The French right-wing goes back to conservatism for the presidential race

Yesterday took place the primary election for the dominant right-wing party for the 2017 presidential race. With 66% of votes they selected François Fillon, who embodies the catholic little bourgeoisie and positioned himself as a conservative, and economically presented himself as a Thatcherist!

In a country where churches are empty and atheism commonplace, where no one ever debates abortion, where Thatcher is at best suspiciously looked at, and seen by the left as the right arm of Satan, this choice raises eyebrows. Apparently the project to legalize homosexual wedding and parentality a few years ago has woke up the religious electorate. Yet it seems like the right-wing electors rather favored his calm but resolute character rather than his program, and the fact that he ends decades of timidness and moderation, where the French right-wing did not dare to be right-wing.


But what does it entail for the presidential race? This two-round election will be disputed by three major candidates: Le Pen (FN, far-right) who was sure to win the first round but unlikely to conquer the second, Fillon (LR, right-wing), and a still unknown socialist candidate.

Most newspapers think that Fillon is a threat for Le Pen because he will attract her conservative electors. But most of the FN electors did not give a damn about the homosexual wedding, and they are blue collars and little employees unlikely to vote for Fillon's program. They are sovereignist and anti-immigrationnist, not conservatives. Moreover many observers seem to underestimate the amount of leftist electors who would vote for Le Pen rather than a new Thatcher. I cannot imagine communists voting for Fillon. Newspapers want this contest to be a bourgeois debate between liberalism versus conservatism, but it could very well be a good old class war with Le Pen as the strange champion of the working class, more for identity reasons rather than economy.

Another consequence is that such a polarizing candidate is a blessing for the left. The socialist party was doomed a few weeks ago, promised to a harsh defeat where it would fail to reach the second round and would drown in the course of history. But fearing Fillon they will probably recompose themselves and unite behind a candidate.


On immigration, his speeches sound good, but of course he would actually change nothing and let Islam grow. His main proposal, a referendum to set up quotas, is illegal since referendums cannot concern immigration. At least we can now hope an interesting election with meaningful debates.

Auvergnat said:

Yesterday took place the primary election for the dominant right-wing party for the 2017 presidential race. With 66% of votes they selected François Fillon, who embodies the catholic little bourgeoisie and positioned himself as a conservative, and economically presented himself as a Thatcherist!

In a country where churches are empty and atheism commonplace, where no one ever debates abortion, where Thatcher is at best suspiciously looked at, and seen by the left as the right arm of Satan, this choice raises eyebrows. Apparently the project to legalize homosexual wedding and parentality a few years ago has woke up the religious electorate. Yet it seems like the right-wing electors rather favored his calm but resolute character rather than his program, and the fact that he ends decades of timidness and moderation, where the French right-wing did not dare to be right-wing.


But what does it entail for the presidential race? This two-round election will be disputed by three major candidates: Le Pen (FN, far-right) who was sure to win the first round but unlikely to conquer the second, Fillon (LR, right-wing), and a still unknown socialist candidate.

Most newspapers think that Fillon is a threat for Le Pen because he will attract her conservative electors. But most of the FN electors did not give a damn about the homosexual wedding, and they are blue collars and little employees unlikely to vote for Fillon's program. They are sovereignist and anti-immigrationnist, not conservatives. Moreover many observers seem to underestimate the amount of leftist electors who would vote for Le Pen rather than a new Thatcher. I cannot imagine communists voting for Fillon. Newspapers want this contest to be a bourgeois debate between liberalism versus conservatism, but it could very well be a good old class war with Le Pen as the strange champion of the working class, more for identity reasons rather than economy.

Another consequence is that such a polarizing candidate is a blessing for the left. The socialist party was doomed a few weeks ago, promised to a harsh defeat where it would fail to reach the second round and would drown in the course of history. But fearing Fillon they will probably recompose themselves and unite behind a candidate.


On immigration, his speeches sound good, but of course he would actually change nothing and let Islam grow. His main proposal, a referendum to set up quotas, is illegal since referendums cannot concern immigration. At least we can now hope an interesting election with meaningful debates.

Click to expand...

Very nice overview. What should we make of the pro Russian policies, he seems to be thinking of? Trump comes to mind, but also Bulgaria and Schröder.

Auvergnat said:

In a country where churches are empty and atheism commonplace, where no one ever debates abortion, where Thatcher is at best suspiciously looked at, and seen by the left as the right arm of Satan, this choice raises eyebrows. Apparently the project to legalize homosexual wedding and parentality a few years ago has woke up the religious electorate. Yet it seems like the right-wing electors rather favored his calm but resolute character rather than his program, and the fact that he ends decades of timidness and moderation, where the French right-wing did not dare to be right-wing.

Click to expand...

