Francuska - predsednički izbori

Eric Zemmour ... delivered the keynote address at Marion Maréchal’s big Convention Of The Right in Paris last weekend

...

We are thus trapped between the anvil and hammer of two universalisms that crush our nations, our peoples, our territories, our traditions, our ways of life, our cultures: on the one hand, the market universalism that, in the name of human rights, enslaves our brains to turn them into deracinated zombies; on the other, the Islamic universalism that very cleverly takes advantage of our religion of human rights to protect its operation to occupy and colonize portions of French territory, which it is gradually transforming, by the sheer force of numbers and religious law, into foreign enclaves, into what the Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, who saw the Islamists in Algeria operate in this way in the 1980s, calls “Islamic Republics in the making”.

Human rights universalism prevents us from defending ourselves in the name of a short-sighted individualism that does not see that it is not individuals who are in question but rather great masses of people, that it is civilizations that are confronting one another on our soil in a thousand year struggle, not individuals who rub shoulders in the short lapse of their lifetimes. These so-called liberals have forgotten the lesson of one of their most famous masters, Benjamin Constant, who said: “Everything is moral for individuals but for the masses everything is physical. Every individual is free as an individual since he or she has only to deal with himself or with forces that are no greater than his own. But as a member of a group, the individual is no longer free.”

These two universalisms are at once rivals and accomplices. The market can adapt to anything as long as there’s a profit to be had from it. It has put men at the head of the state to use its monopoly of legitimate violence as an enforcer. Thus, the French state, which was the benevolent genius of French populations, which protected them from feudal lords and foreign predators, which made this people assembled on the land between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic the great nation feared throughout Europe and the entire world, became, by an astonishing reversal, the arm of the nation’s destruction and the enslavement of its people, of that people’s replacement by another people, another civilization.

These two universalisms, these two globalizations, are two totalitarianisms. Since our great progressive consciences, since our media and even our President of the Republic himself so love the 1930s, I’ll give them some 1930s. I’ll make a comparison with that time.

We live under the reign of a new Hitler-Stalin Pact. Our two totalitarianisms have allied to destroy us before tearing each other to pieces. This is their shared objective, their Holy Grail. To the liberal human-rights crowd go the cities. To Islam goes the suburbs [les banlieus]. For now, the one group provides the other with domestics: pizza delivery, taxis, nannies, restaurant kitchens and drugs. With their media and judicial power, the others protect their domestics against the muted abhorrence of the French people they both loathe – one group because they are French and not American, the other because they are Catholic by culture, not Muslim.

In recent years, many clever people have compared the European Union to the defunct Soviet Union and the monetary weaponry of the ECB to the Warsaw Pact tanks launched in service of the Brezhnev Doctrine of limited sovereignty. In Italy, in England, we presently see the unusual effectiveness with which parliaments and judges are fighting the people’s will. Law and so-called constitutional procedures against the freedom of peoples. We have fully returned to those regimes that, in their turn, also claimed to be people’s democracies.

...

We need to put everything back on its feet.

We need to free ourselves from the religion of human rights since it has forgotten that it is also meant for citizens. In his Histoire des Girondins, Larmartine wrote: “When principles are in contradiction with society’s survival then the principles are false, for society is the supreme truth.”

We must free ourselves from the powers of our masters: media, universities, judges. We must restore democracy, which is the power of the people against liberal democracy, which, in the name of the rule of law, is now used to impede the will of the people.

We must abolish the laws that kill freedom and that, in the name of non-discrimination, make us strangers in our own land.

We must to the contrary everywhere restore to its proper place the principle of national preference, which is nothing other than the foundation of a nation which has no reason to exist unless it favors its own to the detriment of others.

We must accept our conception of ecology, an ecology that first defends the beauty of our countryside, of our sites, of our art de vivre, of our culture, of our civilization.

We must of course be conservative and conserve our identity but what can we conserve since everything has been destroyed? Our task is more immense, nearly hopeless: we must restore.

