May 7, 2017

Fragmented French electoral process sets up another bloody revolution

As I explained two weeks ago (in comments), Le Pen had no chance of winning in an electoral system that holds an anarchic free-for-all primary election, and then just two weeks later a general election.

There was not enough time to heal wounds and build a coalition between the Le Pen and the cuckservative factions. I'm guessing a lot of the low turnout this time was due to these comfortable retired cucks, who cannot settle into a fundamentally new mindset (nationalism) after just two weeks of attempted persuasion.

These are the people who would have cost Trump the election if it had been held two weeks after Super Tuesday of primary season. He needed months to get them on board. That Le Pen was able to get 40% after two weeks of coalition building is pretty good -- does anyone think Trump would have done better if the election had been held in early April, around the time of the disastrous Wisconsin primary?

An earlier post from a year ago detailed the superiority of the American system of holding primaries far in advance of the general, which results in the two-party system instead of the free-for-all system that the Europeans have. Not only does it allow plenty of time for healing and coalition-building after a bitterly fought primary, it also allows the winning party to hit the ground running after the election. They do not have to waste months in putting together a coalition after already taking office, since that coalition was formed before the general election was even held.

Between a sorely needed overhaul of their electoral process, shameless de-Gaul-ification by the EU, rampant third-world immigration, and Islamic terrorism, France is headed toward another one of its bloody revolutions. Europe and its off-shoots is due for its once-a-century major war, and their rhythmic tendency is to occur during the first half of the century.

The Pentagon brass would absolutely support the violent imposition of Islam and mass migration on all European peoples, if those peoples went to war to try to expel the foreigners. Hopefully our rank-and-file troops would see the absurdity of pointing guns at Englishmen and Frenchmen in order to grease the skids for Islamic mass migration, and would either half-ass it or actively disobey.

This further delay in solving the immigration problem will only increase the pressure-cooker atmosphere in Europe, and raises rather than lowers the probability that Europeans will ultimately turn toward pogroms or a Reconquista against their invaders, if the democratic process offers them no peaceful civic remedy. It is in the nature of laissez-faire zeitgeists for short-term buck-passing to take the place of long-term stewardship, but eventually everybody has to pay the piper.


  1. Seems like the "far-right" in Europe is only allowed when it is led by a non-threatening woman, but it's doubtful if a woman can inspire much enthusiasm from men on the right who respect ability more than "trying her best". Europe is probably already too sickly for a revolution, chance of a coup increases, but it's getting close to the point when Islamist officers will be leading it

  2. When has Europe ever been too sickly for a revolution? It's already been 100 years since their last once-a-century cataclysm.

    The Belle Epoque is over. We, and they, are clearly already in a twilight stage.

    And remember that it doesn't take a majority to win by force. The cucks, shitlibs, and foreigners may be able to crowd out the nationalists at the ballot box and on social media -- but not if the battle comes to force. The army doesn't even have to participate, as long as they are neutral or half-ass it.

    When majority politics prevent peaceful solutions, it'll turn toward violent minorities. It has been less than 50 years since Europe saw both the Left and Right resorting to these tactics, after the weakening of the state to solve problems.

  3. Wow, 44% of 18-24 year-olds voted Le Pen, and that went down with age, toward only 20% of 65+ year-olds.

    Le Pen went a lot harder on the populist angle than Trump did, e.g. promising to lower retirement age to 60, wanting generous government spending -- but for the French only, not foreigners.

    So a decent amount of Melenchon / Bernie voters merged into the Le Pen / Trump camp.

    The importance for the revolutionary future is that it's now the youth who are radicalized, not old people. They want their own country for the first time in their lives, rather than "take back" their country that has been lost.

    The Charles Martel generation is already voting, and it's only a matter of time before they win. In the meantime, expect them to act outside the ballot box, as hotheaded young people are wont to do.

  4. That also spells disaster for the Establishment trying to use the military against the nationalist movement.

    Young people make up the rank-and-file soldiers, and if that age group is so favorable to the Le Pen / Melenchon movement, they will not fire on them.

