# Jean-Marie Le Pen



## Slagnfagn

I understand that it was surprising in France in 2002 when Jean-Marie Le Pen reached the second round of the presidential elections. Fortunately, at least in my opinion, he was not selected. 5 years on, the elections approach. However, I was wondering whether French people really do still "fear" Le Pen? I realise that this is an abstract and wide question, but I am unsure if the worries of France falling into the control of the FN had now passed?

Merci


----------



## Grop

Most French people are opposed to Le Pen. He is feared enough indeed, so that it is still extremely unlikely that he might be elected.

There is one thing that bothers many people about his growing success: should he have enough votes at the presidential first turn to appear in the second turn, his opponent would certainly be elected. This is a pain in the a$$, for this has annoying implications on the decision wheter to vote either for your favorite candidate on first turn, or for someone who is likely to have more votes, but is not too far from your ideas: for fear you might have to choose on second turn to vote for Le Pen or someone you don't like either.

This happended in 2002: Due to many people voting for minor left-wing candidates, no major left-wing candidate had more votes than Le Pen: therefore we had to choose between Chirac and Le Pen, two right-wing candidates.

I really hate this system (as it is contrary to small, emerging parties) and I consider the PS (the first left-wing party in France) as traitors, as they have done nothing to change it: they exploit this idea that smaller left-wing parties are bad for left-wing ideas in general so as to get more votes.

Le Pen is working on the idea that French politics are rotten, and that he is the strong man that will change everything. Many desperate people who don't believe in politics are voting for him today, while a decade ago it seemed to be only rich, xenophobic people. Today's difficulties seem to favor extremist parties.


----------



## invictaspirit

Can anyone with a better knowledge of Anglo-French comparative politics answer this:

*Is Le Pen/FN as extreme as the BNP? Or are they even worse? They seem to share a great deal, including Holocaust deniers and so on.*

I find it utterly chilling, and to be frank, infuriating, that as many as a FIFTH of my French neighbours could vote for something that is like the BNP. This means that a party similar to the BNP gets as many votes, and is as popular as, the Liberal Democrats.

Please tell me the FN is not the BNP a la francaise.


----------



## elpoderoso

invictaspirit said:


> Can anyone with a better knowledge of Anglo-French comparative politics answer this:
> 
> *Is Le Pen/FN as extreme as the BNP? Or are they even worse? They seem to share a great deal, including Holocaust deniers and so on.*
> 
> I find it utterly chilling, and to be frank, infuriating, that as many as a FIFTH of my French neighbours could vote for something that was like the BNP. This means that a party similar to the BNP gets as many votes, and is as popular as, the Liberal Democrats.
> 
> Please tell me the FN is not the BNP a la francaise.


 
I'm not to sure on this, but i believe Le Pen was invited to Britain to speak with the B.N.P in 2004.


----------



## Outsider

The big novelty, I think, was not that Le Pen's Front Nationale increased the number of votes (if you look at the numbers, theirs weren't that impressive). It was how disgusted the French electorate was with mainstream parties.

In other words, it's not how many votes Le Pen got that means anything; it's how few Chirac (and Jospin) did.


----------



## Markus

As Grop eloquently stated, the fear with Le Pen isn't so much that he could be elected, but that he will continue to influence French politics by either, A: forcing the left wing to solidly support a single candidate despite their many differing viewpoints, or B: continually getting the right-wing candidate (Chirac's party) elected.

In France, there is a first election in which all the candidates are on the ballot. If no one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there is a second election which includes the top two candidates on the ballot (correct me if I've made a mistake). Because Le Pen is guaranteed to receive a solid 20% of the vote every time, the left must assemble behind a single candidate before the first election or they will be eliminated as in 2002.

So now what we see is the French political system resembling more and more that of the two-party system in the United States, where people are afraid to vote outside of major party lines (as we all saw what happened with Nader in 2000), even if they are disgusted with the major parties and want change. It's a problem that needs attention, but as Grop said, the major parties who run things like things as they are because it benefits them, so how can the necessary changes happen?


----------



## distille

About the comparison between the BNP and the FN (Front National): I would say their programms and way of thinking are quite close. Migrants are seen as a major source of trouble. During the last 10-15 years the FN has started to include economic liberalism and globalisation as another major source of problem of the French economy. And the EU is systematically accused of stealing France sovereignty. At the same time, the FN has tried, quite successfully, to appear as a 'softer' party: less talk about the holocaust and much effort to show that this party is not racist.

I think that what happened in 2001 could happen once again. Immigration and security, which in the past were the main concerns of the FN, have become the main concerns of all right-wing parties and even of the main left party, so why not trying the original instead of the copy, since so far the copy has failed? More generally, voting for Le Pen is a basic way to protest and show defiance towards the political system as a whole.
However, i don't believe that Le Pen could become president, people would get realistic in the end and they know that to make a government you need to have the parliament on your side, the FN is lacking the capacity to win over the parliamentary elections.

I would like to add that it's not one french person on five that voted for Le Pen, it's 20% of the people that voted (so let's say around 70% of people listed in the electoral lists) minus the 'white votes' which, in France, are not counted.


----------



## TRG

If anyone familiar enough with both French and American politics would care to say where M. Le Pen fits in the US political spectrum, I would be interested to hear it. Would you say he would be center, right, or far right? Thanks.


----------



## distille

In Europe he's considered far-right, I suppose he would also be considered far-right in the US.


----------



## invictaspirit

TRG said:


> If anyone familiar enough with both French and American politics would care to say where M. Le Pen fits in the US political spectrum, I would be interested to hear it. Would you say he would be center, right, or far right? Thanks.


 
I'm not sure the European far right exists at all in the US.

The American extreme right is as racist, if not more so.  But the Euro far right has weird economic theories that a US ultra-conservative would not approve of.  Le Pen and Britain's BNP would seem morally, religiously, racially very far-right and therefore acceptable to very conservative Americans but their economics would seem a little socialist.

The BNP and FN both hate globalisation and anything that smacks of too much neo-liberalism.  Both would meddle with the economy.  You are looking at a view which would artificially bolster their countries' ecomomic interests to the cost of foreigners.  They both love small and medium sized business, as long as they are white and home grown.  Both are suspicious of big corps and the banking and finace industry.  Both would be happy to buy certain industries into public ownership.