I do not say that the question of identity is the only question that arises for us. I do not say that the economy does not exist, that deindustrialization does not exist, that scraping together enough money to get through the month does not exist, that poverty in retirement does not exist, that labor law does not exist, that outsourcing does not exist, that the constraints and shortcomings of the Euro do not exist.

I only claim that the question of the French people’s identity precedes them all, that it preexists them all, even that of sovereignty. It’s a question of life or death. A French Islamic Republic might be sovereign but in what way would it be French?

This question of identity is also the most unifying for it joins the working and middle classes and even that portion of the bourgeoisie that remains attached to its country. Yes, it brings together all currents of the right and even that part of the left that continues to have ties with the French people – all of them except the internationalist left and the globalist right, which have already joined ranks with the Macronist progressives and for whom France no longer exists and for whom all that matters are the cities of the world where the banks that manage their money are located.

We must understand that the question of the French people is existential while the others are means of subsistence. Will young French people be a majority in the land of their ancestors? I repeat this question for never has it been so sharply posed. In the past, France was threatened with being broken up, with what was called Polonization in reference to the partition of Poland. It was occupied, ransomed, enslaved but its people were never threatened with being replaced on their own soil.

...

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/eric-zemmour-blockbuster-speech/

but what can we conserve since everything has been destroyed? Our task is more immense, nearly hopeless: we must restore.

The Far Right Is Tightening Its Grip on French Politics

As extremist ideas enter the mainstream, “clash of civilizations” rhetoric is crowding out more nuanced approaches to the very real problem of terrorism.
By Harrison StetlerTwitter

“The combined forces of the state will not be able to overcome the Islamist hydra,” French President Emmanuel Macron said at a memorial service on October 8, days after Mickaël Harpon murdered four of his colleagues at the central Paris police prefecture. “What we need,” he continued, “is to construct a vigilant society.”

Like the other acts of terrorism that have struck the country in recent years, the October 3 attack became something of a perverse fuel to French political life. Obligatory rituals of national unity gave way instantaneously to a now habitual back-and-forth. Newspapers, magazines, and television networks clear their schedule and op-ed pages for the parade of experts—among whom the Islamologue reigns supreme—who explain how a particular reading of the Qur’an led such and such a man to murder. The right-wing sphere stamps its feet and calls for the country to take up arms, enforce obligatory pork meals in school cafeterias, and realize that the victims of terrorism are in fact the casualties of multiculturalism. The veil and other public displays of Islam become the battleground for media theatrics and outright displays of demagoguery, such as when one elected representative of Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party harassed a Muslim woman chaperoning her child’s elementary school class on a field trip to the regional counsel seat in Besançon on October 11. Talk-radio devotes hours to the specter of “radicalization,” the seemingly intractable phenomenon leading a portion of the nation’s young men, of primarily immigrant origins, to recoil from republican values and turn to the messianism of political Islam.

Then comes the counterattack. A different roster of cultural personalities, intellectuals, and political figures—dwindling, regrettably, in audibility—pleads for nuance and restraint, warning us not to blame a religion for what is in fact a social problem. Political violence, or even self-appointed martyrdom, they remind us, is not new. Calling murder the cry of the oppressed is one thing—and whiffs of it lead to the charge of apology for terror, which is a punishable offense in France. But one doesn’t need to be an apologist to see that a person who will get behind the wheel of a van to drive through a crowd of innocent people, or who stabs his coworkers at the office as Mickaël Harpon did, is first and foremost a deeply troubled and hopeless person. Let’s put aside the incoherent stream of ideas strung together to justify the act, this second group argues: It’s that primal misery which ought to occupy our attention and be the principal target of public action. This group calls for therapy, and a good dose of it. They cite the statistics of unemployment in the poorest areas of France. They point to the virtual, and in some cases literal, wall traced around all French cities, between the cultured and prosperous centers and the abandoned and derelict outer suburbs, known for their large-scale housing projects enmeshed in a dense network of highways.