    Police are somewhat older, but it's hard to imagine them siding with Islamic invaders over their countrymen trying to liberate the nation.

  5. That age data is from OpinionWay, but there's data from Ipsos saying that Le Pen did the best with middle-aged, and went lower with young and old voters.

    Then again, Ipsos doesn't have such a great record (they ran Reuters presidential tracking poll that doctored its own results mid-way through b/c they were too favorable to Trump).

    I guess we'll have to look for other more concrete signs of how much young people support the populist / anti-globalist program.

  6. An honest question: even if civil war is coming (which I may believe): why do you think the native French would win? I suspect we both agree that native French (native westerners, for that matter) are 'soft' and complacent. You, presumably, believe that underneath that complacency, there's real fire and willingness to kill (to put it bluntly and honestly). But why do you believe that?

    I see throughout the West: majority whites are afraid to encounter a group of minority males alone at night (for good reason). Minorities aren't afraid to encounter a group of majority males alone at night. Whites fear blacks (or Arabs) at 2 am. Not the other way around. What makes you think that is evidence that there is still some 'fire' in those majority whites? What makes you think, when push comes to shove, the complacent ones will win?


  7. Points I made two nights ago explaining why it wasn't possible the Macron leaks were meant to help Le Pen:

    It seems Posobiec is being credited as the main guy to disseminate which gives me a sinking feeling; I suspect we will not much like the aims of whoever did this. Posobiec and American far right website dissemination gives me a provincialism-on-behalf-of-the-hackers sense.

    1. Meant 3 nights ago, 2 nights before France voted.

  8. i'm afraid you're right. honestly even if le pen won, or if she wins sometime in the early 2020s for that matter... what then? either way france is going to have to do what amounts to a massive population transfer. and all these hostile migrants and rabble rousers aren't going away without a fight.

  9. "What makes you think, when push comes to shove, the complacent ones will win?"

    When the arena of battle moves from democratic politics to use of force, it's no longer majority rules. Any group using force is always a numerical minority, whether it's some local activist group, nationwide group, or the federal military.

    So it's no longer, "Which group has more numbers on its side?" a la the ballot box. It's whose minority is larger, more organized, more cohesive, more energized, and more willing to sacrifice the individual for the collective good.

    Neither side would be using force to wipe out the other -- it would be one side using enough force to cause the other side to leave. We know which side will be more likely to high-tail it out of France if there's an ongoing insurgency of (a minority of) Frenchmen against invaders.

    And it's possible, if unlikely, that the cohesive minority of French insurgents could take over the government in one way or another (future democratic election, or a kind of coup). With control over the government, then they could really speed up the process of driving out foreigners or killing them outright on an industrial scale.

    It sounds macabre, but remember that it was less than 100 years ago that the Germans did that to Jews, Gypsies, and other foreigners.

    I doubt it would reach Holocaust levels because the foreigners in France are so shallowly rooted, compared to the dug-in groups in the lands that Germany occupied. I'm thinking it would turn out more like a Reconquista where the invaders are driven out by a determined minority of natives.

  10. Crucially, the invaders are not a cohesive group -- they come from so many different and mutually hostile backgrounds that they start turf wars against each other.

    The French insurgents would feel part of a common French background under threat of foreign invasion from wildly unfamiliar people, whereas the invaders would only feel part of the narrow little group that they come from -- not even "Muslims" but "Algerians," "Syrians," "Afghanis," "Nigerians," etc. Perhaps even smaller groups: "Syrian Sunnis," "Fulani (not Igbo)," "Somali tribe A (not tribe B)," etc.

    Those groups literally do not speak each other's language, so lots of luck organizing a foreigner-wide resistance against being driven back to their homelands.

  11. The standard cuck answer for how to move such a large group of foreigners out, is to pay them to leave. But if that's the first option, the foreigner will weigh that against the alternative of the even greater wealthy they'd get over time by remaining in the country. They will turn down the financial offer.

