Well the first round of the French Presidential Election has commenced and the result was pretty much exactly what everyone thought it would be.
Macron, the globalist progressive, and Le Pen, our preservationist nationalist, have advanced to the second round.
One could argue the Macron side is a surprise, since he was until recently a virtual unknown, and only got to this point because of Fillon’s scandals and Sarkozy not winning his primary, however, as a young, good-looking yet totally brainwashed 39 year old globalist progressive, it makes perfect sense in retrospect that he won the first round.
Le Pen’s Performance
Many people thought Le Pen would win the first round outright, and as a result one could argue she under-performed a bit.
Now, if you compare her performance to that of her father’s of course, she has done much better. The following graphic, courtesy of Zero Hedge, attests to that.
The Second Round
This of course leaves us with a Le Pen vs Macron contest to decide who will become France’s new President.
Pat Buchanan examines this in an excellent article that came out yesterday:
The campaign between now and May 7, however, could make the Trump-Clinton race look like an altarpiece of democratic decorum.
Not only are the differences between the candidates stark, Le Pen has every incentive to attack to solidify her base and lay down a predicate for the future failure of a Macron government.
And Macron is vulnerable. He won because he is fresh, young, 39, and appealed to French youth as the anti-Le Pen. A personification of Robert Redford in “The Candidate.”
But he has no established party behind him to take over the government, and he is an ex-Rothschild banker in a populist environment where bankers are as welcome as hedge-fund managers at a Bernie Sanders rally.
He is a pro-EU, open-borders transnationalist who welcomes new immigrants and suggests that acts of Islamist terrorism may be the price France must pay for a multiethnic and multicultural society.
Macron was for a year economic minister to President Francois Hollande who has presided over a 10 percent unemployment rate and a growth rate that is among the most anemic in the entire European Union.
He is offering corporate tax cuts and a reduction in the size of a government that consumes 56 percent of GDP, and presents himself as the “president of patriots to face the threat of nationalists.”
His campaign is as much “us vs. them” as Le Pen’s.
And elite enthusiasm for Macron seems less rooted in any anticipation of future greatness than in the desperate hope he can save the French establishment from the dreaded prospect of Marine.
But if Macron is the present, who owns the future?
Across Europe, as in France, center-left and center-right parties that have been on the scene since World War II appear to be emptying out like dying churches. The enthusiasm and energy seem to be in the new parties of left and right, of secessionism and nationalism.
The problem for those who believe the populist movements of Europe have passed their apogee, with losses in Holland, Austria and, soon, France, that the fever has broken, is that the causes of the discontent that spawned these parties are growing stronger.
What are those causes?
A growing desire by peoples everywhere to reclaim their national sovereignty and identity, and remain who they are. And the threats to ethnic and national identity are not receding, but growing.
The tide of refugees from the Middle East and Africa has not abated. Weekly, we read of hundreds drowning in sunken boats that tried to reach Europe. Thousands make it. But the assimilation of Third World peoples in Europe is not proceeding. It seems to have halted.
Second-generation Muslims who have lived all their lives in Europe are turning up among the suicide bombers and terrorists.
Fifteen years ago, al-Qaida seemed confined to Afghanistan. Now it is all over the Middle East, as is ISIS, and calls for Islamists in Europe to murder Europeans inundate social media.
As the numbers of native-born Europeans begin to fall, with their anemic fertility rates, will the aging Europeans become more magnanimous toward destitute newcomers who do not speak the national language or assimilate into the national culture, but consume its benefits?
If a referendum were held across Europe today, asking whether the mass migrations from the former colonies of Africa and the Middle East have on balance made Europe a happier and better place to live in in recent decades, what would that secret ballot reveal?
Does Macron really represent the future of France, or is he perhaps one of the last men of yesterday?
Excellent questions from Buchanan, from whom we would expect nothing less.
I think he makes an excellent point that Macron’s economic positions are indeed anathema to many left-wing whites in France. However, as he intimates, any opposition to such positions will be over-balanced by the desire of the mainstream progressives in France to defeat Marine le Pen.
Buchanan does not take a position either way on whether le Pen can win. However, if we look at another map of France, we can gain some insights into the possibility.
Le Pen seemed to win all the rural areas of France. The pink color that represents districts she won stretches across wide swaths of the countryside. Those areas are likely ones with very high percentages of native French voters.
But in the urban centers and especially the suburbs, it is almost entirely purple (the communist Melanchon), dark blue (Fillon), or light blue (Macron).
It is similar to the map of the US election that Trump won through huge swaths of rural red districts going for him.
Comparing the two maps shows the problem though, which is that a far smaller slice of France involves rural majority-white districts!
This is a result of 1) the even more Proggressivized consolidation of France by the left, which has left a large portion of the native France population as urban, left-wing ‘r-Selected’ idealogues, and 2) (even more importantly) the utterly massive scale of Muslim immigration that has turned France’s suburbs into what might as well be foreign nations.
With all this being the case, I think Buchanan is right that Macron does not represent the future of France. He is also right that Macron represents a sacrifice in the name of defeating Le Pen and ‘Nationalism’.
Buchanan seems to suggest that France’s elderly native Baby-Boomers may reject the globalist Macron’s of the world though, and that whereas Macron is “the past” maybe Le Pen is “the future”. I think this is wishful thinking however.
Macron is the past because he is the absolute representation of Baby-Boomer leftism in France. He- just like their politics- represents a sacrificing of France’s future in the name of fundamentalist religion- the fundamentalist religion of Cultural-Marxist negationism.
If Le Pen loses this election France will never again have another chance to save themselves electorally, at least not on the national level.
And once the Baby-Boomers cease to be the most powerful force/demographic in France, it will leave a contest between the vast numbers of Muslims whose numbers grow with every passing day, and a younger generation of native French. Hopefully (if France is to have any chance), they will be more like Marion le Pen that Emmanuelle Macron.
I’ll leave with a video of Marion herself.