Far-Right Nationalist Victory In French Polls Leads To Violent Clashes

Tyler Durden's picture

As we noted last night, French President Hollande's first election since his gaining power was not going well for the ruling Socialist people. The municipal elections, especially in the South of the country, saw victories for the far-right National Front (FN) party (which is specifically anti-immigration and anti-Europe and often accused of being racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim) as widespread disappointment with the Socialist Party was clear. However, as The Mail reports, riot police were called in several towns on the south coast to guard the winning right-wing party's offices as "demonstrators are trying to get at the Front representatives and starting fights." Riot police were also out in force in other parts of the country as anti-fascist demonstrators threatened FN candidates with violence.

 

Via The Mail Online,

The National Front victories of note were in the south of the country...

Frejus and nearby Beziers are now expected to have National Front (FN) mayors sworn in, along with around five other towns, following a nationwide drubbing for President Francois Hollande's Socialists.

Riot police were also out in force in other parts of the country as anti-fascist demonstrators threatened FN candidates with violence.

Fights started outside French town halls tonight as they came under the control of the far-right National Front for the first time following dramatic gains in local elections.

...

'Demonstrators are trying to get at the Front representatives and starting fights,' said a police spokesman in Frejus, the picturesque Mediterranean town which is hugely popular with British tourists.

David Rachline, who is expected to become the FN mayor of Frejus, is a former head of the party's youth movement, and still just 26.

Mr Rachline said: 'The political establishment has failed the people - it has ruined the town and filled its pockets.

'You can't talk about a protest vote any more - the Front's scores show that people are backing its ideas.'

In a deeply humiliating blow for the Socialist government, finance minister Pierre Moscovici was unseated from the town council in Valentigny in the Doubs department.

The FN took 50.26 per cent of the vote in the northern town of Henin-Beaumont last Sunday, giving it an instant majority and meaning it already has its first mayor there.

As polls closed in the two round municipal elections tonight the FN said it was on track to claim 1,200 municipal council seats.

'We have moved on to a new level,' said Ms Le Pen. 'There is now a third major political force in our country.'

Mr Hollande's response to the expected nationwide drubbing is said to be a major reshuffle, replacing Prime Minister Jean Marc Ayrault with Interior Minister Manuel Valls.

Which, we are sure, will make all the difference. It seems socialism is not popular these days...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
thedrickster's picture

Fascinating, the "anti-facist" protesters don't look very "French".

falak pema's picture

Well the Republican mantra since the Revolution and its revised laws of 1905 is : we know no race nor religion; just citizenship.

Apparently you haven't heard of it or you don't adhere to it. (It was highlighted by the Dreyfus Affair).

thedrickster's picture

Yes, I am aware and as an outsider looking in it would appear to me that the inevitable result boils just beneath the surface. As is the case in Britan, the United States, Germany, etc. Reactionary movements are not spontaneously born out of quantam fluctuation.

 

HoofHearted's picture

As one who has lived in France, I can tell you that most of the people don't give a damn what someone looks like or where they come from. Just so long as they speak proper French and take on the French attitudes and mannerisms, they are accepted as French. 

Now they couldn't handle the fact that an American in France actually spoke French. That blew their minds. When my accent wasn't native, they thought I was Russian, then German, then British. I finally told them I was American, and we had a good discussion of the differences in culture. 

The French can be wonderful people if you find the right group. Just don't get caught in the suburbs of Paris after dark or all the immigrants will mug you...and there's the rub...

I got to know some people better. And there was an undercurrent of racism just below the surface...though in day to day issues nobody would ever dare mention it. You had to have a few glasses of wine before the real attitudes came out. In vino veritas. 

thedrickster's picture

"had to have a few glasses of wine before the real attitudes came out. In vino veritas. "

Love it.

Ran into a group in Nice that meant me ill will, got away without a scratch when the leader of a British holiday clan crossed the street against traffic, complete with shorts, dark blue knee socks and sandals. Cheers sir.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Having spent a few months in Provence, I found the people of southern France to be much friendlier than the ones in Paris.

I remember my French girlfriend at the time speaking contemptuously of the local arab population in Marseilles. It wasn't until many years later that I understood exactly what she feared and loathed, and why.

thethirdcoast's picture

What's not to love about Europe's version of the FSA?

