Significant Geographic Expansion Of Le Pen’s Front National Across France

Graphic shows the progression of municipalities in which the Front National came first, culminating in the 2017 Presidential Election (FranceTV Info/ NICOLAS ENAULT / CARTO).

Despite not reaching the watershed 30% that many supporters had hoped for on Sunday, Marine Le Pen has made considerable inroads across France, coming first in 18,845 municipalities versus rival Emmanuel Macron, himself placing first in only 7,222. The country as a whole has some 35,000 municipalities, making Le Pen, geographically at least, by far the winning candidate of Sunday’s first round of voting.

In what could be the real story of the campaign, the successful spread and implantation of the Front National beyond its historic heartlands, the vote could portend significant gains in June’s legislative elections and a long-awaited break-through into the National Assembly where France’s electoral system makes it near impossible for the party to elect parliamentary deputies.

Sunday night brought jubilation to French patriots, yet there was some disappointment given that their candidate had for months before election day been polling higher than her actual score of 21.3%. The more respectable the score achieved in the first round, the greater the momentum for winning in the second – so the conventional wisdom goes, and many supporters were hoping for a stronger result given the dramatic circumstances the country finds itself in.

Coincidentally, I posted something in another thread that is partially relevant to this thread, at about the time you were opening this one:

What I think is that the composite of aspects you describe--as opposed to a view confined to the Leftwing Court decision, alone--is well defined by the old cliche about "throwing out the baby with the bath water."

The quip captures not the sociopathic myopia of a George Soros, who would never have bathed the "baby" to start with, but the idiotic consequences of those in the mainstrteam accepting the premises involved in the academic/media/political rejection of the very concept of the traditional nation.

Consider the recent moaning from EU spokesmen against the revitalization of nationalistic sentiments in Europe! What they are arguing--inter alia--is that the reason there has been no war among the EU members is the EU. But the obvious flaw in that argument, is that it supposes that throwing out the unique cultures of unique nations in favor of a centralized bureaucracy is required for nations to get the message that modern warfare serves no nations interest in an area as confined as non Russian Europe. This ignores something that is patently the more likely cause of that "peace."

World War II, with the great increase in technology, and explosive weapons--not to mention the innovation of Blitzkrieg warfare--greatly changed the public perception in every European country. The present Bureaucracy in Brussels, and the deep State holdovers--sabateurs--in our bureaucracy, are not the causes of a more peaceful intent, but rather parallel effects--mistaken parallel effects. Hence the concept of throwing out the baby with the dirty water.

Take another example of the same thing. The Le Pen candidacy being almost universally mislabeled in the media both in America & Europe, as "right-wing extremism." Query, is it really "extreme" in the French context, for one to recognize that the reason the French & Germans are no longer planning their next conflict, is simply a realistic recognition of what would be involved? Peace does not really require that the French scrap pride in the roots of their culture--and a determination to maintain it--in Charlemagne, Roland & Oliver, in order to comply with absurd dictation from a foreign bureaucracy, that demands not only free trade, but legal acceptance of an asexual, non ethnic, non patriotic, non-Christian demography.

It really doesn't.

Politics in France--as indeed politics in America used to be--is often influenced by family identification. Not all French "Socialists," are what we would call "politically correct?" Their identification is determined by class. That class identification does not compel a rejection of patriotism.

When Ms. Le Pen's father was in the runoff with Chirac, some years back, the final campaign brought out some very, very ugly tactics against Le Pen. (The irony was that the EU lovers employed Nazi tactics, to falsely accuse Le Pen of being a Nazi!) If there is a repeat, aimed at a likeable woman, it might just backfire. (We can only hope!)

Looks like the Red-Blue U.S. map.

The elites win in their elitist bastions, while most of the villages, towns, cities spread across the land vote against them.

Again, like the U.S. electoral college map, it reflects a truth about nations. They are not just numbers of people. They are all the different places - the villages, towns, cities, that the people come from, and that the people seek representation for. In short, its not merely numbers of people, it is in reality numbers of places.

When only a few high-population centers of a country take for granted the error that THEY ARE THE COUNTRY they do become an elite, governing (or trying to govern) the country contrary to what most of the the country wants. They are disaffected from most of the country. That is what has been happening to the Dims, the more Leftward they turned, and that has been happening in France as well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.