I don't know an exact US equivalent, but you are searching for someone who believes in:

-America first, always, every time, regardless of treading on foreign toes
-an end to immigration, encouraging and paying for the return of non-white immigrants
-BIG increases in military and police spending
-tougher laws, longer jail sentences
-a quiet but powerful support of the Church and Christianity
-economic policies and trade that benefits America...to hell with anyone else
-highly patriotic, glorifying re=painting of America's past
-either some vague, usually unexpressed sympathy with, or lack of criticism of, Hitler and the Nazis
-strong dislike of Arabs/Muslims
-strong dislike of Israelis/Jews
-constant romantic promotion of the white race, certain European tribes, traditions, folklore, heritage

The far right in France and the UK is trying to tone down its extremists and appear more mainstream.  But the above is still pretty much what goes on in their heads and most of it still appears somewhere in their programmes.


----------



## Kelly B

To my mind, Patrick Buchanan is the closest approximation, although I do not think he has any sympathy for Nazis.

His latest book title: *State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America*


----------



## Outsider

TRG said:


> If anyone familiar enough with both French and American politics would care to say where M. Le Pen fits in the US political spectrum, I would be interested to hear it. Would you say he would be center, right, or far right? Thanks.


An American equivalent might be David Duke.

The difference is that in the U.S. the Republican Party has completely co-opted the anti-immigration / pro-religion / anti-internationalist banner.


----------



## invictaspirit

Outsider said:


> An American equivalent might be David Duke.
> 
> The difference is that in the U.S. the Republican Party has completely co-opted the anti-immigration / pro-religion / anti-internationalist banner.


 
I think David Duke is far more extreme than Le Pen. Isn't he an out-and-out white supremacist? I wouldn't describe the far-right in Europe as quite that. They are more...ehm...very angry traditionalists and uber-patriots who think Hitler had one or two good ideas.

People here call the FN, BNP, and the others Nazis...I'm sure I have done so...but they are not really. They are simply as conservative as it is possible to be without quite crossing the fascist line. You can look at Europe's far-right and they have some of the trappings of fascism (I believe the FN have some sort of 'security' wing, for example). But ideologically they are closer to, say, Thatcher than Hitler.


----------



## Qcumber

Apart from the late Georges MARCHAIS (Communist Party), and Jean-Marie LE PEN (Front National), has France ever had a serious politician during the past three decades? I have the impression those who have been in power so far have always been rather picturesque puppets manipulated by their international masters hiding in the wings.


----------



## TRG

Outsider said:


> An American equivalent might be David Duke.
> 
> The difference is that in the U.S. the Republican Party has completely co-opted the anti-immigration / pro-religion / anti-internationalist banner.


 
Invictaspirit's list fits David Duke quite well, I think, but your following statement is entirely incorrect, although it is a common perception of people on the political left in the US and around the world (evidently).


----------



## cuchuflete

Le Pen would not fit comfortably anywhere in the main US political spectrum.  He would be way out with the tiny minority movements.

Buchanan shares some of his narrow minded nationalism,
Duke his dislike for minorities, Bush and the evangelical Christians his support for a close affiliation of a religious movement with government, even if disguised a bit more on the US side.  

By European standards, the two major US parties are both center-right, and then we have a number of fringe parties that siphon off a small percentage of the votes in presidential elections, and effectively have no influence for the following 3.5 years.

Ross Perot was something of a libertarian/right wing/America First/nut case.  Along with about 20% of Connecticut voters, I cast a ballot for him on the grounds that--

-He would never be elected;
-There was effectively no substantial difference between democrats and republicans at the time;
-therefore, a safe protest vote.

Since then, the Democrats moved a little to the right, and the Republicans moved rather far to the right.  So much for the effects of a protest vote.


Today at least, Le Pen would not be taken very seriously by US voters.


----------



## distille

People here call the FN, BNP, and the others Nazis...I'm sure I have done so...but they are not really. They are simply as conservative as it is possible to be without quite crossing the fascist line. You can look at Europe's far-right and they have some of the trappings of fascism (I believe the FN have some sort of 'security' wing, for example). But ideologically they are closer to, say, Thatcher than Hitler.[/quote]

I do not share this point of view, the FN is quite far away from Thatcher, if we consider her economic policy as a liberal one. In the name of French interests and people's protections I'm sure a FN-government would intervene broadly in the economic sector (and fail...but that is another story). I would not neglect neither the fascist ideology this party has, the FN is conservative but it can also be violent and the Le Pen's discourses of 15-20 years ago were racist.


----------



## geve

invictaspirit said:


> I find it utterly chilling, and to be frank, infuriating, that as many as a FIFTH of my French neighbours could vote for something that is like the BNP.


The other 4 fifths find it chilling and infuriating, too!

During the elections in 2002, I took the trouble of reading Le Pen's program in detail, along with his website (which apparently is now a porn site ) and the referendums he intended to do (one every year) once elected. I'm not very lettered in politics but it really looked ridiculous - it would have been hilarious if 20% hadn't voted for him on the first ballot. So to answer Slagnfagn's original question:


Slagnfagn said:


> However, I was wondering whether French people really do still "fear" Le Pen?


 
Back in 2002, what I found really frightening was to think that 20% of my fellow citizens could vote for him, for _that_.
What I fear now is that a large proportion of French might still find reasons to vote for him again.


Slagnfagn said:


> I realise that this is an abstract and wide question, but I am unsure if the worries of France falling into the control of the FN had now passed?


I don't think this is an option. I am NOT saying that he can't make it to the second ballot (no one thought he would in 2002), but if he does, there is no way that he would get more than 50% of the votes.
I would still feel very bad about my country.


----------



## Athaulf

Kelly B said:


> To my mind, Patrick Buchanan is the closest approximation _[to the European parties such as BNP and FN  --  A.]_, although I do not think he has any sympathy for Nazis.



I would say that when it comes to the economic policy, even Buchanan is far from the European parties commonly labeled as "extreme right." Buchanan is strongly opposed to the international free trade, but my understanding is that he is generally in favor of laissez-faire when it comes to the internal economic policy. On the other hand, my impression is that parties such as BNP and FN are highly socialist in every aspect of their economic polices.


