Skip to comments.France's Le Pen To Strike a Deal With Muslims
Posted on 02/18/2006 8:53:19 PM PST by dervish
It looks like a political oxymoron, but Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front is poised to strike an alliance with France's large immigrant Muslim community.
A generation after France's right-wing party began its surge with a tough anti-immigration campaign tinged with both racism and anti-Semitism, three factors are coming into play that could spell a strategic realignment.
These factors, which are still little grasped outside political circles in France but will have an enormous impact, include:
* The Islamicization of France is largely a fait accompli. It is assumed that 6 to 8 million citizens or residents of France, 10% to 13% out of a global population of 62 million, are Muslim by now. And that the Muslim community, being more prolific, is much younger than the rest of the population: As much as 25% of French citizens or residents under 20 is Muslim, with the number reaching 40% or 50% in the big cities.
* The National Front is surprisingly popular among Muslim immigrants or second-generation Muslim citizens. For all its campaigning about immigration, Mr. Le Pen's party has always extended support to Arab and Islamic causes abroad, from Saddam's Iraq to Arafat's or Hamas Palestine, and from Al Qaeda to Iran. And it is as firmly anti-American and anti-Jewish as the Muslim community itself tends to be.
* The attraction of the French far left, which accounts for another 20% of the national vote, toward Islam, rabid anti-Americanism, and even anti-Semitism, a phenomenon underscored by the emergence of Dieudonne, a former liberal music-hall humorist who has turned into an enormously popular French equivalent of Louis Farrakhan.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
From post #47
"No decent or sane people are going to persecute JewsHow do you excuse/explain Le Pen's current alliance?" Convenient proviso which doesn't apply to Le Pen and his followers.
As I said before your brand of realist politics bites you in the rear. Your suggestion is just the Conservative version of useful idiots.
I will have to study Le Pen's "current alliance" carefully before I can pass judgement on it. If Le Pen really does accept a Muslim takeover of France as an inevitability, this will be a complete reversal of his former position, which, to use one of his own colorful descriptions, was that of "Sitting Bull."
The point of the FN seems to me national survival and recrudescence. I do not see how either will be in the cards for an Islamicized France. If the old Le Pen had not been demonized and opposition to Islamic immigration had not been marginalized, France's very future existence would not be in such doubt.
How, may I ask you, is Islamist bellicosity to be dealt with now in France?
Also, how you can imply that the National Front in France is really no different from Stormfront is beyond me.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the information.
It's hard to take anything he writes or says seriously.
He's the French equivalent of Vladimir Zhironovsky, or Pat Buchanan, and will say whatever he thinks will earn him the most publicity.
Le Ping! :)
Do you think that some Front National leaders will begin defecting to Villiers under the thinking that Le Pen is getting long in the tooth?
Also do you think chauvanistic La France is ready for Madame Royale to be President, or do you think she is a flash in the political pan???
Having read the entire article (thanks), I must now eat some crow. If this article on Le Pen is at all accurate, then I must conclude this man has truly gone over the deep end.
Still, I maintain something should have been done about the Islamic immigration flood early on, and it is a fact that, of the major political figures in France, only Le Pen at the time was opposing it. I would have voted for him a few years ago, but today he is on the side of the enemies of France and Europe, it would appear. How sad.
No crow. We are all here to learn.
And this is bad...why, exactly? ;)
Count me in as one of those evil, real (i.e. monarchist) European-style right-wingers, who wants nothing to do with the American so-called "right." I wonder if Goetz, Kjvail and I are the only ones left on FR? (Time to summon the "Crown Crew"?)
I am terribly disappointed in Le Pen. But I shouldn't be surprised. What France needs is a King, not a President. The French Republic is an abomination built on the murder of Their Most Christian Majesties King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, always has been, and always will be.
Vive le roi! Down with Democracy and Republicanism! Out with the Muslims! And long live France--not the phony secular multiculturalist republican France which is hated by the neocons for all the wrong reasons, but the Catholic and Royal France of the ages!
Well, certainly there is nothing wrong with a properly functioning monarchy. Most of Northern Europe have retained theirs, and they are generally quiet and nice places.
However, European-style right wingers are not monarchists, not anymore. Mostly, they are fascists, not even Bonapartists (there being none of them that have even a modicum of Buonaparte's indisputable genius).
You think France needs a King?
Certainly a monarchy in the modern model, which provides great continuity in ceremonial affairs of state and particularly in philanthropy and patronage is a boon to any nation. But you seem to actually desire a monarch who not only reigns, but rules.
It is difficult to imagine the Duc d'Orleans in this role, and even more difficult to imagine the French ever taking him seriously. And what would the enforcement mechanism be for a King nobody respected or believed in?
