Chirac Ready To Turn His Anger On Blair If France Votes Non

Interesting, informative thread bump!

I suspect it's merely a matter of time before the young unassimilated Muslims become a threat outside their own neighborhoods. Merely a matter of time.
(BTW, the Normandy-Brittany portion of your country is beautiful)

So, what is France going to do, declare war on Britain and invade them with their navy?

Even in the North African neighborhoods, where there is some vandalism and hooliganism, we are not talking about raging murder rates and horrible violent crime. Clichy is simply not comparable to Detroit.

There are troubles and turbulence, to be sure, but these things are relative. Relative to the French norm, it is distressing. Relative to the American bottom, it is positively tranquil.

The "Muslim" issue in France seems to be greatly exaggerated. Perhaps Jean-Marie has had too much airtime.
People of Muslim North African ORIGIN constitute somewhere between 6.5 and 7.5% of the population of the Republic. This is small compared to the American black population, or Hispanic.
And those Beurs speak French and are acculturated into France in French schools. There is hooliganism, yes, but many of the hooligans are not MUSLIMS, they are shiftless kids of Muslim origin.
This is a rather important distinction.
Most youth in France are secular, whether they are of Catholic or Muslim origin. There are, of course, devout Catholics and devout Muslims still, too. But most Beur kids, however turbulent, are interested in having fun and having sex, not going to mosque. There are social frustrations and economic difficulties, but this is not primarily an expression of RELIGIOUS problems.

There are, to be sure, radical Muslims. This is also true in America. A key difference, though, is that the big mosques in America are apart from the society, and conduct cloak and dagger indoctrination in their schools. The big Muslim establishment in France radiates from the clerics of the Grand Mosque de Paris and the adjacent Institut du Monde Arab. And these are primarily Moroccan and Tunisian-influenced people, with Algerians as well, of course. They are very moderate, part of the French fabric like Jews are, and condemn violence and terrorism quite strongly. In America, the Muslim leaders have been strangely silent, because there is a resentment of the society. Muslims in France, most of them, do not have the same resentment towards French society, and it shows.

But most importantly of all, most of those Beur kids of Muslim origin are no more Muslim than the other French kids of Catholic origin are practicing Catholics.

So, the "threat", to the extent it will develop, will be one of turbulent youth. Jean-Marie will call it "Islamiste" to beat the drum and rile up the nativists. But those youth are not really Muslims at all. Their parents or grandparents were. They are French Beurs, mostly secular.

America spends money on these places. If throwing money at the problem were the solution, it would have been solved long ago.

There is a problem of spirit, of morals, that practically cannot be discussed in the body politic by white leaders, due to the general history of slavery and segregation, and the practice of race-baiting by black political leaders like Jackson, Waters, Jackson-Lee, et al.

Until white and black leaders can discuss the problems, without the race card immediately being played, and shutting down all rational interchange, we will not see solutions to the problems of the black inner city lower classes in the U.S.

This is an interesting thread, and I applaud your bringing different insights to us, despite a few slings and arrows.

"This is an interesting thread, and I applaud your bringing different insights to us, despite a few slings and arrows."

If I have slung any stones or shot any arrows, I apologise to whoever may have been offended.

I think this discussion is useful.

I also think that you are right that the problems at the bottom in America is not just money in the ghettos, but other things, animal spirits and the like that make the situation difficult.

I will nevertheless maintain that the approximately 5% of GDP more that France spends on education, health insurance and social protection in fact does account for an important part of the difference between Clichy and the projects of Detroit. There is a very good American saying: "You get what you pay for", and I am quite unwilling to let people slide off the hook too easily on that homely truth. You DO get what you pay for, and France pays more, as a percentage of national income, for social cohesion than America does. Therefore, France has greater social cohesion. France spends more than England, which did not have slavery, and France has greater social cohesion than England too.

Of course other countries in Europe have social cohesion at the bottom comparable to France, but they are not comparable. Almost every European country except France and England are DECLINING over time in absolute population. France's population is on course to grow by 12 million in the next 25 years. This is robust population growth, mainly fueled by immigration and the higher fecundity rates of first generation immigrants.

Only England has somewhat comparable immigration to France. Other countries have immigrants, but they are much more restrictive, and visible. And this is why they are all declining. There is greater social cohesion in Sweden than in France, because most Swedes are Swedish, and close cultural kin. France is much, much more diverse. Indeed, France is as diverse as America or England, but France has almost the social cohesion of Sweden or Finland, without an ethnic purity and in spite of immigration.

This is the real reward for France's persistent social spending at the bottom. It is sad but true that there are some Islamist hotheads recruiting in France. But it is also true that their recruits get on planes and go bomb countries 2000 miles away. This is NOT because of French collaboration with terrorism. It is because the young and hotheaded in France are not so disaffected and angry with France that they are willing to blow up France.

