This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Far-Right Nationalist Victory In French Polls Leads To Violent Clashes
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.
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...
»
- 21582 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Fascinating, the "anti-facist" protesters don't look very "French".
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).
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.
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.
"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.
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.
What's not to love about Europe's version of the FSA?
Castillians, n'est pas?
.
Yes the anti-facist facists look quite Islamic.
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".
Socialism works great...for ants, bees and termites!
first to say far right can suck my black muslim c#$$÷
Once you go black, you never go back...
But once you go Greek, the black feels too weak.
and once you go Vanilla, you'll never go Gorilla!
I thought it was....Once you go white, you know what is right!
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...
lol
Why are so many of you kneegrow Muslims homosexuals?
Fascinating, the "anti-fascist" protestors are "socialists". Hitler laughs in Hell and the elite have another phony dichotomy keeping the peasants in chaos.
Hitler is in DC? Hunh.....
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"
If only the socialists would quit voting ...
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.
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)
All groups remain dependent on a tax (wealth transfer) system that can no longer be maintained, hedge accordingly.
this too, will pass. and then, this three views of humanity will again be still relevant
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.
How long until a white nationalist party goes mainstream in the US?
Until then, it's just a slow grind.
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.
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.
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.
+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.
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".
+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.
Jared Taylor for President 2016!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
Hive-think, has been here for some time...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
>> 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?
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.
You do realise that 'liberal' used to mean a person who was dedicated to the cause of liberty, and that it is only through the perversions of 20th and 21st century America that a term that should be a badge of honour is now an epithet.
I am proudly a liberal, because I believe in freedom under the rule of law.
Rule of law? Ah yes, something that hasn't existed for several hundred years, nice work. John Corzine, is that you?
That I do. Maybe not the best use of the term, as post-60's Liberals are Big Government. Does not include everybody who considers themselves Liberal.
Current Republicans, outside the Tea Party, are Big-Government. Not Conservative. Same idea.
However, Liberals have aligned with theologies of Socialism & Communism. These have pushed Big-Government for centuries. "Parties of the People" are always a problem, for anybody who wants government of their business.
Original post was a broad based observation. Didn't mean to insult all Democrats or Liberals, as we all have our own views on the whole thing.
Who is perpetrating the violence? Against whom is the violence being perpetrated? That is all that needs to be known. You drop the whole left/right, red/blue thing, and can't even make that distinction. How does it feel to be doctrinaire without understanding the doctrine?
I find it interesting that these left-leaning protestors, who dislike the FN because it, among other things, supposidly, advocated violence towards immigrants, whereas these protestors look as if they're immigrants advocating violence towards FN.
The irony.
which is specifically anti-immigration and anti-Europe and often accused of being racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim
I doubt any of this is true but if it is, I would sure want to see about how one could immigate to a country that puts its own people first!!
The closer they get to being exposed, the more shrill-ly the left screams about race. It's their universal trump card, whenever they don't get what they want, it's all about everyone else but them being bigots. If nobody believed them, we'd be on our way to making sure Marxism stays defeated.
If you are Jewish or have a Jewish wife, try Israel.
look the french election results are unfair, anti women, a threat to children and the infirm, we need a revote, tout alours, and keep voting until the count is correct and fair, ala washington state govenor's election once all the votes were counted..democracy demands we win, any other result is not allowed.
Would love to find a place in any country that was anti-handout, anti-illegal immigration, anti- black militants, anti- Jewish bankers, and anti-Controlled Media and anti- Lying politicians!! In short, what America once was!
You have to know where to look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TtdW--jhAQ
Expect the Left to organize "Peaceful" protest marches the erupt in complete violence, only to play victim. If you ask what they are protesting against or who started the clashes in the first place you are a Nazi. The playbook is very well known.
How do you say hypocrites in French ????
Merde.
I sorta get the feeling that the voters are trying to say something.
I was trying to count the "not really fair skinned" protestors on the different pictures but i gave up.
There were just to many.
Yeah, guessing the North Africans might have a fundamental point of disagreement with the FN (hint, the reason they crossed the Med in the first place).
Ironic how the European anti-fascists are demonstrating against the people who have had enough of the European scam. Where were they when the fascists were cheering, rioting and smashing up Ukraine?