----------



## Korenyuk

To answer the question put by invictaspirit about the comparison we could establish between the *BNP* and the *FN* and the likes, they are really different for many historical reasons. As a documentary journalist, I worked a lot about the European extreme-right movements and had to search worldwide. The BNP is by far less heard in the UK than *Le Pen* (better than the FN as such, actually, as miscellaneous details revealed it during the last five months) is in France. Le Pen conveys with him deep resentment that part of the French — even young people who were not born at that time — still have about the war against Algerian independance. This is (an untold) part of his success here, ranging between 8% and a third (!) of the French population, depending on the matters we look at and ask about.
Despite evident, objective links between these European movements, they all distinguish themselves because of a bunch of factors — first of all, they address domestic questions. Then, the loss of their colonies is not a pain in the neck for some people in some former colonial countries like Belgium, Great Britain or Austria (e.g., the _Vlaams Belang_ do not refer to Congo in their speeches, nor did Jörg Haider's _BZÖ_ (the former FPÖ) about "episodes" of the Austria-Hungary history or even the Anschluß). Another point is that racism has far deeper roots in France (exactly like in Russia for roughly the same reasons, but there, too many parties express the same views, part of which is also clearly conveyed by Putin — that is why there is no equivalent to the FN there) than in the UK, though this may be discussed with passion (that is what I avoid here).
Amusingly enough (sorry for expressing here a personal opinion), all those movements cannot effectively form any kind of Federation, not least because of their own contradictions. Just take a look at the visits Jean-Marie Le Pen and his daughter Marine paid to far-right parties in Israel...
But you may find more information in books and documentaries like _La peste brune_, a book by Daniel Guérin published in '65 and a more recent documentary series with the same title, showing the hierarchy and the links between more or less 120 European movements.
But I guess that the only _'good'_ reason why these people link themselves is that they all need to hate an identified group of people or a rather far country to feel right — without pun...

As of January 15, 2005, neither the _Ataka_ _Coalition or Party_, neither the Bulgarian press (not even the _Dnevnik_ newspaper) speak about any _"Dârzhavnost, Traditsiya, Suverenitet"_ ("Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty") parliamentary group, ready to enter the EUP as such. I read through the sites of _Partidul România Mare_ (_The Great Romania Party_) and they do not speak either about "Identitate, Tradiţie, Suveranitate", but the Romanian press is beginning to do so, shyly, carefully and rarely... But all other countries comment this dramatic birth, not least the Vlaams Belang, in the _Actueel_ columns, in a paper dating from January 10, titled _Rechtse fractie in Europa_. EuroNews, to take an independant example, has an interesting story today about this rather improbable coalition, with an analyst underlining the reasons why they could not really stand alone like any other parliamentary group.


----------



## Qcumber

geve said:


> I don't think this is an option. I am NOT saying that he can't make it to the second ballot (no one thought he would in 2002), but if he does, there is no way that he would get more than 50% of the votes.


Doesn't the current President only represent 30% of the French?


----------



## Athaulf

invictaspirit said:


> People here call the FN, BNP, and the others Nazis...I'm sure I have done so...but they are not really. They are simply as conservative as it is possible to be without quite crossing the fascist line.



Fascism is not, and has never been a conservative movement. The essence of fascism has always been _radical change_, a forceful reorganization of society along the lines prescribed by the fascist ideology, sweeping away all traditional social institutions and replacing them with the omnipotent fascist state, which is the very antithesis of conservatism. This was even more true for the German Nazism than for the Italian fascism. 

Admittedly, in the period between the two world wars, many conservatives have been fooled into supporting various brands of fascism, believing it to be the only feasible alternative to communism. Unfortunately, they have been given much more publicity than those conservatives who rightly recognized fascism for what it was and opposed it. But certainly, presenting fascism as some kind of a logical extension of conservatism, or just a more extreme brand of conservatism, is entirely false. 



> You can look at Europe's far-right and they have some of the trappings of fascism (I believe the FN have some sort of 'security' wing, for example). But ideologically they are closer to, say, Thatcher than Hitler.


I think this comparison is entirely wrong. Whatever you might think of Thatcher, her economic policies and those of BNP/FN are undeniably poles apart, and I'm not aware that she ever practiced demagoguery based on anti-immigrant chauvinism that is the staple of the agenda of these parties. Their parallels with Hitler, on the other hand, are much easier to find.


----------



## Qcumber

But shouldn't patriotism be a criterion for a constituency to vote for a presidential candidate? What if you elect a person who collaborates with the enemy? One must be brainwashed or utterly stupid to vote for him.


----------



## maxiogee

Qcumber said:


> But shouldn't patriotism be a criterion for a constituency to vote for a presidential candidate? What if you elect a person who collaborates with the enemy? One must be brainwashed or utterly stupid to vote for him.



Are you talking about how President Blair collaborates with the USA? 

You seem to presume that there 'is' an enemy. _Most_ countries don't have enemies - they have rivals for trade opportunities and investment.


----------



## Fernando

It should be ONE criterion. I would prefer several FOREIGN leaders to rule my country instead my current president.

On the other hand, a candidate is not more patriot for repeating many times he is so.


----------



## invictaspirit

Athaulf said:


> Fascism is not, and has never been a conservative movement. The essence of fascism has always been _radical change_, a forceful reorganization of society along the lines prescribed by the fascist ideology, sweeping away all traditional social institutions and replacing them with the omnipotent fascist state, which is the very antithesis of conservatism. This was even more true for the German Nazism than for the Italian fascism.
> 
> Admittedly, in the period between the two world wars, many conservatives have been fooled into supporting various brands of fascism, believing it to be the only feasible alternative to communism. Unfortunately, they have been given much more publicity than those conservatives who rightly recognized fascism for what it was and opposed it. But certainly, presenting fascism as some kind of a logical extension of conservatism, or just a more extreme brand of conservatism, is entirely false.
> 
> I think this comparison is entirely wrong. Whatever you might think of Thatcher, her economic policies and those of BNP/FN are undeniably poles apart, and I'm not aware that she ever practiced demagoguery based on anti-immigrant chauvinism that is the staple of the agenda of these parties. Their parallels with Hitler, on the other hand, are much easier to find.


 
I (partly) entirely disagree.  

That is to say, I find parts of your post that are entirely right, and others that are not.

Fascism is indeed a revolutionary, radical movement. It was described by one of the best sources I read on the subject as 'new activist politics' (the source was old...hence the 'new') that had at its heart 'state-worship', usually focused on a leader, symbol and flag. My university professor (in the 1980s) told me that fascism was 'the replacement of God' by the state and nation...usually blended together in the persona of the leader. I still quite like that definition. And before anyone points them out, the parallels with Soviet Communism in this definition are not lost on me.

The above is clearly neither Thatcher nor Le Pen.

Then we have to seperate ecomomic politics from moral politics. 

