My thoughts on Marine le Pen and populism

marine le pen

Previously I didn’t bother commenting on the French election, mainly because I had far too much assignment work, and didn’t know much about French politics to adequately weigh in. Before the polls closed, I thought that Marine le Pen was the best choice for France, but only because I believed she would be the one to bring France out of the EU, hastening the EU’s demise. In fact, given everything that happened before the election, I thought le Pen’s victory was a certainty. So when Emmanuel Macron became President of France – in a landslide no less – I was undoubtedly shocked.

I absolutely despised the idea of a Macron presidency, mainly because he was the establishment candidate, the man who doesn’t give a damn about Islamic terrorism, such as the kind France experienced throughout last summer. He’s basically France’s Tony Blair, peddling the same “third-way” crap that we fell for back in the 1990’s (Macron is called a “centrist”, but he’s really a neoliberal). Given what we knew about Macron, it should have been easy to defeat Macron. However, I should have known that it would be foolish to assume that the wave of populism that succeeding in Britain and America could succeed everywhere just because that was the trend. If that were true, Geert Wilders would have won in a landslide.

What I should have accounted for is that Marine le Pen’s economic policies might have been her undoing. She is essentially a protectionist who wanted to make business pay more taxes for hiring foreigners, a policy even I as an anti-globalist would oppose because it’s downright ridiculous. The problem with Le Pen was that she was too extreme on economic policy. Frexit and scrapping the euro were fine ideas. In fact, that’s why I would have liked for her to win, but given her overall economic agenda, I think I can come to the conclusion that many of Macron’s voters didn’t actually agree with Macron’s agenda as a whole, but saw him as better for their financial interests than Le Pen.

It also doesn’t help that, despite Le Pen’s attempts to soften the party’s image, it can’t escape the controversial history of the Le Pen name. Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie le Pen, was an out-and-out holocaust denier (if he didn’t deny it, he considered it “a minor detail in history”), and Le Pen herself claimed that French police did not round up French jews in the Vel’ d’Hiv in July 1942. Of course, she was lying. The incident she was talking about was the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup, an incident in which, yes, French police officers rounded up and arrested Jews living in Paris and handed them over to the Nazis. The name of the incident comes from the arena where the captured Jews were contained before being shipped off to Auschwitz. The incident lives on as a moment of national shame for the French, and Le Pen’s attempt to gloss it over only made Front National seem more like the radical right wing party the media was portraying them to be.

In other words, Le Pen was a crap candidate, mainly because she failed to liberalise the party’s economic policies, and didn’t do enough to clean up the party’s extremist image. If you want my opinion, the party and its populist cause would be better served if the party were lead by someone other than a Le Pen.

Now that I’ve covered my thoughts of Le Pen, and I think I should talk about populism. I used to have a lot of disdain for the idea of populism, but then, I was a left-wing moron who took his definition of populism from the dying legacy media I was fighting. So first, I should clear up the definition of populism. Populism, in the strictest sense, is the idea of uniting the common people against the elites with the goal of meeting the needs of the common people in a society where their needs are constantly ignored by the mainstream political class. A populist can be left-wing (like Jean-Luc Mélenchon), right-wing (like Donald Trump), or somewhere close to the centre.

The main thing to remember about populists is that they typically thrive when none of the mainstream political parties will listen to the common people. In this situation, many ordinary working people will listen to the populists because they’re the only ones talking about their issues (for example, mass immigration depressing wages for the working class). When that happens, you see the elitists come out of the woodwork and attack them.

The elites try to suppress the influence of populism through use of the mainstream media, which has poisoned the term “populist” by conflating it with demagoguery and bigotry, with some occasional Nazi analogies thrown in. Of course we know the mentality. When the people vote the way the establishment wants, it’s called “democracy”, but when they don’t, it’s called “populism”, and that’s because the populists want to actually change the system, and this threatens the status quo created by the neoliberals, neoconservatives, and their corporate masters. They’re the ones that actually run the show, and the populists are their enemies.

In other words, I am a supporter of populism, though I’m more cautious of the populist candidates after Le Pen’s failure. Why do I support populism? Because regardless their ideological position, I think we need populists right now, because they expose the condition of the society they operate in. In a society in dire need of social change, there will always come a populist reformer, and the longer the state of decline happens, and depending on the condition of society, the more extreme the populists get, and the more people who are willing to turn to a charismatic leader to fix everything. So yes, I believe that populism is part of the life cycle of a society. If they succeed, then there’s a chance that society will improve. But if they fail, the society becomes even worse as the old elite ingratiates itself further at the expense of the common folk, and without any intervention, the society collapses.

In conclusion, the need for populism, even in France, is greater at this stage than at any point in modern history. The problem with Le Pen is that she was doomed from the start, and yet many prominent eurosceptics simply took sides with Le Pen purely because she was the Frexit candidate. For all the good she could have done, we eurosceptics were fools to blindly back the deeply flawed candidate that was Marine le Pen. I don’t think this will change the EU’s fortunes to their favour. They’re still doomed. We’ll simply have to wait a little longer for the EU’s inevitable collapse.