Who is really pulling the strings of these puppets?
You raise an important point that's often overlooked. Two political dimensions are being collapsed differently in Western Europe and the Ukraine. One is the desire for greater or lesser power centralized in Brussels; the other is identity politics. In France, like in the Netherlands and elsewhere in the West, nationalist/fascist parties are also Euroskeptic; in the Ukraine, the nationalist/fascist spectrum is allied with the EU-philic forces because they fear Moscow more than Brussels. Each is essentially nationalist in the sense of wanting greater autonomy and sovereignty for their respective nation-states against larger bloc powers (the EU and Russia); the differnece between them is only in which bloc seems more dangerous to that nation-state's sovereignty. I think what we're seeing is basically resistance to a new form of larger-scale organization of power akin to the conglomeration of smaller states into larger nations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Many people want power devolved to more local structures run by those with whom they identifty (Northern Italians versus the rest, Catalonia versus Spain, etc. being examples of leftover conflicts from the earlier conglomeration of local powers into larger nations); the rulers, however, want the increased might of ever-larger political units akin to empires. The back-and-forth dynamic between the two sides was a constant feature of European history up until the 20th century, where borders got frozen for longer than they had been before due to the cold war and Russian/American demands for stability; the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st is seeing those borders start moving again, both in fragmentation along ethnic lines (like Yugoslavia) and in coalescing towards larger units (like the EU).
Soros NGO meet the Pat Buchanon NGO
In his prophetic book "The Death of the West" Pat Buchanan predicted the demographic and imigration driven changes to France and other European countries. As a fan and beneficiary of Western Civilization, I'm overjoyed by these "about time" or maybe "a little to little to late" elections.
My political action is to have more than my share of awesome children that understand the arc of history is and how to bend it towards good.
More like "way too late".
A former friend and raging liberal once said to me that "there is nothing wrong with fortunate or productive people being forced to help those in need".
I said, ignoring your arrogant statement regarding the use of "force", what do you do once there are no productive people left and everyone is "in need"?
Pretty much killed that relationship.
there are quite a few would-be despots who wear the cloak of 'moral superiority' and are just looking for a chance to 'get they and their friends in there' (government power) and 'run things right' (for a 'change').
How else would you define "taxes"?
If not for taxes, wouldn't the form of government be anarchy? (That's not to say that that system is necessarily bad.)
the problem for the French far right is they don't have swastikas if they had swastikas on their clothing thenthe media would leave them aloneand ignore themjust like in Ukraine
Precisely - and funny that our comments were nested right next to each other - as I must have been typing mine while you were posting yours.
Paging Jen Psaki, #UnitedFoRFrance@statedeptspox is ready for your staged third-handed selfie
Support for Right Sektor in Ukraine = support for National Front in France n'est-ce pas?
here we go again
nazi = national SOCIALIST
so how the fuck is nazi right? isn't SOCIALIST left???
COCKSUCKER SOCIALISTS hiding the FACT that they are the same as the nazi ideology - BIG FAT FUCKING GOVERNMENT that cripples society
nazi = national SOCIALIST
WHAT THE FLYING FUCK IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SOCIALIST AND A NATIONAL SOCIALIST?????
SAME FUCKING NASTY SHIT!!!!!!!
+100 for getting it spot on.
One day someone will publish an expose of the BIG LIE spread around since the end of WW2 that Fascism is on the Far right.
It is not and never has been.
then explain what is fascism, for you. btw, that's the ideological environment in which I grew up. methinks your stance is heavily dictated by your dislike of this "Far Right" label. just an impression
in short, as soon as thing become tribal, race-bound and so on and more important than democratic values, then conservative national values become fascist. a good Victorian Jingoist? well, since he was usually harping on the English Race being superior... a bordeline case
Expert political analysts better than I have said for all intents and purposes Fascism only really differs from Communism over "who" should own the means of production. Commies believe the State should own it. Fascists are OK with private ownership. But in both cases The State still maintains control over it and abuses it for political purposes. That is what we saw under Mussolini and Hitler. Nowadays we see similar things emerging in the US, UK and EU.
