It is perhaps the most important presidential elections in French post-war history, but what are the substantive issues ignored by the corporate press?
One of the most amusing episodes during the French presidential election campaign was seeing “Rebel France” (La France Insoumise) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon read out a letter from the striking workers of French Guyana. The workers said they could no longer cope with mass immigration from Suriname and Brazil, with immigrants squatting all over their towns and villages and delinquency out of control. Jean-Luc Mélenchon favours open borders. Cherchez l’erreur!
France’s National Front (FN) obtained the highest score in the party’s history in the ultra-marine territories. French Guyana, where lack of social services, education and mass immigration have wreaked havoc on the local population, voted significantly in favour of Marine Le Pen in the first round of the presidential elections. Le Pen also did well in Mayotte where the native population have suffered the dire social consequences of mass immigration.
In this election, voters have the choice between a candidate who represents financial capitalism in its most perverse form, Emmanuel Macron and nationalism constituting an alliance between the petty bourgeoisie and the working class in Marine Le Pen.
Many of my critics on social media are no doubt calling me a “fascist” and a “racist” for debunking the oligarchy’s lies about Le Pen. As French geographer, Christophe Guilluy has astutely pointed out, “anti-fascism” and “anti-racism” are now the ideological weapons of the bourgeoisie, used to maintain their class domination.
The ultra-leftist “anti-racists” are the tools and fools of the bourgeoisie. Racism has a purely economic and material basis. It is only by removing those conditions that races can “tolerate” each other and cooperate on the basis of equality.
A significant portion of the French working class have no interest in petty bourgeois “anti-fascism”. They have read the programme of the National Front and see their class interests. Marine Le Pen recently followed up her near defeat in the first round to Macron by arriving at the embattled Whirlpool factory in Amiens before her rival. Le Pen was warmly greeted by the workers, as she has promised not to allow the plant to be relocated to Poland.
Macron, on the other hand, was booed and chased out of the factory. He had not come to see the workers but, rather, to consult with the class collaborationist cadres of the French Confederation of Labour (CGT) whose job it is to tell the workers to vote for him, to vote for their own suicide.
The CGT and the French communist party (PCF) have called on workers to vote for Rothschildian banker Macron. Since the adoption of Soviet revisionism in the 1950s under Maurice Thorez, the PCF has mutated into a social democratic and now, even, far right party.
I predicted some time ago that Trotskyist class traitor Jean-Luc Mélenchon would back Macron. He has told his followers not to vote for Le Pen, which is tantamount to endorsing Macron. That is in spite of the fact that the social policies of Mélenchon and Le Pen are practically the same.
Left nationalists and alter-globalists
As 15 percent or more of runner-up candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon are going to vote for Le Pen, it is important to explore the similarities and differences between the nationalists and ‘alter-mondialistes’ or alt-globalists. There is no point in talking about Emmanuel Macron’s policies as he has none.
One major difference between Marine Le Pen and Mélenchon is that the former wants to end the French colonial monetary domination of Africa by abandoning the CFA Frank, thus enabling African economic development, while the “anti-racist” Mélenchon would prefer to give them a good dose of humanitarian bombing under UN mandate and perhaps some boxes of used Che Guevara T shirts.
Stéphan N’Goran, Ivoirian leader of Nouvelle Entente Francophone (N.E.F), has given his support to the National Front as he believes their polices are most conducive to African national liberation.
Mélenchon also supports gay marriage and the teaching of LGBT pseudoscience to pre-school children- which is opposed by the National Front. Here again the National Front’s position on sexuality is far closer to classical Marxism than the bourgeois bohemian decadence promoted by the Mélenchonists.
Another major difference between Mélenchon and Le Pen is that Le Pen at least seems serious about leaving the Euro and the European Union. Mélenchon doesn’t even seem serious about that matter. Mélenchon says he wants to leave NATO but article 42 of the European Union Treaty says all EU nations must be in NATO. Le Pen’s Gaulist policy of withdrawing from the commanding structures of NATO is possible and would constitute an important step towards liberating France – albeit in limited form – from American hegemony.
Le Pen and Mélenchon differ on energy policy too. Le Pen supports France’s nuclear industry, while Mélenchon wants to abandon nuclear power. Recent studies in Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown that nature can tolerate much higher levels of radiation without detrimental health effects than previously thought.