Well, obviously there is a revival going on in France of somewhat 'traditional' values, i.e. just a return to common sense polices and rejecting loony pseudo-intellectual fads. This seems to be a trend around Europe lately; don't know how pervasive it is electorally but it only takes 10% of so of people willing to stand up against left wing bullies and sociopaths to have a positive effect, even if they don't win a lot of seats; just knowing they are out there is enough.

joG said:

Very nice overview. What should we make of the pro Russian policies, he seems to be thinking of? Trump comes to mind, but also Bulgaria and Schröder.

Click to expand...

What Fillon and many European politicians claim is that they want to find a way to settle the conflict between Russia and the USA. They are not siding with Russia, they know our interests rather lie with Washington. But they are hostile or indifferent to the inclusion of Eastern countries in NATO or the EU, and they would rather keep good relationships with Russia as a trade partner and maybe, tomorrow, as an ally of the EU-US block. Russia is in a difficult position, torn between Europe and China, and many think it would like to side with Europe, and tomorrow with the USA.

That being said foreign policies are an opaque matter: it is probably fair to say that none of us really knows the stakes and events of this conflict. There are too many secrets, and it is important for the players to not divulge their policies. For example no one knows who is really to blame for the conflict in Ukraine. Russia is obviously not the only one and Europe and the USA are unlikely to be innocent.

What do the USA want in this conflict? Are we collateral damages of Washington and the sacrificial victim of Moscow? Was the purpose all along to prevent good relations between the EU and Russia? Is there an European jingoism at play? A risk of Russian aggressiveness? This strange and misunderstood Ukrainian conflict did rise a great number of suspicious all across the political spectrum.

Auvergnat said:

With 66% of votes they selected François Fillon, who embodies the catholic little bourgeoisie and positioned himself as a conservative, and economically presented himself as a Thatcherist!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure "conservative" is the right word for a Thatcherite. Thatcher was by policy and temperament a radical, not a "conservative" (she certainly was not in favour of "conserving" the post-war political consensus).

OK, maybe Fillon is a "social conservative" or will pretend he is for electoral purposes. He was nominated to beat the National Front. If he and Le Pen end up in the second round, the entire classe politique will line up behind Fillon, who will be sounding strangely like Le Pen by that time.

Most of the FN electors did not give a damn about the homosexual wedding, and they are blue collars and little employees unlikely to vote for Fillon's program. They are sovereignist and anti-immigrationnist, not conservatives. Moreover many observers seem to underestimate the amount of leftist electors who would vote for Le Pen rather than a new Thatcher. I cannot imagine communists voting for Fillon. Newspapers want this contest to be a bourgeois debate between liberalism versus conservatism, but it could very well be a good old class war with Le Pen as the strange champion of the working class, more for identity reasons rather than economy.

Click to expand...

Yes, just as so many working class Americans allowed themselves to be conned by Trump because they were so fed up with their own classe politique.

On immigration, his speeches sound good, but of course he would actually change nothing and let Islam grow.

Click to expand...

One problem is that -- further immigration aside -- no viable candidate on the French political scene is serious about integrating the immigrants already there, or in many cases the grandchildren of immigrants who were brought in as cheap labour during the 60s and 70s.
If the French want immigrants to turn into Frenchmen, they have to let them out of the ghetto. That means allow them to have good jobs and start up the social ladder. That is how successful immigration has occurred elsewhere.

No one knows who is really to blame for the conflict in Ukraine. Russia is obviously not the only one and Europe and the USA are unlikely to be innocent.

Click to expand...

Ceaseless NATO expansion (in violation of Bush Senior's promise to Gorachev) has provoked Russian Encirclement Paranoia. Putin has skilfully ridden this fine vehicle to popularity.

It would be nice if the French could play a more even-handed role than recent French governments have.

Interestingly, the Front national -- like extreme-right parties all over Europe -- have been playing footsy with Putin. They are at present great pals. This is in perfect keeping with the Great Anglo-Saxon Conspiracy to Take Over the World Through Globalization. (Which I personally don't think is entirely baseless.)

Nono said:

~ Thatcher was by policy and temperament a radical, not a "conservative" (she certainly was not in favour of "conserving" the post-war political consensus). ~

Click to expand...

Wow, only 7=8 years on the forum and finally someone else who can see the difference.

Great post by the way.

What the French will most likely be paying far more attention to is Fillon's plan to do away with the 35 hour working week and fire a load of public employees (civil servants).

Like those that Hollande created new jobs for in his quest for austerity.:roll:

Not sure what Fillon has in mind for the pension age (or whether he's said anything on it yet) but the legal 60 years of age for eligibility fall right out of the European average (lowest of the lot).

When things hit that close to home for everybody, the "greater" issues (like French identity etc.) tend to go on the back burner.

In no way ignoring the rest of your post, THIS

Nono said:

~...................One problem is that -- further immigration aside -- no viable candidate on the French political scene is serious about integrating the immigrants already there, or in many cases the grandchildren of immigrants who were brought in as cheap labour during the 60s and 70s.
If the French want immigrants to turn into Frenchmen, they have to let them out of the ghetto. That means allow them to have good jobs and start up the social ladder. That is how successful immigration has occurred elsewhere..................~

Click to expand...

bears repeating.