France, like America, is past that. There is too much water under the bridge for a restoration.
Besides, the most dramatic difference between a monarchy and a republic is not the head of state, who is ever-powerful no matter the system, but the next tier. Monarchy entails nobility. A restoration of the rule of the nobility would be exceedingly pleasant, for the nobility. I would imagine that the chiefs of grand enterprises, and private landowners, might have a different view of this.
For if we are to restore Catholic and Royal France, we will not be installing Russia and an absolute despotism, but nor will we be retaining a free market. We will, rather, be reinstalling a system of hereditary ownership of the land, one in which you yourself will be a vassal of someone.
We might all serve the King, but you will also serve me.
The idea of serving the King may sound pleasant.
The idea of also serving me as your Lord you might find considerably more disagreeable.
"Do you think that some Front National leaders will begin defecting to Villiers under the thinking that Le Pen is getting long in the tooth?"
I don't think Le Pen brooks any rivals, and that there are no FN leaders other than Le Pen.
"Also do you think chauvinistic La France is ready for Madame Royal to be President, or do you think she is a flash in the political pan???"
Difficult to say.
I think she is a greater threat to Sarkozy than to Villepin, but the right have been so incompetent in general that it is difficult to see the people not throwing them out if the left has a candidate.
She could win, if she moves to the head of her party.
However, French politics is not so partisan as it is personal. For her to get to the head of her party, her rivals would have to stand aside for the good of the party. The last Frenchman who ever did anything truly altruistic for the good of the Republic was Charles de Gaulle. There being no American primary system in France. I would say that Mme. Royal will need to be more than popular with the people: she will need to have a base of authority within her party. Her husband helps with this.
Royal/Villepin may be the challenge in 2007.
Right now, Royal would win that.
I am aware, and I agree that a constitutional monarchy such as the Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Japanese enjoy is the best system of government for the peace and tranquility of people in the world.
This is a very interesting topic. I hope others will join and contribute.
I will make a few points:
I think that whether republic or monarchy is better is depends on the changing character of the society.
So it would be inappropriate and harmful to try to introduce monarchy in Rome of 2nd century BC or in XIX century USA. And it would not be a good idea to try to introduce republic in the same Rome of 3rd/4th century after Christ (at the time of Diocletian) or in XV century England.
For each system there is good time and place.
"Going back" to the previous system is usually impossible. BUT IT IS POSSIBLE to get it again in a NEW (often disguised) form by going toward future.
Roman Republic started same way as United State - by revolution against the monarchy. Romans were very passionate about their republic and did not take kindly any talk about return of the king.
But after several centuries they got monarchy through the BACK DOOR. When their republic become powerful and dominated other Mediterranean societies it became necessary to develop monarchical practices in order to manage the Empire (what was the ancient name for the International Community or system of alliances with Rome being the hegemon).
Still it was not perceived by the majority of Romans - long time after Caesar they believed that they are free citizens and that they have the republican system.
Some of the first emperors tried to restore the republic but they could not go against the needs of the time. They could not overcome the natural law that for each society at specific time there is a natural system or state of equilibrium.
Of course, when the given system is firmly established the general public is convinced that it it the best and universal system for everybody and for ever. People usually cannot imagine different world than the one in which they live and they take appearances for reality.
It is likely that the only way to preserve the American republic is to reduce foreign involvements. I think that Buchanan is very aware of this dynamic and he is a true republican. But if the history is to be repeated he will fail like Cato and Brutus did.
See my tagline.
When you speak of "The Needs of the Time", I would say that, in truth, there is nothing about republicanism per se that makes it unsuited for times when monarchy has held sway, or vice versa. Rather, government's success or failure is determined almost entirely by the personal qualities of the leaders who run it.
Are you saying that brilliant emperor of the 2nd after Christ century could have restored the Roman republic or that brilliant consul of the 2nd century BC could have become king? I doubt it.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Ecclesiastes had his opinion, to be sure.
Could a brilliant emperor of the 100s restored the Republic?
Probably he could have restored a republic, but it would have had to have greater suffrage.
Could a consul of the 100s BC have restored the monarchy? Probably not.
I don't think these things are like a reversible chemical reaction. People definitely prefer republicanism over monarchy, and democracy over republicanism. Once people get a taste for power, it is very difficult to take away power and privilege from a large group of people. But the converse is not true. A particular powerful ruler willing to sacrifice power CAN give it up - nothing stops him but himeslf.
Individual men only very rarely do that, but some do. George Washington comes to mind (Buonaparte's sneering astonishment "They want me to be Washington" is more typical). On the other hand, bodies of men don't just give up their liberties.