When did national identity become a cardinal sin?

 

082dd5e5ed7edc19580f6a7067008ab2_c0-316-3280-2228_s885x516

Today is of course American Independence Day, and as I celebrate the 240th anniversary of the great nation where I spent my formative years, I’m reminded of the reason why America was founded, and the revolutionary war that led to the creation of a country that believed in liberty from the beginning. If I lived there, of course I would be proud to call myself an American, but over the past decade the left has been working to making American culture seem like an unequivocally shameful thing in what I understand is some sort of vainglorious attempt by the progressive establishment to shame people into rejecting their national identity.

The same has been happening in Britain for a long time, and I think that the ongoing aftermath of Brexit has exposed the leftist elite’s contempt for the very concept of national sovereignty. People who voted Leave in the referendum were vilified as racists, xenophobes and fascists simply because they valued their own national identity and culture, rather than the empty globalist farce that is the achievable dream of a borderless world. Until then, I had no idea just how much the British electorate valued their culture, and even before the vote, I sympathised with one of the driving concerns of those who intended to vote Leave – they were tired of being called “racist” simply because of their concerns about immigration. Indeed after the vote, the young people who voted Remain began dismissing their elders as “racist xenophobes” who “robbed their future”.

How is this relevant? It showed that the young Remain supporters had complete and utter contempt for the very idea of national pride, or even a national identity. Living in Wales, I find this rather odd because you have plenty of people who have a strong belief in Welsh identity. Indeed, I know one or two young people who would happily support Plaid Cymru because they think Wales should be run by the Welsh government rather than from England, and yet the majority of young people in Wales seemed to be in support of Remain, indicating that they have no problem with Britain being controlled from Brussels. I fail to see the logic in that.

What I want to know is how did national identity become such a cardinal sin to modern society? I think the problem is that many people seem to have been convinced that national identity is only capable of dividing people based on arbitrary conditions, but while I agree that it’s stupid to label people based on something that they didn’t choose, I also believe that if people choose to embrace their national identity, then we have no right to judge them for it. I also believe that national identity has been given a very bad image by the mainstream establishment in both Britain and America.

In America, patriotism became associated with supporting the inept interventionist policies of George W. Bush, and a lot of conservatives in America did exactly that. This led to a number of liberals and progressives leaping to the assumption that patriotism was synonymous with blind acquiescence to the will of the state, and I think that’s a mistake. What followed was a continuous assault on American exceptionalism (as demonstrated by the monumental bullshit spewed by Jeff Daniels’ character in The Newsroom), and now that conservatives have lost the public debate in America, the progressives have continued their campaign of liberal guilt and political correctness, and now it has given rise to the success of Donald Trump.

In Britain, the media has created a narrative in favour of multiculturalism, such to the extent that any who dare question it are branded as either “racists” or “far-right extremists”. In 2011, current PM David Cameron delivered speech in which he said that “multiculturalism has failed”. Naturally, critics such as Sadiq Khan accused him of effectively giving propaganda material to the English Defence League, a far-right protest group that was created in order to combat the rise of radical Islam in British communities. Of course, I’m not a nationalist, and I certainly would not support the EDL, mainly because they are too extreme for my tastes, but I believe that the rise of organisations like the EDL are a symptom of a deeper problem.

The problem is that state multiculturalism (which David Cameron was criticising) really has failed, and before you get the wrong idea, there is a reason why. Before David Cameron was elected, the New Labour government was promoting a doctrine of state multiculturalism with the intention of “changing the face of Britain” forever. However, the Blair government oversaw a blatant open border policy which was implemented purely for political ends. Multiculturalism succeeds when migrants assimilate into the culture they emigrate to. Blair’s multiculturalism, however, involves allowing the free expression of all cultures except the national culture. His plan was to make our national culture into a cosmopolitan culture, but you can’t claim to be open to all cultures while silencing those who express our indigenous culture. The reason multiculturalism isn’t working is because you often have people who refuse to assimilate, and if you dare point out the problems associated with that, you are condemned as a racist. UKIP’s Nigel Farage is a man who often gets called a racist (if, that is, he’s not being called a twat) simply for standing up for national identity. New Labour’s failed experiment also led to a rise in crimes that weren’t punished because the authorities feared being called racists. Because of that, we saw the rise of the EDL and the British National Party, and the tempers of some of the nastier elements of society are only getting worse.

To me, the establishment is forsaking the concept of national identity in favour of the idea of “global citizenship”, a concept that nobody really wants any part of when they actually learn what it is. The idea of global citizenship is based on getting rid of the idea of nations and replacing it with state-free citizenship of a globalised world, and the only people pushing for that idea are leftist celebrities, opportunistic politicians, EU bureaucrats, educational institutions, and idealistic youngsters who found themselves conned by any of the former. Is it any wonder why people are rejecting it?