What France has actually done so far (successive governments as well as society as a whole) in this respect is precisely nothing.

Chagos said:

In no way ignoring the rest of your post, THIS bears repeating.

What France has actually done so far (successive governments as well as society as a whole) in this respect is precisely nothing.

Click to expand...

Or have accomplished the opposite, integrating France into the middle east..

Chagos said:

In no way ignoring the rest of your post, THIS bears repeating.

What France has actually done so far (successive governments as well as society as a whole) in this respect is precisely nothing.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

French society is autistic to "newcomers".

Orly? said:

Or (by making no attempt to integrate them) have accomplished the opposite, integrating France into the middle east..

Click to expand...

Well, France is nowhere near being "in the Middle East". It's tantamount to saying the US will be run by Nazis in two months time. Things aren't uhh.. quite that bad. Yet.

Wackjobjihadism naturally feeds on a community feeling of grievance, of being disadvantaged, of being locked up in a ghetto. As you may know, a study some years back demonstrated what an uphill struggle it is, why you have several generations of the same family in which nobody has ever had a decent job.

Then the French act all surprised and shocked when these kids head off to Syria.

Orly? said:

Or (by making no attempt to integrate them) have accomplished the opposite, integrating France into the middle east..

Click to expand...

Well, France is nowhere near being "in the Middle East". It's tantamount to saying the US will be run by Nazis in two months time. Things aren't uhh.. quite that bad. Yet.

Wackjobjihadism naturally feeds on a community feeling of grievance, of being disadvantaged, of being locked up in a ghetto. As you may know, a study some years back demonstrated what an uphill struggle it is, why you have several generations of the same family in which nobody has ever had a decent job.

Then the French act all surprised and shocked when these kids head off to Syria.

Nono said:

Well, France is nowhere near being "in the Middle East". It's tantamount to saying the US will be run by Nazis in two months time. Things aren't uhh.. quite that bad. Yet.

Wackjobjihadism naturally feeds on a community feeling of grievance, of being disadvantaged, of being locked up in a ghetto. As you may know, a study some years back demonstrated what an uphill struggle it is, why you have several generations of the same family in which nobody has ever had a decent job.

Then the French act all surprised and shocked when these kids head off to Syria.

Click to expand...

So give them more of everything they want even though you are already giving them enough to live comfortably with no job, and just let more and more in and keep giving them more and more so they don't kill you..... Until you can't..

Then Wackjobjihadism will be in full swing because sooner or later you just will not be able to give more of them more everything, you'll have your community feeling of grievance, and they will all turn on you..

Nono said:

One problem is that -- further immigration aside -- no viable candidate on the French political scene is serious about integrating the immigrants already there, or in many cases the grandchildren of immigrants who were brought in as cheap labour during the 60s and 70s.
If the French want immigrants to turn into Frenchmen, they have to let them out of the ghetto. That means allow them to have good jobs and start up the social ladder. That is how successful immigration has occurred elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Spare me your prejudices. We have done a lot, and we have better succeeded than most. Moreover Muslims purposely chose to live in ghettos, are free to leave, and even when proposed better apartments elsewhere for the same price, most of them still prefer their ghettos.

The only problem of France is that we have more Muslims than other countries: 8% for France (a lot more in urban areas or among the youth), 5% for Germany or UK, 2% for USA. A third of the youth in Paris's region is Muslim, this is too much.


More importantly, Islam as a global and transnational identity has been strengthening all around the world for the past decades and birthed a widespread totalitarian political project (40% of French Mosques are held by the Muslim Brotherhood's spawns). French Muslims are no exception, this is not a French dynamic. This is a global dynamic caused both by globalization and colonization (reactionary movements to westernalization and/or immigration, affects all identities worldwide to different extents) and by dynamics endogenous to Islam as a reaction to their weak national identities that failed to build societies and made Islam the natural mortar of those societies.

So what happens when, within a rather homogeneous society another identity emerges, that clashes with the established societal values and culture, with fast demographic changes? Conflicts arise, and tomorrow violence if we let Islam continue to rise. We do not want a Franco-Muslim country. If our political class continues to ignore human nature, violent conflicts will continue to rise.


For the past decades the project of our political class has been to destroy homogeneity, as they believed that nested identities would prevent the resurgence of fascism and alikes. But not only destroying identities is a sure way to birth conflicts as people oppose the destruction and replacement of their identity, also ethnic diversity produces distrust, which harms happiness and is one of the best predictors of economic problems. Moreover I do have the conviction this is a fundamentally instable configuration, that can only produce violent backlashes or secessions, in order for agents to restore homogeneity and sovereignty over their territory.

Nono said:

If he and Le Pen end up in the second round, the entire classe politique will line up behind Fillon, who will be sounding strangely like Le Pen by that time.

Click to expand...

No, meaningful parts of the classe politique would rather not recommend anything, and this includes half of the left-wing. Moreover the electors themselves would vote in a more diverse fashion than what is imagined. The containment wall is slowly crumbing.

