French Socialists to Postpone Civil War Plan as Cartel Shuts Out National Front
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
France’s Socialist prime minister Manuel Valls warned last week that the National Front being democratically elected could cause “civil war.” But the Socialists’ fallback plan been postponed as their strategy of throwing regional elections to Sarkozy’s center-right party to shut out the National Front has worked.
Prose style will only get you so far, it seems.
Reading the French media as best I can, I get the sense the vacuum on the Right is sucking the Sarkozy’s party over toward the Le Pen side, which will force a crisis down the road. If the Left does not follow, then the schism in the ruling coalition will become a serious problem down the line. In other words, by averting one crisis they setup the next crisis.
This is the reverse of what we have seen in the US for as long as any of us have been alive. The pattern in the US has been for the Progressive wing of the ruling coalition to drag the center over to the left, drawing what we call the Right with it. As I’m fond of pointing out, I worked for Democrats in the 80’s who held all the same positions as Ted Cruz, who is the outer edge of the official Right these days.
Speaking of which, the wireless brings word that Cruz is reconsidering his unlimited green-card program, now slapping a minimum wage on H1B visas of $110K.
I get that the idea is to keep employers from using the H-1B to replace America workers with much cheaper foreigners, but why give that money to the foreigners, especially when it will inevitably be extracted from them via one scam or another?
Instead have the feds charge a $40,000 annual fee for every H-1B hire. 70,000 H-1B visas would bring in $2.8 billion annually - revenue collected by the government from businesses, rather than workers. Charge that fee above and beyond requiring employers to pay "prevailing wages."
Here is how it's done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lwusMxiHc
This analyst in Le Figaro claims that the socialists remain noticeably solid thanks partly to clientism and the support of the media, giving a fairly even overall left-right balance. He quotes from The Leopard that everything must change to stay the same.
But he notes - like you - that the centre-right may be losing support to the FN. Very much still game on, I would say. This result may be good for the FN because it will underline the requirement for a realignment of tribal politics in time for 2017. Not impossible, I think.
"Marine Le Pen évoque un nouveau bipartisme. N'y a-t-il pas, malgré tout, une lente recomposition qui s'opère?
"Pas vraiment. Les éléments de continuité restent prégnants. La comparaison avec les européennes de 1984 susmentionnés, dans des conditions similaires, après trois ou quatre ans de gouvernement socialiste, atteste surtout que c'est le cuisinier en chef du front républicain, à savoir le parti socialiste, qui est le grand gagnant de l'entre-deux tours. En effet, la quasi-parité de victoires régionales entre droite et gauche est le signe d'un échec de la droite classique, qui n'a pas su tailler des croupières à la gauche (comme en 1984), ni endiguer le glissement d'une partie de sa base électorale vers le FN.
"Tout les signaux d'alarme et autres mises en garde sur les risques de disparition du parti socialiste étaient évidemment des fariboles et des fantasmes d'intellectuels. Un parti qui a des centaines de milliers d'élus, un vaste socle clientéliste et de puissants relais médiatiques est insubmersible, même lorsque, conduit par le premier ministre Michel Rocard, il n'obtient que 11 % à des élections européennes.C'est comme dans le roman et film Le Guépard: tout change pour que rien ne change."
http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/2015/12/13/31001-20151213ARTFIG00199-pourquoi-le-fn-cale-toujours-au-second-tour.phpReplies: @5371
*****
The entire H category of work visas isn't needed. Look up the E, TN/TD, O, and P visas for superior methods of screening foreign nationals.
Must of had the ACLU working for them…
Zut alors!
You can govern in prose, but you have to campaign on underground apes eating figs in dank grottoes. Sacre bleu!
All’s fair in love, war, and politics.
Every third Frenchman is chained to two others who have decided they’d prefer to commit cultural and national suicide to doing anything “extreme.”
The French will eventually realize their mistake. Look to the American South, where political loyalties have been along racial lines. That is how it will soon be in an ever increasing number of jurisdictions.
Really depressing. As in 2002, FN barely increased its vote share after minor parties were eliminated.
The closest thing to win was in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté:
Socialists 34.68
Republicans 32.89
National Front 32.44
In Nord, Marine went from 40.64 in round 1 to 42.64 in round 2. The Republican went from 24.97 to 57.77.
Florian’s share was only 0.01 higher than in round 1.
Marion had the highest FN share and most impressive improvement, from 40.55 to 45.22.
Some will say FN is locked in an electoral ghetto and point to these results (generally no rise in support first vs. second round), but you've just had nearly 30% of the population voting for a "far right" party. The FN remains one crisis away from power.Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Lot
Record National Front vote total; other parties maneuver to lock NF out completely. Same as 1980s.
The closest thing to win was in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté:
Socialists 34.68
Republicans 32.89
National Front 32.44
In Nord, Marine went from 40.64 in round 1 to 42.64 in round 2. The Republican went from 24.97 to 57.77.
Florian's share was only 0.01 higher than in round 1.
Marion had the highest FN share and most impressive improvement, from 40.55 to 45.22.Replies: @Hail
Vote totals by region, first vs. second round
Some will say FN is locked in an electoral ghetto and point to these results (generally no rise in support first vs. second round), but you’ve just had nearly 30% of the population voting for a “far right” party. The FN remains one crisis away from power.
Ha!! Europe is finished. They're fools! Fools! And we're no better.Replies: @Hail
I am really trying to think of any bright side.It does not seem to matter if all the other parties conspire against them.
Voting for the National Assembly has primaries where parties that exceed 12.5% go to the 2nd round.
In 2012, the FN received 13.6% of first round assembly votes and 3.66% of second round votes, though it was not on a the ballot in most districts the second round. It ended up, however, with 2 of 577 seats or 0.35%.
Though it was the third largest party in 2012 first round voting, it ended up as the 10th largest party in the Assembly. Parti Radical got 90% fewer votes than FN, but ended up with 6 seats. FN got 20 times the first round votes of the Centrist Alliance, but end up with the same 2 seats in the Assembly.
Hard to see FN not doing far better in the 2017 election. If it can get 25% overall nationally, they'd be on the ballot in nearly every district.