    But if the context is a low-level insurgency of armed Frenchmen looking to drive your people out by harassment and even collective armed force, maybe that buy-out offer is not sounding so bad after all.

    Since the weak Establishment would not be able to stamp out the insurgency, they would probably resort to something like that to diminish the prospect of continued violence. They would never make that offer on their own, since they prefer immigration to continue. They would only try to buy off the foreigners to leave if a third party was putting pressure on them to do so.

  12. The foreigners are doing no favors with the police by constantly burning cars, attacking police as a mob, and Islamic terrorists outright assassinating police officers.

    You don't see that level of anti-police violence among immigrants here, but it's bad in France. Maybe we have more of a threat of law-and-order, or maybe their immigrants (Muslims and Africans) are just more violent and impulsive.

    If there's an insurgency of Frenchmen against foreigners, you can bet on the French police to take the insurgents' side by staying out of their way. Absolutely no way will the French police fire on their own countrymen who are trying to root out the very foreigners who regularly attack the police.

  13. Speaking of strikes, it does not bode well for the Establishment that Le Pen did the best among the working class. French workers go on strike just for fun -- you think they wouldn't grind "business as usual" to a halt, in support of an insurgency to make the foreigners leave?

    Maybe they would selectively strike in a way that only damaged the foreigners' lives, but kept life normal for the French. Or maybe they also make life miserable for the decadent elites who want the French working class replaced with Muslims and Africans.

    The garbage trucks could ignore the foreigners' areas, as well as the elites' areas, and do double duty in working-class and middle-class French areas.

    Everything that makes foreigners feel unwelcome will help motivate them to leave. Working-class Frenchmen, thanks to their labor unions, have a way to combine their efforts into a powerful collective push, not just random isolated curses at foreigners on the street.

  14. "Points I made two nights ago explaining why it wasn't possible the Macron leaks were meant to help Le Pen:"

    There was also the possibility that the leaks could have been dropped *after* the election. 1 day, 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, etc. Yes, after was also in the range of possibilities.
    And, of course, the leaks could have been dropped 4 months, 2 months, 1 month, 2 weeks, 2 days, etc. *before* the first round of voting. And 13 days, 11 days, etc. before the final vote...

    Given how close the clustering of the four were, does anyone doubt that Macron's chances of not making it to the second round would have been sky high had they been leaked in advance of the first vote? Given wikileaks ample time to sift through?

    Anybody -rightists, populists, and probably Russians- would have leaked before. It isn't political malpractice that they would not, it just isn't possible.

    No, the leaks came *moments* before the French black-out went into effect for an election that no serious person doubted for a nanosecond the outcome. And they weren't disseminated to French populists, rightists, etc. They weren't disseminated to French-speaking continentals. Not disseminated to Brits or Australians. They were disseminated to non-French speaking American rightists of mild renown to Americans interested in politics and feared by their enemies.

    Let's put ourselves in various shoes: Russians, Chinese, Ukrainians, American Deep State, various hackers who just like to cause trouble, etc. and ask, "When would you drop this info and how would you do it?" And then look at what actually happened.

    It's just all *real* curious and few besides Julian Assange are thinking about this correctly. Even being rational, just running on emotion.

  15. same playbook as the FBI reopening and closing the Clinton investigation days before the election

  16. I hope to impress upon people how significant the Macron leaks are and what they may be pointing to.

    People are moving on quickly from this because they assume Russia/American Far Right were behind it and simply failed to turn the election. "Oh, you tried, better luck next time, losers!"

    And here's another possibility of options for whomever hacked and got these: they didn't have to release them publicly at all. How about using for blackmail?
    My point is that the possibilities for time, what to do with them, who to give them to if public exposure is chosen option, etc. are absolutely endless.

    I can't help but shake this feeling this was possibly a Hitler-strikes-Russia moment. The conservative globalists knocking around lefty globalists while pinning it on their bete noires? Not likely, but possible, I think.

