Immigration French anti-immigration RN party multiplied its vote share by 3 since the last election

[Maciamo]

Marine Le Pen's party, the Rassemblement National (RN), France's main far right anti-immigration party, got 37% of the votes at the general election last Sunday. Over 10 million French people voted for this party. That's over three times more than 5 years ago. The question is why? France has long had a problem with its huge immigrant population from Africa and especially Muslims from the Maghreb. But have things got worse recently? I didn't think so. After all the riots of the Muslim youths across France that burned thousands of cars were in 2005, almost 20 years ago. The two largest terrorist attacks in Paris both happened in 2015. There hasn't been anything on that scale in the last few years.

Yet according to this video the crime rate committed by foreigners, mostly of (North) African origin, has been increasing a lot in France over the last few years. That includes petty crimes like thefts, but also rapes and especially organised crime. According to the statistics they cite 70% of rapes in France are committed by immigrants and the number of rapes if more than doubled over the last few years.

Even though I'm all in favour of stricter measures against crime in general and against immigration from Muslim countries, I don't think that voting for the Rassemblement National is the solution. The problem was this party is that they are also Eurosceptics (although they no longer advocate leaving the EU or the Eurozone), they don't seem to understand how the economy works (a typical problem of populist parties both on the left and right), and they have no environmental policy.

 

[norbert]

The right seems to be rising among the youth because it's their future that is at stake. It is the young that are mostly confronted with the harassment coming from Muslim gangs. Vienna has seen a serious crisis over the last couple of days as Syrian, Chechen and Afghan gangs are stabbing each other in parks. According to a police spokesman, it's not about organised crime but the struggle for dominance over public space. In Vienna. Austria. As none of the "centrist" parties is doing anything about that, people are flocking over to the right. Not because they are right-wing or racist but because they have nowhere else to go, so what you get are protest votes. I don't think the situation is much different in France. Atop that, a new, almost absurd, reality has set in. Today it's the right-wing parties that are advocating for peace and especially for an end of the war in Ukraine because they, rightly so, see what a great threat to Europe it has become. The EU is perceived as an undemocratic juggernaut, administered by the EU Commission that is pretty much Washington's control mechanism over Europe. These people are destroying our economies with sanctions that aren't doing any damage to Russia but they are dismantling our prosperity and greatly endangering the future of our children. Most of us who are old enough, remember the right-wing as being pro-war. Now it's the Left. Why? Because the Left no longer exists. They are all part of a broad spectrum of a "centrist", neoliberal uniparty. When more than 200 candidates from the neoliberal camp (so-called conservatives, left-liberals etc.) step back to help the NFP win the elections in France, that begs the question about what deals have been made behind closed doors and how leftist the NFP really is. They want to switch to 100% renewables by 2050, which is laudable but also laughable. If the populist right doesn't know anything about the economy, as you suggest, what can be said about these people who are expecting from us to "tighten our belts" so they can feel about themselves in regards to the environment while the Russians, Chinese, Indians and golf states have made it clear that they'll be increasing production of fossil fuels because that is the quickest and fastest way to ensure general prosperity in their societies.

I guess that NFP also wishes to continue with the same immigration policy as their predecessors. Mind you, they didn't even win the elections if you go with the numbers. France has a system that guarantees a managed democracy from above. It's even worse in the UK where Labour's victory was widely celebrated, although they got less votes than in 2019. They were also boycotted by the "Muslim community" which seems to think that the priority of a British party should be Gaza, not Britain. But Britain isn't Labour's priority anyway. In terms of states, I guess it's Israel.

 

[bicicleur 2]

The center-right, the left and ultra-left worked together to block the RN.
However, IMO people like Melanchon are a bigger threat than Le Pen.

Meloni for president was also seen as a big threat.
I don't live in Italy, but I have the impression she is doing all right.

That being said, I agree, the extreme right doesn't understand how the economy works, just like the ultra-left, and the green fundamentalists.

