By Presidential Decree

While Éric Zemmour seems to have escaped for now any lawsuit filed against him on grounds he is a racist, another Frenchman named Jean-Hugues Matelly, 44, has been kicked out of the gendarmerie by Nicolas Sarkozy.

Reminder: the gendarmes, once a part of the Defense Ministry, were transferred to the Interior Ministry by Sarkozy after he became president. The reasons for this dramatic, and not fondly regarded, upheaval, were assumed to be that as part of Interior, the gendarmes would be subject to presidential control, and have fewer opportunities to actually fight like the soldiers they really are. As gendarmes in the military, they had more freedom to use firearms; as policemen they are restricted (or some would say castrated). It also meant fewer expenditures for the State. Novopress reports:

While the malaise in the gendarmerie, after the transfer in August 2009 to the Interior Ministry, has only increased, here's an incident not likely to calm things down.

In a measure that is exceedingly rare in public service, squadron chief of the Picardie region, Jean-Hugues Matelly, 44, has just been dismissed from the force. He has been charged with "serious failing" with regard to the "duty to remain silent" ("devoir de réserve") that is part of his function. The officer had, in fact, publicly and energetically criticized, in an article entitled: "The Gendarmerie buried, wrongly, amidst general indifference", Sarkozy's decision to transfer the gendarmerie to the Interior Ministry.

Note: This question of a "duty to remain silent" ("devoir de réserve") has surfaced before. I posted one article on the topic in June 2008. People in public service (especially the military) are expected to be discreet, to refrain from any criticism of their job or their superiors. The gendarmes are still considered to be military, even though they are controlled by the Interior Ministry. Matelly broke this rule and was cashiered. The question is: should freedom of speech apply to government functionaries, the way it does (theoretically) to journalists? Wouldn't that result in too much loose talk and rampant rumors? Is there some justification for the "devoir de réserve"?

The decision of March 12, by decree of the French president, was conveyed to Matelly on March 25. In the opinion of the officer's attorney, this decision is "without precedent" and signifies a "grave assault" on freedom of expression.

As co-author of a book entitled Police, the figures and the doubts (publisher Michalon), Matelly had already received a reprimand that the Council of State had nullified. This time, again according to the attorney of the fired officer, "there is a manifest disproportion between the act and the punishment. This is a case of an opinion crime!"

Novopress concludes:

It is indeed better to avoid displeasing Nicolas Sarkozy if you want to keep your job.

Another article at L'Express publishes the words of the officer himself. He clarifies some of the questions I posed above:

The flagrant illegality of this decree and the attack it represents on fundamental freedoms must be made known," indicated Matelly who filed an appeal with the Council of State.

"Whatever their decision, it will be necessary to file an appeal, and that can take months, even years." He added that he "no longer counts on the public discourse triggered by the affair to expedite matters.

Matelly insists he does not understand the severity of the punishment: "I think that it is my free tone that upsets them," he said. He acknowledges that "there must necessarily be a limit to freedom of expression (...) but this concept is not defined by law. It is determined on a case by case basis and varies according to the government in power (...)

He believes that "in France, the military personnel are free to speak so long as they stay within the ruling party's line," while they are "much freer in the rest of Europe and the United States."

"It isn't the first time that I've been punished for the failure to observe the duty to remain silent. But it had always been while I was a gendarme. And it did not go as far as a discharge," he continues, feeling that he took enough precautions when he signed the article in question as a researcher and not as a gendarme.

Squadron chief ("commandant") Matelly had spoken publicly as a researcher at the National Center for Scientific Research late in 2008, criticizing the merger of the gendarmerie with the police, under the Interior Ministry, a move that became official in January 2009.

He was discharged from the officer corps on Thursday as a "disciplinary measure" by presidential decree (...)

You might want to review two other articles I posted in 2007 on the gendarmerie, here and here.

Below Commandant Matelly. (I guess we should say "ex-commandant".)

History Repeated

An English-language article by Elizabeth Lev has been linked at French Catholic websites. A translation into French, by Jeanne Smits, can be found here. Catholics (and others) may find it of interest, since it deals in part with Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France and today's condemnation of the Church for (presumed) crimes of pedophilia.

The introduction reads:

To Edmund Burke it was clear that the anti clerical campaign of 1790 was "only to be temporary and preparatory to the utter abolition.... of the Christian religion," by " bringing its ministers into universal contempt." One hopes Americans will have the good sense to change course long before we reach that point.

Zemmour Triumphs at Book Fair

Today (Sunday March 28 - Palm Sunday), Éric Zemmour held a book-signing session at the Salon du Livre (a book fair), where he was acclaimed by his supporters. According to a short article posted at Tele-Premiere:

(...) Éric Zemmour was greeted with shouts of "Éric, Éric" from his admirers at the Salon du Livre on Sunday. And he was especially curt with the journalist from AFP who came to break up the festive occasion with a reminder of the controversy that has engulfed him for several weeks and that, once again, he had to explain last night on the television show "On n'est pas couché".

"I said nothing at all, I do not regret anything and there was no blunder on my part. The words I said were clear. Read me and stop believing what you read in Le Parisien," he replied to the AFP reporter.

Note: The above refers to an article in Le Parisien that claimed he had "apologized", when in fact, he had furnished proof that his controversial statements were true.

"This week has been tough, and tiring," he added before politely dismissing the AFP reporter in order to continue signing copies of his book. "I wrote a 4-page letter explaining my position. You can see exactly what my 'regrets' refer to. There is no need to make me repeat it," he stressed. "And you see, all these people who have come for a signed copy of my book, it's very moving!", he concluded, triumphant.

Zemmour's Letter to LICRA

There is an extended chronicle posted at François Desouche that gives a blow by blow account of what has transpired in the Éric Zemmour tornado ripping through the French media. It begins approximately with the events of March 22, and continues up to today. There are, as of now (Saturday night), 4,420 comments from readers. So you have some idea of the galvanizing effect this issue is having on the public.

How to summarize this? There is no way. I will do as I did before and present a scant overview of the goings-on. It does not appear that Zemmour will be fired by Le Figaro, and at least one Muslim website is implying that he is protected by his Jewish friends in the media, at Le Figaro in particular. Others are suspicious that Zemmour is merely the "official trouble-maker" of Nicolas Sarkozy and will suffer no consequences of the false witch hunt being staged. The case brought by LICRA (League against racism and anti-Semitism) against Zemmour was dropped following a persuasive justification from the journalist. Apologies that follow outbursts of political incorrectness always give rise to the notion that the person in question lacks the backbone to stick to his guns, but in this case, Zemmour had sufficient evidence to force the left-wing LICRA to back off.