Paying for social cohesion is not done as appeasement, but it has the EFFECT of creating better social peace.

What is the solution in America?
Oh, who wants to hear my views on this.
America dislikes European views as it is, and has no use for an aristocratic "If I were your King" prescription for change. I will simply say that much of what France does in this regard is right.

In opposition to the simple assumption of too many Americans, I would not say that France's problems are caused by the modestly higher (5%) expenditures on social cohesion. I think that this produces enormous benefits for France.

I think that France's problems lie chiefly in excessive work force rigidity, and in the restrictive environment for raising capital. Also there is mentality, but that is not going to change in America or in France, so we may as well not dwell on it.

Capital IS becoming easier to get.
And work laws ARE evolving.

There is a sector shift in France, as there must be, and it must be to go from mass industries to sophisticated niche industries. France already excels at this, but it must improve.

Your posts seem to reflect an honest inside view of French thinking. Does France have the equivalent of our "race pimps", i.e. the Right Reverends J. Jackson and A. Sharpton?

(Perhaps I'm looking for a career change?)

I just read a couple of books that I think you might like and was wondering if you had read either of them or had any thoughts about them. First one is Jeremy Seigel's new book, the Future for Investors. Second is Everything Bad is Good for You by Steven Johnson.

No. There are no race pimps in France.
It would not work.

Which race?
Not blacks.
There was not black slavery in the metropole, and slavery in the DOM-TOM ended a long time ago. There was no segregation or apartheid that followed it either. France has never had the black-white color bar in the way the Anglo-Saxons have.
So it can't be that race.

What other race?
Vietnamese?
No. I don't think that there are "race pimps" for Asiatics even in America.

The Beurs?
No. North Africans are a large group, but what is the basis for protest on the basis of race? That there is segregation? But there isn't. That there was once segregation? Actually, North Africans were invited to France to be workers during the Trente Glorieuses after World War II when there was not enough manpower in France to provide for the labor needs of the booming economy.
Jean-Marie Le Pen certainly wants to create an atmosphere of racial tension by causing a certain group of rural French to take up a racist line. But of course the places where Le Pen has popularity for the most part don't really have any Beurs in them.

Upon what institution would a "race pimp" in France push off to attain prominence? There is no "black church" in France. France is mostly secular, or Catholic. But Catholicism does not lend itself to being a platform for racial campaigns. Or Muslim. But those of Muslim origin are either secular, or the religious are mostly under the leadership of the Mosque de Paris, which is very moderate. The Mosque is not going to start with some strange campaign against France; it enjoys a good relationship with the government. The fringe violent underground Islamiste movements, of course, have their relatively small following (and one must not assume that these things are nor surveilled), but they are not likely to become a platform for public race baiting.

Race has not much status in France.
It's an American thing.

Again I thank you for the 'snap shot photo' of France. When I'm thinking "Race Pimp", that would include anyone who seeks to exploit the 'haves from the have-nots'. I would include the Communists in that group, if they were to depart from standard dogma and use the language of the streets.

No I haven't, although I am familiar with Jeremy ""stocks for the long run" Seigel. I thought he overstated that, but now Jeremy "I am a bear" Seigel's new book talks about too few hands feeding to many mouths. As we discussed before, the Chinese and Indians will ride to the rescue for the Boomers. Down the road, the box gets tighter.

"Actually, I am sure the DEMS would love the EUs type of election...I do believe I read that on this vote, there will be a "do-over" vote, if the country doesn't like these results.... "

Only when it suits them. The Dems got a do-over recount in WA state and 'found' enough votes on the 2nd recount to win. In this situation, the Pubbies want a re-vote and the Dims do not, as they know Gove Fraudoire would be gone in a heartbeat.

I am on the road (Estonia) where I have been watching the BBC World (another left-wing MSM). One of the talking heads pointed out that the biggest problem with the EU (Constitution, Maastricht, etc.) is that, while it is theoretically possible to loosen control by Brussels, it hasn't happened yet. Under the new constitution, European nations would have less freedoms than American states. The T.H. said that, for the EU to succeed, the people need to believe that some things can be reversed, if they so choose, rather than it always being a one-way street to centralization.

"When I'm thinking "Race Pimp", that would include anyone who seeks to exploit the 'haves from the have-nots'. I would include the Communists in that group, if they were to depart from standard dogma and use the language of the streets."

No, that doesn't work.
Economic class is a very different thing, because it is not innate but positional. In America, because of slavery and segregation, there was an identity set between race and economic class. This has changed somewhat (voir the American Secretary of State), but it remains important (voir: Detroit, Washington D.C., Cabrini Green in Chicago, Watts, etc.)