As for Fillon sounding like Le Pen just before the election, he will not have the leisure to do so: for the next six months he has to turn into a centrist to win the first round. After that there will be only two weeks.

Do not get me wrong: Fillon would likely win. But it is not certain and it would not be a landslide.

Auvergnat said:

Spare me your prejudices.

Click to expand...

They aren't prejudices -- they're simple observation.

Are you saying that David Laitin falsfied his data? That's a serious charge. Can you prove it?

Muslims purposely chose to live in ghettos, are free to leave (...)

Click to expand...

You're sounding like Jim Crow here: Niggers LIKE bein' poor, yep. They're free to go out and make a billion dollars just like you and me. Etc.

(...) and even when proposed better apartments elsewhere for the same price, most of them still prefer their ghettos

Click to expand...

A credible source, please, for this incredible claim.

More importantly, Islam as a global and transnational identity has been strengthening all around the world for the past decades and birthed a widespread totalitarian political project (40% of French Mosques are held by the Muslim Brotherhood's spawns). French Muslims are no exception, this is not a French dynamic. This is a global dynamic caused both by globalization and colonization (reactionary movements to westernalization and/or immigration, affects all identities worldwide to different extents) and by dynamics endogenous to Islam as a reaction to their weak national identities that failed to build societies and made Islam the natural mortar of those societies.

Click to expand...

And your point would be? France is where the situation is worst. Seems to me that it's up to the French to do something about it, rather than blaming their problems on the rest of the world.

I don't disagree that this dynamic exists, as such dynamics always do, coming and going, as they have throughout history. But if you're offered a stake in society (and spare me your prejudices about this), you're far less likely to become part of that dynamic.

The reality is that France has been been colonized by Marketfundamentalism, otherwise known as Globalization.

It will be fun to watch Marine Le Pen try to send "back" to North Africa people who's own parents were born in France.

So what happens when, within a rather homogeneous society another identity emerges, that clashes with the established societal values and culture, with fast demographic changes?

Click to expand...

Well, if that society is smart, it asks itself What it can do to reverse this process. And that starts with finding the causes that it can do something about. This the French political class has utterly failed to do. Sarko called them a "bande de racailles". Hollande has said nothing at all.

For the past decades the project of our political class has been to destroy homogeneity, as they believed that nested identities would prevent the resurgence of fascism and alikes. But not only destroying identities is a sure way to birth conflicts as people oppose the destruction and replacement of their identity, also ethnic diversity produces distrust, which harms happiness and is one of the best predictors of economic problems. Moreover I do have the conviction this is a fundamentally instable configuration, that can only produce violent backlashes or secessions, in order for agents to restore homogeneity and sovereignty over their territory.

Click to expand...

So what, specifically, do you suggest?

Nono said:

Are you saying that David Laitin falsfied his data? That's a serious charge. Can you prove it?

Click to expand...

I am not saying that no problem exists, but you accused us of having done nothing to integrate Muslims while we did a lot, and more than most.

Now discrimination exists in all countries, against all minorities, yet it is not very significant according to the study you provided yourself (a difference of 400€ per household and per month only, partially caused by the inevitable social inertia from the lack of economic and cultural capital of those immigrant families). Finally only Muslims pose so many problems while all immigrants face discrimination, in all countries.

A credible source, please, for this incredible claim.

Click to expand...

I only have sources in French and it is prohibited to link them on this forum. You can search for "opposition démolition HLM" if you want to: you will find articles about the opposition against the demolition of old Muslim ghettos despite the advantageous housing alternatives offered to the people living there.

And it is not incredible at all: Muslims want to live among Muslims. They are not unique in this respect: most of immigrants gather together, in all countries, and Afro-American increasingly self-segregate even when there is no economic difference (look for research papers if you do not believe me). And besides of that people grow attached to the place they live.

People prefer to live with people like themselves. They claim they want mixed neighborhoods, but in reality they are attracted by homogeneous neighborhoods. This is true about all identities. Muslims are only worse because of the strong polarization of the Muslim identity, their demonization of the west and of France, and the totalitarian nature of Islamism.

And your point would be? France is where the situation is worst.

Click to expand...

Prove it. On the opposite I provided data that show we better succeeded than other countries. The only worse thing is that we have more Muslims than others.

But if you're offered a stake in society (and spare me your prejudices about this), you're far less likely to become part of that dynamic. (...) Well, if that society is smart, it asks itself What it can do to reverse this process. And that starts with finding the causes that it can do something about. This the French political class has utterly failed to do. Sarko called them a "bande de racailles". Hollande has said nothing at all.

Click to expand...

For decades we thought like you that the key was to economically integrate them. We achieved a lot, we did successfully integrate most of them, both in education and the professional world, yet problems increased year after year. After decades of economic progresses for those minorities, after decades spending more into their education and trying all sort of strategies, we saw decades of a rise of radicalism.