Zemmour has been at this for a long time. He has been an outspoken critic of massive immigration, of political correctness, of government gag orders, of the destructiveness of modern feminism for many years; he has been writing books on these topics for a long time; he appears to be a man with a mission, almost obsessively so. If he is suddenly Sarkozy's puppet, it would be the cruelest trick yet played on the French people, who at least would like to believe they have a friend in Zemmour.

First a look at passages from the so-called "apology" sent by Zemmour to the president of LICRA, as reported by Marianne2.

Mr. President,

At the request of my attorney Olivier Pardo, I am sending this follow-up to our meeting. The meeting allowed us to ascertain that there had indeed been a misunderstanding and a confusion not only in the report by the media on what I had said, but also in the analysis that was made and that led to the media furor that surrounds me.

In truth, I never said, contrary to what the media have published, that "all criminals are Arab or black" but that "the majority of criminals are Arab or black."

My wish has never been to stigmatize "blacks or Arabs" as criminals, but if this sentence, taken out of context, offended some, I am sorry.

Note: Zemmour then launches into a critique of the way the media presented or misrepresented his words. He describes his sincere sympathy for honest Arabs and blacks who work hard and who suffer from being associated with the violence of the gangs who are also Arab and black. However, he points out that the honest worker should not deny the deeds of the criminals, just because of a common origin.

They have deliberately forgotten that my now famous statement was only a response to the arguments developed by the other guests on the show according to whom "the police only arrest Arabs and blacks". This double stigmatization - of the police and of Arabs and blacks - does not shock anybody. "Arabs and blacks" can be distinguished from the rest of the "national community" when they are heros or victims. In all other cases, it is infamous to make a distinction. This universalist injunction would suit me, since I tend to see all Frenchmen as children of the fatherland, without distinction of race or religion, as the preamble of our Constitution says.

But now they are also condemning me for this position, deemed to be out-of-date, very "Third Republic" and emitting an odor of neocolonialism. In the name of the right to be different, in the name of modernity, one must exalt one's roots and the riches of a multicultural society. But when you go so far as to show the darker side of this sunny landscape, then they become furiously universalist!

Zemmour then proceeds to show that his statement is based on verifiable statistics. He first quotes Christian Delorme, a priest from Lyons, who engages in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims, and who famously said in December 2001:

"In France we are not able to say certain things, sometimes for laudable reasons. This is true of the overrepresentation among criminals of young immigrants, which has long been denied, on grounds that they must not be stigmatized. We waited until the reality of the ghettoes, the police, the courts, the prisons, imposed proof of this overrepresentation before we could recognize it publicly. And the politicians still don't know how to talk about it."

Then, he provides this data:

A few years ago, an inquiry ordered by the Justice Ministry, to evaluate the number of imams that were needed, evaluated the percentage of Muslims in prison to be between 70 and 80%. In 2004, the Islamologist Farhad Khosrokhvar, in a book entitled L'Islam dans les prisons confirmed this figure. In 2007, an article in Le Point, which had been granted access to the conclusions of the DCSP (similar to the FBI), and to those of the judiciary police, evaluated the number of immigrants among reported suspects to be between 60 and 70%. Almost ten years ago, Commissioner Lucienne Bui Trong, in charge of urban violence at the RG (also like the FBI) found that 85% of the perpetrators were of Maghrebin origin. The RG reports on gang violence, published by Le Monde on March 16, 2010, determined that 87% were of French nationality; 67% of Maghrebin origin and 17% of African origin. Hence, the "majority" is the suitable word with regard to these figures.

Zemmour then moves on to the topic of discrimination:

They also condemn me for questioning the principle of "discrimination". But I still think that the very concept of "discrimination" is dangerous, that it encourages denunciations and non-accountability. And since when do we not have the right to question the soundness of a law in France? This question of discriminations is potentially explosive in an egalitarian country such as France. When certain major employers declare that they will only hire "people from the ranks of the immigrants, and in any case not white males" that too is a discrimination, but no one cares. It is to avoid these endless disputes that I say that "discrimination is life", that is to say, freedom of choice. We have to treat real problems differently. In any case, we can debate them in a free country.

Today there exists a harmful atmosphere that permeates the French democratic discourse. The country of Voltaire - "I don't agree with what you say but I will fight so that you can say it" - is becoming the country of Torquemada that kills the heretic to save his soul. (...)

The author of the Marianne2 article, linked above, adds that immigration and crime should not be forbidden topics so as not to increase the strength of the Front National, and that the land of Voltaire should defend all points of view, marginal though they may be. Marianne2, being a left-leaning publication, is probably more afraid of the Front National than of the consequences for France of Islam, crime, immigration, etc...

Below is a brief video of Zemmour showing him on the television program "Salut les terriens" (Hello, Earth people), making the statement about why blacks and Arabs are monitored more closely than others. The black girl is television journalist Rokhaya Diallo. There are French subtitles, making it much easier to translate:




- EZ: Since there are certain neighborhoods with a majority of immigrants from Africa or North Africa, it is perfectly normal for them to live according to their customs. And those in the minority - the native-born French minority - when they have the means, leave as soon as they can

- Diallo: Because they have the means

- EZ: IF they have the means... because the old folk who stay are forced to travel far to find a butcher shop that isn't halal. And that's the whole thing, that's why people separate, and then later they speak of ghettoes and segregation. And it's because there is drug trafficking in those neighborhoods...

- Diallo: Come on. You're mixing everything up. Drugs, obscure customs...

- EZ: I'm not mixing anything up at all...

- Diallo (sarcastic): They practice polygamy and female circumcision

- EZ: There is polygamy and lots of crime...

- Diallo: You're making a caricature

- EZ: Not at all

- Diallo: Crime is not a monopoly of the poorer neighborhoods. Do you know your politicians? There is after all a mayor of Levallois who is a famous criminal and not from a poorer neighborhood

- EZ: What is the connection? What is the connection?

- Diallo: Crime exists in the milieus that you live in, Mr. Zemmour

- EZ: Between drug trafficking and white-collar crime there is a little difference

- Bernard Murat: Eric, you say that they want to live like that. No. You forget what preceded. When you are checked by the police 17 times a day it changes your character...