This is a reminder of what realists everywhere are up against.
Meanwhile diversity is about to crash the UK economy in 2016. The fall-out rom that will be interesting.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/626511/House-prices-soar-record-highs-expected-2016
My local radio report deadpanned that FN had ‘come third, despite winning the first round’. Well that’s one way of putting it.
This is the reverse of what we have seen in the US for as long as any of us have been alive. The pattern in the US has been for the Progressive wing of the ruling coalition to drag the center over to the left, drawing what we call the Right with it. As I'm fond of pointing out, I worked for Democrats in the 80's who held all the same positions as Ted Cruz, who is the outer edge of the official Right these days.
Speaking of which, the wireless brings word that Cruz is reconsidering his unlimited green-card program, now slapping a minimum wage on H1B visas of $110K.Replies: @Wilkey, @TB2, @Bill B., @dsgntd_plyr
“Speaking of which, the wireless brings word that Cruz is reconsidering his unlimited green-card program, now slapping a minimum wage on H1B visas of $110K.”
I get that the idea is to keep employers from using the H-1B to replace America workers with much cheaper foreigners, but why give that money to the foreigners, especially when it will inevitably be extracted from them via one scam or another?
Instead have the feds charge a $40,000 annual fee for every H-1B hire. 70,000 H-1B visas would bring in $2.8 billion annually – revenue collected by the government from businesses, rather than workers. Charge that fee above and beyond requiring employers to pay “prevailing wages.”
When the dust settles, it is not about popular votes, not about “coming this close,” not about “winning or losing” (whatever that means, given proportional representation), but about control of seats in the councils.
Looking at actual seats in the new assemblies following these election…
Share of Seats Won by the FN in Regional Councils, to serve January 2016 to (Probably) 2021 (Current Wiki data) (The party getting the highest number of votes gets a large number of bonus seats. FN did not get a majority in any region):
(1) 34% Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur [the young Marion Le Pen’s district, FN received 45% of the popular vote here, vs. a single list of “non far right” parties] (45% of popular vote translates to 34% of seats because of “biggest party” bonus)
(2) 32% Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie [Marine Le Pen’s district, FN received 42% of the popular vote; see above]
(3) 27% Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine
(4) 25% Languedoc-Roussillon-Midi-Pyrénées
(5) 24% Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
(6) 22% Centre-Val de Loire
(7) 21% Normandie
(8) 17% Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
(9) 16% Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes
(10) 15% Bretagne
(11) 14% Pays de la Loire
(12) 11% Île-de-France [Paris region; presumably a heavy Nonwhite vote]
(13) 8% Corse [Corsica]
The FN having one third of seats in two region councils between 1/6th to 1/4th of seats in essentially all other regions seems pretty good, anyway. It could be worse; it could be Germany.
"The FN having one third of seats in two regional councils and between 1/6th and 1/4th of seats in all other regions seems pretty good".
You make an excellent point, and what's now important is for those elected to show they are not the monsters they are portrayed to be.
Some will say FN is locked in an electoral ghetto and point to these results (generally no rise in support first vs. second round), but you've just had nearly 30% of the population voting for a "far right" party. The FN remains one crisis away from power.Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Lot
One crisis away??!! We just had a million fake refugees flood into Germany and a bloody, traumatizing massacre of youth in France. We’re verging on “Europa was in crisis with Midasia: Europa had always been in crisis with Midasia” territory.
Ha!! Europe is finished. They’re fools! Fools! And we’re no better.
(2) 32% Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie [Marine Le Pen's district, FN received 42% of the popular vote; see above]
(3) 27% Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine
(4) 25% Languedoc-Roussillon-Midi-Pyrénées
(5) 24% Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
(6) 22% Centre-Val de Loire
(7) 21% Normandie
(8) 17% Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
(9) 16% Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes
(10) 15% Bretagne
(11) 14% Pays de la Loire
(12) 11% Île-de-France [Paris region; presumably a heavy Nonwhite vote]
(13) 8% Corse [Corsica]The FN having one third of seats in two region councils between 1/6th to 1/4th of seats in essentially all other regions seems pretty good, anyway. It could be worse; it could be Germany.Replies: @Hail, @Wilkey, @International Jew
Should read:
“The FN having one third of seats in two regional councils and between 1/6th and 1/4th of seats in all other regions seems pretty good”.
but this betrayal of their own base by the socialists will have long term effects…now this gives NF the opportunity to boldly move to the left on economics (i.e., stronger support of the welfare state and workers’ rights etc) while still maintaining an anti-immigration stance….that will kill off the socialist party and allow NF to take power in the future.
Wasn’t that a Frank Zappa album?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/626511/House-prices-soar-record-highs-expected-2016Replies: @Wilkey
“Meanwhile diversity is about to crash the UK economy in 2016. The fall-out from that will be interesting.”
Those are the kinds of stories you started seeing a year or two before the housing bubble burst in 2007-08 – housing prices rising far faster than income was rising, with average prices in many, many areas well beyond the reach of average workers. The average price cited in this article equates to about $435,000 American dollars. On a traditional mortgage that would require an $87,000 down payment and a monthly payment of around $1,680 (before property taxes and insurance). That’s in a country where per capita income is only about 80% of the US, so make that $2,100/month plus insurance and property taxes.
That is not sustainable.
Ha!! Europe is finished. They're fools! Fools! And we're no better.Replies: @Hail
I share your outrage, but keep in mind the EU has something like 470 million Europeans versus 35 million Non-Europeans (now 36 million, or whatever it is, following Merkel’s treason). It’s a long way, yet, till Götterdämmerung. Don’t give in to defeatism or over-alarmism.
Muslim civil rights activists detonating a nuclear device in a city center killing half a million Crusader civilians instantly. That is the kind of crisis I mean. Or a good old fashioned economic crash. Or a crash combined with ongoing ethnic strife.
Israel stopped electing open-boarders left wing governments only after dozens of riots, murders and suicide bombings killed about 1,050 Jews during the Second Intifada. (Palestinian deaths were about 3300, of which about 500 were killed by other Palestinians.)