The idea of global citizenship is really empty and pretentious, and it’s impossible to achieve, mainly because the very idea of getting rid of one’s national identity is profane to most of us. This relentless push for global citizenship at the expense of alienating working class Britons is exactly what is causing the populist revolution spreading across the Western world. They’re also tired of being racist if they object, and I’m getting tired of leftists trying to use the worst parts of our history in order to shame us into agreeing with them. Why should we be ashamed to British? We live in the country that abolished slavery, and made sure the rest of the world ended it as well, and we played a key role in defeating the Nazis. Are we Britons supposed to be ashamed of that?

Progressives in America won’t stop trying to make Americans feel like America is a horrible country, and I refuse to believe that because America was the first country that was founded on liberty from the ground up. America also ended the Second World War (albeit in a very regrettable fashion), landed a man on the Moon, and they also gave the world the technological advancements that the rest of the world takes for granted. It might not be perfect, but I think it’s very immature to judge a nation just for its faults, whether they’re in the past or the present. It’s not good for a country to become ashamed of itself. Look at Germany for example, a country so mired in guilt over the atrocities of the Nazi government, that it is a cultural norm. You even have an “anti-fascist” movement that is actively against their own home country, to the point of openly calling for the death of ethnic Germans. I’m thankful that Britain isn’t at that point yet, but if this is what the globalist progressives are aiming for, then it’s no wonder that British people are rejecting the globalist ideas the establishment and the media are propagating.

In conclusion, a lot has been said about national identity. If you believe the mainstream media and the leftist social justice mob, then you’ll be convinced that it is racist or stupid to even consider national identity, or that nationality is another useless concept that serves only to divide us. While I think it’s pointless to divide people based on something they do not control, I don’t believe that nationality is only capable of dividing people. In fact, nationality can be something that unites people, because for most people nationality reminds them of the country’s heritage, and we in Britain enjoy a very rich cultural heritage, but whether or not you value any of that is ultimately your choice. You shouldn’t have to feel bad about it just because somebody told you that you’re racist if you care about national sovereignty.

The bottom line here is that we shouldn’t go around convincing people that caring about one’s national culture is “racist” just because a few nasty characters have used nationalism as an ideology to justify bigotry, because that kind of intellectual dishonesty can only lead to one being just as bigoted as the nationalists towards people who hold different ideological beliefs. If we are to learn anything from Brexit, it’s that clearly people aren’t buying the whole “global citizenship” nonsense anymore, and it’s only a matter of time before we reach the nadir of the globalist fad.

The red top menace

Note: Red top is a slang term a slang term for any tabloid newspaper. Most, if not all tabloids in the UK have a red top on the front page.

https://i1.wp.com/minority-thought.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/red-top-tabloids-300x198.jpg

I’m sure you all remember what happened in July 2011. It was revealed that the News of the World newspaper hacked into various phones, including Hugh Grant, and the voice-mails of Milly Dowler. These revelations and others eventually caused the death of the paper, on July 11th 2011, while sealing the deal for News Corp’s descent into a state of being universally hated by everyone around them. It was a victory for the victims, and those who just wanted to see the death of the tabloids, such as myself.

That’s right, I hate tabloids. If you’ve read my “I’m a Celeb” post, the reasons should be obvious. But I want to expand on it. Everyone knows what a tabloid newspaper is; a newspaper with simple and sensational writing techniques that give more prominence to celebrity gossip, sports, and even hoaxes, than they give to real news.

The first reason why I hate tabloids is because they are dumb. They’re written in a way that can appeal to idiots, and it’s dumbing us all down. The sad part is that the people don’t even care about it. They only read them more than broadsheets because they’re ridiculously cheap.

The second reason I hate them is because they are hypocrites. The tabloid papers, their editors, and their creators claim be morally right, while simultaneously slapping pictures of topless girls on the third page in such a manner that it borders on softcore pornography (the Page 3 phenomenon). Considering how easy it is for kids to get their hands on them, that means they can’t even live up to their “think of the children” mentality. Another aspect of their hypocrisy worth noting is their blatant political allegiances. The Sun and the Daily Star are officially populists (though they seem more likely to support the Conservatives), and the Daily Mirror supports Labour. However, I think it’s not really loyal in this regard. Because all tabloids want to appeal to everyone, they’ll espouse the most commonly held opinions in order to sell papers.

Also, they have the habit of distorting the truth and reporting whatever they damn well please if it meant selling papers. Even mere slander to them counts as news.

Basically this except on paper, and in Britain.

Basically this except on paper, and in Britain.

The third and final reason why I hate them is there seemingly perverted obsession with celebrities, especially female celebrities. Remember the phone hacking scandal? Part of it was that the News of the World hacked into the phones of celebrities to get stories. Let’s think about this for a second. If it weren’t for the tabloids, Katie Price wouldn’t have become famous. Katie Price is part of the price we pay for allowing the hypocrisy of the tabloids to go unpunished. They place celebrity culture as more important than real news, and thus the tabloids have paved the way for the corruption of our culture for decades to come. In fact, they’re the ones behind our modern, celebrity-driven culture.

And that is why the red top tabloids are menaces to our society. I could write a song and it would illustrate this point. I hear there are going to be new rules put in place to regulate newspapers. If they get passed, hopefully they should teach those tabloids a lesson.