- EZ: But why... why...

- Bernard Murat: Wait... Wait

- EZ: But why are they checked 17 times a day? It's because the majority of drug dealers are blacks or Arabs. It's a fact.

- Bernard Murat: Not necessarily

- EZ: Yes it is, yes it is.

At the very end you will see Ardisson, the show's host, laugh and pretend to be at once shocked and embarrassed by Zemmour's words. Zemmour claims this scene was added to the video later. He also claims that Ardisson, far from being shocked, had encouraged him to speak the truth during the debate.

Éric Zemmour - A Battle for Freedom of Speech

Éric Zemmour has been in the news on a daily basis for several weeks. First, he appears on French television in several types of talk shows - discussions, interviews, etc... and alone in a morning editorial on Radio Courtoisie. He also is the author of many books and writes regularly for Le Figaro. He is certainly a busy man, but his claim to fame is quite unique: he is one of the very few journalists in the public eye who tells the truth about what is happening in France. Here, from Wikipedia, and slightly edited, is a synopsis of his ideas:

Zemmour considers himself Gaullist and Bonapartist, and places himself in a profoundly anti-liberal (economically and socially) portion of the French right. He also considers himself to be a reactionary, in that he believes his views to be a reaction to a society that dismantles the social order, especially family and tradition, in the pursuit of a false goal: liberating the individual, who only finds himself isolated and reduced to the status of consumer. He reserves subversiveness for the right-wing, arguing that the progressives now dominant in French culture and the media can no longer claim to be critics of the established order since they have become the established order.

Zemmour's anti-liberalism also causes him to oppose European federalism. He considers Europe to be profoundly liberal and out of step with the French social order. He also believes that within a European community, the political right and left are forced to advocate "the same economic policy, social liberalism or liberal socialism", since, in the words of Philippe Séguin, "right and left are outlets of the same wholesaler, Europe."

Zemmour regularly takes positions that he describes as "anti-human rights-ism", placing him in opposition to many politicians (including Bernard Kouchner), intellectuals (including Bernard-Henri Lévy), and organizations advocating humanitarian intervention, which Zemmour considers to be a form of neo-colonialism. On the 12th of September 2009 during the TV show "On n'est pas couché", Zemmour had an argument with Samuel Benchetrit about re-considering the pros and the cons of the death penalty, when he stated that, with its abolition in France, it has created a disproportion in the hierarchy of major crimes. While presenting his arguments, Zemmour aroused the anger of Samuel Benchetrit who apparently was against capital punishment.

Zemmour is an advocate of traditional French assimilationism, and is staunchly opposed to "mass" immigration brought on by family reunification and to the current process of integrating immigrants, which he regards as too lenient. He has frequently declared that he is in favour of assimilation, even if this makes him "neurotic". He is also in favour of the Thierry Mariani amendment, which would require people wishing to immigrate to France on the basis of family reunification to prove their relationship via DNA testing. He is frequently criticized for his pronouncements on immigration and his attacks on certain organizations (including SOS Racisme). He recently claimed that the majority of French drug dealers are of African or Arab descent. With France's legal ban on ethnic statistics, this statement cannot be verified. The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) announced a few days later that it would seek legal action against him.

In Le Premier sexe (The First Sex), Zemmour accuses modern feminists of wanting to "castrate" men, and charges their movement with bringing negative consequences upon society (including the loss of the notion of authority). Declaring that the role of fathers is very different from that of mothers, he has alienated, besides feminists, men disputing his vision (including actor Francis Huster). Zemmour accuses these opponents of being demagogues obsessed with political correctness and ignoring the history of French society and the works of Sigmund Freud. Others, including author Franz-Olivier Giesbert, have lauded his views. His views on feminism are largely inspired from those of Alain Soral who once claimed that Zemmour has "copied" his ideas and views.

The above synopsis barely begins to describe Zemmour's beliefs, but you can see that he is a traditionalist, and a realist about race, sex, and immigration. He should not be compared to Marxist Alain Soral, even if some of their views converge. Whether you agree with everything stated above or not, Zemmour is unquestionably a rara avis in the world of French media.

For several weeks, a witch hunt against Zemmour has mobilized the forces of various anti-racist, pro-immigration, Islamic and politically correct organizations such as MRAP, LICRA, CRAN, and SOS-Racism.

Here is just a bare bones outline of what has transpired:

- On March 13 he was criticized by television journalists Frédéric Bonnaud and Paul Moreira for the content of his most recent book Mélancolie Française that deals with the decline of France under the domination of "Mohammedan hordes". Moreira accused Zemmour of not subjecting the information in the book to strict verification of the sources, i.e., of writing carelessly without documentary proof. (François Desouche)

- On March 14 Le Figaro reported that the CSA (High Council on Audiovisual, similar to our FCC), at the formal request of MRAP and the Club Averroès, were examining closely the remarks made by Éric Zemmour on French television channel Canal+. "It is a question that we have examined closely and will continue to examine," said Rachid Arhab, of the CSA, adding that the CSA had already been looking at the matter before being engaged by MRAP and the Club Averroès.

Éric Zemmour had declared that "the French immigrants were more closely monitored than other Frenchmen because most of the drug traffickers were black or Arab... It's a fact."

The following week, MRAP and the Club Averroès, which defends diversity in the media, took their case to the CSA because of these remarks "that have racist tones."

On a "personal" level, Mr. Ahab replied to Mr. Zemmour that "you can be an Arab and not be a drug trafficker. You can be a member of the CSA."


On March 17, CRAN (Representative Council of Black Associations), headed by Patrick Lozès (left), announced that it had protested to the CSA and to France Télévisions concerning the remarks of Eric Zemmour, who had said he considers discrimination in hiring practices to be a "right".

In this open letter CRAN demands that "in all broadcasts, in both public and private media, no one should be invited to speak who affirms that one has the right to violate French law, no one should be invited who encourages or values crime. Not only does Mr. Zemmour legitimize crime, but he even encourages it, since, according to him, 'discrimination is life, it is choice, it is selection.'"

Note: The "crime" referred to is the crime of breaking French law when you say, as Zemmour did, that discrimination is a "right".