Freddie's picture

Yes the anti-facist facists look quite Islamic.

alangreedspank's picture

France fails at welfare state. For it to work, if you really want one, you need sealed borders and uniform culture (stuff the left usually rails against), like in the much touted "scandinavian model". 

StychoKiller's picture

Socialism works great...for ants, bees and termites!

abunusaybah's picture

first to say far right can suck my black muslim c#$$÷

skistroni's picture

Once you go black, you never go back...

But once you go Greek, the black feels too weak.

RevRex's picture

and once you go Vanilla, you'll never go Gorilla!

The_Dude's picture

I thought it was....Once you go white, you know what is right!

SmackDaddy's picture

Welcome to fight club faggot.  this isnt your mosque, you can say COCK here.  and btw, eat shit and die you smelly goat fucking savage...

RevRex's picture

lol

 

Why are so many of you kneegrow Muslims homosexuals?

cpnscarlet's picture

Fascinating, the "anti-fascist" protestors are "socialists". Hitler laughs in Hell and the elite have another phony dichotomy keeping the peasants in chaos.

cossack55's picture

Hitler is in DC?  Hunh.....

Ghordius's picture

fascinating for Americans, for us in europe it's normal. we have three main dimensions in politics: conservatives (up to fascists), socialists (up to communists), liberals (up to corporate lobbyists)

and no, here it's not a "false dichtonomy"

Haus-Targaryen's picture

If only the socialists would quit voting ...

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

Ghordius, such a cock eyed optimist for a limited EU..sees bleu teams,. rouge teams and blac teams, all on a spectrum viva real differance...but nothing changes no matter who wins, seems you left out the red shield teams. always said europe is blind to colour as voting is a hobby best left to the uninformed.

Ghordius's picture

I disagree with that. even Brits see the ideologies behind those three forces. and the British parliament has currently three forces

the (Liberal-) Conservative, the Torys. their ally in gov the Liberal (-Democrats). and in opposition the Socialists (Labour)

with a "far right" conservative/nationalistic party like UKIP out of parliament together with communists, etc, etc.

sorry, this Red/Blue dichtonomy thing is a pure American Affair. from our point of view, you have two mostly liberal parties (and a fancy for garbling the political vocabulary)

LawsofPhysics's picture

All groups remain dependent on a tax (wealth transfer) system that can no longer be maintained, hedge accordingly.

Ghordius's picture

this too, will pass. and then, this three views of humanity will again be still relevant

LawsofPhysics's picture

Bullshit.  It will "pass" after massive bloodshed (history is very clear on this), after which people's views can change substantially.

 

Moreover, the time required for this to "pass" can be very long, and honestly, I have better thing to do, but to each his own I guess.

thedrickster's picture

How long until a white nationalist party goes mainstream in the US?

Until then, it's just a slow grind.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Back up a bit, show me one major american city populated by whites first. I don't think you've been paying attention to what's been going on in America.

thedrickster's picture

Populated by? What does that mean?

I will use my home city of Chicago for this exercise, the city proper excluding the 7+M in suburbs.

Population 1920/2010 - 2,701,705 / 2,695,598

In 1920 90%+ of the population was of white european ancestry, today it is 31%.

I'm not entirely sure where you are going but my point was simply that the politics of the ruling coalition over the last half century or more, coupled with the ideological sentinel of political correctness and demographic pressures suggest to me that such a nationalist movement is inevitable as the historical majority finds itself disenfranchised.

Also that the constant drumbeat of "racism" in American politics supresses the very notion that there might be "white" political interests as real as black or hispanic political interests, the existence of which is front and center. This supression of legitimate political expressions of shared interest (culture, etc) will only serve to fuel a violent, reactionary rise.