Vénissieux, a suburb southeast of Lyon, France’s third-largest city, saw some of the first large-scale riots in the early 1980s, in a disproportionately immigrant community. Unemployment in Vénissieux, according to the latest figures released by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies in 2016, is 24.6 percent—well over twice the national average of roughly 10 percent that same year. In the media and in political discourse, “93,” the departmental area code for Seine-Saint-Denis, just north of Paris, has become shorthand for the failure of integration. To judge by around-the-clock cable news, or the myopic bunker mentality of Left Bank conservatism, it refers to a teeming mass of resentful young brown and black men waiting to attack French city centers. Seine-Saint-Denis is the poorest department in metropolitan France.

There was reason to believe that Emmanuel Macron would be sympathetic to a more nuanced understanding of the wave of terrorism that continues to strike France. As a minister in François Hollande’s Socialist government, he had sought to distance himself from the law-and-order stance pursued by Hollande’s prime minister, Manuel Valls. Acknowledging in 2015 that French society bears a “share of responsibility” for the acts of terror being committed, Macron explained that “someone simply because he has a beard or a name that sounds vaguely Muslim has four times less of a chance of receiving a job interview than someone else.”

In his speech on October 8, Macron affirmed that the “vigilant society” must be supplemented by state efforts to attack the origins of terrorism. But he has dismissed the very tangible initiatives that would go in just that direction. In October 2017, months after his election, a bipartisan assembly of mayors from suburban townships signed a joint declaration in Grigny, a commune south of Paris. They called for massive investments in education, infrastructure, job training, and cultural activities in their communities. Even more ambitiously, a 2018 state report conducted by Jean-Pierre Borloo confirmed the anxiety of the authors of the Grigny declaration and accused the French state of abandoning its fragile and largely immigrant-populated suburbs. In his report, Borloo, a veteran centrist politician, noted the inaccessibility of public transportation, the lack of access to sporting facilities and other cultural centers such as libraries and cinemas, an overstretched medical infrastructure, and an unemployment level often three times the national average. Ultimately, Borloo affirmed that upward of €48 billion would need to be budgeted for the revitalization of these areas and for their integration within the fabric of French society.

The Borloo report, though commissioned by Macron in response to the Grigny declaration, was dead on arrival. In line with the government’s stance on public services, which has seen access to public universities tightened and critical infrastructure such as the Paris airports offered up for privatization, the policies advocated by Borloo smacked too much of an activist conception of government. Misguided policies designed from the “top down” were a thing of the past, Macron said.

The rejection of the Borloo report was an early sign of a trend that has only continued as Macron arrives at the midpoint of his presidency. The belief that the ostracization of France’s immigrant communities is a result of state abandonment and neglect, to say nothing of everyday racism and police violence, has ceded ground to the bellicose law-and-order language of the French right. Embattled by a variety of social movements contesting the government’s attack on public services and his largely pro-business policies, Macron has sought to deflect criticism by suggesting that social tension is an expression of white working-class anxiety about multiculturalism and immigration. In his ongoing attempt to regain control since the Yellow Vest revolt, Macron has talked up the need to repair and strengthen French national identity.

The October 3 attack had the unfortunate coincidence of coming on the heels of a string of events symbolizing the far right’s increasing hold on French political life. The barrier between the country’s traditional center-right parties and the more hard-line fringe, gathered historically around Marine Le Pen, became even more vague with the inaugural “Convention of the Right,” held in Paris in late September. The instigator of the convention was Le Pen’s niece, Marion Maréchal, who left her aunt’s party—and dropped her last name—in order to fight the cultural battle of cementing far-right ideas in the political mainstream. The marquee speaker at the event was the ultra-reactionary essayist and polemicist Éric Zemmour. In a fire-and-brimstone 30-minute speech, broadcast live on French television, Zemmour lamented what he saw as an active plot to destroy the “white heterosexual male” by cosmopolitan liberals seeking to supplant Europe’s native population through mass migration. The tacit pact between progressive cosmopolitanism and radical Islam, Zemmour claimed, was the contemporary equivalent of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact.