You are absolutely right when you say that Le Pen's economics are light-years from Thatcher's. I have hinted at this in earlier posts. We're agreed. However...Thatcher had a deeply traditionalist view of society that Le Pen shares. It was *profoundly* white, racist, pro-Victorian, pro-colonial. For goodness sake...the woman would not criticise apartheid! Thatcher also shared Le Pen's obsessive love of small-businesses, family-businesses, anything 'artisanale', while retaining a suspicion of anything too huge that she could not control (some of the UK banks, BP and others). I might add that she was not THAT neo-liberal. Blair is far more so, economically.

I disagree that fascism is not conservative. It has at its heart the glorification of the nation, the elevation of the traditional family, in many cases the strong belief in Christianity, a tidal wave of illiberal moral prejudices, either casual or declared racism. These are all stated or closet conservative beliefs. It is more conservative than socialist in the moral sense, although I agree one can clearly spererate modern soft-right with fascist economic theory.

But it ain't just economics.


----------



## Thomsen

Comme americain je ne puex commenter pas, mais  I think Le Pen is seen here as equivalent to a conservative Republican.  Basically anti-immigration, pro-Christianity, pro-isolation, family values, etc.  There are moderate Republicans which tend to be in my mind the pro-Business, free trade, small government camp.


----------



## DickHavana

In 2002 and speaking about the good results of Le Pen in French elections, the Spanish president (then Aznar, from PP, conservative party) said arrogant: "In Spain we have not that problems", refering about the risk of a far-right party earning the Spanish elections. Le Pen answered: "Sure, stupid, they always got you". Le Pen refered that Spain have not far-right strong parties because the conservative party (PP) is nearly far-right.


----------



## Athaulf

invictaspirit said:


> You are absolutely right when you say that Le Pen's economics are light-years from Thatcher's. I have hinted at this in earlier posts. We're agreed. However...Thatcher had a deeply traditionalist view of society that Le Pen shares. It was *profoundly* white, racist, pro-Victorian, pro-colonial. For goodness sake...the woman would not criticise apartheid! Thatcher also shared Le Pen's obsessive love of small-businesses, family-businesses, anything 'artinsanale' while retaining a suspicion of anything too huge that she could not control (some of the UK banks, BP and others).



But using such methods of comparison, you can basically take any politician and find some supposedly deep ideological similarities with dictators and extremists of various kinds. 

Generally, I don't think it's fair to characterize people via various indirect connections and failures to condemn. If Thatcher had an overall admiration for the Victorian society, this doesn't mean that she supported its worst traits -- just like e.g. most people who admire the U.S. founders nowadays aren't in favor of slavery. (Also, one might well argue that modern Westerners are mostly blind towards some issues in their society and politics that actually make the 19th century look favorable in comparison, but let's leave that for some other discussion.) As for her failure to condemn certain foreign regimes, one could similarly paint a picture of the Cold War-era Labour Party as a bunch of outright Bolsheviks, considering the history of remarks about the USSR given by many of their prominent members (let alone their failures to condemn it!). With people who have actually been in positions of power, what matters is which concrete policies they have undertaken, not some reverse-engineered picture of their supposed beliefs. 



> I disagree that fascism is not conservative. It has at its heart the glorification of the nation, the elevation of the traditional family, in many cases the strong belief in Christianity, a tidal wave of illiberal moral prejudices, either casual or declared racism. These are all stated or closet conservative beliefs.


This is, in my opinion, an imprecise view. You're basically listing the common traits shared in practice by most authoritarian regimes, whether fascist or not. Except for the strong belief in Christianity (which you even admit not to be essential), various communist regimes fit your description as perfectly as any regime that was ever widely recognized as fascist.  

The problem is that both terms "fascist" and "conservative" have been overused way too much, the first one by being thrown as a random insult, and the second one by being adopted by people who are in fact political radicals (sometimes even of fascist-leaning kinds). 



> It [fascism] is more conservative than socialist in the moral sense, although I agree one can clearly spererate modern soft-right with fascist economic theory.


I'm not sure what you mean by being "socialist" in the "moral sense"? Various self-declared socialist regimes have often implemented "moral" policies that make the most stringent 17th century Puritans look rather liberal.


----------



## geve

Qcumber said:


> geve said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is an option. I am NOT saying that he can't make it to the second ballot (no one thought he would in 2002), but if he does, there is no way that he would get more than 50% of the votes.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the current President only represent 30% of the French?
Click to expand...

Are you being facetious?  I was answering Slagfagn's question:


Slagnfagn said:


> I realise that this is an abstract and wide question, but I am unsure if the worries of France falling into the control of the FN had now passed?


and my answer was that no, I don't think Le Pen could be elected.
In the second turn of a presidential election in France, there are only two candidates, and the votes are split between the two candidates. In 2002 Le Pen made it to the second turn, then people got in the streets, everyone asked to vote for Chirac no matter their political convictions, and the result was Le Pen 18% - Chirac 82%. (résultats du 1er tour - résultats du 2nd tour)


----------



## Setwale_Charm

invictaspirit said:


> I disagree that fascism is not conservative. It has at its heart the glorification of the nation, the elevation of the traditional family, in many cases the strong belief in Christianity, a tidal wave of illiberal moral prejudices, either casual or declared racism. These are all stated or closet conservative beliefs.


Silly. I see daily so many forms of fascism, really bloody fascism which has nothing of the conservative values that you described above in it.
If the most famous fascist adhered to some of these conservative values or claimed to, this by no means discredits the values themselves or makes them equal to fascism.

I don`t see any reason to fear Le Pen. He will most likely never become the President himself. And his ideas should be analyzed very carefully.

Another thing has to be considered instead. He is raising important issues which are simply burning by now and which have long been ignored. Immigration, integration, crime - all of these should have been dealt with by all politicians and responsible persons long ago. The result of this silly blissful ignorance and ignoring will be more and more people clinging on to Le Pen, BNP and the like. They are the only ones who are talking about many realistic dangers (and thus, unfortunately, discredit them still more). Political correcteness has been sticking the labels of fascism everywhere, while very important problems have been ignored. Of course, they sprang up when they were on their peak already.


----------



## Outsider

Thomsen said:


> Comme americain je ne puex commenter pas, mais  I think Le Pen is seen here as equivalent to a conservative Republican.  Basically anti-immigration, pro-Christianity, pro-isolation, family values, etc.


Curiously, I think that Pat Buchanan also has a more innocent image in Europe than the reality.


----------



## Grop

Setwale_Charm said:


> Another thing has to be considered instead. He is raising important issues which are simply burning by now and which have long been ignored. Immigration, integration, crime - all of these should have been dealt with by all politicians and responsible persons long ago.