On the same date (March 17), SOS-Racism lodged a complaint for "racial defamation" against Zemmour:

SOS-Racism summons Eric Zemmour to appear before the criminal court to respond to the charges of racial defamation following his remarks of March 6 on Canal+.

When he was invited to speak on his latest book, he declared, with regard to discriminatory identity checks: "Why is someone checked 17 times a day? Because most drug dealers are black or Arab, that's the way it is. It's a fact."

Éric Zemmour has been spreading his disgusting ideology on popular television programs for too long. He will have to answer for his statements before the judge. (François Desouche)

From Jean-Marc Morandini, via François Desouche


On March 18, Patrice Duhamel (above), CEO of France Télévisions (the ensemble of national television channels) wrote a letter to the producers of the talk show "On n'est pas couché" in which Eric Zemmour has participated since 2006, asking what measures it intended to take to prevent the scandal from doing harm to the reputation of France Télévisions.

Note: The was one of the first real indications that Zemmour might be fired from at least one of his high-profile jobs.

On March 20, writing at his blog, Patrick Lozès, the head of CRAN, compared Éric Zemmour to Dieudonné:

Éric Zemmour should join up with the Front National, since he espouses some of its ideas. He should join the FN just as a certain other professional scandal monger and provocateur, whose repeated comments began as a similar monomania with regard to Jews, and ended with a falling off of the mask of the humorist and a rapprochement with Jean-Marie Le Pen and his party.

Lozès then quotes some of Zemmour's recent remarks:

"Most drug dealers are black or Arab, it's a fact." (March 6)

"This country has been white and Christian for two thousand years, whether you like it or not." (March 6)

"HALDE must be destroyed. It encourages denunciations and non-accountability. It is so much more comforting to blame one's failures on so-called discrimination than on one's own weaknesses." (March 8)

"We are allowing pockets of ethnic and religious uniformity to spread. It will end badly. It will end in blood." (March 9)

This is just the beginning. Much more will be posted within the next 24 hours. The poster below is from SOS-Racism. It reads: "It is shameful. Let us mobilize".

Ending the Embargo

What is the place of the Front National in French politics? Should it be a separate autonomous party, as it is now, or should it be the right-wing of the Establishment Right, i.e. of the UMP party headed by Nicolas Sarkozy? At one time in the 1970's and 1980's, the Front National was loosely allied to the Establishment Right, but the two entities diverged (apparently the Establishment Right condemned these alliances, hence the "embargo" of the title), with the FN becoming known to the press and the public as the "extreme" Right, and the Establishment Right becoming known simply as the Right (to many, as we know, it is the "false Right" since it has drifted so far to the Left). Is it time for the two to fuse again, or would the Front National disgrace itself, as Philippe de Villiers seems to have done, by entering into an alliance with the Establishment? This article is from Observatoire du Parlement and was featured also at Le Salon Beige, where readers engaged in a long and interesting discussion:

In all the countries of Europe, every time there is a rise in power of the nationalist Right beyond the level of 15% of the votes, this Right participates in coalition governments.

That is the logic of democracy: any political movement that respects the rules of the game and receives a substantial degree of support from voters is bound to assume its share of political responsibilities.

It is the only way for politics not to turn into the pursuit of war by other means. It is also the only way to prevent voters from sinking into nihilism and violence.

France, because of the craftiness of François Mitterrand, the dictatorship of the politically correct media and the cowardliness of the Establishment Right politicians, has become the only exception to this democratic rule.

The embargo against the Front National is an impasse for democracy: a party that plays the democratic game and submits to the same rules as its rivals should have, proportionally, as many elected officials and responsibilities as it is possible to have considering the election results.

It is also an impasse for the Right: the majority party in the country when it is combined with the FN, it finds itself once again a minority in the regions where it could have won.

It is time to end this embargo that deprives the Right of one voter out of three and leads the Left to believe that its "politically correct" rhetoric has the approval of the French people when, in fact, the people have had all they can take of crime and immigration.

Note: The article raises some questions:

- Is the politically correct rhetoric confined to the Left, and merely IMITATED by the cowardly Establishment Right? Or do the politicians of the Right, such as Sarkozy, his UMP party leaders and members, actually espouse these politically correct notions on race, immigration, Islam, métissage, etc...?

- In other words, are these anti-French, anti-Western trends taking root universally, or are they really the work of the Left, implying that they would disappear if the Right had stronger, more resolute leadership?

- Would a man like Jean-Marie Le Pen be strong and resolute? Or is another personality better suited to the task of re-programming the French media, the French mentality, and the French educators and intellectuals?

- Can we be sure that the 48% of voters who did not vote last Sunday would have voted for the FN if they had taken the trouble to go to the polls? If that is the case, then WHY did they not vote? And more importantly, why did they not vote massively for the FN in the first round, thus enabling the FN to win at least third place in more than just 12 regions? (The FN had candidates in all 26 regions.)

- Assuming that almost half of the electorate, i.e., the abstentions, are sympathetic to the FN, it makes no sense for them to stay home and not vote, unless they do not like what Jean-Marie Le Pen has done to the party. This is very likely. Le Pen through his ambiguities (to be polite) has turned off many would-be voters. So it is really now up to Marine Le Pen to change the party's image. She attempted something like that in the 2007 presidential election and was rewarded with a stinging failure.

- It is possible of course that many FN sympathizers don't like Marine either, or Gollnisch, and they stay home because they cannot bring themselves to cast a ballot for what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as unreliable leaders.

However, is it not possible that many of the abstentions were immigrants with no real interest in the election, or simply people too apathetic to vote? This would mean that only a portion of the 48% would have voted for the FN, but it still does not answer the question as to why they stayed home, when their vote was so critical.

Here's a look at what Le Salon Beige readers had to say:

- That is the reasoning of Jean-François Kahn on BFM Television when he said that if the FN remained firm or advanced further in the next legislative election, the UMP would have to make an alliance with the FN or disappear. He added that if we apply yesterday's results to the legislative election, the UMP would end up with about 50 deputies, as opposed to the current 317, which includes the satellite parties.

- Let's not dream... But it is clear that if the FN had been represented in parliament and in the government over the past 30 years, the situation in France would have been different in many ways

- I agree with the article, and with the conclusions. But it would only be possible with Marine Le Pen, who would purge the party of its liabilities. Experience has shown that an UMP party whose message is clearly right-wing, can win over a good number of FN voters, provided actions follow words. When we look at the candidates and the UMP party leaders, it is doubtful...