Our naive prejudices were a mistake and we are now understanding it. This is NOT an economic problem. This is NOT an education problem. This is an identity and cultural problem. They do prefer their culture and they do not want to adopt ours. And why should they since our tolerance allows them to stick to their culture and identity, and live secluded? Why should they since they are proud of their culture while we grew up to hate ourselves after the ww2, post-colonialism and white guilt? Why should they when they are told that our non-religious culture is evil? Why should they make efforts to assimilate since we are the ones accommodating our laws and customs to the Koran, the ones who illegally give them subsides to build their mosques and fund their Muslim organizations?

The solution, first and foremost, is to become intolerant and chauvinist. We must stop tolerating Islam and exert a strong social pressure against Islam and in favor of our culture to offset their social pressure in favor of Islam, and force them to assimilate. Second of all we must completely halt Islamic immigration, forever, to stop worsening the problem, and deport the non-citizen Muslims to immediately alleviate it. Third of all we have to prevent Muslims to live together and to fuel and spread their religion and identity. Assimilation must not be an option.

Auvergnat said:

You accused us of having done nothing to integrate Muslims while we did a lot.

Click to expand...

Tell me about it. Be specific. Not "we offered them apartments outside the banlieue and they refused". Those are weasel words.

Only Muslims pose so many problems while all immigrants face discrimination, in all countries.

Click to expand...

More weasel words. I mean, can it be true that "only" Muslims cause "so many" problems? I know non-Muslim French people who happen to have a black face. No, they aren't going to join ISIS, but they're plenty angry too. And I'm sure French cops treat them just the same as any visible Muslim.

Yes, there's a dynamic, and yes, Islam is basically a warrior religion. But you aren't going to expel 8% of your population. It simply can't be done. And anyone boneheaded enough to try would get herself into an Endless Conflict.

So why not try something constructive? You claim that the French government has done "a lot". I await convincing elaboration of "a lot".
In the meantime it's going to have to do a hell of a lot more, because that is the only way out: give them a stake in your society. Then they'll integrate spontaneously.

And I have to laugh at the self-ordained Victimhood of white Frenchmen. Did large swathes of Africa invade France? Or vice-versa? They are in your country because you were in their country.

Nono: France is where the situation is worst.

Auvergnat: Prove it.

OK >>> Which Western country has had not one, but two major bloodbaths in its capital city in the past two years? Finland? Canada? Italy? How much "proof" do you need?

The only worse thing is that we have more Muslims than others.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should have kept your hands off Algeria, etc. But you didn't. Speaking of "dynamics" ....

For decades we thought like you that the key was to economically integrate them. We achieved a lot, we did successfully integrate most of them, both in education and the professional world, yet problems increased year after year. After decades of economic progresses for those minorities, after decades spending more into their education and trying all sort of strategies, we saw decades of a rise of radicalism.

Click to expand...

A large part of the key is economic, yes. But not only. You also have to give them the impression that they belong to society like any other citizen.

And what else happened during those decades?? France embraced Globalization & Marketfundamentalism, elected Sarko and whatnot. In the meantime, good jobs were quickly disappearing for everybody except the elite. So naturally people found a scapegoat. (People always do.)
And now there are a lot of angry Frenchmen who will vote National Front. It ought to be quite an entertaining show.

They do prefer their culture and they do not want to adopt ours. And why should they since our tolerance allows them to stick to their culture and identity, and live secluded? Why should they since they are proud of their culture while we grew up to hate ourselves after the ww2, post-colonialism and white guilt? Why should they when they are told that our non-religious culture is evil? Why should they make efforts to assimilate since we are the ones accommodating our laws and customs to the Koran, the ones who illegally give them subsides to build their mosques and fund their Muslim organizations?

Click to expand...

As I said before, you have a real problem on your hands. If you don't take positive action, it isn't going to go away. It will only grow worse. The more you hate them, the more they will hate you. Obviously.

France didn't become a unified country (let's not talk about the civil war within WWII) through exclusiveness. It accomplished it through inclusiveness. A few centuries ago, France was an assembly of small regions, "pays", where people spoke different, mutually incomprehensible, languages and practised different religions (don't laugh, Christianity finally prevailed over Animism/Druidism in places like Brittany only about a century ago). People lived in different ghettos in Paris, each from a different region, each with a different language. Only the post-revolution notion of citizen began to change things and bring together these very different regions.

I think it can only be that spirit that can help you solve this problem. The more you ban burkas or whatever, the more defiant they will become in wearing them.

Auvergnat said:

The solution, first and foremost, is to become intolerant and chauvinist. We must stop tolerating Islam and exert a strong social pressure against Islam and in favor of our culture to offset their social pressure in favor of Islam, and force them to assimilate.

Click to expand...

It won't work. You'll have another civil war, that's all.
If it didn't work in Algeria, what makes you think it will in Paris?

Second of all we must completely halt Islamic immigration, forever, to stop worsening the problem, and deport the non-citizen Muslims to immediately alleviate it.

Click to expand...

