We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
It’s been another seriously bad week for the French left. The consequences of telling French voters to “vote for the crook not the fascist” (“Votez pour l’escroc pas le facho!”) have come back to haunt them. After all, if the left reckon Chirac’s ok to vote for in a presidential election, why isn’t his coalition ok to vote for the legislative elections?
Whoops! The result is that a massive abstention rate (by French standards) of leftists unable to bring themselves to support quasi-market reforms by the socialist party, and a rout by the mainstream right. The new government has stolen just enough of the ‘far-right’ agenda to be able to plausibly claim that voter concerns have been taken on board: the government is apparently promising a socking cut in taxes and to tackle crime with something more substantial than platitudes.
French libertarians will be uncomfortable with the fact that Alain Madelin is backing the government which contains enough crooks and wets to bring down a British Conservative government many times over. Bill Clinton wouldn’t last a year with this bunch. Madelin isn’t as capable a political manipulator (and that isn’t an entirely bad thing).
However, looking at such Socialist ‘intellectual giants’ as Jacques Delors’ daughter Martine Aubry (the ‘mind’ behind the 35 hour week), Elizabeth Guignou and convicted haemophiliac-killer Laurent Fabius, the new French government may prove impotent, corrupt and paralysed by factional strife over reforming the French welfare state, but they won’t actually try to make things worse as the Socialist party would. I still think president Chirac makes Stephen Byers, John Major and Neil Hamilton put together look good, but a government with Aubry in it is even worse.
On a ‘least bad option available’ there is a case for kicking the Socialists out. It seems a large portion of the French electorate agrees.
Between the two rounds of voting in France the presence of Jean-Marie Le Pen in the run-off had a curious effect. David Carr asked if this had reduced attacks on synagogues. I don’t know, because the French media don’t report these attacks and I haven’t got round to checking.
However a French police officer did comment how wonderful it was: all the no-go areas saw a massive drop in crime, as if the underclass figured that a Le Pen presidency might not be the best place to be a petty criminal. This incidentally suggests that free-will is not entirely absent, even from compulsive criminals and supposedly rabid Islamic fundamentalists. The logical conclusion is that the president should face re-election every month, with a really nasty opponent guaranteed a chance of winning.
I disagree with Perry de Havilland‘s attack on the boycott of the Cannes Film Festival for four reasons.
First, I’ve got nothing against voluntary boycotts as opposed to trade embargoes or tariffs imposed by government or international bureaucratic organisations. Provided no force is threatened against those who attend, opponents are entitled to stay away and ask others to do so.
Second, the Cannes Film Festival is an excellent target for a boycott to hurt the French establishment. It is a matter of pride that the Americans feel compelled to turn up. The one thing that really upsets the French cultural establishment is the idea that France is irrelevant. A boycott of Cannes is as good a way of making this point as any short of war.
Third, some French film critics criticises the Cannes Film Festival for its anti-commercial ideology. The hit “Amelie” in France released as “Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain” was ignored mpelled to turn up. The one thing that really upsets the French cultural establishment is the idea that France is irrelevant. A boycott of Cannes is as good a way of making this point as any short of war.
Third, some French film critics criticises the Cannes Film Festival for its anti-commercial ideology. The hit “Amelie” in France released as “Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain” was ignoredd, opponents are entitled to stay away and ask others to do so.
Second, the Cannes Film Festival is an excellent target for a boycott to hurt the French establishment. It is a matter of pride that the Americans feel compelled to turn up. The one thing that really upsets the French cultural establishment is the idea that France is irrelevant. A boycott of Cannes is as good a way
Leo Le Brun wrote a letter to Instapundit making much the same point made by our own illustrious Samizdata Illuminatus regarding the call by the collectivists at the American Jewish Congress for people to boycott the Cannes Film Festival (a call being ignored in droves). Exactly what ends are served by blindly attacking the people working in a sector of the French economy? Any damage caused will include damage to people like Leo Le Brun who did not vote for Le Pen and, judging by his blog, Leo is not fighting to suppress an urge to burn down the nearest synagogue. It is not something like cutting off the food and water to a town to force it into submission, it is just causing some people’s living standards and job security to be slightly reduced at the margin.