A couple of generations ago it was probably more like 3.5 million.
It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to work out it will be at the very least 350 million a couple of generations' hence.
Meanwhile, today is St Lucy’s Day, when Swedish girls walk with lit candles upon their heads, followed by the Ku Klux Klan:
(2) 32% Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie [Marine Le Pen's district, FN received 42% of the popular vote; see above]
(3) 27% Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine
(4) 25% Languedoc-Roussillon-Midi-Pyrénées
(5) 24% Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
(6) 22% Centre-Val de Loire
(7) 21% Normandie
(8) 17% Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
(9) 16% Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes
(10) 15% Bretagne
(11) 14% Pays de la Loire
(12) 11% Île-de-France [Paris region; presumably a heavy Nonwhite vote]
(13) 8% Corse [Corsica]The FN having one third of seats in two region councils between 1/6th to 1/4th of seats in essentially all other regions seems pretty good, anyway. It could be worse; it could be Germany.Replies: @Hail, @Wilkey, @International Jew
When the dust settles, it is not about popular votes, not about “coming this close,” not about “winning or losing” (whatever that means, given proportional representation), but about control of seats in the councils.
You make an excellent point, and what’s now important is for those elected to show they are not the monsters they are portrayed to be.
Some will say FN is locked in an electoral ghetto and point to these results (generally no rise in support first vs. second round), but you've just had nearly 30% of the population voting for a "far right" party. The FN remains one crisis away from power.Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Lot
Multiple suicide attacks killing 130 people wasn’t enough though.
I am really trying to think of any bright side.
It does not seem to matter if all the other parties conspire against them.
Voting for the National Assembly has primaries where parties that exceed 12.5% go to the 2nd round.
In 2012, the FN received 13.6% of first round assembly votes and 3.66% of second round votes, though it was not on a the ballot in most districts the second round. It ended up, however, with 2 of 577 seats or 0.35%.
Though it was the third largest party in 2012 first round voting, it ended up as the 10th largest party in the Assembly. Parti Radical got 90% fewer votes than FN, but ended up with 6 seats. FN got 20 times the first round votes of the Centrist Alliance, but end up with the same 2 seats in the Assembly.
Hard to see FN not doing far better in the 2017 election. If it can get 25% overall nationally, they’d be on the ballot in nearly every district.
For those who haven’t figured this out from the comments, the French use single member districts for their legislatures, like in the US, but they have a second round of voting. In the second round, parties that have done poorly in the first round are eliminated or withdraw, and they encourage their voters to vote for one of the big two or three in the second round. Governments are formed by whoever gets a majority in the legislature, as in the rest of Europe, but nationwide there is a directly elected President plunked on top of the whole structure.
Its important to remember this to see where a party such as the Front Nationale stands. They are gaining support, but everyone else hates them, and will gang up in the second round to ensure whoever is their strongest opponent wins. And this includes supporters of other right-wing parties. The left always looks somewhat weaker than it really is due to the continue existence of several minor left wing parties, they will all vote for the Socialists in the second round, but they might have the effect of the Socialists not getting enough votes to make it past the first round. Chirac and Sarkozy made sure that the right and much of the center -excluding of course FN supporters- was united in one big party, whose name keeps changing.
I don’t think we’ll see any loose nukes in Europe. Pakistan isn’t that dysfunctional yet.
Israel stopped electing open-boarders left wing governments only after dozens of riots, murders and suicide bombings killed about 1,050 Jews during the Second Intifada. (Palestinian deaths were about 3300, of which about 500 were killed by other Palestinians.)
This election could be the left to center-rights last hurrah before the real storm breaks over how France and the other European nationalities will respond when they truly feel the desperation from all the “Aliens Within Their Midst.” They will not go quietly, for something is amiss.
“Look to the American South, where political loyalties have been along racial lines. That is how it will soon be in an ever increasing number of jurisdictions.”
Sometimes I think maybe there is a secret society of Confederate vampires cackling “hahah, they never would listen to us or believe us, but watch what happens now! Sometimes there’s only one way to learn people.”
Welcome to Dixie World.
Its important to remember this to see where a party such as the Front Nationale stands. They are gaining support, but everyone else hates them, and will gang up in the second round to ensure whoever is their strongest opponent wins. And this includes supporters of other right-wing parties. The left always looks somewhat weaker than it really is due to the continue existence of several minor left wing parties, they will all vote for the Socialists in the second round, but they might have the effect of the Socialists not getting enough votes to make it past the first round. Chirac and Sarkozy made sure that the right and much of the center -excluding of course FN supporters- was united in one big party, whose name keeps changing.Replies: @Steve Sailer
OT question: why do American parties never change their name, even after losing the Civil War, while Canadian Parties constantly change their name?
Americans are very traditional minded. The two (that there are only two may have something to do with it) have swapped their core voters between each others but always keeps the name.
The French party that keeps changing its name, at least once a decade, is the center-right one. I have no idea why they can't settle on a name. According to Wikipedia, the big party on the left has had one name change, to the Socialist Party from the less catch "French Section of the Workers International" (PSIO).
With Canada, you may be thinking of the switch from the Conservative Party, to the Progressive Conservative Party, back to the Conservative Party of Canada. These are all due to mergers with more populist right-wing movements that broke away from the main conservative party. As far as I know, the Liberal Party has always had the same name. The party to the left of the liberals changed from the Canadian Commonwealth Federation to the New Democratic Party, and are probably due for another name change, since they have now been the "New" Democrats for over fifty years.
And in regular English that would be:
However, I will agree that some times “must have” is abbreviated as “must’ve” in spoken English.
(2) 32% Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie [Marine Le Pen's district, FN received 42% of the popular vote; see above]
(3) 27% Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine
(4) 25% Languedoc-Roussillon-Midi-Pyrénées
(5) 24% Bourgogne-Franche-Comté
(6) 22% Centre-Val de Loire
(7) 21% Normandie
(8) 17% Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
(9) 16% Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes
(10) 15% Bretagne
(11) 14% Pays de la Loire
(12) 11% Île-de-France [Paris region; presumably a heavy Nonwhite vote]
(13) 8% Corse [Corsica]The FN having one third of seats in two region councils between 1/6th to 1/4th of seats in essentially all other regions seems pretty good, anyway. It could be worse; it could be Germany.Replies: @Hail, @Wilkey, @International Jew
It strikes me as odd that Bretagne would be so left-wing. From what I’ve seen traveling, Bretagne seemed traditional-minded and 100% white.