In most other matters they adopt and use virtually the same tactics: deep corruption, destruction of everything in sight (in order to build the new utopia, you first have to destroy the old), totalitarian government, thug enforcement, justice at the end of a gun barrel, collectivism, political secret police, mass surveillance of the citizenry. The evilness goes on and on. You can't get a fag paper between them.
As a person who rightly belongs on the Right of politics, yes I do object to the Left referring to Fascism as being on the Far Right. It is no accident. The Left use this tactic to a) distance itself from the horrors their own kind perpetrated in WW2 and since, and b) to smear the Right.
The NAZI Party were "National Socialists". Mussolini by his own mouth was a lifelong socialist.
There are many detailed analyses of Fascism over the years which correctly define it as a Far Left totalitarian doctrine.
you conveniently forgot important differences
"Right" is pro-national, yet usually pro-democracy; "Far-Right" is ultra-national, to the point that the Nation is way more important than democracy
"Right" is conservative; "Far-Right" borders to or is racist, up to the point where can become genocidal
Communists don't fucking care if your father was black or blue or yellow, or your mother a Jewess or a Catholic or an Orthodox. fascists do
it's interesting that you seem to think that fascists care if the Left calls them "Far-Right" or not. usually, the only people that care about that are conservatives that haven't grasped yet the above
a proper fascist is proud of his extreme political stance. he might call himself belonging to the "Farthest Right"
I don't agree with some of the differences you mention nor the importance you attach in determining where each sits on the political spectrum.
If we wanted, we could probably produce a list as long as your arm of trivial dfferences between commies and fascists. But few of them would seriously change that both are "totalitarian" and for this reason alone, both are on the Far Left. The idea that there is a Far Right model of totalitarianism is bunkum and was invented by the Left to discredit the Right. They are all Far Left and simply have different ways of getting to their totalitarian utopia. Whether their citizenry want to go there is of no importance to them.
I basically agree with you smacker. I studied nationalism deep and sat through many a "colloquium"/seminar watching socialists (oh...some chose the 'progressive' brand but they were the same generically) just through flaming hoops backward trying to argue fascism was on "the right"...when the differences were so minor that even the socialist professors rarely agreed with them. Academics in general like to refer to it as "radical centrism" and there is some decent arguments to be made there (when in historical context of the early 20th c.).
But one thing I would add to your rebuttal is that fascists weren't really inclined to be racists...NAZIs were, but not the fascists in general (at least no more than anyone else at the time...that progressive era was very racist). Italy and France rhetorically used some racism really only after they had to tie themselves directly to the NAZIs for (hoped for) protection...Japan never really did (at least no more than the Japanese have always been pretty racist). What happened toward the end in France and Italy was desperation...the Jews were the easiest scapegoats at the time for them as they were falling apart...but every government finds scapegoats when they are failing so it's not a purely "fascist" tendency in my reading of it.
Agreed. Fascists are not generally racist. Which is why I've always pointed out that Hitler's Nazis were an oddball fascist party in that they hated Jews.
Some while ago I had a debate with a guy who was at Uni in Britain studying political history for a future career in political journalism or whatever. He had a brief conversation with his lecturer one day in which he asked the lecturer: "why do you always describe Fascism as being on the Far Right, when everything I've learned about it tells me it's on the Far Left"?
The lecturer replied with something along the lines of: "Yes, I agree with you. But if you intend to push that view, you might as well go study something different, you will get nowhere. It was decided a long while ago (by the Educational Establishment) that Fascism is on the Far Right."
And there we have it. The Left-dominated Educational Establishment in Britain decided who sits where and nobody is allowed to challenge it.
As an aside. In Britain, many schoolkids are not educated about "global warming" and "climate change" and mankind's possible contribution to it in the context of encouraging them to think about it or research it to make their own minds up. They are taught that mankind is responsible for GW & CC. Period. And we should all get out of our cars and onto buses to save the planet.
Again, as in politics, the Left are brainwashing people.
Fascists are not generally racist. Which is why I've always pointed out that Hitler's Nazis were an oddball fascist party in that they hated Jews.
Did Hitler's Nazis really "hate" Jews or did they merely blame rich Jews to rally the average Germans to their cause much like Obama and the Democrats are using the rich 1% to rally average Americans to their cause?