There is nothing quite like annoying but ineffective pressure from outsiders to confirm prejudices, which is why ‘American Jewish Congress’ actions are so idiotic. All it does is play into the hands of the racists who can point to a few empty hotel rooms (not enough to actually scare anyone into line, of course) and then point an accusatory finger at ‘The International Jew’. It is not within the power of American tourists to change the actions of the French state or to significantly alter French public opinion about Jews for the better, even if 100% of potential US visitors to France complied with the AJC’s wishes (and I very much doubt even 5% will).
The ability of such organisations to do harm to the interests of Jewish people (particularly in France) is far greater than their ability to do good if they are going to dismiss the entire French people with a phrase like ‘The French are anti-Semitic’ and then make pronouncements that can only encourage precisely that sentiment. Although the tourism sector in most countries took a big hit after September 11th, I would not be surprised to see groups like the AJC and French neo-nazis making common cause by claiming ‘The Jews’ are responsible for the misfortunes of various French resorts, the former ‘taking the credit for a successful boycott’ and the later declaiming about ‘the power of International Jewry’ whereas in fact it was all down to Al Qaeda flying three airplanes into buildings last year.
Of course the same sort of dynamic can work to more beneficial ends. Every time the European Union turns the screw and imposes another annoying but ultimately trivial little ‘EU directive’ on Britain, a few more people are pushed into the anti-EU camp and British society polarises a little more, a trend I would like to see continue. The Aquis Communitare is not the only ratchet at work here.
Sharon Stone is looking pretty damn good for someone recovering from a stroke!
And what is this nonsense about the self styled ‘American Jewish Congress’ urging Jews to boycott the Cannes Film Festival because ‘the French are anti-Semitic’? And which ‘French’ would that be? The 80% who did not vote for Le Pen? Spare us the collectivist crap, guys… I do not see why a foreign Jewish organisation should feel the need to provide the neo-Nazi barking moonbats in France with an excuse to say ‘See? Those mean old Jews are boycotting all of France!’ Duh.
In the linked article, it also says ‘satirist Michael Moore’ is making a documentary about the Columbine school massacre. But satire requires wit and insight, so I guess there must be more than one Michael Moore because the only one I know of is a talentless ignorant prick, not a satirist.
To nobody’s surprise, Jacques Chirac has been re-elected as President of France.
And, to the palpable relief of just about everyone, his margin of victory was such as to enable every pundit and politician to pronounce that the spectre of the ‘far right’ has been vanquished. I’m afraid I am not so persuaded.
Whilst le Pen himself has been defeated, the resentments and fears that temporarily elevated him have not and are highly likely to continue to fester and foment. For a lucid analysis of the reasons for the attractions of Radical Nationalism to the working class, I heartily commend this piece by Emmanuel Goldstein.
Whilst Chirac is, nominally at least, a man of the Right, his past record has often been characterised by a craven submission to left-wing ideals. His immediate and public acknowledgement of the part the socialists have played in re-electing him suggests that nothing will change.
Far from being chastened, the French left will be highly emboldened by this result. As far as they are concerned, it is they who put Chirac in power:
“”One can scarcely say that this is a victory for the right. It’s a victory for France,” said Serge Lepeltier, general secretary of Chirac’s Rally for the Republic (RPR) party.”
Already the BBC are attributing Le Pen’s defeat to the ‘street protests’ which were organised by the militant left. They are not going to let Chirac or France forget this and will demand a qui pro quo for their support which will mean that any ideas Chirac may have for deregulation or economic reform (assuming he has them in the first place) will have to be shelved and, again, he will be forced into a sclerotic coalition with the socialists.