(laughs) Too late! They're already there. Yes, you can expel the non-citizens. That won't change much.

Third of all we have to prevent Muslims to live together and to fuel and spread their religion and identity.

Click to expand...

How are you going to do that???

Assimilation must not be an option.

Click to expand...

You mean it must be an obligation? (If you say "X is not an option", that means X is impossible, so you paradoxically saying assmilation must not be possible. Which I doubt you mean.)
Well, I've just reminded you of the only way to bring assimilation about. Or are you going to shoot anyone who doesn't immediately assimilate?

Nono said:

Tell me about it. Be specific. Not "we offered them apartments outside the banlieue and they refused". Those are weasel words.

Click to expand...

As soon as 1981 we created specific education areas (ZEP) to increase our spendings per child and attract better teachers in poor and mostly Muslim neighborhoods. They have been since then important policies that underwent many reforms. Most of our educative policies for the past decades have been to make school more equalitarian (higher spendings for orientation, no grouping by education level, abolition of options that allowed parents to circumvent this prohibition, ...). Some universities and elite schools (most of them public) have developed policies to recruit people from partner high schools in those ghettos. Note also that in France education is mostly free (including university), that the public schools are generally considered to be about as good as the private ones and often the best ones, and that we offer various welfare possibilities for students. We also offer Arab courses in primary school in those ghettos, to maintain cultural ties (a mistake of course).

We have introduced similar areas for police (ZSP), to increase forces and attract experimented officers. The left also tried at some points to add a "proximity police" whose goals were to nurture a dialogue with the locals rather than enforce law. We also tried to recruit more police agents and soldiers from minorities.

In the 80's - 90's we decided, like many countries, to change our social housing policies to enforce social diversity and prevent the emergence of ghettos. Those policies are now systematic. But ghettos spontaneously reemerge: build a Mosque somewhere, and ten years later the whole neighborhood will be Muslim. We also initiated various programs to transform ghettos (especially the 2003 PNRU), despite local oppositions. We also created tax breaks to favor private renovations and constructions in those places (part of the QPV status).

Since the 70's already we initiated dedicated economic policies. The HQ of most of companies where the govt is a shareholder are now in St-Denis (where the 2008 riots took place). Many ghettos are tax-free areas for enterprises (ZFU, QPV). They are also places where many facilities and infrastructures are built: the national stadium, social sciences university, additional subway lines, administrations, ... And fablabs and incubators recently. Finally for discrimination cases, the burden of the proof rests on the employers' shoulders.

Since the 90's many efforts have been made to recruit political figures from the minorities: Malek Boutih (leader of the main left party), Nadjat Vallaud-Belkacem (education ministry), Michelle Taubira (justice ministry) and Rachida Dati (justice ministry) have been the biggest achievers, and there are a lot more figures who won less important national seats, and thousands on local seats (with a significant islamist infiltration). We also tried to encourage young people from those ghettos to register for voting, with moderate "successes".

Since the 90's the socialists and others on the right started funding many associations, mainly in those ghettos, which probably amount to more than a hundred of thousands of jobs. Associations for education and professional integration, or against discrimination, but also for entertainment and culture. And, regrettably, for Mosques and Islamic schools, although this is illegal. Add to this jobs offered by cities to young people ("emplois jeunes", 5% of their employment) that are mostly offered to people from those ghettos. Moreover in cities with ghettos, it is pretty common for many jobs to be reserved to members of minorities because the criminal networks prevent concurrent enterprises to work in or near the ghetto.

Financially speaking the national govt dedicate about 28 billions a year to territorial policies, most of them targeted to Muslim cities: 13 billions for "solidarity, insertion and equal opportunities" and 15 billions for "territorial equality and housing"


We tried a lot of things, and this mostly succeeded when it comes to economic integration, and far better than other countries regarding citizenship. But year after year the problems became worse despite all of that. Doing more for them would be foolish, we now need a completely different approach.

Nono said:

Yes, there's a dynamic, and yes, Islam is basically a warrior religion. But you aren't going to expel 8% of your population. It simply can't be done. And anyone boneheaded enough to try would get herself into an Endless Conflict.

Click to expand...

First of all conflicts with them are inevitable anyway. So any plan to let Muslims ruin our country without doing anything by fear of conflicts will still result in conflicts. Blood bathes are likely, but it does not make submission acceptable, and it is a dead-end. "You were given the choice between war and dishonor, you chose dishonor, you will have war."

Second of all out of those 8%, 3% are non-citizens, so we can deport them. As for the 5% left, we will try to assimilate them as best as we can. We already succeeded for a large minority of them, but Islam gets in the way because Islam is an identity competing with the French one, exclusive with it, and morally opposed to our values. If they react with large-scale violence, so be it, it will simply mean we never had another choice.

Any attempt to accommodate Islam, as we tried to, will simply result in a victory for Islam and a defeat for our civilization and values. We need to be intransigeant.

More weasel words. I mean, can it be true that "only" Muslims cause "so many" problems?

Click to expand...