Very good point.
My understanding is that you're right about the Nazis and Jews, at least in the early days when there were some close relationships between German Jews and Nazis (just like under Mussolini in Italy). Which confirms my long held belief that Jews have a long history of closeness to Fascism, Marxism and all the other Left wing "isms".
Later on, there are records indicating that Jews tried to wreck the German economy for their own ends (because Hitler wouldn't do what they wanted regarding creating Israel) and they then became a convenient fall guy for the Nazis to rally domestic support. As we know, the whole thing then got out of control.
I fully agree with the fact that the Left brainwashes people on a regular basis
yet you dance quite a lot around the fact that fascism is not necessarily racist, something I agree with
nevertheless, the Left, including the Far Left, is inclusive. the Far Right (and the Right, if you pay attention) is exclusive
and this is the main difference between Left and Right
so I still don't understand this big, usually Anglo-American thing about "they are all the same". this difference is a chasm, it's huge. can it be that it's internalized differently in your culture? I repeat: on the Continent, this dichtonomy is descriptive and accurate
inclusive vs exclusive. the criteria for inclusion or exclusion differ, according the times, yet the stances goe back to the Iron Age. that simple
I wrote that fascists are not "generally" racist. Meaning that it isn't a fundamental part of their doctrine. But they can become so, it all depends on circumstances. Hitler is an example. Same goes for the British BNP: most members of it are fascist Lefties from the Labour Party who hate Jews and/or Muslims.
I don't agree that the Right is exclusive as you claim. If you look back in American history you will find a strong commitment to the Constitution, free market economics and community support organisations. People want the freedom of self-determination and to make their own way in life without government dictating to them. Always a strong feature in American society until the likes of Obama took over and introduced endless Welfare systems to buy votes. It wasn't Lefties in America helping each other but people more on the libertarian Right who intensively dislike big government.
And whilst you claim that the Left is inclusive, I don't see Tony Blair helping the needy in Britain. Far from it. Also, what you really mean by "inclusive" is "collectivist", all dictated by the ever larger Big Government that the Left always creates because it is addicted to power and control. The modern day Left's phony commitment to "collectivism" is really about buying votes.
The Anglo-American view that "they're all the same" is easily explained by the simple truth that "they're all the same". I could list a thousand UK policies which remain in place whether a Labour or Tory government wins an election. EG: Cameron is supposed to be a Conservative but he has not repealed ONE of Blair's anti-liberty laws since taking office. Osborne has done nothing to change the disaster of QE and Zirp that Gordoom Brown left him. Nothing really changes. Why? Because it is not the elected politicians who run the government machine and have control of the levers. It is the unelected Civil Servants, along with MI5, MI6, Met Police and of course the BoE and criminal banksters etc etc. It takes a very astute and intelligent elected politician to really take control of any ministry s/he becomes boss of. We don't have many of those; they're mostly idiots who spend their time fighting with each other over which nail on the coffin to bang in next.