At the age of 73, we have probably seen the last of Le Pen himself but let us not be fooled into thinking that we have seen the last of the Radical Nationalism he represents. How much more successful could it prove with a younger, fitter, smarter and more charismatic figure at the helm? In a country whose ossified political class promises ‘more of the same’, it can only be a matter of time before such a standard-bearer emerges.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the spate of anti-semitic attacks sweeping across France (and elsewhere in Europe but especially France) seem to have, well, stopped?
It occured to me tonight that, not only have they stopped, but they seem to have dried up at the very same time as Monsieur Le Pen came waddling belligerently onto the world stage.
Of course, maybe they are still occuring. Maybe there are Synagogues burning in Marseilles as I type but I can’t help thinking that, if that were the case, at least one of the Blogosphere’s ‘sniffers’ would have picked it up and run with it. So maybe they really have stopped, despite the fact that Israeli operations on the West Bank have not.
Coincidence? Who can say? Certainly not me. Interesting though.
Having read the article based on the observations of Marian Tupy it has occured to me that Jean-Marie Le Pen could be the next President of France.
Now before anybody goes getting their shorts in a knot, please note that I said ‘could’ not ‘will’ because Marian reminds us that an alarmingly high percentage of the electorate voted not just for Le Pen or his fellow traveller Bruno Megret, but also for Soviet-worshipping loop-de-loos like Jean-Pierre Chevenement and Arlette Legullier. Altogther, more than 30% of those who voted, voted for totalitarian government.
It is widely assumed in the press and elsewhere that the hard left will throw its weight and numbers behind Jacques Chirac out of disgust at Le Pen but Marian points out that this is a dangerously flawed assumption. In fact, they are just as likely to throw in their lot with Le Pen and, if they do, then Chirac is struggling.
It is equally assumed that the 28% or so who failed to turn out will turn out this time for fear of a Le Pen victory. But, again, this could be quite wrong. What if a lot of those abstainers are Le Pen sympathisers who failed to register their vote because they felt that he had no chance of winning? Now that he does have a chance, will then weigh-in? If they do, then Le Pen will win.
Of course, this is all just speculation and, on balance, the odds probably do favour Chirac but I think it unwise to regard his victory as a foregone conclusion, because it isn’t.
Marian Tupy of St Andrews Liberty Club has some observation about the reality of just who are Jean-Marie Le Pen’s supporters in France
Hitler used to say that Communists make the best Nazis. This was true in Nazi Germany where many Nazis including Hitler, flirted with Communism when they were young. There is a little known photo of Hitler in the procession carrying the coffin of a deceased Communist leader and wearing Communist insignia. Similarly, Ribbentrop reported from Moscow where he signed the pact of Russo-German non-aggression (known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact) that he felt very much at home. Same is true of a little French town of Douai, close to Lille, where the Communists have been traditionally in charge and where Le Pen did spectacularly well.
The town has been a subject to the recent Channel 4 report, were the reporter wondered why was it that the same people who elected Communists could also elect Le Pen. To this journalist, the two were polar opposites. Clearly, he has not read his Mein Kampf and knows little of philosophy and history. Communism and Fascism/Nazism appeal to the same mind set, which believes that the state is there to provide all the answers to life’s problems – especially job security. This was exemplified by the answers, which many of the questioned Le Pen supporters provided. “Foreigners are taking our jobs” was the most usual of responses. “If Le Pen had power for 6 months, France would change beyond recognition” said others. Clearly, if one believes that the state can provide a good life, then it does not matter whether it is the Communists or the Fascists who are in charge. What matters is who promises more and who seems more plausible to deliver the results.
Author Salman Rushdie would have gotten a lot more attention for his comments in today’s Washington Post, but for the fact that his piece lay side-by-side with a scathing indictment of European anti-Semitism by Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer’s piece was the hot item in the Blogosphere all day; of course Glenn Reynolds was all over it early in the day, and Tony Adragna of QuasiPundit ran with it too — but Rushdie’s comments deserve their time in the spotlight.
