Thread: Far-right National Front stuns French elite with EU "earthquake"

BY MARK JOHN AND LEILA ABBOUD – UPDATED 26 MAY 2014 01:29 AM

MARINE Le Pen's far-right National Front stunned France's political elite on today as exit polls put it on track to win European Parliament elections there, with Francois Hollande's Socialists well behind in third place.

If the FN score is confirmed, it will be the first time the anti-immigrant, anti-EU party has won a nationwide election in its four-decade history. It could secure as many as 25 seats in the new European Parliament, up from the three it won in 2009.

READ MORE: Far-right National Front stuns French elite with EU "earthquake" - Independent.ie

Could be interesting...

UKIP is also topping the British results......

There has been massive government incompetence, in the area of immigration, across Western Europe over decades. This was always gonna lead to some kind of backlash, just how strong that backlash will be is yet to be seen.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

There has been massive government incompetence, in the area of immigration, across Western Europe over decades. This was always gonna lead to some kind of backlash, just how strong that backlash will be is yet to be seen.

Yep.
There's a reason these far right parties are gaining popularity.

Bollocks.

None of these are "far right".

Whenever you hear the descriptions of this mythical spectrum of good v evil, all you get is:

the left
the centre-left
the centre
the centre-right
the right
the hard right
the far right
the extreme far right
the ultra extreme far right
the devil and all his works

it's utter bollocks.

take Britain for an example, the Tory party by all objective measures has been to the left of Labour for ages: both are reportedly crowding around the centre, but Labour is always "centre left", "social democratic", "progressive", and otherwise righteous, good, sugar and spice and all things nice - this despite wrecking the economy twice, and trying to construct an emergent police state, and launching illegal wars that didn't exactly lead to success.

the Tory party is the centre, the Labour party is the left, the LibDems the centre left, and UKIP is just the centre-right, and the BNP - well they're not even right-wing at all, they're completely socialist!

The French NF is nothing like the English NF was, and is not remotely "Far Right", it's ethnocentric, but it's just run-of-the-mill right-wing if we're going to use these meaningless 18th century French terms.

Try this for something more modern:




take the test: HelloQuizzy.com: The 3-D Liberty Test

In more modern parlance, right and left is supposed to pertain to economics, and nothing in Europe could really be described as remotely right wing outside EFTA perhaps.
No truely capitalist states there like Singapore or the USA.
Perhaps what people mean is social conservatism or authoritarianism - plenty of that in left-wing regimes all over the world.

...anyway, about that UKIP... were hearing lots about how it's just a protest vote; just less than 1/10 in an irrelevant election; just a handful of local government reps; a rag tag of luddte, flat-earth, low educated, bigoted, racist, cult-iike, climate-change denying, 1950s, phobes, etc...

...but none of this really explains why the left-wing master race has so comprehensively and regularly failed. They can witter on endlessly and histrioncally and hand-wringingly self-righteously about the zombie-like apocalyptic neanderthal evil of UKIP and Le FN etc..., but none of that really addresses the question of why the left and everything it stands for is such a pile of shit, and why the proles didn't deliver the correct result.

There's a long list of grievances and fundamental irreconcilable differences in world view between the left and what's left, but the left aren't interested in them, so I won't list them, and they can continue to hurl abuse in bigoted disbelief about what's happening.

Libertarians are closet communists, what else do the ornate charts of the poster above prove? The political spectrum is simple: left baaad, right goood.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

There has been massive government incompetence, in the area of immigration, across Western Europe over decades. This was always gonna lead to some kind of backlash, just how strong that backlash will be is yet to be seen.

All governments were extremely competent in dragging ever more immigrants to Europe while they always pretented to do their utmost to restrict it. It's the way to split the opposition to the rich, in different races, religions, cultures; all done to conceal class warfare. Only dunces would put their hope in UKIP to turn it around.

UKIP are never going to win a general election in the UK but that's not the point of their existence, it's to force a referendum of continued EU membership something all the main parties have been scared of for the last 20 years as they don't trust the British public to give them the 'right' result. Give us a referendum, we'll vote to leave, UKIP will then fade away job done and normal service will be resumed without the burden of being a member of the EU.

^ Exactly , Nigel Farage does not want to be the U.K Prime Minister, He will fade away once the Job is done.
So Simple even the peasants understand that.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Libertarians are closet communists, what else do the ornate charts of the poster above prove? The political spectrum is simple: left baaad, right goood.

Your link seems to have failed.
Try this: Let me google that for you

Have you read this one yet?
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

What does it prove?

Well, for a start it proves that a generational spectrum keeps using terms that were only really in currency in the 1800s: terms like "race" and "left-wing" and "right-wing".