Wade Allison, Emeritus professor of nuclear physics at Oxford University, argues that human beings can probably absorb 1000 times the current recommended safety level of radiation. His book Reason and Radiation: Science in a culture of fear, is a must read for anyone concerned about clean, safe, effective and cheap energy. Le Pen’s bold defense of France’s nuclear energy plants and her opposition to their privatisation is another reason why she is more modern and progressive than her Trotsykyte rival. Eighty percent of French electricity comes from nuclear power.
Le Pen has, in my view, been the most vociferous opponent of GMOs and the US agribusiness Monsanto in the European Union. Keeping Europe free from GMOs and domination by Monsanto is of paramount importance. The National Front proposes to use the billions of Euros in EU contributions to invest in small, family farming.
The issue of food safety and quality is something the French, perhaps more than any other nation, take extremely seriously; French food and wine are the best in the world. The National Front is the only party that has strong policies on reviving and protecting French agriculture. It is the reason why Marine Le Pen was warmly received at the French Agriculture Salon this year, while Emmanuel Macron was greeted with eggs!
The difference between Le Pen and Macron is, in many respects, that between science and superstition. Macron is a magician working for a group of peddlers. He struts and prances upon the stage, shouting and banging, hypnotising his followers with lame tricks and incantations. Yet not many people attend his rallies. A critical TV report of Macron posted on You Tube shows that the media have been hiding the empty halls at his rallies.
Many communists in France have told me privately that they support Marine Le Pen but I have never heard them saying it in public. There is a terrifying stigma associated with the Front National. After all, Jean-Marie Le Pen supported Pinochet, Franco, and every kind of death-squad reaction during the Cold War. He was a fanatical colonialist who opposed Algerian liberation. He was certainly a far-right leader then – he even compared himself to Ronald Reagan.
The communist founder of the French Voltaire Network, Alain Benajam, told me recently that the Paris Communards of 1871 were petty-bourgeois nationalists, not proletarian revolutionaries. The petty bourgeois nationalist ideology of the Paris commune was explained by left-wing historian Henri Guillemin, who cited no less of an authority on the matter than Comrade Stalin.
In the early nineties, Jean-Marie Le Pen realised that the ‘Masonic conspiracy’ he had always perceived in ‘communism’ or to be more precise, Soviet social imperialism and Trotskyism, had morphed into the ideology of savage globalisation and the ‘New World Order’.
Henceforth, the National Front would move to the left and take up where the revisionist French Communist Party had laid off; it did not assume class struggle as its electoral slogan but, rather, the ‘people’ against the New World Order. Although it is called a far right party by its enemies, the National Front claims to be “neither left nor right ». The correct description of the National Front today is that it is a left nationalist party.
The National Front has been the only organisation since the fall of the USSR to take up the PCF’s line on immigration: it is a policy of the ruling class to sabotage and drive down the price of wages. Immigration, Jean-Marie Le Pen argued, was a tool of capital against labour. In fact, Le Pen admitted that it was used to weaken the prospects of communist revolution in France.
Many workers, abandoned by the bourgeois PCF, began to listen to the FN’s populist line as all the other parties moved further and further to the right. The ‘far right’ in France was the only party with a mass base, holding traditional left-wing positions on keys issue of concern to the working class.
It became more and more clear that Jean-Marie Le Pen was not wrong in his analysis of the 1968 Trotskyite and Maoite left. They were, as the philosopher Clouscard noted, the very avant-garde of finance capitalism.
French intellectual Alain Soral has had a major influence in pushing the National Front to the left. Soral is a Clouscardian Marxist and former PCF member who understands the primary and secondary contradictions of class struggle. Many communists have maligned Soral for supporting the FN but he has, through his books and videos, done far more to educate the French working class than any of his critics.
So, what can we expect of Marine Le Pen? As I said of Trump – “very little, almost nothing”. It is doubtful if elected – and that would be a surprise – that she will leave the EU. She may obtain some important concessions on border control and monetary policy. She will have to deliver on French industry as her support base is largely working class. She may attempt to leave the Atlantic axis and gravitate towards Eurasia. She will also have to offer Africa a better deal if French imperialism is to compete with China. She will certainly be opposed by the Soros Empire, the mass media, and the leftist ochlocracy.