smacker, thank you for answering, you gave me a lot to think about
yes, if I look back at American history, I don't see a Right. strong commitment to the constitution is a centrist-to-all-directions commitment, open to all moderates
free market economics, community support organizations, freedom of self-determination, small government... all classical liberal goals, that are not conservative per se
no, Tony Blair invented New Labour, remember? meanwhile Labour has disowned his foray into more liberalism
The Right, the way we continentals understand it - because this is the way we experience it - is Pro-Nation, in the tribal sense. it's also a relative stance
which means that
- a Scot trying to make Scotland independent (for the Scottish Nation) is on the right of one arguing for Union
- a Brit arguing for the UK leaving the EU is on the right of the one arguing for staying
- a Venetian arguing for independence of a nation that has it's own language, culture and has been independent for 90% of the last 1'500 years is on the right of the one arguing for staying in Italy
- a Catalonian arguing the same - pointing to a even more different language and culture - is in the same stance towards a Spaniard unionist
that's my point: particularly in America, "The Right" is often a label applied to a certain brand of Liberalism laced with a little bit of Conservativism. fine, yet utterly different from our dichtonomy
to put it even simpler: our main dichtonomy - which we "invented", and which makes sense here - is of exclusive groups pulling the black rope of nationalism vs inclusive groups pulling the red rope of socialism
individualism - which is part and parcel of liberalism - is a side issue, here - that is not part of our main political "Left vs Right" dichtonomy. we simply have fewer liberals pulling the yellow rope (this generalization applies less to the Scandinavians)
meanwhile in the English-speaking countries, nationalism is the side issue, then you generally accept many Nations as integral part of your setup, and you see little difference between an Irishmen, an Englishmen, a Scot, a Virginian, a Californian, an Australian, a New Zealander, all talking English and sharing a meta-culture. Particularly when Ex-Pat. more inclusiveness, at least when it's not about... money
a continental conservative (up to a fascist) is often as wary of all brands of liberalism as of the common enemy of (extreme or not) socialism. an extreme continental conservative considers both liberalism and socialism "as the same", both robbing from his Nation's group prerogatives for more inclusiveness in the context of the correct group - aka exclusiveness - and individual rights (which lead to more inclusiveness)
think about it: our Nations bear more differences, be them language, culture, religion and genetic setup
all to say: don't confuse liberal-conservatives pitted against liberal-socialists (your dichtonomy) with our conservatives pitted against our socialists, which is our main dichtonomy, with our liberals often switching between our Right and our Left, according to the vagaries of politics. and Left-Right is the "proper", historic labeling system of our dichtonomy, going back to times when conservativism was about noble privilege and liberals were the only...Left
Some while ago I concluded that the easiest way to define where any political party or person sits on the Left/Right spectrum is to study how much government they want in percentage terms. 0% being on the extreme libertarian Right (anarchy) and 100% being on the extreme Left (totalitarian). My personal stance is around the 20-25% marker, since I believe that government is a necessary evil but its size and scope MUST be limited.
This approach has served me well. It clearly shows that whether we look at Communism, Fascism, Socialism and many other "isms", all of these political doctrines are on the extreme Left because sooner or later, they impose totalitarian government. Whether it's via the ballot box or dictatorship matters not. In Britain today and much of Europe there is about 65-70% government and its rising under the Brussels regime. This is way too much government.
If anybody wants to understand why Europe is sinking into sclerosis, they need look no further than the size of government. Of course, the Left claim it's because there isn't enough government and their solution is to create more of it.
Most of the policies these wannabe totalitarian governments introduce -- typically using the step-by-step tactic so as not to scare the horses -- have virtually nothing whatsoever to do with "inclusiveness", "fairness", "equality", "justice" or any of the other fake labels they peddle. The Left is expert at reinventing itself when policies collapse and they wheel out a whole new set of labels. "Progressive" is one of the latest fashion terms.
The Left is all about seeking total power and control over society and the economy. Why? Because they are psychopaths in varying degress and have convinced themselves that "they know better" than everybody else. Laws, regulations and rules galore soon follow. The very notion that people should have the right to live their life according to their own preference (self-determination) is anathema to the Left. Eventually, everything must be controlled and regulated.
Applying this approach to the likes of Tony Blair, Gordoom Brown and virtually every member of the Labour Party and also Cameron's Tory Party tells me they're all the same. When did Cameron ever call for "smaller government"? Never. When did he advocate any sort of individualism? Never. When did he say "we're all in this together" (ie collectivism)? Many times. Osborne too.
And we see exactly the same totalitarian process going on in the United States on an even bigger scale. It started a long time ago but has gathered momentum under GW Bush and now Obama. The American Constitution is being trashed, people are being enslaved to a corrupt political/corporate/banking system run by a system of government that is ever more totalitarian, ie Far Left.
This will not end well.
"Cameron is supposed to be a Conservative but he has not repealed ONE of Blair's anti-liberty laws since taking office. Osborne has done nothing to change the disaster of QE and Zirp that Gordoom Brown left him. Nothing really changes. Why? Because..."