- I do not think that the UMP is in reality part of the Right. It is more of the Left than of the Right. On the other hand, the FN is simply the Right and not the "extreme" Right. But the right-wing politicians are PARALYZED by what the Left dictates to them...

- Let's not forget that politics is the art of the possible, not of Utopia. An alliance between the FN and the UMP is necessary in order to limit the stranglehold of Socialism/Communism on public budgets. And it would be a good thing to have before us an empowered FN, in order to put an end to the fear of a "harmful power". The MSI and the Lombard League in Italy have united, and there is a whole new ball game with regard to crime and immigration. But of course we have the stupidest Right in the world...

Note: the reader seems to be making a reference to the Italian Social Movement (MSI), which has merged and changed names several times. Today we speak of the Northern League, the result of several mergers and name changes.

- The FN has nothing, absolutely nothing, in common with this sludge that dares call itself the "Right". The FN must take care to remain strictly outside of any attempted alliance. That will take time and many tears, but one day, the truth will impose itself on the French people.

- "The FN must take care to remain strictly outside of any attempted alliance. That will take time and many tears, but one day, the truth will impose itself on the French people."

Sure. When France is an Islamic Socialist Republic it will be much better than the UMP. I have a million reproaches to make to Jean-Marie Le Pen, but I try to discern the essential thing: my country.

As was said above, Italy is the model to follow.

Final note: The reluctance of many Front National leaders and members themselves to join the UMP also has to be taken into consideration. The UMP party has moved so far to the Left, that any association with it would be perceived as a sell-out or at the very least as a dilution of basic principles. The FN has to decide if it can win without the UMP. And the UMP has to govern as a conservative party worthy of the name would govern. Moreover, the FN has to adopt only sound principles that inspire confidence in the electorate. So, everybody has to make some definitive choices without delay.

Gains for the FN and the Socialists

I'm very angry with myself for the delay in posting this but I became engrossed in the marathon sell-out that took place in Washington yesterday. Unfortunately, I never doubted the bill would pass because I have worked closely with Democrats and I know how they operate. In the public schools whenever there was any kind of labor union vote - say for a building rep., and the results did not go as "planned", they (meaning the leadership of the labor union) simply changed the vote - I saw union members actually change the voting results in order to place on the building committee the people they preferred. There was no way of not signing a petition either - if you refused to sign, they would simply declare that everyone had signed and the results were unanimous, when they were nothing of the sort. Lawsuits against a labor union would have been fruitless for many reasons - you needed a conservative lawyer and they are hard to find, a lawsuit is an emotional drain and you have the whole world against you including your own family members who lack knowledge and understanding of the issues, you are made to feel as if something is "wrong" with you for having stirred up trouble, and finally, as in my case, these people were not worth one bead of sweat more than I already had in the daily routine. So no one ever really put up a fight. They get their way, period. So it was yesterday with "Obamacare". The Dems knew they had the votes from the start; they just had to make it look as if there was opposition, and they had to make the opposition appear to be diabolically opposed to helping the needy. Any Democrat who refused to sign in favor of the bill somehow, mysteriously, changed his mind at the last minute. It was a foregone conclusion for the Dems. It was never really a cliff-hanger after all. The weak Republicans completely underestimated their adversary. Now the country will face the consequences of socialized medicine, something we've dreaded for a long time.

Even though it is too late, here is the post from yesterday. I hope everybody who was interested managed to get some news of France from their local papers:

Here are some election results from Le Salon Beige. they are not necessarily complete, but as many had predicted, the Front National did very well, and Sarkozy's camp was roundly defeated by the unified Left. For the French nationalists, it hardly matters, since, as they have been saying for so long, very little differentiates the UMP from the PS, except that the former is constantly betraying its own principles (assuming it has principles, an arguable point), while the latter is true to its principles, corrupt though they may be:

In all 12 regions where the FN ran in the second round, its scores were higher than in the first round.

Jean-Marie Le Pen received 23% in the PACA region (Provence-Alpes-Côtes-d'Azur), Marine Le Pen received between 20 and 22% in the Nord; (...) Bruno Gollnisch 15% in Rhône-Alpes (...)

The TV channels give a global score of 8.7% to the Front National on a national level, but 17.% globally in the 12 regions where it ran.

Above you can see the results graphically. While the FN may have cause to celebrate, a closer look at the graph reveals that 90.4% of those who voted today (in the entire country) voted either for the PS or the UMP. This is very bad news, indicating that the country is completely in the hands of the "UMPS", despite the gains of the FN which must continue unabated until there is a ground swell of general resistance throughout the country to the official policies of immigration, Islamization, Turkey, and all the other issues of major and urgent concern to the French. It is difficult to imagine how anything will change for the better in the next two years as we head for the presidential elections of 2012. However, something really COULD change at that point. A reliable third candidate, one who is truly committed to helping France instead of deliberately confusing issues, betraying the people's trust and discrediting the very notion of national pride could definitively end the reign of the Chiracs and the Sarkozys. Possibly Marine Le Pen will be the one to do it, possibly not...

If you go to this Figaro page and run your cursor over the map you will see the results region by region. Five examples:

- In the region of PACA, the Front National won 21 seats on the Regional Council, the UMP won 30 seats, the Socialists 72 seats.

- In Lorraine, the Front National won 10 seats, the UMP 17, and the Socialists 46.

- In Poitou-Charente, the UMP won 16 seats and the Socialists, led by Ségolène Royal, won 39 seats. The Socialists received a huge 60.61% of the votes.

- In Nord-Pas de Calais, the Front National, led by Marine Le Pen, won 18 seats, the UMP 22 seats and the Socialists 73.

- In Ile-de-France, which includes Paris, the UMP won 67 seats on the Regional Council, while the Left won 142!

The only regions where the UMP party actually beat the Socialists were Alsace and Guiana! Even Corsica elected the Socialists. Two Corsican nationalist parties won a total of 15 seats, while the Socialists won 24 seats.

Bear in mind that the UMP was a coalition of parties, and the Socialists also included the Greens, the Communists, and other left-wing groups. Therefore the Regional Councils will have representation from numerous parties, but does that help matters at all? The answer is clearly no, except perhaps in small ways, here and there, where a decent elected official manages to bring about some change for the better. The healthy representation of the Front National may be beneficial in the long term if they can influence the way money is spent, or if they can have an impact on the educational and cultural lives of the citizens of the region. They may be able to stop projected mosques or projected Islamic schools. They may be able to make known the crime statistics of the region, and they may be able to ascertain and make known the morale of the citizens with regard to security, purchasing power, Islamization, and other problems that can be overpowering when there is no official representative one can turn to for support.