More than half of inmates in Paris' region are Muslims. They are over-represented in hard criminality, and most of our criminal networks are now Muslims.

And I have to laugh at the self-ordained Victimhood of white Frenchmen. Did large swathes of Africa invade France? Or vice-versa? They are in your country because you were in their country.

Click to expand...

No, they are not here because of our colonization, but because we did let them enter because of our naive tolerance.

Now it seems like you want us to pay and suffer. I also note that, from the start, you assumed that we are completely at fault and that they are not. Maybe you should question your own prejudices.

I don't disagree that this dynamic exists, as such dynamics always do, coming and going, as they have throughout history. But if you're offered a stake in society (and spare me your prejudices about this), you're far less likely to become part of that dynamic.

Click to expand...

Do you think Germans adopted Nazism because they were not offered a stake in Germany? Do you think Muslims in Muslim countries are turning to fundamentalism because they feel excluded by Muslims?

Of course those dynamics have existed before. And anytime they did, it resulted in tragedies. This is the problem we now face. The problem is not France, it is Islam, and the only solution is to fight Islam, not to submit to it.

And what else happened during those decades?? France embraced Globalization & Marketfundamentalism, elected Sarko and whatnot. In the meantime, good jobs were quickly disappearing for everybody except the elite. So naturally people found a scapegoat. (People always do.) And now there are a lot of angry Frenchmen who will vote National Front. It ought to be quite an entertaining show.

Click to expand...

No, Muslims are not the "scapegoat" of our economic problems. Muslims are the problem itself. Our main problem today is an identity conflict with Islam, and it became more important than economy itself.

When a third of the youth in Paris' region are Muslims, when a religion that opposes all of our values becomes omnipresent and politically militant, it is not surprising at all that French people oppose it. Islam is the very problem we want to fight, not a problem that will disappear if the crises vanish. It is a problem that must be addressed now before it becomes uncontrollable.

French people want to stop the rise of Islam in their country and this is perfectly natural and legitimate. Pretending that our protests are a foolish anomaly is absurd.

The more you hate them, the more they will hate you.

Click to expand...

Of all European countries, we are among the ones with the most favorable opinion of Muslims. We simply think there are too many of them. They are the ones hating us. But of course hate is rising on our side, and it will continue to rise. We are incompatible and will forever be, our cultures are like water and fire, and conflicts are inevitable if Islam persists.

France didn't become a unified country (let's not talk about the civil war within WWII) through exclusiveness. It accomplished it through inclusiveness. A few centuries ago, France was an assembly of small regions, "pays", where people spoke different, mutually incomprehensible, languages and practised different religions (don't laugh, Christianity finally prevailed over Animism/Druidism in places like Brittany only about a century ago). People lived in different ghettos in Paris, each from a different region, each with a different language. Only the post-revolution notion of citizen began to change things and bring together these very different regions.

Click to expand...

Indeed, through inclusiveness, but not the sort you think, not through multiculturalism. We banned the teaching of regional languages, we enforced assimilation, we limited religious demonstrations. Everyone was French and had to behave like a French, whether they wanted it or not, and there was a social pressure in this direction.

And this is indeed what we must repeat: an authoritarian inclusiveness. You can be brown and French, no problem, you can not eat pork if you want, but you cannot truly be both Muslim and French. There is no room for Islam in France as it opposes everything we are.

Too see you describe it, the French government has made every effort to integrate them. It's strange that not one of the many-many French people -- Muslim or Christian -- I know sees things in the same way as you. From them I hear much the same story as I have posted here.

I also think you are completely ignoring a relatively recent colonial past, which has a lot to do with why they are in France. How much do you know about the Algerian War? It was quite a horrible business, traumatized everybody and nearly restarted the French civil war of the early 1940s.

Auvergnat said:

Do you think Germans adopted Nazism because they were not offered a stake in Germany?

Click to expand...

Well, remember that only a minority actually voted for Hitler. But this was enough for him to get his foot in the door. And that was all he needed.

Yes, the Germans had experienced terrible inflation and poverty in the years leading up to 1933. Their scapegoat was the Jews who, according to the Nazis, were responsible for the Dolchstoβ, the stab in the back that had caused Germany to lose the recent war. So yes, they saw Germany on its knees and unable to offer them a stake. That's what radicalizes people. And makes them support the Nazis or the FN.

You'll notice that the result for Germany of all this was not a happy one.

I'd also note that the country where I grew up -- Canada -- has many-MANY Muslims today (8% of the population in the biggest urban areas: Toronto and Montreal ---- 7% overall) and, very strangely, does not have the problems France has.
Isn't that uhh.. interesting???

3% are non-citizens, so we can deport them.

Click to expand...

Yes you can. Like Trump. It will all get very ugly.

The problem is not France, it is Islam, and the only solution is to fight Islam, not to submit to it.

Click to expand...

That's what they said during the Crusades.

Don't misunderstand me: I think you have to demand that immigrants assimilate, not that they convert their religion but rather that they live by the rules of the host society: accept women as equal, don't murder their daughter because she goes out with a kafir, etc.