 

[Jovialis]

I honestly think that the problems facing Western countries, and others, will not be solved by a political solution. Technology will ultimately change the status quo, and policies will follow suit. For example, low birth rates are cited as a reason why immigration is necessary. But if most jobs are slated to be filled by automation in the future, there's no need for the influx of masses from the third world. Furthermore, some feel a moral obligation to help these people, but once again, their countries could be lifted up by automation as well, provided by rich countries. This, in turn, would alleviate the need to migrate if their countries become functional. Another factor is that because of capitalism, the economy must keep expanding, as well as the population. Yet again, this will be radically changed by automation.

 

[Vitruvius]

The only sensible way forward for the ethnic French is to advocate for every party, mechanism, social system, technology and organizational structure that will increase their native birth rates and decrease the birth rates and immigration rates of ethnic foreigners. Anything else is ethnic suicide in their current situation. The same statement can be applied to most western countries at the moment. My main problem with anti-immigration parties is not the fact that they are associated with right wing politics, but the fact that they rarely carry through on their promises and are often in reality pro immigration so long as the migrants are workers and not irregulars. This is not a real anti-immigrant stance.

I am waiting for the day for when we see true nativist organization interested in preserving Europe's old ethnic groups instead of cannibalizing them in favor of short term economic growth. Immigration is typically not a problem so long as it occurs in small amounts from relatively similar countries. What we have today is instead a weapon that's being used to destroy nations which are thousands of years old. This kind of immigration which occurs in huge quantities involving people from non European backgrounds needs to end.

 

[Vitruvius]

The center-right, the left and ultra-left worked together to block the RN.
However, IMO people like Melanchon are a bigger threat than Le Pen.

Meloni for president was also seen as a big threat.
I don't live in Italy, but I have the impression she is doing all right.

That being said, I agree, the extreme right doesn't understand how the economy works, just like the ultra-left, and the green fundamentalists.

Meloni is a prime example of a politician who poses as anti immigrant but in reality is not. Her administration is intent on bringing in 452,000 foreign workers in the next 3 years despite her stance against the clandestini. It goes without saying but anyone without an anti-european stance will realize that economic gain is not so important that we should ever default to ethnic substitution/dilution. If birth rates in western countries are declining then we need to look at the lifestyles that corporations and governments are forcing people to live with and what is causing an inability to start families at a statistically enormous level (be it psychological, emotional, financial, or otherwise). Proposing immigration (legal or otherwise) as a solution is just like putting a dirty bandage on a wound. Infection will necessarily follow.

 

[Maciamo]

I honestly think that the problems facing Western countries, and others, will not be solved by a political solution. Technology will ultimately change the status quo, and policies will follow suit. For example, low birth rates are cited as a reason why immigration is necessary. But if most jobs are slated to be filled by automation in the future, there's no need for the influx of masses from the third world. Furthermore, some feel a moral obligation to help these people, but once again, their countries could be lifted up by automation as well, provided by rich countries. This, in turn, would alleviate the need to migrate if their countries become functional. Another factor is that because of capitalism, the economy must keep expanding, as well as the population. Yet again, this will be radically changed by automation.

While I completely agree with you that technology and especially robots will remove the need for immigrants from poorer countries doing the three D jobs (difficult, dirty and dangerous), there will also be a backlash from the local working class populations whose job will be taken by robots. The problem will be political. If enough people want to prevent robots from taking the job of working class people, then laws might be enacted to protect them, which will considerably slow down the adoption of new technologies.

 

[Maciamo]

The only sensible way forward for the ethnic French is to advocate for every party, mechanism, social system, technology and organizational structure that will increase their native birth rates and decrease the birth rates and immigration rates of ethnic foreigners. Anything else is ethnic suicide in their current situation. The same statement can be applied to most western countries at the moment.

I agree, but how do you propose to achieve that? So far all policies attempting to increase birth rates in countries with very low birth rates like Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy or Germany have all failed.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I agree, but how do you propose to achieve that? So far all policies attempting to increase birth rates in countries with very low birth rates like Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy or Germany have all failed.