It will be especially instructive to see if the voters who abstained make their voices heard in other ways, now that the FN has a few more seats on the councils.

Over 48% of eligible voters did NOT vote in the second round.

In short, the regions of France are in the hands of the Socialists for four years. Sarkozy's UMP party would have been no better, possibly worse. But the last word is never said. We just have to follow events as they unfold. The latest news concerns senseless changes Sarkozy is making in the ministries, and the emergence of some potential candidates for the 2012 presidential elections. Also, the labor unions are preparing for strikes. More to come...

The Second Round

A reader reminds me that there is no "comeback" for the Front National, considering that last Sunday's results were worse for the FN than those of the 2004 regional elections. This may be true, but all the same, the FN made a surprisingly good showing. It is not a definitive victory, only a relative one, since what is bound to happen now is that the various parties of the Left will coalesce to fight both Sarkozy's people and the FN in this Sunday's run-off. OR, in some cases the PS could actually merge with the UMP to prevent any victory for the FN. That seems very unlikely, but it is not beyond consideration.

Marine Le Pen has made it clear that the Front National will not merge with any other party. Again, this is no surprise - I had assumed that the FN would remain autonomous. Hence there will be several "triangulaires" - three-way races, where the presence of the FN will simply mean a victory for the Socialists.

The websites are pretty much in agreement on the above points. They differ in their degree of triumphalism over Le Pen's success, and their degree of gloating over the failure of the smaller splinter groups such as Jacques Bompard's Ligue du Sud. But some bloggers feel that these smaller parties did not do that badly after all. Even if, for example, the overall score of Jacques Bompard, in the PACA region (Provence-Alpes-Côtes-d'Azur), was not high, he did extremely well in the city of Orange where he is mayor. Many of these lesser candidates have a strong backing in their own particular department or city, and these cities shape up to be centers of resistance to the Establishment "UMPS" doctrines.

It is to be hoped that this resistance will grow, and that some of the irreconcilable differences that have led to the fragmentation of the nationalist and sovereigntist Right will be ironed out.

There are so many articles, I am going to give just a few examples here.

An item posted at Yann Redekker's blog (that has a wealth of information about the Front National as well as dozens of other groups, organizations, and blogs that one could categorize as nationalist, sovereigntist, identitarian, Catholic, and monarchist), relays Marine Le Pen's plans for the second round:

(...) "There will be three-way races wherever the Front National is running. We will not sell ourselves to anybody, we are there to oppose the UMPS pact," she declared. She added that it is out of the question for the FN to join the UMP, "because the UMP has been associated with the Socialist Party for the past six years in the regions of France. They are guilty of being the accomplices in the policies that govern the regions."

According to another post, Jean-Marie Le Pen declared on Thursday (March 18) that the Front National would receive 25% of the votes in the PACA region. He was speaking before 500 sympathizers in Marignane.

In an appeal to those FN sympathizers who live in a region where the FN will not be on the ballot in the second round, Marine Le Pen urges abstention, rather than a vote for Sarkozy's UMP. She cites as one of her reasons the routine false promises of a tougher policy on crime that have emanated from Sarkozy's camp following the recent murder of a policeman. She says:

Since Prime Minister François Fillon proposes that the voters judge the UMP party by its acts, they will remember this: never have so many cars belonging to decent citizens been torched, never have the gangs had so much power, our flag is burned before our eyes in all impunity, Nicolas Sarkozy has made it impossible to expel foreigners who are criminals, armed assaults against merchants and taxi drivers have exploded, in short, that no one can say he is really safe in the France of Nicolas Sarkozy.

To vote for the UMP next Sunday in the regions where the FN is not running would be to give the government carte blanche to continue its glaringly lax policies. (...) Not one vote must be cast for the UMP slates.

However, economist Gérard Pince urges voters to abstain, period. An opponent of the FN because of Le Pen's style of leadership (to put it euphemistically), Pince favored those candidates of the smaller right-wing groups (particularly in Lorraine) that were eliminated last Sunday. He writes:

In the second round not one vote for the collaborators, the beneficiaries of stipends, or the corrupt. One order only: general abstention.

The majority of Frenchmen refused, last Sunday, to grant the oligarchy further enrichment. Let's amplify this rejection in the second round.

When the system collapses, the majority of Frenchmen will vote with pitchforks!

Yann Redekker reproaches Pince for his short-term memory, reminding him that those candidates from the smaller parties became known under the colors of the Front National. He expresses his surprise at seeing the Front National treated as "corrupt".

Pince is not the only one who commends the smaller right-wing parties.

Writing at Bernard Antony's website, Yann Baly notes that the smaller parties running under the slogan "No to Minarets", did not do that badly, considering their financial means, the absence of media coverage, and the absence of support from the larger parties. Among these candidates he cites Annick Martin of the MNR who received 3% of the votes. He also notes that one candidate of the FN - Thierry Gourlot - who received impressive results - has always been an outspoken adversary of the Islamization of Lorraine, contrary to certain pro-Islamic positions of Jean-Marie Le Pen. He adds:

The concern of our compatriots over Islamization was demonstrated in the voting booths. This is a good thing.

He also relates the story of a federation of 14 Turkish-speaking Muslim associations in the department of Meurthe-et-Moselle that discretely acquired a château in the little village of Neufmaisons. Since 2007, the château has been home to the Buhara Institute, the most important Koranic school of sufism in Europe.

What does the population think of this? The results last Sunday speak for themselves. In Neufmaisons alone, the total votes for the nationalist Right reached 28% (22% for the FN and 6% for the MNR).

Note: Isn't it terrible to think that a little French village is home to major Turkish organization that promotes Islam? What must the people think when they walk by the château? I'm only sorry that the other 72% of the voters were not courageous enough to vote for the nationalists. Of course, there were many abstentions.

Bernard Antony continues his critique of Jean-Marie Le Pen's doctrines and foresees dark days ahead for the regions. He begins by comparing the UMP and the Socialist Party:

On the essentials, that is, respect for life, freedom and human dignity, on the conception of the homeland and its civilization, nothing, when we weigh their actions, differentiates (the UMP) in any fundamental way from the socialist and ecologist Left, which is perhaps less hypocritical but probably even more determined to bring about a leveling of the "citizens", both economically and socially.