Because our european politics is heavely dependent from what our dear American Cousins are doing. That's not national politics, that's imperial politics. I'm not sneering or moaning, I see this as facts, and me as a moderate, albeit critical supporter of said empire (though I don't know how long this will be)
Look at the Germans: why do they have to be spied upon... by British intelligence on behalf of the global empire? Note that the Germans are the only ones... complaining, for now
Aren't those anti-liberty laws part and parcel of the New Rights of Global Corporations? Our partly-shared empire is... for their greater profit
yet to be fair: Blair, wearing his socialist hat, restricted liberties in the context of "war". Cameron, wearing his conservative hat, kept those restrictions... in the context of "war". both socialism and conservativism showing their aspects against the individual for the greater good of... groups
all three main political directions have bad aspects. that's why I so passionately... moderate
a fully conservative country restricts groups and individuals for the greater good of select groups, based on status and correct group membership, in part also enforced, like the way Henry VIII ordered Mass on Sunday in a CoE church as obligatory, or Elizabeth I ordering three days where only fish was allowed to be eaten in order to have more sailors for the Royal Navy. note that both acts made England... stronger and more competitive vs other nations
a fully socialist country restricts individuals and groups for the greater good of all (an inclusive group), though through a select group (in the beginning, in theory). I don't think I need examples, in your case
a fully liberal country... if extreme, allows complete and utter economic subjugation of all individuals and groups by... select groups and individuals. for example by allowing the youth to get into debt for private university, allowing the poor to engage into mortgages they won't be able to repay, allowing people to sell their organs, their dignity, their work in terrible conditions in "holy contracts" that are deemed higher than what the other two call... decency
we had a super-liberal country in Europe. the UK, in the 19th. and it showed the same attitude versus prisons as the US does now: steal an apple, get deported to Australia
that's the problem with hyperliberalism: it's heaven... for those who can afford it. in it's extreme, it's exclusive in his own way: through money
ZIRP? Can we eurozoners have higher rates? hell, NO. Why? Well, otherwise we'd get a rush of hot money from NY and the City, as Japan did. Note how much pressure is being put on the ECB to QE, QE, QE
Why did Gordon Brown sell British gold at the bottom? Not for the greater glory of the British Nation. It was for the greater glory of the Global Liberal Empire. which has been quietly hijacked by great economic interests, particularly financial ones
mussolini jumped from the communist party into the fascist movement.
Not a very long jump!
The Nazis weren't particularly socialist, Hitler feared communism so branded his party socialist to soak up some of the left leaning vote.
a point that is lost on many Americans. further, Hitler's Nazi party was not a "classic" fascist party, and indeed was "left-leaning" in certain matters
Not lost, concealed.
I agree with that.
Perhaps the single greatest difference between Hitler's model of Fascism and (say) Mussolini's was that he eventually aimed his hatred at Jews, whereas Mussolini was surrounded by them. The reason being that Jews have a long history of close relationship with the Far Left: Marxism and Fascism etc. They were prominent in the Russian Bolsheviks.
Actually, the Nazis were entirely socialist. You need to study up a little more on Nazi economic history.
The reason that National Socialists (fascists) and International Socialists (communists) don't get along is strictly a matter of style, and not substance.
They both have entirely incompatible means of arriving at essentially the same point.
Rising make sure you get it all right. Nazi comes from Nationalsozialismus in German translated to national socialist but the party of Hitler was called the national socialist German workers party. Now you know where unions get thier attitude, thuggery, and socialist leadership from.
OK simpleton, do you believe North Korea is a democracy? After all, it's called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, isn't it?
Please read: Vampire Economy Gunter Riemann 1938, the paralles to modern day US/EU are striking to say the least. Book is availabel in reprint at Amazon and elsewhere.
So, we have Hollande's loony Hard Left socialists fighting with the even more loony Far Left fascists for supremacy of power.
When the Left is not destroying everything in sight or throwing bricks at anybody who dares to be on the Right, it fights among itself.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
Maidain is coming from Ukrain to YOU
Hmmm, how come I never read about these clashes in Israel ??
Hmmm, how come I never read about these clashes in France ??
dean friedmans nato distraction blues.
gladio
gladio
donte ya udderstand
this is nothing at alll
just more of what thay had planned.
gladio
gladio
i'm at your command.
at least till the morning cums
then i'm off to the synagogue again
off 2 the synagogue again.
Several years ago it came to my attention that the "elite" types had a very special gladio operation in store for France...but chance had it the "elite" threw its full weight behind the left wing agendas, pro-EU, socialism, gay, anti-religion etc., and had kept the country in an economic and political stupor.