In a traditional farmer society having children was an investment which paid back when they grew up to help working in the fields.
I have a radical proposal for Belgium, where pension state funds are empty and the working generation pays for those already retired.
Having children cost a lot of money. Then when they grow up and get a job, they have to pay the pensions not only of those who have raised children but also of those who didn't.
Those who don't raise children don't have the costs involved, they should save that money for their own retirement.
So let's abondon pensions and let the children pay for the retirement of their parents when these grow old, instead of for the whole population of retirees ..
I realise though this proposal will never make it .. not in Europe.

 

[norbert]

While I completely agree with you that technology and especially robots will remove the need for immigrants from poorer countries doing the three D jobs (difficult, dirty and dangerous), there will also be a backlash from the local working class populations whose job will be taken by robots. The problem will be political. If enough people want to prevent robots from taking the job of working class people, then laws might be enacted to protect them, which will considerably slow down the adoption of new technologies.

As Rick Deckard said, "replicants are like any other machine. They're either a benefit or a hazard." Whatever is true for technology, depends on the social and economic framework in which it is implemented. It's a question of distribution of wealth. In a society where the wealth created by robotic labour is distributed to the benefit of society and mankind, technology of this kind is obviously to the benefit of everyone and will make the biggest possible amount of people healthy, safe(r) from work-related accidents and free to pursue creative interests that will increase their happiness. But if this technology is owned by a handful of billionaires who now have the means to control and extort society, if this technology is used to concentrate wealth in the hands of a small minority of perversely rich people, we're on a path of dystopia with hundreds of millions, if not billions, deplorables who live off the crumbs left to them by the neo-feudal techno elite.

If you dig deep enough, you'll come to the realisation that these policies currently enforced on us are interconnected and they go back as far as the 1970s to the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome and its Limits to Growth publication, all financed by Western oligarchs. This climate hysteria is their brainchild. It's all about economic power and dominance and they first started with the local populations by bringing in migrants en masse to break the power and confidence of the domestic working class. Take the US as an example where the unions in the automobile industry were the last bastions of workers' power in the 1980s. Reagan simply brought in Japanese cars to flood the markets and enabled US manufacturers to move production to the American South and Mexico. It is a half-a-century long war from above against the working people of our societies and mass immigration is only one of the weapons used. The people who come in are also victims and pawns in the game, of whom many have nothing to lose while we do.

 

[Stuvanè]

Meloni is a prime example of a politician who poses as anti immigrant but in reality is not. Her administration is intent on bringing in 452,000 foreign workers in the next 3 years despite her stance against the clandestini. It goes without saying but anyone without an anti-european stance will realize that economic gain is not so important that we should ever default to ethnic substitution/dilution. If birth rates in western countries are declining then we need to look at the lifestyles that corporations and governments are forcing people to live with and what is causing an inability to start families at a statistically enormous level (be it psychological, emotional, financial, or otherwise). Proposing immigration (legal or otherwise) as a solution is just like putting a dirty bandage on a wound. Infection will necessarily follow.

@Vitruvius,

Just a clarification on the Italian situation.

Few have the courage to admit it, but Italy is not a politically autonomous entity, both due to its historical past and its economic and/or public debt problems. And the current Italian political right is no exception.

If this has now reached where it is, it is because it has paid its dues with respect to a certain European and Atlantic establishment, which has sterilized its most radical demands in terms of sovereignism (economic and otherwise) and migration policies. It's one thing to shout from the opposition benches, it's another thing to govern, and governing almost always means squaring the circle and therefore coming to (low) compromises (or blackmail, depending on your point of view). But it is a problem that in my opinion will in the long run arise more generally throughout the Western world, where conservative parties - assuming and not granting that they really want to have a significant impact on politics - often put on a brave face to be admitted into government ranks, but in the long run allow them to be neutralized and become irrelevant in the political arena.
Now it's not a question of justifying Meloni and overlooking the objective limits of her government action, but it must also be said that in this country a right-wing ruler is almost always automatically ousted by the inevitable intervention of the judiciary, which in our country is anything but a independent body. The Italian judiciary is among the most unionized and left-leaning structures that exist in the world, and the most interesting thing is that it is self-referential and immovable (unless a civil war occurs). Just as another figure who in fact almost always becomes an obstacle to a right-wing politician is the President of the Republic, who is president of the Superior Council of the Judiciary and promulgates the laws approved in Parliament or refers them to it. It is useless to tell you that - coincidentally - for several decades the President of the Republic has always been a man appreciated by the left (if not an important representative of it, as happened in the case of Giorgio Napolitano), just as it is laughable to tell you that he, far from carrying out functions of institutional referee, most of the time plays side-by-side with the left, taking refuge behind alleged unconstitutionality with respect to the measures proposed by the right. Other armed arms of the left are frequently the unions, the public bureaucracies... and the immigrants themselves, especially irregular ones who, as I have already written many times, have become the natural and most copious reservoir of the left-wing electorate (political and trade union, but also of many dishonest entrepreneurs) and are also intangible.
You can well understand that such a wall of antagonisms and resistance to be broken down could be discouraging even for much more experienced politicians than Meloni (and in the current state of affairs, I believe that serious change will not take place in our country through institutional or democratic means).