Meaning that we cannot expect any good policies for our provinces from the regional majorities who will be elected next Sunday. The Front National has certainly stopped its decline. We have to wait and see if that leads to a doctrinal reconstruction. It benefited from the extraordinary publicity surrounding the excellent poster (below) created by the young FN workers in the provinces, and from the freedom-killing lawsuit instigated by the collaboration of Algeria with LICRA.

This dictatorial denial of political freedom has placed Jean-Marie Le Pen back into the role (which he had unfortunately abandoned) of an opponent of Algerian imperialism in France and of Islamization which, it must be repeated, is more of an ideological, political and social phenomenon than a religious one. (...)

If the FN can recapture its respect for life and its refusal of the Islamization of France, that will be a very fortunate thing.


I'll let a reader of Le Salon Beige have the last word in this endless argument. She refers to the MPF (Mouvement pour la France), the party of Philippe de Villiers. Some may recall that Villiers shocked and disappointed his followers (but those who had always spoken of him as an impostor were not surprised), when he rejoined the UMP party, following his stinging defeat in the European Parliamentary elections. The reader points out that many of those who would have normally voted for Villiers (middle-class Catholics, conservatives) will vote for the FN on Sunday, simply because they now have to if they want to oppose the UMP! Philippe de Villiers did himself and his own constituents no good by joining Sarkozy - they now have to vote for the Front National. The reader concludes:

In 2012 the unity of the nationalist Right will make a comeback, as it did in 2002. Despite all the quarrels, the divergences, of Carl Lang, Jacques Bompard or even of Bernard Antony with regard to the FN, they will nonetheless support the FN, that appears evident... Exit then the PdF, exit the MNR, the NDP, the Populists, the DLR, the RIF, etc... This time there will be unity.

That remains to be seen. Within the context of the larger battle between the mighty "UMPS" and the nationalist/identitarian/sovereigntist resistance, there is another battle between the Front National and its dissidents. And then, within the Front National itself there is a fight for leadership between Bruno Gollnisch and Marine Le Pen, both currently labeled as "vice-president" of the party. When Jean-Marie Le Pen finally leaves (if he ever does!) who will lead the party?

Let's leave it at that and wait for Sunday's election. Below, a reminder of the catalyst in the success of the Front National last week - the minaret, the Swiss vote and the awakening to the dangers of the Islamization of France.

A Comeback For the Front National

Note: Some of the following was written Sunday night. Some was written Monday afternoon. I was not able to finish it in time for a definitive post on Sunday. The above graphic shows the approximate percentages won by the different parties or coaltions. Dark blue is Sarkozy, dark pink is the PS (Socialist Party), green of course is the ecologists, and gray, the Front National.

Here are bits and pieces of information regarding the election results. It seems the Front National did very well, and the Le Pens (father and daughter) drank a champagne toast. If there is an overall winner, it would have to be the Socialists and the Ecologists. However, the very good scores obtained by the FN can only add to Sarkozy's defeat. It seems unlikely that Sarkozy will be able to woo FN voters this time. It is, however, probable that the Socialists will merge with any qualified smaller Socialist group. Thus Sarkozy's people may face near-total defeat next Sunday.

First, English-language readers can consult this summary from the New York Times. It's clear if not highly detailed.

The Front National is now qualified to run in at least 12 regions in the second round of elections to be held next Sunday. This excellent score for the FN was the big upset of the elections.

In Ile-de-France Valérie Pécresse, of the presidential majority (i.e. Sarkozy's coalition) came out ahead with 27.76% of the votes, followed by the Socialist Jean-Paul Huchon (25.26%), and in third place Cécile Duflot of the Europe-Ecologie Party (16.58%). The Front National candidate, Marie-Christine Arnautu with 9.29% just missed the 10% needed to qualify for the second round. Despite the victory for Pécresse, this is considered to be a mediocre score for her and a major gain for the ecologists.

In Lorraine, despite the anti-minaret campaign, Annick Martin did not do well at all, winning only 3% of the votes. She cannot move on to the second round, nor can she merge with another group. Any party receiving fewer than 5% of the votes is out. If a party receives 5%, they can, in the second round, merge with a larger entity. (This information is from Wikipedia)

In Nord-Pas de Calais, Marine Le Pen came in third with 18.31% of the votes behind the Socialists (26.16%) and the presidential majority (19%). She can move on to the second round, but it isn't clear yet if she will merge with another entity or remain autonomous. (It is hard to imagine her not remaining autonomous).

In Poitou-Charentes, former presidential candidate of the Socialist Party, Ségolène Royal came out way ahead of the others with 38.98% of the votes. The Front National came in fourth with 7.72 %.

In Franche-Comté, as in several other regions, the Front National is in third place, indicating that a three-way race ("triangulaire") could occur during the second round, since merging seems unlikely. The various left-wing parties have no trouble merging. But the Front National, by remaining autonomous, can prevent Sarkozy's UMP from winning.

In the region called PACA (Provence-Alpes-Côtes-d'Azur), where Jean-Marie Le Pen himself was a candidate, a four-way-race is possible. The UMP won 26.5%, the Socialists 25.5%, the Front National 20.9% and the Green Party 11.3%. But the Greens may merge with the Socialists. If Le Pen stays alone, he will make it much harder for Sarkozy to win. The Socialists will then have an easy victory. The score of 20.9% for Le Pen is remarkable, considering his age, and the condition of his party in recent months. However, one factor to consider is that two days ago (Friday March 12), Le Pen appeared in court, in Marseilles, as a result of a lawsuit by LICRA (League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism), over the anti-Islamization poster created by the FNJ (Front National Jeunesse), the youth movement of the FN. In my post on the regional elections I indicated that the case had been thrown out of court (in Nanterre) on March 8 but would be heard again on March 12. As it turned out, the tribunal of Marseilles banned the poster, declaring:

"This poster is not only liable to provoke a feeling of rejection and animosity with regard to a group of people whose religious practices are targeted - women and a nationality - but, besides, it addresses essentially those young people who are more easily influenced. This provocative poster constitutes, by its nature, a manifestly illicit disturbance."