In France economic class is not, and never was, tied to physical race. It was, at one time, certainly tied to bloodlines. The closest thing to true race difference in Old France, comparable to black and white in America, would be the innate difference between nobility and peasantry. But the key difference between black and white in America, and the master and subordinate race in France is that the subordinate, black race in America was in the numerical minority and therefore could be truly oppressed. The master race in France itself was a minority, and had to rely upon superior intellect, charisma and leadership skills in order to retain its position, with the concomitant wealth.

And of course with the generation of the Revolution, the leadership of the master race failed and the business oriented and growing educated segment of the subordinate race, the bourgeoisie, became its own class and gained the reins of power and wealth, which it has never relinquished.

The British poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in 1913 entitled "France",which has a some telling lines in it.
I will quote a little bit of it, the opening, because there is a grain in here that is simply lost, that will not grow in American soil, that never transplanted across the Atlantic, and which - I believe - is why Europeans and Americans have such difficulty truly understanding each other.

He wrote:
"Broke to every known mischance; lifted over all,
by the light, sane joy of life: the buckler of the Gaul.
Furious in luxury; merciless in toil.
Terrible with strength that draws from a tireless soil.
Strictest judge of her own worth, gentlest of men's mind.
First to find new truths and last to leave old truths behind:
France.
Beloved of every soul that loves his fellow kind."

First to find new truths and last to leave old truths behind.

This seed that did not germinate in America is nobility.
The Revolution changed the world, and it pretended that there was no nobility. Marx said that nobility was old money, and the bourgeoisie was new money. And the bourgeoisie, of course, has erected a meritocracy that is not based upon money but upon tests. In much of Europe, the nobility remains along with the ruling king or queen. Of the nations in the EU, the United Kindom, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain all remain monarchies. France, alone in Europe besides Russia, famously deposed the monarchie and asserted the equality of man. And continues to do so.

But when an American hears the words of his founding Declaration "all men are created equal, and are endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights...", he thinks instinctively of black and white, of the battles in America for racial equality. But when a Frenchman hears those words, he thinks of kings and gueux. He rejects that there are men born apart from other men, and embraces the concept of MONEY as the determiner of social standing. This is Marx.

But, of course, Marx is a sham that is willingly embraced above all by the bourgeoisie, the governing class of Europe today.

Why? Why would the money class embrace a theory that, from its birth, calls for the revolt of the working class against it? Why would it seek to smooth and turn away that revolt by soft socialism? Why do European elites allow socialism to greater degrees than American businessmen would ever tolerate.

Because it is a simulation of a crown, of course.

One cannot have this honest discussion in Europe, just as one cannot honestly discuss race in appropriate terms in America with members of the different races. The communicants are themselves combattants, with an emotional stake in the struggle.

And Americans - they simply have no idea, no concept, of what I am driving at.
But within the anonymity of the net it is easier to say.

The bourgeosie embrace Marx because Marx lets them pretend that nobility was about money, and not the racial difference that, in truth, it is. It lets them assert, to themselves - most happy illusion of all - that by possessing the power and the wealth of modern society, that they are heirs of the nobility. And this, in turn, allows them to treat socialism as the obligation of nobility to the serving class. Another revolution is avoided - that which Marx darkly predicted - by being good and kind to the serving class, comme l'oblige noblesse, bien sur.

It is a precious illusion, and powerful. And the ENArchie permits itself to believe itself a monarchie.

Recall, too, that France is not an ethnic state. It is a kingdom whose borders include many ethnicities: Breton, Normand, Flamand, Alsacien, Savoyard, Italien, Catalan, Langue d'Oil, Langue d'Oc, Corse and the overseas islands as well. What makes Poland Poland, and Germany Germany, and Sweden Sweden, is that the one is of the tribe of the Poles, and the other of the tribes of the Germans, and the third of the tribe of the Swedes. These were peoples, distinct ethnicities, eons before they were countries. But there is no French tribe. "French" as an ethnicity was made by being subject to the King of the Ile de France. Had tribe been strong, France would have flown apart like Yugoslavia.

But Une Foi, Une Loi, Un Dieu, Un Roi: One Faith, one Law, one God, one King was a powerful belief, which made, in the person of the King, a state where otherwise there is an African constellation of tribes, tribes of different languages. There is a universal French language today because of public education. But there was a willingness to learn this language and to leave behind the tribal tongues in all quarters because it was the language of the court and of the King. France is not a tribe that became a state. It was a state first, and it was the state that created a tribe.
And this is why the French are universalist in their view.
It was said two hundred years ago and is still true: est anglais qui peut, est francais qui veut: Is English who can be; is French who wishes to be.

A society built on an idea, with a center, a king. The King can be replaced, perhaps, with a President...but what remains is an idea, an affinity for the center. And a natural state of hierarchy and unconscious belief in it.