If people are allowed That Stake then their children will grow up as belonging, in all senses, to the host society. (As many French Muslims I know are.) And then their children can hardly believe their grandparents weren't natural-born Frenchmen or Canadians or whatever, as they are. It mostly happens automatically.

They are not here because of our colonization.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you're simply wrong about that. France needed lots of cheap labour in the Trente glorieuses and the colonies were an obvious place to go looking for it.

Nono said:

Too see you describe it, the French government has made every effort to integrate them. It's strange that not one of the many-many French people -- Muslim or Christian -- I know sees things in the same way as you. From them I hear much the same story as I have posted here.

Click to expand...

Because many French people hate France. Especially among the youth. This is how we are raised: to despise France, to mock France. Recently an influential journalist called for the destruction of the palace of Versailles so that we could stop referring to our "past glory" and become the insignificant worms we ought to be; he got applauded. Millions of young Frenchmen can seriously look at you and claim that we are the most racist country on Earth and other incredible and ignorant absurdities.

To look virtuous in France, spit on France. To look respectable, spit on France. To make a comedy, spit on France. The cause lies in the ww2 defeat and occupation, the Hollywood depiction of French people as cowards, and the post-ww2 chastization and the aftermaths of anti-colonialism where a legitimate critic transformed into an anachronistic and imbecile conditioning. To look like an intellectual, spit on France.

This self-hatred, not exclusive to France and also encountered to lesser extents in other western countries, also explains why we are unable to exert a social pressure to assimilate Muslims: they take pride in their identity, we take shame in ours. Why would they convert if we despise ourselves and tell them their diversity is great? The result is that trust levels in our country have kept decreasing (also because of diversity), that our national identity is now extremely weakened, and all of this is a very fertile ground for nationalism because we are sick of being forced to be ashamed of ourselves. And we are especially sick of those spitting on us about the non-assimilation of Muslims after decades spent trying our best.

I also think you are completely ignoring a relatively recent colonial past, which has a lot to do with why they are in France. How much do you know about the Algerian War? It was quite a horrible business, traumatized everybody and nearly restarted the French civil war of the early 1940s.

Click to expand...

I know all there is to know about the Algerian war, but I fail to see why it should be relevant in the immigration waves besides of the few harkis. Most of immigration occurred for economic reasons unrelated to the Algerian independence. Now colonialism certainly explains why Arabs hate us, but it cannot be helped and this is one more reason to stop accepting them.

Now if your point is that I must be ashamed and submit to Islam because I owe something to their grand-children, please go **** yourself. Especially because before our colonialism there was a time when the Ottoman empire was poor but immense and strong, and Arabs kept raiding our villages, blocking our trade with Asia and attempting to colonize us.

So yes, they saw Germany on its knees and unable to offer them a stake. That's what radicalizes people.

Click to expand...

No, that's too simplistic. There is a field of social sciences dedicated to the studies of conflicts and their causes (search for "theories of conflicts"), and absolutely all of them emphasize how important social identity is in conflicts, both as a structuring force but also as a very frequent and prevalent cause.

I am not saying that economy does not matter, sometimes it is an extremely important factor, and it was in 1933. But it is not by far the only factor, this is way too simplistic, you cannot understand Nazism like this and this probably explains why you consider relevant your reductio ad hitlerium that should ashame you.

Nono said:

I'd also note that the country where I grew up -- Canada -- has many-MANY Muslims today (8% of the population in the biggest urban areas: Toronto and Montreal ---- 7% overall) and, very strangely, does not have the problems France has.
Isn't that uhh.. interesting???

Click to expand...

No, that's wrong: Canada has 3% of Muslims, not even a half of what we do, and most of them are fresh immigrants. You are in the situation we were decades ago when no one cared about Muslims.

We have 8% at the national level, 12-20% in Paris, 30% of the youth in Paris' region. This is way too much.

It mostly happens automatically.

Click to expand...

This is what we used to think. But having so many Muslims, coupled with the rise of a global Islamic identity, have defeated those hopes of assimilation. Most of politicians on the left now renounced assimilation and hope at best for a multicultural society where we will live separated until they ask for autonomy first, then secession. Few people still think we will live together while it is clear that all around the world Muslims want to deepen into Islamicity and build a different civilizational model.

You have to understand that people like their culture and do not want to change it. They only do so if forced to, when this is needed to integrate, or because as children they could not live in an isolated community and were too much exposed to the host culture.

Sorry, you're simply wrong about that. France needed lots of cheap labour in the Trente glorieuses and the colonies were an obvious place to go looking for it.

Click to expand...

But nothing forced us to allow them to make their wives, children and parents come, like we did. Nothing forced us to cure and educate them for free, like we did. Nothing forced us to keep them when the economy stagnated in as soon as 1970, and to continue to invite more of them year after year since then. Most of immigration by far occurred way after the Trente glorieuses, in a context of a high unemployment.