 

swmnguy's picture

The violent reactionary rise is coming from lower-middle and upper-lower class whites.  The "constant drumbeat of 'racism'" is meant to discourage that reaction, or at least delay it.  Over my 48 years, nobody has lost more social status or economic power than that group of people.  It's arguable, and in fact probably true, that the 1950s and 1960s were the historical anomaly, the far end of the pendulum-swing, and that lower-educated and less-wealthy white people in blue and low-white collar positions historically have never had it so good and that was going to be a fleeting thing.  But nobody gets, and then loses, a decent standard of living without some kind of protest.  Non-whites and women have been skillfully held up as scapegoats for why it's no longer possible for a single full-time employee, generally white and male, to support a family in adequate fashion on one paycheck, without so much as a 4-year degree.  That's no longer possible in America, but it was when I was a kid.  That's not the fault of blacks, women, gays or flag-burners, but angry desperate people losing their livelihoods will strike out at the nearest target.  The brand of corporate finance capitalism we adhere to has inherent mathematical contradictions.  It's like the game of "Monopoly."  At some point one player has all the property, money, houses and hotels.  That's when the game is over and you have to start again.  This time, our elites decided they didn't want to start again.  So they've been imposing all these delaying tactics, which as we see and comment on every day, are returning less and less efficacy.  They know that too.  So we have all the divide-and-conquer distractions.  It doesn't help that we can't discuss poitics coherently in America.  That, too, is very much intentional.

thedrickster's picture

+1.

The decline in efficacy is becoming more and more palpable. Y & millenials in particular don't seem as mesmerized by "litmus tests" employed to subjugate their own interests.

LawsofPhysics's picture

great post, now let's see who shows up for the riots.

The bottom line is; you don't "end racism" by promoting it.

Applicants for jobs and schools should not disclose anything about their race or ethnicity, period.

You cannot simutaneously pass laws that "lift one race out of poverty" while promoting "equality".

There are plenty of poor/downtrodden people of many different colors.

Help the person, not the "race".

thedrickster's picture

+1 on all counts in principle.

That said forces in the US continue to use identity politics to disenfranchise the traditional majority. So long as this persists, how is the high/moral road a realistic option? I agree in terms of hearts and minds but will a critical mass suddenly emerge that will render identity politics ineffective and thereby remove the impetus for a rise of a white nationalist party? Put this is the context of the political framework as it presently exists in the US. The individual of any color is completely subjugated, bifurcated, packaged and sold to the highest bidder. All culture is of equivalent value, unless of course it is traditional, white and of European origin; then it is to be annihilated.

I'm not an advocate here, I am looking to history to glean insight on what happens next.

SilverCoinLover's picture

Jared Taylor for President 2016!

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The Tea Party, which is basically white, has been relentlessly smeared by the left as racist, of course with exactly zero real evidence to support that claim.

The "Progressives'" heads would positively explode if an actual White Nationalist party started making headway.

For that reason alone, I would actually like to see it happen.

swmnguy's picture

Indeed, "Ghordius."  We in the States have very intentionally sabotaged our political lexicon and vocabulary to prevent coherent political discussion.  In the early 1990s I saw an interview with Frank Luntz, a top political advertising strategist, in which he quite openly discussed how he was working to turn the meanings of words on their ear for the benefit of his employers.  At the time he was working for the Republican Party, so they were then working frantically to change the meanings of "Liberal" and "Conservative" in the US.  It worked brilliantly.  Now those two words mean absolutely nothing by themselves, except in Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty's observation that "When I say a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean."

Our US political parties have never been ideological. Indeed they have switched ideologies several times.  The underlying ideology over the past 40 years has been the same; the ongoing merger of State and Corporate power.  The constituencies to be served first differ somewhat between the parties.  But they aren't "Political Parties" in the sense of any other nation on Earth.  They're more like two competing lobbying firms.  The real ideological distinctions happen outside the Party mechanisms, in effective terms.  The parties themselves only concern themselves with winning elections.

We don't have participatory politics.  It's all advertising and marketing activity.  The politics happens elsewhere, out of the meddling hands of us commoners.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

"We in the States have very intentionally sabotaged our political lexicon and vocabulary to prevent coherent political discussion"

If by "we" you mean the Cultural Marxists and their fellow travelers, then, yes.

swmnguy's picture

No, it's the marketing consultants working, through the parties, for the corporate interests who have secured control of the State mechanism.  I haven't encountered an actual Marxist outside of a college campus in my 48 years, and they're thin on the ground on college campuses as well.