I think it is not true. Before 2002 political main arguements were about economics, now these issues seem to be more important. It is not true that our leaders have done nothing about immigration, integration or crime. There are laws and institutions concerning all three. Did you notice we have a police and justice courts to handle crime?


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Grop said:


> I think it is not true. Before 2002 political main arguements were about economics, now these issues seem to be more important. It is not true that our leaders have done nothing about immigration, integration or crime. There are laws and institutions concerning all three. Did you notice we have a police and justice courts to handle crime?


 
 Did you notice that they are not managing? And that all ado about immigration is limited to discussions, talking or else politically correct declarations. They do nothing to the exuisting problem of social conflict/


----------



## Korenyuk

I am not sure that it is of any use to try to explain that those arguments are precisely what makes the success of the extreme-right, though these are nothing but fallacies. Take a quick look — and then, learn more and try to analyze, as I do it for 15 years now — at how what you say contradicts itself in Russia, just to take one example. I do move around too, but I open my eyes, even in misty places.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Leave aside the example of Russia. That`s a finished society by any token, whoever comes to power, its people are enough in themselves, silly it is to think that they "changed" since the collapse of the USSR.  The European right-wingers have nothing in common with Russian mentality.
  I was working in the political field in Europe for a few years and know far too well how many myths and how much demonisation there was surrounding the European right-wing, including the famous label of "Nazism" that nobody took quite enough care to analyze. It is far too easy to stick it to anybody who disagrees instead of actually looking into the problem. And it has become a wonderful "mouth-shutting" argument. 
 As a European demographer, I can evaluate very soberly the seriousness of the situation with population and the detriment caused by the really intolerant and generalising political course towards the imagined tolerance as well as the realistic danger of the radicals coming to power as a result of this long ignoring of the problem. And the danger is that those will be not Le Pen, not Dansk Folkeparti but far worse. Since the suppression of the interests of the local population has grown into almost reverted racism in places. They are simply asking for a mighty counter-reaction and this is what is to be feared.


----------



## Korenyuk

Qcumber said:


> Doesn't the current President only represent 30% of the French?


Actually, the real figure is around 20%...


----------



## JamesM

invictaspirit said:


> I don't know an exact US equivalent, but you are searching for someone who believes in:
> 
> -America first, always, every time, regardless of treading on foreign toes
> -an end to immigration, encouraging and paying for the return of non-white immigrants
> -BIG increases in military and police spending
> -tougher laws, longer jail sentences
> -a quiet but powerful support of the Church and Christianity
> -economic policies and trade that benefits America...to hell with anyone else
> -highly patriotic, glorifying re=painting of America's past
> -either some vague, usually unexpressed sympathy with, or lack of criticism of, Hitler and the Nazis
> -strong dislike of Arabs/Muslims
> -strong dislike of Israelis/Jews
> -constant romantic promotion of the white race, certain European tribes, traditions, folklore, heritage


 
Some of these would be very difficult to find in combination in the U.S. in any large group of people, in my opinion, especially:

-a quiet but powerful support of the Church and Christianity AND
-strong dislike of Israelis/Jews

Other combinations, though, are in abundant supply.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

JamesM said:


> I don't know an exact US equivalent, but you are searching for someone who believes in:
> 
> -America first, always, every time, regardless of treading on foreign toes
> -an end to immigration, encouraging and paying for the return of non-white immigrants
> -BIG increases in military and police spending
> -tougher laws, longer jail sentences
> -a quiet but powerful support of the Church and Christianity
> -economic policies and trade that benefits America...to hell with anyone else
> -highly patriotic, glorifying re=painting of America's past
> -either some vague, usually unexpressed sympathy with, or lack of criticism of, Hitler and the Nazis
> -strong dislike of Arabs/Muslims
> -strong dislike of Israelis/Jews
> -constant romantic promotion of the white race, certain European tribes, traditions, folklore, heritage


 
 This is a rather sweeping generalization. It would be hard to find someone who would possess all of these. And one should be careful not to bark at anybody who just moderately and reasonably supports some of these, like crackdown on crime, regulation of immigration, support of family values etc. Here lies the danger: in destroying the positive while  getting into a lather of suppressing the radicalism.


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:


> Some of these would be very difficult to find in combination in the U.S. in any large group of people, in my opinion, especially:
> 
> -a quiet but powerful support of the Church and Christianity AND
> -strong dislike of Israelis/Jews
> 
> Other combinations, though, are in abundant supply.



Hi James,
At first I was going to agree with you.  I went through a mental list of all the centrist and right-wing and extreme right-wing figures I could think of, and only the lunatic fringe people met InvictaSpirit's criteria.

Then I thought to myself, "What is so familiar about those positions?"  Bingo!  They are a pretty good characterization of _most _of what the leading right-wing talk radio hosts sell.  Sure, we could quibble a little about one line item or another, but the overlap is generally very strong.  There may not be a mainstream candidate who promotes all that's on the list, but a large population of radio listeners seem comfortable with it.
Scary!


----------



## Outsider

JamesM said:


> -a quiet but powerful support of the Church and Christianity AND
> -strong dislike of Israelis/Jews


Yes, that seems to be the only exception.


----------



## Korenyuk

Though I guess we could smile at this depiction of your dear leaders, no comparison could be established with *Le Pen*, whose words have more something to do with those of both the _Hamas_, the _Shas_, the Austrian _BZÖ_, the Bulgarian _Ataka_, some Russian parties or fractions and many others, who despise Bush — but they may be distinguished from *Alessandra Mussolini*'s group, the _România Mare_ or _Serbian Nationalists_. Actually, European movements like these CANNOT BE COMPARED to populist or racist groups or parties across the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Polar Circle and the Ural 'barrier' (not that high, anyway...). Some similarities between them all are not likeness in any way.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

What terrible frightening words "racist", "populist", Korenyuk!  Little are you different from those who accused each of everyone of some rightist inclinations... not solong ago.
  And stop calling them "my leaders". I am not related to any political force, I am a UN expert. and have to try to be objective on the situation, not base my opinions on the press, so you can cut on displaying the Russian mentality in labelling, jumping to conclusions, inability to listen to other sides, what else.
  If it comes to blind labelling and calling names, what is the sense of combatting the totalitarian or fascist movements of the right? We get the very same attitude on the other side. That reminds me of the noble fighters for human rights in Chechnya in the West.