 

[Vitruvius]

I agree, but how do you propose to achieve that? So far all policies attempting to increase birth rates in countries with very low birth rates like Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy or Germany have all failed.

Incentivize births financially by giving larger income tax cuts on a percentile basis for each ethnically native child had (in this particular case we speak of ethnic French). Increase salaries for the working and middle class population and decrease profits for the extreme upper class. Reallocate government tax money to be used towards day cares and also parental support networks which help bear the costs of child rearing. You really cannot put a limit to spending on this task as the future of these nations depends entirely on their ability to aptly correct low fertility.

To me it's obvious that western society is structured in such a way in that almost all of its resources are dumped into the profit margins of an upper class whose income is derived from equity instead of labor. We are at a point to where we have taken this to such an extreme that people no longer find it affordable to have children thanks to the rising cost of living, and what's more is that our local community involvement has also disappeared in totalistic favor of one's work life. This has necessarily had sweeping sociological implications which has statistically reduced the breadth of social networks and the quantity of close contacts each generation has and it seems to be getting worse over time. I am not against the idea of an upper class deriving its profits from investment, and equity in principal, however I do believe there needs to be a limit and that limit can be defined as the point in which we began to cannibalize the quality of life of the working class in favor of further profit margins for investors. The monster is now eating itself and if it wants to survive it needs to look backwards towards a more balanced way of life for your typical, non-elite working or middle class native citizen.

 

[Vitruvius]

In a traditional farmer society having children was an investment which paid back when they grew up to help working in the fields.
I have a radical proposal for Belgium, where pension state funds are empty and the working generation pays for those already retired.
Having children cost a lot of money. Then when they grow up and get a job, they have to pay the pensions not only of those who have raised children but also of those who didn't.
Those who don't raise children don't have the costs involved, they should save that money for their own retirement.
So let's abondon pensions and let the children pay for the retirement of their parents when these grow old, instead of for the whole population of retirees ..
I realise though this proposal will never make it .. not in Europe.

I agree. People should also be allowed to save for their own retirement instead of being forced to dump money into these public pension schemes. You are gnawing at the kernels of truth here which dictate that a task of responsibility is better managed when punishment for its negligence is direct and immediate to the offender. Why mass distribute financial responsibility instead of letting people simply save for their own retirement? This is very harmful. Let there be a smaller subset of funds for the truly sick and helpless, but the concept of nation wide tax funded pension scheme is predicated on the idea that the younger generations will always be numerically larger than the older generations which we all know is a lie.

 

[Vallicanus]

I honestly think that the problems facing Western countries, and others, will not be solved by a political solution. Technology will ultimately change the status quo, and policies will follow suit. For example, low birth rates are cited as a reason why immigration is necessary. But if most jobs are slated to be filled by automation in the future, there's no need for the influx of masses from the third world. Furthermore, some feel a moral obligation to help these people, but once again, their countries could be lifted up by automation as well, provided by rich countries. This, in turn, would alleviate the need to migrate if their countries become functional. Another factor is that because of capitalism, the economy must keep expanding, as well as the population. Yet again, this will be radically changed by automation.

Automation makes low-skill or no-skill immigrants largely unnecessary and certainly redundant.