As is the case in Turkey today certain "puppets" were left out in the cold and were thrown under the bus, one day twitter revolution, the other day popular conservatism, one day neoliberal...if there is a transition to a more nationalist, anti-EU France and it remains largely peaceful, who can deny such a development.
In Belgium, France's socialist neighbor to the north, there have been reports of clashes where the upcoming communist party stages protests wherever the confederalist party has some meeting, because they consider this party too extreme. If I remember correctly, this is supposed to be the other way around, no? Have Europeans become so politically correct that extreme left = OK, anything right = racist fascism?
i used to bee a french cop
vee likes der riot
we likes to crack der heads like eggs.
we likes to get der head juices on are bootsis.
we likes stampin on der groinal regions.
zis we must do to keeps zer sheep distractimon.
next weeks i dress like a muslims wivs zer veil.
i goes to hurts some jewish actors who good at playing zer victims.
it will makes a nice tv show.
zer jewish wis tear in eyes will talk of der war and endless angwishes
even today day bleed ovey
zer jews says elohm
hay ya hay ya hey ya satan is der way.
i say i a mason so A ok
At least France has a political party to vote for that is different from the status quo... unlike the US...
Vive Sur la France!!
What's not to love about a this section of a country that is both Anti-semitic (we'll give the jews their hijacking of the word Semitic to apply exclusively to the jews, while knowing that ALL sons Shem are semites, just this once for brevity's sake) and Anti-muslim???
At least one part of the world realizes the power that these two pernicious, destructive, and nukular conflagrating headcases these two organized peoples are on the world stage.
Fuck tolerance for extremists in organized religions and the internecine Semite battle that has been going on among these two branches of the same tribe for centuries.
anti-fascist = anti white. Period, end of story.
Anit-socialists are far right nationalinst fascits. Then I am one too. I would describe myself as an individualist, but whatever. These BS labels don't change the truth.
Yeah, the left is REAL peaceful. Why is it people with conservative views are always labled racist? BTW, it was the left in France that were putting people into guillotines.
Fascist/Socialist
Visualize not whirlled peas, but a reasonably straight line, a string.
At the right end of this string place the label 'Fascist'. At the left end visualize 'Socialist'.
Now take each of the ends and lifting them off the surface, bring the two ends together---- as if you have been stopped by the police and asked to get out of your car, close your eyes, and point with your index finger to your nose.
Now you have---- instead of two supposedly diametrically opposite forms of government, the two forms of government immediately beside each other.
So in theory (the string) it appears that the two are substantially different but in practice (lifting the two ends of the surface and joining them) they are each nearly exactly alike, less than a dot between them (the circle).
These labels are just subterfuge and propaganda to hide the true motivation of the Big Jefe (s): to force his/hrc's command and control over everyone else. What it's called is as meaningless as clinton-speak, or a paragraph from Alan Greenspan.
I think Fascism is more the beginning of Socialism which in turn is the beginning Communism; all of which are certainly just Central Planning in a universe with no Center.
damned caffeine
If everyone in France would commit to a 40 hour work week with reasonable lunch periods and bathroom breaks, along with a couple of weeks of vacation every year, the whole place could return to peace and productivity. Oh, and stop regulating each other into oblivion.
As it is, they have to blame things on each other ... Algerians, gypsies, whites and what-have-you.
If the pie is kept growing, people don't squabble over the pieces.
The pie can't keep growing unless the French start having children again.
The French have perfected "le snobbism' far beyond any other culture. No other people can express contempt for others with quite the style of the French. Funny thing is that they don't really have much to justify those feelings of superiority. However, I do understand that simply being French is, in their eyes, quite sufficient reason to be absolutely certain of their superiority - no further qualifications needed.
And by the way I quite enjoyed living and working in France, and probably because I spoke almost perfect Parisian French and didn't reveal that I was American too often I was never the recipient of that 'looking down the nose and curling the upper lip' combo that is so devastating.
I did sometimes enjoy insisting on ketchup with my 'frites' and watching the waiter develop apoplexy.
This comment could be named "Fantasy and cliché" ;-))
You probably traveled a lot in bad cartoons ...