While Rushdie can’t help but take a few irrelevant and somewhat distracting sideswipes at Dubya and at Lady Thatcher, his skewering of the French is priceless — throwing Voltaire right in their faces! Rather than confront the rising tide of economic nationalists (or whatever the favored euphemism for “fascism” is now), they tend to their gardens, while insisting that fascism engages only the fringes and not the heart of French politics. And when anti-Semitism and fascism start percolating through their politics, why, who left those things lying around?
The voters blame the parties for not offering better choices; the incumbent Left blames the electorate for not being smart enough to continue voting for them. But in either case, the French have been far too busy casting judgment on the rest of the globe to take a critical look at themselves. Yes, Chirac will almost certainly beat Le Pen, but Rushdie is right to criticize the French, who for so long insisted that candidates like Le Pen only appealed to a tiny fringe element.
There has been a widespread outbreak of harumphing, moaning and hand wringing by the forces of statism across Europe over the rise of Jean-Marie Le Pen‘s National Front Party in France.
Yet when Le Pen declares he is “socially to the left, economically to the right”, his remarks go reported but largely unchallenged. However somehow regardless of his being bitterly opposed to market driven mechanisms, free trade, ‘Americanization’ and globalization, the newspapers demonstrate yet again that the term “right wing” is largely meaningless.
John Lichfield of the Irish Independent tells us “Let us not exaggerate. Let us shut our eyes and think of France, the real France” after himself pointing out that when you add the neo-fascist vote in France for Le Pen to the extreme Troskyist vote for the far left, it is a whopping 35% of the French electorate. Sorry John, you cannot write off one third of a country as ‘not the real France’. Violent collectivist statism is as French as camembert cheese, Laetitia Casta, the Eiffel Tower… and the Guillotine.
It is the long process of erosion that French civil society itself has been undergoing for over 150 years that provides such welcoming ground for the Jean-Marie Le Pen’s of this world. Jaques Chirac is not part of the solution but is rather part of the problem. ‘National Greatness’ conservatives like him are no less statist than socialist Lionel Jospin or neo-fascist Jean Le Pen. There simply is no significant political constituency in France that does not see the state as being the very centre of society, rather than just its boundary keeper. Almost all significant interaction is touched on by the state and thus reduces society to a series of competing political, rather than social, factions, all clamouring for the violence backed recourse of the state to champion their interests. These people who are aghast at the rise of Le Pen are the self same people who tilled the soil in which he grows.
Statist political interests of ‘left’ and ‘right’ appropriate a vast swathe of the national wealth, encouraging people to simply vote themselves other people’s money, and then wonder why folks have no time for tiresome and time consuming social integration or a dynamist assimilative culture. Why bother when it is clear that the normal way for solving all problems is the hammer of the state? You don’t like American products competing with French ones in the shops regardless of the fact other people want to buy them? “There ought to be a law against it” and both socialist Lionel Jospin and conservative Jaques Chirac agree with that. You don’t like the sound of all those English language pop songs on the radio and TV? “There ought to be a law against it” and both socialist Lionel Jospin and conservative Jaques Chirac agree with that too. If all these other unjust things are democratically sanctified, then if you don’t like Africans or Moroccans, well, I guess there ought to be a law against them as well if that is the way everything works. If everything is up for grabs by the ‘democratic’ state, well, don’t be surprised if everything really does mean everything.
So why am I grinning? Simple. It shows that the entire edifice of the French Fifth Republic is rotten to its kleptocratic statist core. This is what the European Union’s amen chorus wish Britain to tie its political, economic and cultural fortunes to. Yet in fact this is a salutary lesson where statism inevitably leads… to ever more profound forms of statism, such as the nationalist racism of Le Pen. The non-assimilative post-modern collectivism of Jospin leads to the even less assimilative atavistic collectivism of Le Pen.
And to think the one thing Jospin, Chirac and Le Pen’s supporters all have in common is that they all look down on the Anglosphere. From people like that I take that as a compliment.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