In some epochs they do prefer republican system. Especially when their is a large, affluent and independent (family farming, small business) middle class. (democracy undermines republicanism and does not last long)
When people are less secure and when there is a significant stratification of wealth they might like king more.
Republic requires certain discipline, coldness and formality (rule of law) and distance between people.
Monarchy is more personal and family like. I would think that monarchy is more fitting to the human nature and emotions and that is why in most of the places and times the monarchies prevailed.
(BTW, When people unite around the leader like GWB and get offended when he is criticized or denied loyalty it is a monarchical sentiment.)
I've always maintained that the political spectrum is circular. Whether the extreme left and extreme right in a given country get along or hate each other at any given time is irrelevant. What makes the right way to look at this circular is that one extreme, where the right and left "join," represents minimal freedom for the individual, while the other extreme, "the center" represents maximal freedom. I'd say no country today is much closer than 90 degrees to center on the circular scale (ohhhh... maybe 60). A lot of utopians would take us close to the full 180.
I wonder if Goetz, Kjvail and I are the only ones left on FR? (Time to summon the "Crown Crew"?)
A long underused ping list lol. I don't even have the list anymore, its on my old computer.
It's just too tedious debating with the Jacobins on FR. Traditional American conservatives (ie palecons) may at least listen to the arguments for monarchy and legitimism but these neo-cons are almost as dense about it as your average marxist (coincidence? I don't think so)
No, monarchy as a serious way of running modern countries went out of fashion because it did not work well, and too many of the members of the various royal families of Europe were at best incompetent, if well-meaning.
Even the less impressive royals could hardly do worse than the current crop of European politicians.
Assuming that Europe's rejection of monarchy refutes monarchism is as illogical as it would be to assume that Europe's rejection of Christianity refutes Christianity.
Maybe the West can have a look at what happened to each Chinese dynasty: each time a dynasty replaced the next, it had always been an overthrowing as the successor claimed each previous dynasty had "lost the mandate of heaven". You can have:
1) Vassal state overthrowing the previous dyansty: Shang Tang overthrrew Xia dynasty and founded the Shang dynasty in 1751 BC. In Chinese history texts they are called "Nobility revolutions".
2) Peasant rebellion and taking the throne himself: Liu Bang did this to the Qin dynasty in 206 BC and founded the Han dynasty (one of the most glorious Chinese dynasties), and Zhu Yuanzhang over threw the Mongol Yuan dynasty in AD 1386 and founded the Ming dynasty. They are called "Peasant revolutions" in Chinese history.
3) In-laws taking over the thronw: Yang Jian overthrew his son-in-law's throne in Northern Zhou and founded the Sui dyansty in AD 581.
4) Generals taking over the emperor in a coup: Li Yuan did this to Sui dynasty in 618 AD and founded the Tang dyansty, Zhu Wen did this to the Tang in AD 907, Zhao Kuangyin plotted a coup and became the first emperor of the Sung dynasty in 960 AD.
5) Foreign invasion: the Yuan and Qing dynasties conquered China.
It may give a better chance of getting a competent ruler on the throne, because you get to throw the bums out once every 200 to 300 years. How about allowing this in Europe?
I think of it similarly - the extremes of right and left are totalitarianism.
Unfortunately, restrictive immigration policies have been tarred with the extremist brush, and thus Europe is in its pickle. Enoch Powell was considered a terrible influence, but he has been proven right, as events show us more every day.
Four possible outcomes in England and France come to mind: 1) Civil war, 2) Mass deportations and repatriations, 3) Compomise and eventual capitulation to the Muslims, 4) Eventual assimilation by the Muslims.
Eventual assimilation, ostensibly, is what the so-called representatives of the people have chosen as the only possible outcome, but it seems increasingly unlikely.
So a restrictionism along the lines of what Enoch Powell favored would have avoided this juncture, and the cost would have been far less than what the British will have to pay in the future. I won't talk about Le Pen, other than to say, I think those who feared him but favored immigration policy changes should have rallied to someone else, but they should not have left the issue to Le Pen. We can all run, but eventually reality catches up with us.
I'm not sure I'd say that I am actually "left on FR." I really have neither the time nor the inclination to argue with these people.
Invincible ignorance really is -- well -- invincible.
a Blast from the (recent) Past...
France's Le Pen To Strike a Deal With Muslims-(La France to Al Frankistan)
ny sun | February 17, 2006 | MICHEL GURFINKIEL
Posted on 02/17/2006 6:52:11 PM EST by Flavius
"All the best battles are always fought against overwhelming odds."