What started off as:
" "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered. "
Left

Has rapidly evolved into:
Left = goood; and right = baaad.
i.e.: at worst a "left-winger" is deemed earnest, selfless, but incompetent; whereas a "right-winger" is deemed wicked, selfish, but competent.

Innovation is no longer the domain of these 20th-century "left-wing" movements, which 19th-century Marxogenic (i.e. Marxist-derived) ideas; and you could hardly call the British tories "conservative" - except of "left-wing" institutions, such as the NHS and welfare state. The establishment parties have all succumbed to the left's narrative (and I'll have to call it the left, for the sake of communication), and UKIP is now the actually radical, innovative, and rebellious "wing" of politics... if we want to use the original definition, the LibDems, Labour, and Conservatives, are all on the right as defenders of the status quo and it's trajectory; the Kippers are the left - the progressives, the change-seekers, the rebels and dissidents. This ossified idea of "the left" as equating to the statism and paternalism and opinion-policing espoused by the "LibLabCon" triumvirate to vary degrees is the problem... it's the establishment, and thus all that is good and true.

The left controls the narrative because it controls or at least dominates the creative/cultural world and the journalistic world, such that its soft power seeps into the academic and political world and corrupts it intellectually, censoring certain ideas, and thus constricting debate via self-censorship and constantly playing the man not the ball.

"Marxist-style histrionics... – Marxists are a fan of this sort of debating style. Marx called it labelling. Stick a label on your opponents and they then have to argue with the label before they can argue with you. " ...having met Tony Benn, I can attest to this.

Hence you get these epithets of bigot, racist, -phobe, etc... ...the only response is to do it back to them to neutralise their attacks, but then you end up with a stalemate, and they've sabotaged progress - far from being "progressive" (another euonym for Marxogenic ideas).

The media needs to move on from this simplistic 2-dimensional way of describing politics - opinion is multidimensional... but 3-d is at least enough for the bulk of the bell curve to process. It will take time for this to happen, as the media is brimmed with reactionary bigots (although they would probably describe themselves as thoughtful and worthy socially-liberal democrats).

I am reminded of some words from an interesting book I once read, that might help people debigotise themselves, when trying to understand the phenomena of UKIP:
"At the times they are hatched, revolutionary ideas are not often embraced. Such ideas are often ridiculed, called absurd. they are deemed heretical, their creators deemed evil and reviled.
Revolutionary ideas discombobulate our belief systems and force us to rebuild them. In some sense, we want to be authorities; we want our own way of looking at the world to be the authoritative one. We do not want our belief systems, our way of looking at the world, to be displaced. Revolutionary ideas threaten our authority. They are intrusive, allowing something that we have not created to gain control. Revolutionary ideas threaten not only our personal belief systems but also our status within a society. They can upset the very balance of power within a society, as heliocentrism threatened church power. Authorities are threatened, and will try to discredit revolutionary ideas at all costs. Revolutionary ideas often create a sense of horror, sullying our cherished beliefs and, like an acid, eating away at the foundations of our beliefs and dissolving ties that keep groups together."

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Your link seems to have failed.
Try this: Let me google that for you

Have you read this one yet?
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

What does it prove?

Well, for a start it proves that a generational spectrum keeps using terms that were only really in currency in the 1800s: terms like "race" and "left-wing" and "right-wing".

What started off as:
" "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered. "
Left

Has rapidly evolved into:
Left = goood; and right = baaad.
i.e.: at worst a "left-winger" is deemed earnest, selfless, but incompetent; whereas a "right-winger" is deemed wicked, selfish, but competent.

Innovation is no longer the domain of these 20th-century "left-wing" movements, which 19th-century Marxogenic (i.e. Marxist-derived) ideas; and you could hardly call the British tories "conservative" - except of "left-wing" institutions, such as the NHS and welfare state. The establishment parties have all succumbed to the left's narrative (and I'll have to call it the left, for the sake of communication), and UKIP is now the actually radical, innovative, and rebellious "wing" of politics... if we want to use the original definition, the LibDems, Labour, and Conservatives, are all on the right as defenders of the status quo and it's trajectory; the Kippers are the left - the progressives, the change-seekers, the rebels and dissidents. This ossified idea of "the left" as equating to the statism and paternalism and opinion-policing espoused by the "LibLabCon" triumvirate to vary degrees is the problem... it's the establishment, and thus all that is good and true.

The left controls the narrative because it controls or at least dominates the creative/cultural world and the journalistic world, such that its soft power seeps into the academic and political world and corrupts it intellectually, censoring certain ideas, and thus constricting debate via self-censorship and constantly playing the man not the ball.

"Marxist-style histrionics... – Marxists are a fan of this sort of debating style. Marx called it labelling. Stick a label on your opponents and they then have to argue with the label before they can argue with you. " ...having met Tony Benn, I can attest to this.