----------



## emma42

One of the problems with those such as Le Pen is not so much that they are likely to be elected to high office, but that the promulgation of their ideas leads to low/medium and high-level racism and unrest "on the ground".  They contribute to any latent culture of racial intolerance and scapegoating, making many ordinary people's lives a misery.  Similarly here with the BNP.


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:


> One of the problems with those such as Le Pen is not so much that they are likely to be elected to high office, but that the promulgation of their ideas leads to low/medium and high-level racism and unrest "on the ground".  They contribute to any latent culture of racial intolerance and scapegoating, making many ordinary people's lives a misery.  Similarly here with the BNP.




That's a succinct definition of the problem I alluded to with
US right-wing talk radio programs.  Like the public candidacy of Le Pen, such programs "legitimize" cultural close-mindedness.
Some years ago, a US Vice-Presidential candidate, and eventually VP, and then former-VP who resigned in scandal, Spiro Agnew, gave a similar voice to the inarticulate, dubbing them "The silent majority".


----------



## Qcumber

Grop said:


> Most French people are opposed to Le Pen. He is feared enough indeed, so that it is still extremely unlikely that he might be elected."


 
This is odd. I made my own little enquiry and nobody told me they feared Jean-Marie Le Pen. They all said they were afraid of Muslims in general, and North-Africans in particular. Among the latter they consider the Algerians are the worst.

They won't vote for Le Pen despite the fact they agree with him on most points because:

1) he is not reserved enough in his behaviour
2) he is now too old (almost 80)
3) he has antagonised the Jews, a powerful international nation

They'll vote for someone younger who has similar ideas. 

What they admire in Le Pen:

1) his dedication to ordinaty French people
2) his perfect French
3) his being a resistant at the age of 16 againt the Nazis
4) his resilience to criticism and discrimination in the media
5) every powerful political party is against him


----------



## JamesM

Qcumber said:


> This is odd. I made my own little enquiry and nobody told me they didn't fear Jean-Marie Le Pen.


 
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that _everyone_ told you they _did_ fear Le Pen, or that_ no one _told you that they _did _fear Le Pen? The "nobody told me they didn't fear" has me lost.  I also wonder who was polled in your enquiry.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> That's a succinct definition of the problem I alluded to with
> US right-wing talk radio programs. Like the public candidacy of Le Pen, such programs "legitimize" cultural close-mindedness.
> Some years ago, a US Vice-Presidential candidate, and eventually VP, and then former-VP who resigned in scandal, Spiro Agnew, gave a similar voice to the inarticulate, dubbing them "The silent majority".


 
The demagogic manipulation of small minded people is hardly the sole province of the political right. I see it all the time from people of all political stripes. And dubbing the "silent majority" as inarticulate is as clear an articulation of contempt for average people as I've heard in a while .


----------



## Qcumber

JamesM said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that _everyone_ told you they _did_ fear Le Pen, or that_ no one _told you that they _did _fear Le Pen? The "nobody told me they didn't fear" has me lost. I also wonder who was polled in your enquiry.


Oops, sorry!  I meant "nobody told me they feared ...". I corrected my post accordingly. Thanks a lot.


P.S. Actually only one person did fear Le Pen. He is a teacher and belongs to the socialist party. He, with his group, disrupted or tried to disrupt several National Front meetings. (I neither know nor care whether he was successful.) He owes his low-rent comfortable flat in a council house to the protection of his Socialist mayor, and his promotion to a similar protection in the Department of Education. As he is a corrupt person, I dismiss him as a mouthpiece of French feelings.


----------



## JamesM

Ah. So I take it you are pro-Le Pen, then, given your characterization of this teacher. 

It's always a good idea to dismiss those who disagree with your point of view as corrupt and worthy of being dismissed. It saves so much energy that can be wasted on actually thinking through another point of view.


----------



## emma42

Cuchuflete was quoting Spiro Agnew, who called the inarticulate "the silent majority".

Qcumber.  Why odd?  Did you ask any Muslims and North Africans?  Or are they not "ordinary French people"?


----------



## LV4-26

According to this study by Tns Sofres

Question : Do you think Jean-Marie Le Pen and the Front National are a danger for democracy?

Answer
Yes : 62 out of 100
No   : 33
No opinion : 5

Check out this source for more detailed information. Unfortunately, it's in French.

At the moment, 11,5% people would vote for Le Pen in the first round.
Therefore, Grop was perfectly right : most people are opposed to him.

I don't know whom you asked, Qcumber, but it seems you and I do not see the same image when we look at the French opinion.

EDIT : In 2002, Chirac got 19,88% at the first round and 82% at the second round. It is then fairly safe to assume that about 60% voted for Chirac just to make sure Le Pen wouldn't be elected. (I was one of those).


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> The demagogic manipulation of small minded people is hardly the sole province of the political right. I see it all the time from people of all political stripes. And dubbing the "silent majority" as inarticulate is as clear an articulation of contempt for average people as I've heard in a while .



Your argument, then, is with Agnew.  He is the one who characterized the so-called majority as inarticulate and, until he came along to speak for them, voiceless.

Average people, in my personal view, are just as _you_ have described them: average.  That's reality, not contempt. If you assume that the more fervent members at the political extremes have a disproportionate propensity to vote, then the average voter stays home on election day.  That makes them inarticulate in the political process.


----------



## Grop

Qcumber said:


> This is odd. I made my own little enquiry and nobody told me they feared Jean-Marie Le Pen.



Well, I suspect your inquiry failed to ask a representative portion of French population. In 2002 we made a very funny poll: Would you rather have Chirac or Le Pen for president for the next five years?

Millions of people were asked, and the answer is that we generally preferred Chirac. Did you ask people what they think of Chirac?


----------



## emma42

I want to know if he asked any black or brown people.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> Your argument, then, is with Agnew. He is the one who characterized the so-called majority as inarticulate and, until he came along to speak for them, voiceless.
> 
> Average people, in my personal view, are just as _you_ have described them: average. That's reality, not contempt. If you assume that the more fervent members at the political extremes have a disproportionate propensity to vote, then the average voter stays home on election day. That makes them inarticulate in the political process.


 
The term inarticulate means something like, "unable to express oneself clearly" and is mildly pejorative. If you meant merely that he was referring to those who do not have an articulated political voice then I apologize. Besides, I think the term is more properly attributed to Richard Nixon.

What Agnew did say in referring to Nixon's critics is that they were, "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals" and as the "nattering nabobs of negativism". Clearly, the man had a gift.


----------



## Vladislav

I don't think that the appearance of Le Pen is something unusual in a country almost "colonized" by outsiders that not always respect the local culture (and even dare to burn cars and even shout "f.. France". 