35% Socialists
24% Conservatives
18% National Front
___________________
7% Breton regionalist party, leans left [MBP - UDB]
7% Greens [EELV - BE]
4% NeoCommunists [FG]
3% Minor conservative 'Gaullist' party [DLF]
1% Radical NeoCommunists [LO]
1% Another Communist party
1% Breton secessionists [PB]
1% Another dissident 'Gaullist' party [UPR]Second Round
51% Socialists [translating to 64% of seats]
30% Conservatives [translating to 22% of seats]
19% National Front [translating to 15% of seats]
The French system in these regional councils seems rigged to suppress ascendant non-establishment parties. The Socialists were first choice of one one-third of Breton voters, but they end up with two-thirds of seats...Replies: @tbraton
The socialism of the Celtic fringe.Replies: @Hail
http://tmblr.co/ZNhQxm1vS74th
Basically Britain has the lowest immigration rate in the country, which is why they can afford to remain in their socialist fantasies for now.
Note the 69% in Ile-de-France.Replies: @Hail, @Diversity Heretic, @Bill B.
With that in mind, an actual minority culture like Brittany does not strike me as likely to support such a policy.
Same dynamic with the Basques in Spain.Replies: @Hail
Bretagne Regional Council election results, Dec. 2015 (link above)
First Round (those above the line moved to second round)
35% Socialists
24% Conservatives
18% National Front
___________________
7% Breton regionalist party, leans left [MBP – UDB]
7% Greens [EELV – BE]
4% NeoCommunists [FG]
3% Minor conservative ‘Gaullist’ party [DLF]
1% Radical NeoCommunists [LO]
1% Another Communist party
1% Breton secessionists [PB]
1% Another dissident ‘Gaullist’ party [UPR]
Second Round
51% Socialists [translating to 64% of seats]
30% Conservatives [translating to 22% of seats]
19% National Front [translating to 15% of seats]
The French system in these regional councils seems rigged to suppress ascendant non-establishment parties. The Socialists were first choice of one one-third of Breton voters, but they end up with two-thirds of seats…
Call it the Vermont effect.
Because (1) they indeed have few “minorities” so they don’t feel the threat and (2) they have their own Breton ethnic nationalism which asserts itself against the central power, similar to the way Catalans prefer Spanish Socialists.
130 people shot is not a crisis. 9/11 was not a big enough crisis for America. It’s going to take full on urban warfare or Paris nuked. Something really really big or small but permanent. And France has riots and the banlirues and that is not enough the change attitudes. Assassinating political leaders and blowing up the Eiffel Tower wouldn’t do it, the French would just say, “We must prevent le backlash.” Only when there is real fear or anger among the people will they change.
“It strikes me as odd that Bretagne would be so left-wing. From what I’ve seen traveling, Bretagne seemed traditional-minded and 100% white.”
The socialism of the Celtic fringe.
The socialism of the Celtic fringe.Replies: @Hail
Unfair.
National Front plus Conservatives were 49% total second round votes in Brittany, and “right”/”nationalist” parties may have been a majority in the first round depending on which way we choose to categorize the minor parties.
The real question, and I’m not sure if this is what International_Jew meant or not, is why the National Front as a party seems relatively weaker there.
Not knowing anything about the general platforms of the French parties, it looks like the National Front is going to have to learn how to appeal to some of the Socialist voters in place of the center-right party.
This is the reverse of what we have seen in the US for as long as any of us have been alive. The pattern in the US has been for the Progressive wing of the ruling coalition to drag the center over to the left, drawing what we call the Right with it. As I'm fond of pointing out, I worked for Democrats in the 80's who held all the same positions as Ted Cruz, who is the outer edge of the official Right these days.
Speaking of which, the wireless brings word that Cruz is reconsidering his unlimited green-card program, now slapping a minimum wage on H1B visas of $110K.Replies: @Wilkey, @TB2, @Bill B., @dsgntd_plyr
He’ll say whatever he has to say to get elected and then flood the country with unlimited immigrants as his donors want him to, particularly the many white-hating racists and class bigots among them . He’ll get away with it too because there is nothing stupider and more cowardly than a conservative. There couldn’t be.
Here is how it’s done:
For those wondering why the NF has less grip in Britain, and more generally how the NF vote plays out in France, you may want to have a look at the map below, issued from a study published in the cuck-right newspaper Le Figaro. It’s in French, but it shows the share of the newborn population considered “at risk” with drepanocytosis, a disease with the particularity of being pretty much exclusively non-Caucasian – which is as close to ethnic statistics as France can get.
http://tmblr.co/ZNhQxm1vS74th
Basically Britain has the lowest immigration rate in the country, which is why they can afford to remain in their socialist fantasies for now.
Note the 69% in Ile-de-France.
"l'arithmétique est sans pitié."Replies: @Mandos
It’s 35 million now.
A couple of generations ago it was probably more like 3.5 million.
It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to work out it will be at the very least 350 million a couple of generations’ hence.
As a true believer in democracy, all I will say is that if the French people want more of the same, then they are fully entitled in choosing more of the same.
http://tmblr.co/ZNhQxm1vS74th
Basically Britain has the lowest immigration rate in the country, which is why they can afford to remain in their socialist fantasies for now.
Note the 69% in Ile-de-France.Replies: @Hail, @Diversity Heretic, @Bill B.
Good post, but
The Socialist vote was only 35% in the first round and 51% in the second round. This is not a “Socialist lock” at all.
Note also that Jean-Marie Le Pen is a native of Brittany (Bretagne).
I see it the other way: having the mainstream right and the NF unable to aggregate 50% of the Briton vote at a time of deep governmental unpopularity shows how strong the Left is in the region - though the 13 November has somehow played in favor of the current administration with Hollande enjoying +20 pts, for instance. It's also directly linked to their low immigrate population.