    It is deluded, *deluded* to think that it *just* happened that American Rightists (and why they?!?) got it only just before the black-out went into effect.
    That timing, though, sure works out better, though, for people who did not want Le Pen in there, but Macron, *and were willing to only take the slimmest of chances*. Perhaps a couple of goals were at stake?

  17. This is so mind-achingly retarded and the lack of curiosity about the American IP address with the motherlode (treated as almost an afterthought!!!) is...exactly what we'd expect.

    US Media today makes a whole lot more sense if one understands that many suffer low self-esteem, identifying with "losers" and politics is little more than a drama where the google guys wallop the bad guys and move on. Engaging so much with their emotions leaves less room for rationality and maths.

    I think their guy is in trouble. But looking closely at what happened does not serve their emotional interests. And on "our" side, the idea Macron did this so himself? This is *really* outside the bounds of any normal human psychology. I don't think so.

    1. Btw, thank you, Ted Kaczynski! You're a crazy old coot, but you helped solve a problem I've been working on since the election: how so many *smart* people were caught completely unawares by Trump's victory. Anger, rage even, are always around, but what was it pointing to... Once you see it, you can't unsee it, and their actions become totally predictable.

      10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.


      19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

  18. Most of the ConTreeHouse's doddering paranoids/fundies are being fatalistic and vindictive towards France over the election. Do those fools realize that the US system is more amenable to change than Euro elections? Trump got hammered (relative to a normal GOP candidate) among striver voters, and it took both a long time and a terrible Dem to cajole a lot of TrueCons into voting for Trump. Had Clinton been more palatable, a lot of comfortable GOP'ers probably would've voted for her. Macron, whatever his faults, is a much better candidate than Hillary.

    Throughout much of the West, there's a great deal of foot-dragging being done not just by elites but by the general populace too. My mom didn't vote at all. Many voters on both sides of the Atlantic are caught between disgust for obvious reasons at the establishment candidate , and a phobia of voting for the prole favored candidate due to anxiety that such a vote is a signal that one has declared defeat in the striving game and is now ready to call out the winners for for playing in bad faith for so long.

    Brexit is a horse of different color since that was about answering an ultimatum: Stay with the arrogant and unwieldy EU, or go it alone. Note that turnout was higher for Brexit than either the US or French election. People had had decades to consider the pluses and minuses of being tethered to a Euro consortium. And a (oh-so slight) majority came to believe that the EU had run it's course. That's a big contrast from the US election, where voters had about a year and a half to consider a 70 year old candidate who was a former Democrat and had never held office before. And in the French election, dazed voters had just two weeks to recover from the first round pile-up.

    I think a lot of people were too frazzled to either vote at all, or work up the nerve to vote for Le Pen. Even in the US, with it's extended campaign schedule, some upper Midwestern nords couldn't work up the courage to vote Trump and parked their vote with McMullen or Johnson.

    I keep wondering what's keeping Western whites from voting ala the 70's or 80's, when liberal excess resulted in landslides for conservatives. As best I can figure, it's the fact that we're in the twilight of the striving era, and these things can go on for a while. The venom thrown at white proles right now would've turned most people's stomachs in the 30's-80's, when most people believed in playing fair. Plenty of upper crust white folks voted for Nixon and Reagan back in the day, and most younger people back then either didn't vote out of disinterest or if they did vote, weren't concerned about voting the same way as the fags in Frisco.

  19. Republicans are chosen when the crime rate is rising, Dems when it is falling. Each period gets its token exception (Wilson, Eisenhower, Carter, Bush Jr.).

    The crime rate is about to tick upwards after a 25-year decline (the same decline period as the last, 1934-1958). Add to that the rise in Islamic terrorism at home.

    If we were in a full-blown rising-crime period like the '70s and '80s, those yuppie globalists would've been pulling the trigger for the law-and-order candidate, big-league.