If she is sincerely patriotic, France may survive the coming storm. But it is heading into civil war, one way or another. Le Pen is not as close to the Jewish lobby in France as Trump is in America. She was not invited to the annual dinner of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) the French equivalent of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Rather, like Putin in Russia, Le Pen has managed to split French Jewry, with some French Jews supporting her. But much of the support from Zionist Jews is due to Le Pen’s opposition to the ‘islamisation of France’. Many Zionist Jews fear the fact that Muslim immigrants do not know or care about the holocaust and are critical of the Jewish State, while the majority of world Zionism supports mass immigration of Muslims into Europe as a form of coercive engineered migration which would collapse European nations, in the service of American geopolitical objectives in Europe.
But it is clear that Marine Le Pen opposes the Wahhabi ideology exported to Europe by Saudi Arabia, rather than Islam per se and there is a possibility that the foreign policy towards Islamic countries would be similar to Victor Orban’s Hungary. For example, Hungary has excellent relations with Iran. However, it is hard to see France breaking relations with the Saudi regime thanks to the major arms and commercial contracts that have been signed in recent years.
There is no doubt that focusing on Islam while ignoring Judaism and Zionism is bad policy, but Nicolas Dupont-Aignan the leader of the France Debout party and supporter of Marine Le Pen, is known to be critical of Israel. There is the possibility of a return to a more independent French policy in the Middle East. Dupont-Aignan told French media after the recent false-flag chemical weapons attack in Syria that he did not believe Assad was responsible. Dupont-Aignan was one of the few deputies who opposed the war in Libya in 2011. He will be French Prime Minister if Le Pen wins.
The Wikileaks email files of Emmanuel Macron’s team may reveal much corruption in his camp, but they may also serve to frame the Kremlin. One tweet from Wikileaks claims that many office files have Cyrillic meta data. Such files mixed in with genuine documents, verified by reliable sources, would be enough to blame the Kremlin for attempting to influence the election and serve as a pretext to crack down on the increasingly influential Russian news networks in France. Journalists in France Inter and Le Monde have accused me of being a Kremlin agent.
If Russian intelligence could be blamed for the leak, all news networks and journalists collaborating with Moscow could be criminalised. Under a Macron dictatorship, anything is possible. The French media have been warned by the government not to talk about the leaks. The Israeli press are blaming Putin. According to former CIA case officer Robert Steele, Wikileaks has links to Israel’s intelligence service Mossad. We cannot verify that claim nor explain fully what it might mean. The information matrix is infinitely complex and always elusive.
Time to take a stand
Many leftists and communists in France have opted to abstain from the second round, judging it to be a charade. They are, in some respects, correct. But there is also a danger of missing a historic opportunity to reach out to the desperate French proletariat, both in the ‘Metropole’ and the overseas territories.
We have two candidates who claim to be neither left nor right. Macron is a protégé of economist and oligarch Jacques Attali. In his 2013 book ‘Urgence Francaise’ Attali says that France always needs a revolution to save itself from destruction. Emmanuel Macron’s book is entitled ‘Revolution’. Attali himself writes:
‘The episode will end no doubt by the State’s designation of a man or a woman to whom the task will be given to implementing the reforms which the democratic parties lacked the courage to do, even at the price of rolling back personal liberties. » p144 (my translation)
In her final debate with Macron, Le Pen failed to impress. Her wild gesticulations, grimaces and emotional outbursts made her pathetic opponent look plausible. It now looks like the Rothschild banker will be the next French president.
Macron is the Bonapartist ‘revolution’ globalisation needs to kill what is left of France, enslaving its people while destroying its culture, language, history and economy. He will nail a great civilisation and one of the world’s oldest nation states to the cross of transatlantic, Zionist imperialism.
A dialectical analysis of imperialism in its current form shows that the primary contradiction today is between globalisation and the nation-state, between the comprador bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. The secondary contradiction is between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Trump’s victory in the United States has weakened and divided US imperialism. It is, however, as I predicted, very little, almost nothing. A Le Pen victory would also give us very little. But two “very littles” would constitute a much, two ‘almost nothings’ would be something. That is why I am hoping for a Le Pen victory in tomorrow’s election.