Still it is their best score nationally far and away. Brittany has been a bastion of the Left for years and is pretty well known for it in France. It also has a lot to do here with the personality of Jean-Yves le Drian, the current French Minister of Defense, one of the most popular members of the government, who was pressed by his own camp to run at the expense of Hollande’s campaign promise to forbid multiple office within his administration.
I see it the other way: having the mainstream right and the NF unable to aggregate 50% of the Briton vote at a time of deep governmental unpopularity shows how strong the Left is in the region – though the 13 November has somehow played in favor of the current administration with Hollande enjoying +20 pts, for instance. It’s also directly linked to their low immigrate population.
You might as well ask why blue collar Boston votes D. Secret Scots-Irish (the real McCoy) business.
In America, we reserve that practice for our “mortal enemies” who constitute “existential threats” to our “way of life,” which explains how ISIS became ISIL became IS became Daesch. Has anybody figured out the reason for the constant change of names the Obama Administration attaches to the beheaders in the Middle East? Why the insistence on calling it ISIL when everybody had finally gotten comfortable with ISIS? Is it, as someone suggested in another context, simply a way to screw up Google searches to make it more difficult for people to trace the Administration’s failure in this area?
35% Socialists
24% Conservatives
18% National Front
___________________
7% Breton regionalist party, leans left [MBP - UDB]
7% Greens [EELV - BE]
4% NeoCommunists [FG]
3% Minor conservative 'Gaullist' party [DLF]
1% Radical NeoCommunists [LO]
1% Another Communist party
1% Breton secessionists [PB]
1% Another dissident 'Gaullist' party [UPR]Second Round
51% Socialists [translating to 64% of seats]
30% Conservatives [translating to 22% of seats]
19% National Front [translating to 15% of seats]
The French system in these regional councils seems rigged to suppress ascendant non-establishment parties. The Socialists were first choice of one one-third of Breton voters, but they end up with two-thirds of seats...Replies: @tbraton
I don’t know what you find so surprising. Based on the results you posted, it is clear that most of the minor parties who were barred from running in the second round (judging from the names, mostly very leftist parties) gravitated to their natural home, the Socialists in the second round of voting. The FN share only increased by 1% from round 1 to round 2, while the Socialists picked up 16% out of the 25% voting for minor, left wing parties in the first round and increased their share to 51% compared to 35% in the first round.
41% National Front
25% Conservatives
18% Socialists (Withdrew from election despite qualifying for second round)
________________________
5% NeoCommunist front [PCF - E! - R&S - CC]
5% Left-Wing Greens [EELV - PG - ND - NGS]
2% Minor conservative 'Gaullist' party [DLF]
1% Radical NeoCommunists [LO]
1% Minor free market party [NC]
1% Another dissident ‘Gaullist’ party [UPR]Second Round
42% National Front [translating to 32% of seats]
58% Conservatives [translating to 68% of seats due to largest-party bonus].
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur [Marion Le Pen's district]First Round
41% National Front
27% Conservatives
17% Socialists (Withdrew from election)
___________________
7% Left-Wing Greens [EELV - FG - NGS]
4% Centrist Greens [AEI]
2% Minor conservative 'Gaullist' party [DLF]
2% Radical NeoCommunists [LO]
1% Right-Wing Nationalists [LS-PDF], Jean-Marie Le Pen loyalists
1% Dissident Socialists, leaning centrist [ND]
1% Another dissident ‘Gaullist’ party [UPR]Second Round
45% National Front [translating to 34% of seats]
55% Conservatives [translating to 66% of seats]The 4% shift to the National Front in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur can be explained by DLF, UPR, and LS-PDF voters, it would seem.Replies: @Steve Sailer
This is the reverse of what we have seen in the US for as long as any of us have been alive. The pattern in the US has been for the Progressive wing of the ruling coalition to drag the center over to the left, drawing what we call the Right with it. As I'm fond of pointing out, I worked for Democrats in the 80's who held all the same positions as Ted Cruz, who is the outer edge of the official Right these days.
Speaking of which, the wireless brings word that Cruz is reconsidering his unlimited green-card program, now slapping a minimum wage on H1B visas of $110K.Replies: @Wilkey, @TB2, @Bill B., @dsgntd_plyr
Yes.
This analyst in Le Figaro claims that the socialists remain noticeably solid thanks partly to clientism and the support of the media, giving a fairly even overall left-right balance. He quotes from The Leopard that everything must change to stay the same.
But he notes – like you – that the centre-right may be losing support to the FN. Very much still game on, I would say. This result may be good for the FN because it will underline the requirement for a realignment of tribal politics in time for 2017. Not impossible, I think.
“Marine Le Pen évoque un nouveau bipartisme. N’y a-t-il pas, malgré tout, une lente recomposition qui s’opère?
“Pas vraiment. Les éléments de continuité restent prégnants. La comparaison avec les européennes de 1984 susmentionnés, dans des conditions similaires, après trois ou quatre ans de gouvernement socialiste, atteste surtout que c’est le cuisinier en chef du front républicain, à savoir le parti socialiste, qui est le grand gagnant de l’entre-deux tours. En effet, la quasi-parité de victoires régionales entre droite et gauche est le signe d’un échec de la droite classique, qui n’a pas su tailler des croupières à la gauche (comme en 1984), ni endiguer le glissement d’une partie de sa base électorale vers le FN.
“Tout les signaux d’alarme et autres mises en garde sur les risques de disparition du parti socialiste étaient évidemment des fariboles et des fantasmes d’intellectuels. Un parti qui a des centaines de milliers d’élus, un vaste socle clientéliste et de puissants relais médiatiques est insubmersible, même lorsque, conduit par le premier ministre Michel Rocard, il n’obtient que 11 % à des élections européennes.C’est comme dans le roman et film Le Guépard: tout change pour que rien ne change.”
http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/2015/12/13/31001-20151213ARTFIG00199-pourquoi-le-fn-cale-toujours-au-second-tour.php
http://tmblr.co/ZNhQxm1vS74th
Basically Britain has the lowest immigration rate in the country, which is why they can afford to remain in their socialist fantasies for now.