 

[Maciamo]

Incentivize births financially by giving larger income tax cuts on a percentile basis for each ethnically native child had (in this particular case we speak of ethnic French).

It's a good idea in theory, but how do you define a 'native' child? What about children who have one French and one foreign parent? If they are not considered native, then what about someone with 3 French grand-parents and 1 foreign grand-parent? And so on. What about naturalised foreigners? Are they native or not? In France, children of immigrants can automatically request French citizenship. And there are plenty of Africans who are in that category. Should people have to prove French ancestry on many generations? Take a DNA test and have a minimum of French ancestry? Would other Europeans qualify as native or only people with French ancestry?

EDIT: I checked and 30% of the French population have at least one foreign grandparent.

 

[Maciamo]

Few have the courage to admit it, but Italy is not a politically autonomous entity, both due to its historical past and its economic and/or public debt problems. And the current Italian political right is no exception.

If this has now reached where it is, it is because it has paid its dues with respect to a certain European and Atlantic establishment, which has sterilized its most radical demands in terms of sovereignism (economic and otherwise) and migration policies.

You make a good point about the political influence of institutions and foreign governments who owns a country's public debt. If a country borrows money through government bonds and that most of the lenders are private citizens, then there is virtually no risk of anyone owning enough public debt to influence the government. But if foreign governments and foreign banks or investment funds are the ones owning the debt, that's quite another situation. I looked it up for the Italian public debt and it is as follows:

Main holders of Italian public debt in June 2019 (Bank of Italy statistics) are:

• households= 4.4%
• Italian banks= 30.6% (which includes a 12.8% share of public debt made of bank loans to local administrations)
• Italian insurance companies= 13.7%
• investment funds (with mainly Italian beneficiaries)= 13.2%
• foreign (banks, insurance, etc.)= 20%
• Eurosystem (Bank of Italy through liabilities owed to European Central Bank, and paying interest to the Italian treasury)= 17.7%.

The total share of Italian public debt detained by foreign holders, including the European Central Bank, is 45%.

But the situation is similar in France, Germany, Spain and the United States. The percentages evolve all the time, but in France about 50% of the public debt is owned by foreigners (28% foreign non-banks, 18.5% foreign governments, 3.5% foreign banks). In the US, about 35% of the debt is owned by foreign investors (the largest being from Japan, China and Britain).

 

[Maciamo]

As Rick Deckard said, "replicants are like any other machine. They're either a benefit or a hazard." Whatever is true for technology, depends on the social and economic framework in which it is implemented. It's a question of distribution of wealth. In a society where the wealth created by robotic labour is distributed to the benefit of society and mankind, technology of this kind is obviously to the benefit of everyone and will make the biggest possible amount of people healthy, safe(r) from work-related accidents and free to pursue creative interests that will increase their happiness. But if this technology is owned by a handful of billionaires who now have the means to control and extort society, if this technology is used to concentrate wealth in the hands of a small minority of perversely rich people, we're on a path of dystopia with hundreds of millions, if not billions, deplorables who live off the crumbs left to them by the neo-feudal techno elite.

I completely agree. Who owns the robots will determine the future of human society.

This climate hysteria is their brainchild.

Could you explain?

It's all about economic power and dominance and they first started with the local populations by bringing in migrants en masse to break the power and confidence of the domestic working class.

That may have been the case in the 1950s and 60s, but immigrants later joined the labour unions too. What's more they had children and grandchildren who were naturalised and voted for Leftist parties (like the Socialists in countries like France and Belgium) whose policies were to grant always more protection to the workers until it became almost impossible to fire workers and social security contributions paid by employers became prohibitively expensive, which in turn stiffened the labour market. So yes, big businesses did bring immigrants from the Maghreb, or Turkey or South Asia to Europe, but over time their plan backfired. That's why many left Europe altogether to produce their goods in countries with less regulations and cheaper costs like China.

 

[norbert]

Could you explain?