In short, only the youth of Algerian origin have the right to draw France draped in the colors of the Algerian flag, and only Muslims have the right to show France sprouting minarets.

Source: Yves Daoudal

A communiqué from the Front National states:

(The Front National) denounces a decision made under public pressure and threats from the Algerian government and from the FLN, supported by the Socialist Foreign Minister of the Sarkozy government.

Note: FLN = Front de Liberation Nationale. This was the coalition of Socialist revolutionary parties that rebelled against French rule in Algeria. Members of the party are now the rulers of Algeria, including the Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

(The Front National) solemnly warns the voters that it is becoming impossible to evoke or to criticize the policy of massive immigration or the communitarian abuses it brings in its wake.

Patriots are gagged on orders from a foreign country, since it is forbidden to say no to Islamism, to the burka, to the multiplication of large mosques and to the fatally invasive risks that now threaten France.

The Front National will appeal the decision and asks the French people to show their refusal of these methods, worthy of the Soviet Union, next Sunday in the voting booths.

Source: Yves Daoudal

Here are more remarks from Yves Daoudal on the election results.

Abstentions reached 53.65% or 14 points more than the first round of the 2004 regional elections. This confirms that there is a major crisis and that the UMPS is responsible. Nicolas Sarkozy only made it worse with his celebrity persona and his openness to the Left.

The Establishment Right (UMP and its nine satellite parties) received barely 26%, its worst showing of the Fifth Republic. None of the 20 ministers and vice-ministers have a chance of winning in the second round. Even in Guadeloupe, the secretary of State for Overseas Affairs, Marie-Luce Penchard, was eliminated in the first round.

The polls were dead wrong, particularly as concerns the Front National (11.74%). Jean-Marie Le Pen was a "surprise" with his better-than 20% (in the PACA region). And Bruno Gollnisch received 14%, not 10%. The FN can move on to the second round in 12 regions, not the 3 predicted. Nicolas Sarkozy did not kill the Front National, which is making a spectacular comeback just behind the so-called ecologists. (...)

All interested parties - the UMP, the Socialists, Ecologists and the Front National will now appeal to the voters who abstained, urging them to come out next Sunday to "make a difference", as we say in America.

Le Figaro has a file on the Regional Elections 2010, for those who read French.

"No To Minarets" - A Campaign Gains Ground

As I look over the polls published by Wikipedia on the projected winners in tomorrow's election, and the second round next week, it seems unlikely that any of the more interesting candidates have a chance of winning by respectable margins. Any seats they win will be the result of the proportional system, not the result of massive public support. Right now I'm looking at the voting lists for the region of Lorraine with an easily projected victory in the first round for the Socialists and Sarkozy's coalition (known as the presidential majority), then a victory in the second round for the Socialists. The candidates for the MNR and the Front National could make it to the second round, or they could join one or the other of the winners of the first round, but who would they join with? All the parties are of the Left.

In the region of Alsace only the Front National seems able to win more than 10% of the votes in the first round. The identitarian group Alsace d'Abord is projected to win only about 4%. The final winner could actually be Europe-Ecologie.

The same pattern for Ile-de-France, which includes Paris and surrounding departments. Valérie Pécresse of the UMP will no doubt face off against the Socialists in the second round. There are numerous other parties that will either merge or withdraw. Again Europe-Ecologie looks strong, while the Front National is projected to win anywhere from 5 to 7% of the votes. As you would imagine there are many minorities running in this region.

And so on... The Front National often comes in third, and thus wins some seats on the regional councils. But the other parties of the Right have to settle for what amounts to symbolic representation.

But things can always change...

Apparently a type of minaret madness has swept over some of the parties of the Right. At the top you can see the poster being used by several parties from the regions of Alsace, Lorraine, and Franche-Comté, in Northeastern France. "No To Minarets!" has become the slogan under which these parties are running. They include the MNR (National Republican Movement - the group at one time headed by Bruno Mégret, that split from the Front National in 1998), the NDP (Nouvelle Droite Populaire, headed by Robert Spieler in Alsace, another party that resulted from a split with Le Pen, and the PDF (Parti de France, headed by Carl Lang, who also split from the Front National).

Writing at his blog Robert Spieler describes a meeting held in the city of Metz in Lorraine on March 5:

Friday evening, in Metz, nationalists and identitarians from Lorraine came out in large numbers to support the slate "No To Minarets in Lorraine", headed by Annick Martin. Several personalities, both national and European, came to speak and to urge the people of Lorraine to vote massively for this slate. By turns, Martine Lehideux, vice-president of the Parti de France; Robert Spieler, general delegate of the Nouvelle Droite Populaire; the German Marcus Beisicht, president of Pro-Cologne; the Flemish Hilde De Lobel a member of the Vlaams Belang, and Filip Dewinter, spokesman for the VB and deputy from Antwerp all gave the slate headed by Annick Martin both a new dimension and a European legitimacy.

Note: "No To Minarets" is both a slogan and the name adopted by the candidates to be the title of their slate.

In her concluding address, that was enthusiastically applauded, Annick Martin recalled that the immigration/invasion engendered by the Islamization of our country is forcing the French people into a state of resistance. The slate "No to Minarets" is the beginning of a new European crusade to save our freedoms and our identity.

In the photo below Robert Spieler in the center is surrounded on his right by Hilde De Lobel and Filip Dewinter, and on his left by Annick Martin (in the orange blouse) and Marcus Beisicht.



Back in February when the slogan "No to Minarets" was adopted by the nationalist and identitarian parties of Alsace, Lorraine, and Franche-Comté, Robert Spieler wrote:

I can attest to the tremendous dynamic, most notably in Lorraine and Franche-Comté, regions that I am especially following. (This has happened) thanks to the quality of the teams and the absolute ideological determination of the leaders of the voting slates, and also to the fighting spirit of camaraderie that unites them. (...) I must say I have not seen such militant enthusiasm since the years 85-86 when the emergence of the Front National, that I represented as deputy, fired up our teams.

Our opponents are going to suffer a lot, because we will win our goal - that of constituting a force that assembles together, that resists and that seeks renewal around a non-negotiable ideological base: the unyielding defense of our identities. (...)

The national and European resistance is organizing.

Let's hope he is right. Geert Wilders, the Swiss vote, and in America, the slow awakening of some members of the Republican Party to the true nature of Islam are all positive signs. There may be an awakening. We can only hope it is not too little too late.