Note the 69% in Ile-de-France.Replies: @Hail, @Diversity Heretic, @Bill B.
If the graph showing population projections for Africa in the 21st Century is the most important graph in the world, that map might be the most important map in Europe. It shows quite clearly the population of France in about 20 years, even in the absence of any further immigration into France from the Levant or the Mahgreb. Even the anti-immigration policies of the National Front will do nothing to defuse that population time bomb!
You’re probably going for a comparison with the US, but the US is a single country. It’s all fine and dandy to compare the EU population of 500 million to the foreign born, but these foreigners are all concentrated in a handful of states, the richest states in fact, and borders+sovereignty will still matter in the EU, where the differences between the poorest and richest member states are wider than between the poorest and richest US states (Mississippi and New Hampshire?). Having Syrians move to Germany is to the EU as if every Mexican moving to the US were immediately inducted into the American upper middle class in terms of income, security etc. There is no sloshing around of non-European migrants in the EU the way you have in the US.
California alone has something over 25% of all "recent immigrant stock" in the USA, despite only 12% of the overall USA population (and, following years of Whites leaving, now down to only 7-8% of the USA's White population).Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Romanian
I’ve thought about this a lot without arriving at a good answer. It was true with al qaida too, in that the pronunciation was constantly changing, even after 7 or 8 years in the news.
Remember, Jove, thou wast a Bull for thy Europa!
Remember write after 9/11, you were supposed to spell the book Q’ran or something?
http://tmblr.co/ZNhQxm1vS74th
Basically Britain has the lowest immigration rate in the country, which is why they can afford to remain in their socialist fantasies for now.
Note the 69% in Ile-de-France.Replies: @Hail, @Diversity Heretic, @Bill B.
As a comment below the chart says:
“l’arithmétique est sans pitié.”
France has proven again yesterday that this aspiration is a long shot. I am afraid the American right is at risk of living under the same delusion with Trump, whom many forget can still be simply ruled out without a single drop of blood through primary delegates manipulation. I think it is still the most likely outcome despite the sky-high poll numbers.
As Ryan Landry put today in an excellent column on Social Matter, the elites have had seen the nationalist backlash coming. They are prepared to it, and the system is resilient. Soon there will be enough imported minorities everywhere to prevent any serious setback in the Western countries.
This analyst in Le Figaro claims that the socialists remain noticeably solid thanks partly to clientism and the support of the media, giving a fairly even overall left-right balance. He quotes from The Leopard that everything must change to stay the same.
But he notes - like you - that the centre-right may be losing support to the FN. Very much still game on, I would say. This result may be good for the FN because it will underline the requirement for a realignment of tribal politics in time for 2017. Not impossible, I think.
"Marine Le Pen évoque un nouveau bipartisme. N'y a-t-il pas, malgré tout, une lente recomposition qui s'opère?
"Pas vraiment. Les éléments de continuité restent prégnants. La comparaison avec les européennes de 1984 susmentionnés, dans des conditions similaires, après trois ou quatre ans de gouvernement socialiste, atteste surtout que c'est le cuisinier en chef du front républicain, à savoir le parti socialiste, qui est le grand gagnant de l'entre-deux tours. En effet, la quasi-parité de victoires régionales entre droite et gauche est le signe d'un échec de la droite classique, qui n'a pas su tailler des croupières à la gauche (comme en 1984), ni endiguer le glissement d'une partie de sa base électorale vers le FN.
"Tout les signaux d'alarme et autres mises en garde sur les risques de disparition du parti socialiste étaient évidemment des fariboles et des fantasmes d'intellectuels. Un parti qui a des centaines de milliers d'élus, un vaste socle clientéliste et de puissants relais médiatiques est insubmersible, même lorsque, conduit par le premier ministre Michel Rocard, il n'obtient que 11 % à des élections européennes.C'est comme dans le roman et film Le Guépard: tout change pour que rien ne change."
http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/2015/12/13/31001-20151213ARTFIG00199-pourquoi-le-fn-cale-toujours-au-second-tour.phpReplies: @5371
I certainly would not call the socialist performance solid. Even benefiting from all the other left votes in the second round, they could only break 37% in four of twelve regions. By historical standards, that’s pathetic.
Sometimes I think maybe there is a secret society of Confederate vampires cackling "hahah, they never would listen to us or believe us, but watch what happens now! Sometimes there's only one way to learn people."
Welcome to Dixie World.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Are you thinking of the Confederate Army’s sack of Detroit in 1967?
Why do we try to understand the French? The French don’t understand themselves. If (via Churchill) Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, perhaps the French, with their penchant for personalized, existentialist solutions to life and politics, can be said to struggle for meaning and understanding while trapped in a permanent state of cognitive dissonance. [?]
Still even if non-white immigration were confined to Northwest Europe, it means that part of Europe will one day become mainly mixed race. The rest of Europe will be largely untouched but these countries measure up to at most 1/2 of the worth of Northwest Europe.
It has always struck me that the Right in France supports centralization and is against regional identities and autonomy.
With that in mind, an actual minority culture like Brittany does not strike me as likely to support such a policy.
Same dynamic with the Basques in Spain.
"l'arithmétique est sans pitié."Replies: @Mandos
I know, it’s mine lol. Scary indeed, by all accounts. I’m afraid a lot of people to the right are living under the delusion of a Big Night where the silent majority would rise and replace the Powers That Be with an enlightened leadership, like the late 19th century communists did.
France has proven again yesterday that this aspiration is a long shot. I am afraid the American right is at risk of living under the same delusion with Trump, whom many forget can still be simply ruled out without a single drop of blood through primary delegates manipulation. I think it is still the most likely outcome despite the sky-high poll numbers.
As Ryan Landry put today in an excellent column on Social Matter, the elites have had seen the nationalist backlash coming. They are prepared to it, and the system is resilient. Soon there will be enough imported minorities everywhere to prevent any serious setback in the Western countries.