The climate change arguments used today are the same used in the 1970s and 1980s and they go back to the gatherings and publications I have mentioned. Said events were financed by Italian industrialists, Western corporations (including Volkswagen), the Rockefellers, banks. A key person among these was Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter. He was also the principal organiser of the Trilateral Commission which was to set the stage for a future "globalist", i.e. Western-led world order and an American 21st century. Publications like The Limits to Growth argued about limites ressources, overpopulation and climate change as a consequence of these struggles. What may look like a noble cause, and I believe in environmental protection and that human activities have a huge impact on climate indeed, is the hijacking of what should be a sound environmental policy involving international cooperation. What it in fact is, is just a tool of economic warfare. In other words, there are not enough ressources in the world because we want them for ourselves. The other aspect of this warfare is the attempt to at least slow down the industrial and technological advance of China and the developing world. Fossil fuels are the cheapest way to lift the highest number of people out of poverty. Yes, they are destructive to the environment but who are we to preach to others after we ourselves have achieved our level of prosperity thanks to the use of fossil fuels for a century? It's hypocrisy of the highest order and the background to it is the arrogant presumption that the West has a natural right to control most of the world's ressources and the foremost entitlement to a life in abundance. We have now reached a stage where Western elites no longer think in terms of the Western world having that right but just their own class. Common people in the West should no longer drive cars, own anything, consume meat etc. We are advised to start eating bugs.

The "liberal" vision for the world, as advocated by Mr. Brzezinski, was that "the technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society…dominated by an élite, unrestrained by traditional values…[and practicing] continuous surveillance over every citizen … [together with] manipulation of the behaviour and intellectual functioning of all people … [would become the new norm].” He also argued that the nation state has become irrelevant and that all future planning should be left to international banks and corporations because "they have the foresight the nation state lacks." In regards to the issue of climate change as addressed in Limits to Growth, Bill Clinton's adviser to the UN Rio Conference held in 1992, Tim Wirth, admitted the publication was flawed but that it was useful for economic policy. You cannot understand today's climate policy without this background information, which I'm only providing in a very limited capacity.

 

[Vitruvius]

It's a good idea in theory, but how do you define a 'native' child? What about children who have one French and one foreign parent? If they are not considered native, then what about someone with 3 French grand-parents and 1 foreign grand-parent? And so on. What about naturalised foreigners? Are they native or not? In France, children of immigrants can automatically request French citizenship. And there are plenty of Africans who are in that category. Should people have to prove French ancestry on many generations? Take a DNA test and have a minimum of French ancestry? Would other Europeans qualify as native or only people with French ancestry?

EDIT: I checked and 30% of the French population have at least one foreign grandparent.

A native child in this case is one with four french grandparents and plots within the genetic norms of others who also have four french grandparents. One could actually standardize a cut off date for proving ancestral contribution to a period coinciding very low immigration to France as time goes on to make this a bit more concrete than specifying a relative ancestor like "grandparent". Nativity could be proven by combination of birth/marriage records and genetic evidence in terms of plotting within french norms. This does not include naturalized foreigners unless they also have fully ethnic french ancestry from an older time period (think for example French Canadians as a possibility). The point is to make an ethnic qualifier which is used to promote the multiplication of french ancestry over that of foreign ancestry to restore the ethnic basis of the French nation. To make things less black and white, one could also give lesser tax breaks for children with three french grandparents and one other European grandparent since the resulting offspring would likely be very close to a natively french profile and assist in bringing the genetic norms back to a historic average. The tax break would not be as substantial as having four proven native grandparents, but it would be still considerable.

Essentially I view other Europeans as close relatives to the french and capable of social and genetic assimilation on a small, but not large scale. If the goal is to promote historically french ancestry then the greatest benefit needs to be given to the truest natives with the system tapering off benefits for those who have less and less french ancestry. Again this model could be applied to basically any European nation. It's just human programming, no different than tax laws have always done.

 

[D.L.M]

Haven't read most of the posts in here. But it seems that most right-wingers are worse than leftists to be honest. They only push for conservative destructive influence like blocking the aid against global warming while do nothing for migration and other actually important issues that they promise to help.

At least Democrats in US are upfront with their policies and more humanitarian at the same time to the citizens of America. The Republicans just want to suck off the taxes for the elite.

As for France I don't even like Le Pen, maybe she should just drop and let another one step in.