win-win either way. However, if the speaker speaks then you get anti-fa violence – which is also win win.

    Combine that negative attack strategy with your idea of MOOCH (extra o for the term mooch – as in moouch the Cathedral).

    Like

  5. What facts, logic or both would convince either way?

    I’m not sure.

    The nature of the question – whether an omnipotent supernatural intelligence exists or not – is inherently hard to fit into a falsifiable hypothesis since, if such an intelligence does exist, that intelligence would exist outside of scientific laws as we know them.

    Or as Metternich put the problem,

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/conversations-with-prince-metternich/

    ‘Lalande, the astronomer,’ he said, ‘exerted himself to the utmost, when I associated with him at Paris to convert me to atheism. I told him, firstly, that his principles were repugnant to my feelings; and secondly, that he ennuied me extremely. It did not silence him, so at last I said “You do not believe in God.” He affirmed it. “Well,” I replied, “I do believe in God, so we are both believers. The only difference is that I believe yes, and you believe no; so let us continue good friends, and drop this subject, for no one can prove what he believes.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Combine that negative attack strategy with your idea of MOOCH (extra o for the term mooch – as in moouch the Cathedral).

    To me student protests and counter-protests are just link bait. More Conservative agitation on campus is amusing but changes little or nothing to the advantage of my politics, or the politics of any other Conservative. If the Cathedral goes back to allowing Conservatives freedom of speech to, say, levels last seen in the 1980s the Cathedral is still, basically, as functional an opponent as it is now.

    Online classes are different, but I don’t want to get ahead of future articles.

    Like

  7. ” I told him, firstly, that his principles were repugnant to my feelings;”

    I love that quote.

    The point about the Cathedral is that either you inflict a defeat on them, or you have grounds for getting their funding terminated.

    Like

  8. I love that quote.

    It holds up beautifully almost two hundred years later.

    The point about the Cathedral is that either you inflict a defeat on them, or you have grounds for getting their funding terminated.

    But what constitutes a defeat?

    To me whether universities are forced to accept non-Liberal speakers or not does not change anything decisively. If the universities caved in to pressure the Left loses face, but is not substantively damaged.

    Like

  9. It is literally invading their safe spaces, so it would win a battle but not the war of course.

    It sets the clock back ten to twenty years when Conservatives could usually speak on campus. What good did it do when they could speak? The Progressives kept winning even when they, sort of, tolerated free speech.

    I know how to inflict far more damage on academia.

    Like

  10. Well, a total victory against the Cathedral is a complete shutdown, and a truth, reconciliation and punishment for the most extreme criminals. To prevent it happening again you would need to privatise education. And of course, you would need major change elsewhere.

    However, I would see it as a win-win and a lose-lose for the prigs.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s