They wouldn’t launch a civil war unless it looked as if the NF was going to take the actual Presidency; and much more likely they would use prosecution and vote-count fraud to stop them winning.
At some point the NF may be getting over 50% of the vote; in the French system that’s the only way they can win. And that would result from a centre-right collapse amongst the upper-middle class; a collapse of the centre-left is irrelevant unless it is working class whites switching allegiance to the NF, and I think that has already happened.
When the Italians did that stuff to shut out the Communists it was proof of how the Italian political system was undemocratic, corrupt and beholden to American interests. It even justified for some intellectuals such as Antonio Negri the terrorist campaign of the Italian far-left.
This is the reverse of what we have seen in the US for as long as any of us have been alive. The pattern in the US has been for the Progressive wing of the ruling coalition to drag the center over to the left, drawing what we call the Right with it. As I'm fond of pointing out, I worked for Democrats in the 80's who held all the same positions as Ted Cruz, who is the outer edge of the official Right these days.
Speaking of which, the wireless brings word that Cruz is reconsidering his unlimited green-card program, now slapping a minimum wage on H1B visas of $110K.Replies: @Wilkey, @TB2, @Bill B., @dsgntd_plyr
If that’s true then all credit to The Donald. But $110K is not a special salary in some local markets (Silicon Valley, NYC). The minimum should be something like 10x state poverty level, or 3x average for the job category at the firm, whichever’s higher.
*****
The entire H category of work visas isn’t needed. Look up the E, TN/TD, O, and P visas for superior methods of screening foreign nationals.
Matt “Polar Bear” Yglesias was insisting on Twitter last night that higher 2nd rd turn-out was the only factor in why the FN failed to win any region. I mean sure the French media keep saying how it was all tactical voting*, but what do those people know about France?
*The reporter on France24 said neither the Republicans, or Socialists held celebrations because they were embarrassed by their method of “victory.”
“OT question: why do American parties never change their name, even after losing the Civil War, while Canadian Parties constantly change their name?”
Americans are very traditional minded. The two (that there are only two may have something to do with it) have swapped their core voters between each others but always keeps the name.
The French party that keeps changing its name, at least once a decade, is the center-right one. I have no idea why they can’t settle on a name. According to Wikipedia, the big party on the left has had one name change, to the Socialist Party from the less catch “French Section of the Workers International” (PSIO).
With Canada, you may be thinking of the switch from the Conservative Party, to the Progressive Conservative Party, back to the Conservative Party of Canada. These are all due to mergers with more populist right-wing movements that broke away from the main conservative party. As far as I know, the Liberal Party has always had the same name. The party to the left of the liberals changed from the Canadian Commonwealth Federation to the New Democratic Party, and are probably due for another name change, since they have now been the “New” Democrats for over fifty years.
another possible crisis scenario: a combination of 2005 or something like the 2005 riots in Paris and the recent IS Kalashnikov attacks. hundred or thousands of youths jumping around the whole city, dozens of them with automatic rifles. Bombs exploding in every corner of the city. This level of escalation could lead to fundamental changes in the political-ideological field in Europe. And as long as this does not happen life is possible without a Front National government.
And this was actually one of the better second-round improvements for the National Front. Most regions had lower FN vote shares in the second round (though higher in absolute numbers).
Only three regions had a National Front vote share that increased by more than 1% from the first to the second round. Notably the two regions with Le Pen women heading the tickets (the most likely places for breakthrough).
Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie [Marine Le Pen’s district]
First Round (Above line means qualified for second round)
41% National Front
25% Conservatives
18% Socialists (Withdrew from election despite qualifying for second round)
________________________
5% NeoCommunist front [PCF – E! – R&S – CC]
5% Left-Wing Greens [EELV – PG – ND – NGS]
2% Minor conservative ‘Gaullist’ party [DLF]
1% Radical NeoCommunists [LO]
1% Minor free market party [NC]
1% Another dissident ‘Gaullist’ party [UPR]
Second Round
42% National Front [translating to 32% of seats]
58% Conservatives [translating to 68% of seats due to largest-party bonus]
.
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur [Marion Le Pen’s district]
First Round
41% National Front
27% Conservatives
17% Socialists (Withdrew from election)
___________________
7% Left-Wing Greens [EELV – FG – NGS]
4% Centrist Greens [AEI]
2% Minor conservative ‘Gaullist’ party [DLF]
2% Radical NeoCommunists [LO]
1% Right-Wing Nationalists [LS-PDF], Jean-Marie Le Pen loyalists
1% Dissident Socialists, leaning centrist [ND]
1% Another dissident ‘Gaullist’ party [UPR]
Second Round
45% National Front [translating to 34% of seats]
55% Conservatives [translating to 66% of seats]
The 4% shift to the National Front in Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur can be explained by DLF, UPR, and LS-PDF voters, it would seem.
Interesting for aficionados of dynastic soap operatics.
With that in mind, an actual minority culture like Brittany does not strike me as likely to support such a policy.
Same dynamic with the Basques in Spain.Replies: @Hail
Corsica, too.
A left-wing nationalist — and apparently secessionist — party will control 47% of seats in the Corsican regional council following this election result. The National Front didn’t do well, but will have representation (8% of new seats).
The Socialists didn’t even qualify for the second round. (Corsica results).
The National Front even stood in some French overseas possessions and got votes.
La Réunion
2.4% of votes to National Front
This suggests that 1 in 10 Reunion whites voted for the National Front. I am not sure what is meant by “petit blancs” vs. “gros blancs”. Also interesting: Now that the dust has settled, Reunion will be governed by the Conservatives. (Reunion results).
Guadeloupe
1.4% of votes to National Front
This suggests that one-quarter of Whites on the island voted for the National Front, similar to a typical mainland French region. (Guadeloupe results).
What you describe is pure lawlessness. I’d imagine something more organized being…inevitable in a deEuropeanizing Europe in the coming decades. Something between your scenario and the Yugoslavia of the 1990s and/or 1970s-80s Northern Ireland. Rival ethnic-political militias fighting it out under the eye of a state that doesn’t know what to do and para-state institutions (EU, NATO) that have all lost legitimacy.