 Do I go to the street and shout "f... moors"? Do I go to Algeria and demand them to build Christian schools and churches in their countries? To make Christian religion, or some European language official? Make them take off the veil in their own country? Kill their filmmakers? Blow up their scools, airports or buses? Kick up a great row when the Muslemes say or publish something wrong about the Christian apostles?

 I don't.
 So I don't understand why sould I tolerate such a behaviour from them.  

 For me, Le Pen is only a response (a very late and insufficient response, by the way).


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:


> Qcumber.  Why odd?  Did you ask any Muslims and North Africans?  Or are they not "ordinary French people"?



No - by definition North Africans are not French. 

I imagine you mean 'people of North African extraction'.


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> Besides, I think the term is more properly attributed to Richard Nixon.
> 
> What Agnew did say in referring to Nixon's critics is that they were, "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals" and as the "nattering nabobs of negativism". Clearly, the man had a gift.



Right you are. Nixon said it first.  His, and Agnew's speechwriters were William Saffire and Pat Buchanan.

The man not only "had a gift". He had many opulent gifts, on which he didn't pay taxes, pleaded _nolo contendere, _was fined, put on probation, and disbarred.  Nice gifts.


----------



## cuchuflete

Vladislav said:


> Do I go to Algeria and demand them to build Christian schools and churches in their countries?   France did build Christian schools and churches in Algeria when it was the colonizer.  To make Christian religion, or some European language official?  Wasn't French an official language in Algeria?





maxiogee said:


> No - by definition North Africans are not French.  Except for Algerian citizens, who were living in part of France both when they were in Algeria, and after they moved to France, according to the French government.


----------



## Qcumber

JamesM said:


> Ah. So I take it you are pro-Le Pen, then, given your characterization of this teacher.  It's always a good idea to dismiss those who disagree with your point of view as corrupt and worthy of being dismissed. It saves so much energy that can be wasted on actually thinking through another point of view.


 
I also know a French couple who are againt Le Pen, but couldn't contact them recently. These are not corrupt, so their detailed opinions would be precious. Let's be patient.


----------



## Qcumber

LV4-26 said:


> I don't know whom you asked, Qcumber, but it seems you and I do not see the same image when we look at the French opinion.


I don't know that many people, and I cannot afford to run gallup polls. I just summed up what I know. If only 11.5% support Le Pen, so be it. I couldn't care less.


----------



## emma42

maxiogee said:


> No - by definition North Africans are not French.
> 
> I imagine you mean 'people of North African extraction'.



Yes, Tony, I did.  Thank you for clarifying.  Thanks also, Cuchuflete, for clarifying the erstwhile unusual position of the Algerians.


----------



## emma42

Vladislav said:


> I don't think that the appearance of Le Pen is something unusual in a country almost "colonized" by outsiders that not always respect the local culture (and even dare to burn cars and even shout "f.. France".
> 
> Do I go to the street and shout "f... moors"? Do I go to Algeria and demand them to build Christian schools and churches in their countries? To make Christian religion, or some European language official? Make them take off the veil in their own country? Kill their filmmakers? Blow up their scools, airports or buses? Kick up a great row when the Muslemes say or publish something wrong about the Christian apostles?
> 
> I don't.
> So I don't understand why sould I tolerate such a behaviour from them.
> 
> For me, Le Pen is only a response (a very late and insufficient response, by the way).



This is exactly the kind of sweeping, scapegoating, dangerous statement that demonises _all _people of a certain race/religion/culture.  It seems that Le Pen is having his way even on the Forum.


----------



## JamesM

Qcumber said:


> I also know a French couple who are againt Le Pen, but couldn't contact them recently. These are not corrupt, so their detailed opinions would be precious. Let's be patient.


 

I have to say that a poll of 1,000 French people will carry more weight with me than any straw poll conducted by an individual.   The greater sample makes it statistically more reliable.


----------



## geve

Qcumber said:


> They all said they were afraid of Muslims in general, and North-Africans in particular. Among the latter they consider the Algerians are the worst.


What is so scary about Muslims in general, North-Africans in particular, and especially Algerians? 

Are all the people you know still afraid of the dark?


----------



## Qcumber

Grop said:


> Well, I suspect your inquiry failed to ask a representative portion of French population. In 2002 we made a very funny poll: Would you rather have Chirac or Le Pen for president for the next five years?Millions of people were asked, and the answer is that we generally preferred Chirac. Did you ask people what they think of Chirac?


How can I reach a representative portion of the French population? I don't know.
Can you imagine me with a microphone in some Paris street asking passers-by what they think of Le Pen?  

That would be pointless anyway because the majority of the people would probably answer what they think they should answer to comply with the public image given of Le Pen by the media.The French are reluctant to give their political opinions.

The problem would be the same in most Western democracies. People are wary of what might happen to them if they expressed themselves freely.

This is probably one of the biggest failures of modern democracy. Inevitably the time comes when the oligarchy can control public opinion and punish those who do not conform. Hence, little by little, citizens reach the conclusion that the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is very tenuous.


----------



## Qcumber

geve said:


> What is so scary about Muslims in general, North-Africans in particular, and especially Algerians? Are all the people you know still afraid of the dark?


 
Maybe ... who knows? They ceased to go out at night about a decade ago.


----------



## Outsider

Qcumber said:


> That would be pointless anyway because the majority of the people would probably answer what they think they should answer to comply with the public image given of Le Pen by the media.The French are reluctant to give their political opinions.
> 
> The problem would be the same in most Western democracies. People are wary of what might happen to them if they expressed themselves freely.


Do you also think they _vote_ according to what they think they should, "to comply with the public image given of Le Pen by the media"?


----------



## Mrs. Cartman

Qcumber said:


> I also know a French couple who are againt Le Pen, but couldn't contact them recently. These are not corrupt, so their detailed opinions would be precious. Let's be patient.


 
I know a French couple too who is against Le Pen. For years, they have only used Le Pencil. Now, though, they have come into a little money, and they say that they can now afford Le Computer. 



> People are wary of what might happen to them if they expressed themselves freely.


 
This is a big problem where I live (Colorado). People who give the "wrong answer" in polls are regularly shot. Sometimes they are not shot, but their livestock disappears or gets sickly. It's very dangerous to answer a poll. Last time a pollster called me, I changed all my phone numbers and hired a security guard for my chickens.