Even the notion that Obama is a "Socialist" is a good example of the success of this marketing.  Obama has been very consistent in his policies.  He has privatized the Treasury and the mechanism of government to promote a very narrow set of corporate ends.  Finance, for the most part.  That's the opposite of "Socialism."  It's Fascism, and it's not the same thing at all.  I know Socialists sometimes resort to violence, and that Hitler was cunning enough to put the word "Socialist" in the name of his very Fascist party.  But it's not the same thing.  Nationalizing Health Care is very different from privatizing the Treasury to keep the mortally wounded health insurance system tottering along.  Nationalizing General Motors is very different from bailing-in bondholders and using the Treasury to underwrite the failings of the pre-existing corporate structure. 

I'm not in favor of any of it, but if we can't even agree on what the words mean, we're not going to be able to discuss anything.  That this has happened is very, very intentional.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You don't understand what a Cultural Marxist is. The first thing you need to know about Cultural Marxists is, they NEVER call themselves Marxists. Or even Socialists.

Ghordius's picture

so according to your theory, every garbling of the political vocabulary is done by Cultural Marxists? I see this garbling everywhere, starting with "oh, fascists and communists are all the same"

swmnguy's picture

Yes, that's a very good example of the intentionally devastation of our vocabulary.  Everybody likes to talk about George Orwell's "1984."  It's a good book, but the real gem is his essay, "Politics and the English Language."  It's readily found, among other places, here: 

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Perhaps even better is Orwell's essay, "The Prevention of Literature."  It's available widely, including here:

http://www.george-orwell.org/The_Prevention_of_Literature/0.html

Same thing.  Totalitarianism of all sorts depends on eliminating opposition.  A starting point to that end is to remove the ability to even describe situations.  We see it every day, when every news outlet uses identical verbiage to tell the same lies.  Worst of all, I really don't think they're all being directed by some authority to do it; they're quite voluntarily conforming to hive-think.

 

 

swmnguy's picture

I think I understand what you mean, but here as well we're hobbled by the de-linking of our words from meaning.  What is a "Cultural Marxist?"  I'm asking that sincerely, and not being intentionally obtuse.  I have a pretty good idea whom you're talking about, but they're not Marxists under any definition I'm familiar with.  By some definitions I've heard in popular discourse, Bismarck was a Marxist because he initiated the modern welfare state. That is, of course, a crazy description of Bismarck.  But it does show the extent to which political terminology has been rendered meaningless in America today.

I do have an understanding of Cultural Marxism.  It isn't what today's American Right, people like Lind for example, say it is.  Cultural Marxism argues that all this Identity Politics stuff like race and gender and sexuality and so on is a bullshit smokescreen to distract people away from the problems inherent in our Capitalist system.  The American Right tends to twist this around to say that all the Identity Politics and Political Correctness and Multiculturalism are in fact the Cultural Marxist agenda.  Actual Cultural Marxists vehemently disagree with this.  That's why I say there are almost no real Marxists extant in America today.  We have a shit-ton of diversionary smokescreen bullshitters though.  Call them whatever we can agree on; they're the ones you're talking about I think, and I'd agree they're doing horrendous damage.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

If you ever want to know what the Republican party platform was in X, just look at the Democratic party platform from (X-20) and you'll have it exactly.

For all values of X from 1913 to 2014.

swmnguy's picture

Precisely.  That's why I say our parties are non-ideological and set up to win elections only.  The actual ideology and politics happens elsewhere.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, and all teams remain dependent on the tax dollars and blood of the citizens, get long sharecropping and massive corruption, beat the rush as that which cannot be sustained, won't be.

InjuredThales's picture

I love that this is written without the slightest hint of irony:

"Riot police were also out in force in other parts of the country as anti-fascist demonstrators threatened FN candidates with violence."

Such a noble anti-fascist thing to do!

greatbeard's picture

>> Such a noble anti-fascist

If they are indeed fascists I see no problem with subjecting them to violence.  If the same were done in the US they would be called patriots.  Wait a minute, you weren't making this a left/right, red/blue thing, were you?

NYPoke's picture

The Patriots were the ones who split from the Whig Party.  Long gone.  The Tea Party would be appropriate here.  Neither were Fascists.  Both were largely anti-big government.

 

The Nazi's were/are National Socialists, nothing close to the Tea Party or Patriots.  They WERE Fascists though.

 

Fascists are Liberals.  Always have been; always will be.