To see a snapshot of Europe’s future, look no further than Sarajevo circa 1994.
Romanian, you have good points (as usual), but the difference is only a matter of degree. Muslimmigrants go to Germany, Sweden, etc., which are richer than the EU average, but just the same Nonwhite immigrants to the USA have also gone to California, Greater New York, and a handful of other places. How many immigrants start out in New York City and end up in small town Mississippi or Montana? The same dynamic is at work.
California alone has something over 25% of all “recent immigrant stock” in the USA, despite only 12% of the overall USA population (and, following years of Whites leaving, now down to only 7-8% of the USA’s White population).
1) it is close
2) the welfare benefits are good.
States used to have residency requirements for welfare. But a bunch of libs went judge shopping and get this ruled unconstitutional.
Texas welfare stinks, which is a good thing. You gotta get a job if you want to live in Texas.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/la-times-quinones-prints-the-truth-about-immigration
In the EU, unless they become citizens, the freedom to work, settle and collect benefits in whichever state they want does not apply, to my knowledge. So they're stuck in Germany, Sweden etc. Neither can they collect benefits without actually registering, unlike your illegal immigrant problem. And EU inequality also pertains to inequalities within nations. Romania is poor, but the GDP per capita of our capital is 30 percent or something above EU average GDP. Conceivably, Bucharest would not be ruled out. In practice, they would descend first on the Poles and the Hungarians, especially their main cities. They scoffed at the notion of staying in Budapest the first time around.
California alone has something over 25% of all "recent immigrant stock" in the USA, despite only 12% of the overall USA population (and, following years of Whites leaving, now down to only 7-8% of the USA's White population).Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Romanian
“recent immigrant stock” goes to California because
1) it is close
2) the welfare benefits are good.
States used to have residency requirements for welfare. But a bunch of libs went judge shopping and get this ruled unconstitutional.
Texas welfare stinks, which is a good thing. You gotta get a job if you want to live in Texas.
41% National Front
25% Conservatives
18% Socialists (Withdrew from election despite qualifying for second round)
________________________
5% NeoCommunist front [PCF - E! - R&S - CC]
5% Left-Wing Greens [EELV - PG - ND - NGS]
2% Minor conservative 'Gaullist' party [DLF]
1% Radical NeoCommunists [LO]
1% Minor free market party [NC]
1% Another dissident ‘Gaullist’ party [UPR]Second Round
42% National Front [translating to 32% of seats]
58% Conservatives [translating to 68% of seats due to largest-party bonus].
Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur [Marion Le Pen's district]First Round
41% National Front
27% Conservatives
17% Socialists (Withdrew from election)
___________________
7% Left-Wing Greens [EELV - FG - NGS]
4% Centrist Greens [AEI]
2% Minor conservative 'Gaullist' party [DLF]
2% Radical NeoCommunists [LO]
1% Right-Wing Nationalists [LS-PDF], Jean-Marie Le Pen loyalists
1% Dissident Socialists, leaning centrist [ND]
1% Another dissident ‘Gaullist’ party [UPR]Second Round
45% National Front [translating to 34% of seats]
55% Conservatives [translating to 66% of seats]The 4% shift to the National Front in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur can be explained by DLF, UPR, and LS-PDF voters, it would seem.Replies: @Steve Sailer
So Marion outperformed Marine in the second round.
Interesting for aficionados of dynastic soap operatics.
California alone has something over 25% of all "recent immigrant stock" in the USA, despite only 12% of the overall USA population (and, following years of Whites leaving, now down to only 7-8% of the USA's White population).Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Romanian
But your immigrants can go work or collect benefits (federal, at least) wherever they want, especially if there are no residency requirements, meaning that one could feasibly have a phenomenon where their main targets are no longer as attractive, so they go to places previously neglected, like Kentucky in this Steve Sailer classic.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/la-times-quinones-prints-the-truth-about-immigration
In the EU, unless they become citizens, the freedom to work, settle and collect benefits in whichever state they want does not apply, to my knowledge. So they’re stuck in Germany, Sweden etc. Neither can they collect benefits without actually registering, unlike your illegal immigrant problem. And EU inequality also pertains to inequalities within nations. Romania is poor, but the GDP per capita of our capital is 30 percent or something above EU average GDP. Conceivably, Bucharest would not be ruled out. In practice, they would descend first on the Poles and the Hungarians, especially their main cities. They scoffed at the notion of staying in Budapest the first time around.
But the example you cite, “Q’ran,” is a mere change in style, like “Moslem” to “Muslim,” which stuck, or “Teheran” to “Tehran.” (My 1976 American Heritage Dictionary lists Teheran, with Tehran as an alternative. At some point, the usage became exclusively “Tehran.” I notice Prof. Paul Gottfried often lapses into the old usage, as do I.) The first time I heard the word ISIL was when Obama delivered his speech in the summer of last year, announcing that the U.S. was going to “degrade, defeat and destroy” the organization which threatened our consulates in Iraq (and, btw, Syria, where we don’t even have an embassy). Knowing the Obama people, that choice of nomenclature had to be thought through and discussed thoroughly (the Obama team being very good at the little things, not so much at the big things that matter) before Obama uttered that phrase to a national audience. I just can’t figure out the reason for the change, after we all had become accustomed to ISIS. Is it to demonstrate how much more Obama and team know than the rest of us, since they are the ones using the “correct” terminology and critics of the Obama policy are the ones using the “wrong” terminology? Is it (as I suggested in the earlier post) to frustrate any Google searches? I am just baffled and haven’t heard any good ideas from anyone. BTW I sometimes watch Fox (and I gather they apparently don’t much like Obama), and I get a kick when they say invariably “ISIS, sometimes referred to as ISIL.”
I liked Mussulman, what your Founders called them around the time of Stephen Decatur’s mission to the Barbary Coast, since it fits the words for Muslim in Romance languages – Musulman in French and Romanian, Musulmano in Italian.
“I liked Mussulman, what your Founders called them around the time of Stephen Decatur’s mission to the Barbary Coast, ”
You’re showing your age. 😉