Hence you get these epithets of bigot, racist, -phobe, etc... ...the only response is to do it back to them to neutralise their attacks, but then you end up with a stalemate, and they've sabotaged progress - far from being "progressive" (another euonym for Marxogenic ideas).

The media needs to move on from this simplistic 2-dimensional way of describing politics - opinion is multidimensional... but 3-d is at least enough for the bulk of the bell curve to process. It will take time for this to happen, as the media is brimmed with reactionary bigots (although they would probably describe themselves as thoughtful and worthy socially-liberal democrats).

I am reminded of some words from an interesting book I once read, that might help people debigotise themselves, when trying to understand the phenomena of UKIP:
"At the times they are hatched, revolutionary ideas are not often embraced. Such ideas are often ridiculed, called absurd. they are deemed heretical, their creators deemed evil and reviled.
Revolutionary ideas discombobulate our belief systems and force us to rebuild them. In some sense, we want to be authorities; we want our own way of looking at the world to be the authoritative one. We do not want our belief systems, our way of looking at the world, to be displaced. Revolutionary ideas threaten our authority. They are intrusive, allowing something that we have not created to gain control. Revolutionary ideas threaten not only our personal belief systems but also our status within a society. They can upset the very balance of power within a society, as heliocentrism threatened church power. Authorities are threatened, and will try to discredit revolutionary ideas at all costs. Revolutionary ideas often create a sense of horror, sullying our cherished beliefs and, like an acid, eating away at the foundations of our beliefs and dissolving ties that keep groups together."

When I wuz a young man, my boss taught me a valuable lesson. Don't tell me your problem, give me your solution.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Your link seems to have failed.
Try this: Let me google that for you

Have you read this one yet?
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

What does it prove?

Whatever. Your charts teem with the term 'economic freedom' which is something for the birds for 99% of the population, the remaining 1% commissioned that expertise of yours to serve their agenda. Now the real asset for the 99% but a nightmare for the remainder would be 'equality', that's why this word is missing.

er, yeah.

they're not my charts, some merkin made 'em up, which is probably why the terms sound more economically orientated.

I think the idea is that economic freedom is scaling places according to how much tax the state takes - somewhere in scandinavia at one end with it's 50%-ish tax rate, and; somewhere in the caribbean where there's 0% income tax. ...i don't think it's to do with actual wealth.

personal freedom is to do with whether it's completely prudish like parts of asia; or a complete orgiastic self-indulgent society like in parts of "the west".

political freedom is trying to separate actual participation and accountability... like a compulsory voting system like in australia is very participatory; switzerland's canton system shifts the pivot of power more to the people; in contrast to absolute monarchies like North Korea.

it seems a bit more plausible than this preoccupation with a unipolar scale which seems to depend on what you're talking about.

"equality" is hardly a more helpful term - its a very loaded term... equality to help yourself to wealth created by other people isn't really equality.

if you wanted a more neutral term, you might go for something like "homogeneity" or "iso-something", or if you find those terms a bit exclusive and overly-academic, you could use "sameness" and "differentness".

the whole idea of words like "equality" is to suggest that there is a particular moral gradient that has a sort of moral gravity, where "inequality" sounds like "anti-gravity", and intrinsically wrong... it's not an objective way of analysing things: it's very much a statist way of looking at things... that somehow if there is a difference in wealth levels or education levels that some injustice has taken place that must be corrected, not for practical reasons like efficiency, but for intangible subjective reasons like "immorality" - whose morality? surely you have to define what "good" and "bad" is before you can start suggesting that some stranger whose life is not connected to yours is somehow liable for applying some solution your situation.

who grants the group via the state sovereignty over an individual? where does the consent come in?

it doesn't mean i don't agree that it's a good thing for some redistribution to happen, but the question over the extent to which you are owned by the state or able to opt out to some degree is not a question of good versus evil, or intelligence versus stupidity.

the presence of economic terms in those graphs is perhaps indicative of the extent to which we are controlled by economics - if the little people were able to opt out of funding the state, and recall representatives, petition investigations into things, as part of a contract for compulsory voting, and being forced to pay tax to support ideological projects that they don't agree with, the state might be a bit less corrupt.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

When I wuz a young man, my boss taught me a valuable lesson. Don't tell me your problem, give me your solution.

Everyone's solution is different; mine would be something of a pick'n'mix between Swiss style subsidiarity; American-style republic where one group can't impose on another; and other stuff based on being able to choose whether to join in and pay in; or opt out and find another solution - some of which exists in the UK in things like NI contributions, and being able to have private and public services (except you can't opt out) - without that stick, there's no pressure to maintain quality of what the state does - if the citizen is able to opt out, then the state has to make sure it keep the citizen satisfied.