As these ideas enter the political mainstream, the rhetoric of a “clash of civilizations” is crowding out more nuanced approaches to the very real problem of terrorism, delegitimizing along the way those who point to the deep racial tensions that divide French society. Marianne, a weekly magazine that claims to advance a vaguely left-wing brand of nationalism, devoted a full issue this spring to sounding the alarm on what it sees as the corrupting “obsession” with race among left-wing university students and activists. In mid-September, a group of 80 psychoanalysts signed a collective editorial in Le Monde denouncing the “totalitarian” and “narcissistic” nature of postcolonial thought and the most vocal critics of French racism.

“Vigilance, and not corrupting suspicion,” Macron maintained in his October 8 memorial speech. Five days later, professors at a university in Cergy-Pontoise, a town northwest of Paris, were horrified to find that their school’s administration had distributed a spreadsheet designed to help detect and record “discreet signals” of radicalization among the student body. Among the tell-tale signs: “recurring absenteeism during the hours of prayer… pants cut off mid-calf… change of facial appearance, a beard without a mustache… cessation of alcohol consumption… recent consumption of halal products… sudden interest in religion…”

But would these signs have alerted us to the risks posed by an individual like Claude Sinké? On Monday, October 28, the 84-year-old former National Front candidate shot and injured two elderly Muslim worshipers as he was attempting to set fire to a mosque in Bayonne, in southwest France. Rather than a serious response to a very real spiral of violence, the “vigilant society” seems to be yet another symptom of the far right’s creeping, hydra-like advance.


https://www.thenation.com/article/terrorism-france-macron-islam/

Emmanuel Macron warns Europe: NATO is brain-dead

America is turning its back on the European project. Time to wake up, the French president tells The Economist

EMMANUEL MACRON, the French president, has warned European countries that they can no longer rely on America to defend NATO allies. “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO,” Mr Macron declares in a blunt interview with The Economist. Europe stands on “the edge of a precipice”, he says, and needs to start thinking of itself strategically as a geopolitical power; otherwise we will “no longer be in control of our destiny.”

During the hour-long interview, conducted in his gilt-decorated office at the Elysée Palace in Paris on October 21st, the president argues that it is high time for Europe to “wake up”. He was asked whether he believed in the effectiveness of Article Five, the idea that if one NATO member is attacked all would come to its aid, which many analysts think underpins the alliance's deterrent effect. “I don't know,” he replies, “but what will Article Five mean tomorrow?”

The alliance, Mr Macron is quoted as saying, "only works if the guarantor of last resort functions as such. I'd argue that we should reassess the reality of what Nato is in the light of the commitment of the United States".

The French leader urged Europe to start thinking of itself as a "geopolitical power" to ensure it remained "in control" of its destiny.

(1) Macron is clearly escalating the rhetoric: two weeks ago it was only (and in private) "NATO won't exist in 5 years", (2) Does he really believe it or is he convincing himself that the traditional Gaullist narrative on intrinsic unreliability of US is coming true? (3) tbc https://t.co/WQlGTU2tda

— Bruno Tertrais (@BrunoTertrais) November 7, 2019

In other words: he is challenging Germany. /2

— Ulrich Speck (@ulrichspeck) November 7, 2019

In other words: he is challenging Germany.

Kabinet predsjedavajućeg Predsjedništva BiH Željka Komšića pozvat će sutra na razgovor ambasadora Francuske u BiH, Guillaumea Roussona, kako bi razjasnio stavove predsjednika te države Emanuela Macrona iznesene u intervjuu za The Economist.

AZ-5 wrote:novi nato bez usa i turske?

MNE wrote:

AZ-5 wrote:novi nato bez usa i turske?

Ali sa CG 

bruno sulak wrote:mislim da ga niko nece shvatiti preterano ozbiljno. de gol je sege radi znao da napravi sranje u kvebeku. ono cisto da pokaze anglofonima da moze da im drma kavez. makron deluje onako histericno. ko neko na zurci u 4 ujutru kada popizdi sto su mu sjebali kevin kimono.

bruno sulak wrote:a mucene makedonce denfovao u EU a sada sahranjuje zive sa neprezaljenim NATO-om. mislim dobar posao decko.

inace sada postaje jasno da erdogan mora da leti. mislim da ce cak trampara to shvatiti ubrzo.