A buncha Muzzies protesting French Nationalism?
Who woulda thunk it.
Whenever the Socialists lose they always scream Ray-Cyst.
I call BS on them. Ignore the Ray-Cyst label. When everybody is Ra-Cyst then NOBODY will be!
So the "anti-fascists" are the violent ones threatening to kill everyone who doesn't goose-step to their globalist horseshit drumbeat, and the "fascists" are peacefully celebrating a simple election that went their way.
Sounds about par for the course, going by what I have seen in the USA with the MSM, SEIU, OFA, and OWS.
Just wait till the European elections in May. Nationalist and Eurocritic parties will win big. It is because the established elitist parties have failed the indigenous European people.
Civil unrest. And, TPTB sit back and smile..................
It seems socialism is not popular these days...
You are wrong Front national is as socalist as "Parti socialiste"... There is no true liberal party in france...
May be Front national is even the most socialist among all the party we have...
Nice try at misdirection....
Maybe even the French get tired of eating their own dog food. Or maybe they want to toss the pooch out with the poop.
http://ploum.net/images/chien.png
.
So violent kneegrows and Muslims protest in France......maybe they should go home?
Maybe all the French should move to Algiers?
Or, as paddyirishman suggests for Ireland, just change the name.
"Can't escape the 'cultural enrichment' of rapes and murders that these' ahem' new citizens bring even here in Ireland, soon to be renamde Nigeria on the north Athlantic, every time I return home these days despite having the most focked economy in the world, been the number 1 indebted country (hey we're no 1 at something) the only talk is about 'gay marriage' abortion and enthusia, hard to believe that 60 sixty years ago europeans actually fought a war albeit created by the chosen tribe that you cannot mention. Some things however never change the French are the first to surrender and they're still arrogant despite it."
Where does this ugly disdain for the French come from?
Because they surrendered to the Germans in WWII after losing 260,000 men wounded and 108,000 killed during the invasion?
The Germans would have walked straight over the British or American armies if any of these places would have been directly adjacent to France.
Or is it rather because the French didn't join America in 2003 ?
The History has proved the French were right.
I've been in Algiers for 15 months.
My advice? Don't!
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 Mail
In response to yesterday’s bullet on ZH - *MOSCOVICI SAYS IT'S 'DIFFICULT TO REFORM FRANCE' – Welder wrote this morning:
Srul Hersch Moscovici (Serge Moscovici, Serghey Moscovici), is a Jewish Bolshevik born in Romania in 1925. Him and his comrades blessed us, Romanians, with Communism. His son, Pierre Moscovici, continues his father's work in France. Apparently, the French electorate is just as unqualified for voting as any other.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-30/far-right-gains-french-election-hollandes-socialists-admit-unquestionably-defeat
“Riot police were also out in force in other parts of the country as anti-fascist demonstrators threatened FN candidates with violence.” – Zero Hedge
Like the National Front in France, Americans who oppose the swamp of socialism in America, it seems, can be labeled fascist. If one is to be believed, the rent-a-mob communists in France trying to stir up riots and unrest after Sunday’s election victory by the NF are labeled are anti-fascists in this report. That’s wrong on so many levels.
For openers, the fascists existed in Italy under Mussolini; they aren’t around anymore.
For another, America and France are now approaching peak Bolshevism with the loss of freedom at the hands of international bankers who using waves of Third World immigration to get votes for socialists.
So, Marine Le Pen and her National Front (not anti-Semitic as these reports suggest; even the bankers' The Economist says NF has no anti-Semitic characteristics) is trying to save her country from the international bankers’ European Union and George Soros’s Open Society operatives now in 100 countries.
So, please: She is a patriot. Not a fascist. And we who oppose the Fed tyranny over American citizens are patriots, not fascists. One wonders why and for what reason we are called fascists.
Non mais zerohedge, là vous déconnez complètement. Rectifions : quelques algarades très localisées. Le pluriel est presque de trop !
très localisées....
Move along, nothing to see then.
En plus, écrire que la "vague" FN => rejet du socialisme... Là il faut fumer la moquette...
Le FN est un gros furoncle socialiste de plus sur les fesses de Marianne...