Edna Lou down the road participated in a poll about the Iraq war, and the next day an avalanche wiped out all of her grazing stock and her snowmobile.  Concidence?  I don't think so.

I have heard that the same thing happens in France. Most of the so-called "pollsters" are ex-KGB men..


----------



## geve

A very warm guffawing welcome, Mrs. Cartman!


----------



## JamesM

> The French are reluctant to give their political opinions.


 
This is news to me.  I cannot remember the last time I met a Frenchman who was reluctant to give an opinion on any subject.


----------



## Qcumber

Outsider said:


> Do you also think they _vote_ according to what they think they should, "to comply with the public image given of Le Pen by the media"?


Yes I think the majority of voters cast a vote to conform with the virtual majority created by the propaganda from the people in power.


----------



## Qcumber

Mrs. Cartman said:


> I know a French couple too who is against Le Pen. For years, they have only used Le Pencil. Now, though, they have come into a little money, and they say that they can now afford Le Computer.  [...]


 
LOL Hilarious, Cartman. 
Yes, redundant KGB men need to take such odd jobs.


----------



## RAPHUS CUCULLATUS

Mrs. Cartman said:


> This is a big problem where I live (Colorado). People who give the "wrong answer" in polls are regularly shot. Sometimes they are not shot, but their livestock disappears or gets sickly. It's very dangerous to answer a poll. Last time a pollster called me, I changed all my phone numbers and hired a security guard for my chickens.
> 
> Edna Lou down the road participated in a poll about the Iraq war, and the next day an avalanche wiped out all of her grazing stock and her snowmobile.  Concidence?  I don't think so.



I find it highly offensive to suggest that Le Pen would harm Colorado livestock, even in the dark.  The virtual reality that engulfs French voters would likewise take offense at such a suggestion.

Le Pen is a nationalist and a patriot, and focuses his attention on purebred French livestock.


----------



## Outsider

Qcumber said:


> Yes I think the majority of voters cast a vote to conform with the virtual majority created by the propaganda from the people in power.


You mean people like Chirac and Jospin? Then how come they got such dismal results in the first run of the election?


----------



## emma42

Mrs Cartman and Mr Cucullatus are part of a right-wing conspiracy to ban Gauloises and people wearing bunches of onions round their necks.


----------



## geve

RAPHUS CUCULLATUS said:


> I find it highly offensive to suggest that Le Pen would harm Colorado livestock, even in the dark.


Not Le Pen, dear Cucu, pollsters. So to answer the original question... French people do not fear Le Pen as much as they fear pollsters. Unfortunately this nasty bred is more numerous than Le Pen!
To name a few: BVA, CSA, Ifop (pdf file), Ipsos, TNS-Sofres... (for those who like to mix numbers and politics).


----------



## Percy de Vere

Re Mrs Cartman and Mr Cucullatus.

Sure sounds like a conspiracy to me.

Percy


----------



## stylo_bille

geve said:


> Not Le Pen, dear Cucu, pollsters. So to answer the original question... French people do not fear Le Pen as much as they fear pollsters. Unfortunately this nasty bred is more numerous than Le Pen!



Le Pen fears no one, not even one so scurrilous as a pollster.  He has rid Colorado of kgb and even nkvd operatives, and will cleanse France of all subversive elements, including pollsters and other political deviants.

Le Pen is the salvation of France.  When elected he will drive away
all subversivists, restore the glory of Occitan langue, honor the flower of French motherhood with subsidies for large family, reincorporates the lost departments of the overseas, and resume the rôle of the nation at the head of world culture.


----------



## distille

maxiogee said:


> No - by definition North Africans are not French.
> 
> I imagine you mean 'people of North African extraction'.



By definition French are not North Africans, but it's very likely that many French people  can feel French and North African. I guess the most famous example is Zinedine Zidane.

The term North African is also used to define physical appearance, for instance a policeman can ask you if your agressor was of a caucasian type, african type or north african type, without considering the nationality of the agressor.

Morevover, when the 'service militaire' (compulsory time in the armed force) existed, people with a double nationality could choose in which country to do their time in the armed force, as long as France had signed a convention with this country (there was such a French-Algerian convention). However, I agree that bi-nationals may be considered as another matter.


----------



## JamesM

This is a bit off-topic, but what would be the implied physical distinctions between "african type" and "north african type"?


----------



## Thomsen

JamesM said:


> This is a bit off-topic, but what would be the implied physical distinctions between "african type" and "north african type"?


 
North African vs. Sub-saharan which would be the bulk of Africans.  North Africans are sometimes grouped with the Middle East or even Mediterannean Region in general.


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> Curiously, I think that Pat Buchanan also has a more innocent image in Europe than the reality.



Well, when it comes to the "global cop" policies that are generally the most widely resented aspect of the U.S. in Europe, he is probably the most fierce and consistent opponent of such policies of all people who have ever been anything close to a serious U.S. politician (although he has completely drifted to the fringe in recent years). But I don't think that he is known well enough in Europe to have some sort of a general "image" there; to the extent that he's ever even mentioned in the European media, he usually has to be introduced as someone unfamiliar to the general audience.


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> What is so scary about Muslims in general, North-Africans in particular, and especially Algerians?
> 
> Are all the people you know still afraid of the dark?



Or only of the dark-skinned?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator Note:  OK, folks, please cork those wine bottles, stub out those funny cigarettes, quit sniffing the garlic, and get on with the show.

Exit stage left, with a Bresse cockerel discretely tucked under one arm.....


----------



## Setwale_Charm

People are not afraid of the dark, nor are they of the dark-skinned. They are afraid of the violence, aggression or unhealthy attitudes. As long as this is often particularly the problem of immigrant communities - and there is no denial here, police and sociological reports are quite clear about it - therefore, people tend to be afraid of immigrant citizens. 
 Another point is that we should not be ignoring the rise of fascism on both sides. There is a lot of "anti-locals" moods inside the immigrant communities and a lot of crime against the locals. This naturally scares  and this is also a rise of fascism which should be dealt with. 
 Most people  are not concerned with the global debates on "dark/fair-skinned", Muslim/non-Muslim, they simply fear for their safety, that is all. They would be just as afraid of aggressive youths of fair complexion, believe me.   
 And also, I am qite convinced, that if no problem of disparity of cultures and of integration into the local values and of aggressive reaction existed, there would never be a problem of racism at all. 99% of the people do not care what colour the newcomers are as long as they respect the local law (which they often don`t).


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Sorry, folks - this thread seems to have run its course (and way off course) as far as the original question is concerned.  It is now closed.


----------