    Montgomery County MD, one of the swampiest places out there (DC suburb), voted Republican in 1988. Being that close to the Murder Capital of America during the crack wars, it's no wonder.

  20. The Based Embassy Man won't lead us astray:

    "What does Le Pen, Nigel Farage and the US State Department have in common? (Victoria Nuland intercept remix)"
    Links to "F$!# the EU" song.

    Second to whom and what Ag tells us to watch for (in his latest post), Based Embassy Man is most important. Also, William Binney.

  21. A little despondent over this, similar I've seen at Steve's blog and alt-right twitter:

    Everything Ag has observed about the Hillary losers has been on display by "our" side lately over Macron (and it seems the older wife thing has exacerbated it).

    Mental. Incoherent. Bitchy personal comments about the guy that are way out of proportion to what he appears to be. This psychosis is incredibly disturbing to see, like, we're approaching Mensch levels. Worst of all, it's happening when we need to be sharper than ever.

    People who were entertaining that, well, Le Pen *could* win...we're going to listen to *their* theories, the ones that are arrived at as they try to rationalize their cognitive dissonance? "Macron leaked his emails himself"!!! Yeah, now you notice that the timing is terribly suspicious. And some of these same people are floating Manchurian Candidate theories involving his wife? My God, People!

    I don't want to be mean to anyone, but if someone was entertaining the idea she could win, he has forfeited his right to be taken seriously about anything else related to the French election and the hacking.

  22. Macron's wife was forced into the front of the Steveosphere's faces, people I've longed observed can only deal with the older woman-teen boy phenomenon, often exemplified by high school teachers sleeping with their students, by ignoring it. Pretending it doesn't exist.

    Just-so-evolutionary psychology stories about women and prisoners span thousands and thousands of words and are a guarantee tongue-wagger, in contrast.

    But drop a story, or as I did recently and in the past, a humorous video (Total Eclipse of the Heart), and it is guaranteed 0 engagement.

    My entire point is that our side is seriously being driven into psychosis by this guy and needs to get a grip.
    We don't care about Macron. We don't care about his wife. If I never hear his name uttered again by the alt-right, it will be too soon.

  23. Macron's "wife" is an obvious beard for an obvious fag.

  24. "They fail to note a key fact from the very ANES data they analyzed: for the first time since the survey collected data in 1948, the richest 5 percent of white voters by income supported the Democratic candidate while white voters in the poorest two-thirds of the population supported the Republican."

    The class element here is more pronounced than it was in previous eras of either low or high crime. I agree that crime is important (in fact, I've considered it plenty of times before), but we've now reached a period of desperate clinging to a previous era among strivers/the very comfortable which has no parallel in the post WW2 era.

    It goes without saying that elites were willing to at least listen to proles in the 40's-70's, on most issues. Because striving took off afterwards, we've seen the GOP slowly lose it's once strong identity as the party of stability and moderation for those who benefited from the then reasonable status quo.

    GOP elites made the awful mistake of accepting rampant striving, diversity pandering, and high immigration levels as the new status quo which came at the expense of non elite American born whites. The growing economic malfeasance of recent regimes and the Obama era overdose of non-white/non-American pandering finally made many proles reject the orthodoxy of both parties elites.

    It simply isn't possible at this stage for a white prole friendly candidate to get any traction in the Dems. That left us with the GOP, among whom there was much resistance towards Trump who violated party ideology that's grown more over-zealous over the last 50 odd years and which Trump has at times historically opposed.

    The high crime period of circa 1970-1990 was itself something of a "mini" crisis that did benefit no-nonsense GOP types. But neither crime per se nor anti-crime politicians were a threat to social status/striving among the blissfully privileged set.

    Voting demo data indicates that a substantial number of mega elites were profoundly unsettled by a candidate who is doing more to oppose globalism than any major American figure in recent memory. And they have the nerve to act so entitled even as we've been in a major financial/social crisis for quite some time at this point. It was the super strivers themselves who got us here to begin with.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."