The ideal of the Republic, laic and based on liberty and equality. It is the replacement for the king. And it works.

But where the hidden social fault line lies is in the usurpation. The elites of France are elite, but they are not noble. Does this matter? According to the theory that is believed, with a fervor that itself is a comment, NO! And yet, if you walk the streets of Paris for a moment and reflect WELL on what you see, you will discover something curious. All that is grand and glorious in France, all that people fly the oceans to see. This was all built by the kings and their court. Modern France are like the latecomers who are camped in the dinosaur bones of a grand and disappeared civilization. They bask in the reflected glow, but they do not know how to build the things they live in.

And all of this would explain much, except that a layer is still missing. And that is that, everywhere in the world, the natural, biological nobility of course still exists. Animal bloodlines produce lines of leaders, and men are animals. It is not money, and never was. It is charisma. And charisma reposes not in the pocketbook, but in the glands.

Now, nobody in France puts it this way, at least not in public. But this is the persistent, unanswered racial tension in the society. Amass all of the money and power, concentrate it, make of yourself a pyramid and a new meritocracie. Indulge in noblesse oblige and placate the hungry peasants through social welfare in order to avoid the threat of Marx. And it all seems so solid, but pervading it all is the sense of actors playing with a crown.

Let one "de" walk into the room, even of only modest means, and he will be remembered, and reacted to, and either loved or resented with a passion unexpressed that quite exceeds reason. Because it is not reasonable. It is natural.

Marx and the modern world's whole thrust, whole essence, is to pretend that all men are born equal, and that equality is determined by money. And perhaps in money and brains that can even be true, more or less. But there remains the bloodlines of the "lion kings" in the society, those who naturally rise to rule in every society, the biological master race (Hitler's version of the Marxist myth was to try and transfer nobility of blood to nobility of tribe, which pleases all of those peasants in the tribe, to be sure, but is as untrue and headed for a fall as Marx's fable).

Now, in America it exists, but nothing resists it. Starting with tabula rasa, the native nobility simply rose to the top, unidentified as such, and ruled from the beginning, and rules now. There is no resistance to this, because nobody even recognizes that this is what has happened. This is the natural way of man and all social animals. And America, because it is unconscious of any of it and would not believe it were you to tell them, does not RESIST this fundamental truth of human species. In America, the rule of the nobility is unresisted, because nobody thinks it exists, and nobody, therefore, reacts to the "de" when he walks into the room because of his "de". Americans simply react naturally to natural leaders, who are born, and whose charisma flows in bloodlines just as surely as blonde hair and height.

But in France, in Old Europe...first to find new truths, and last to leave old truths behind. It is also not acknowledged, not admitted. Even though les 100 familles actually do have tremendous influence still: this is attributed to money. The meritocracy, the national exams, the efforts to make a Mandarin society, the ENArchie. The elites and the followers, and socialist class struggle. These are all fragments that have splintered off from a different truth than is in America.

In France, the existence of the natural nobility is not ignored as it is in America. It is DENIED. It is denied because that nobility still exists, and after all of these years cannot be abolished by disbelieving it or causing it to pretend that it does not. When you choose your leaders by intellectual tests instead of allowing the native charisma of the lion to rule, you will have the curious effect of functionary politicians, but strangely brilliant performers in odd professions such as winemaking, or ornate furniture carving. Restrain the nature and it returns at a gallop. Deny it its natural course, and it will run in strange pathways.

In should delete this, because it is too ethereal and incomprehensible either direct or in translation. Or rather, in France it is annoying and will evoke swift denials that have a little too much heat. In America, the eyes of the listener glaze over and he thinks "What are you talking about."

A whole lot of thinking points there.
If I'm understanding you correctly, everyone has an investment so to speak, in the status quo, hence boat rocking is frowned upon?
Your reference to a "de" is that the same as what we would think of as an Alpha Male?

Monsieur Vicomte13: Your analysis borders on brilliant. However, being curious by nature, are you of the nobility, or one of the pretenders to it, being intellectually driven, rather than born to the throne. Where do you place yourself in France's social strata? As one of the bourgeoisie who consider themselves faux nobility and hand out social largesse to keep the peasants calm and peaceful, or as a descendant of noble blood. If neither of these, where do you fit yourself into the social strata. What kind of beast are you, specifically. My curiousity knows no bounds. Please reply as I am very interested in your response. It aids in knowing more exactly where you are coming from. Your discourse does fascinate me, I must say.

"They bask in the reflected glow, but they do not know how to build the things they live in".

Well he certainly explained why they put that tomato hot house right in the middle of the Louvre.

"If I'm understanding you correctly, everyone has an investment so to speak, in the status quo, hence boat rocking is frowned upon?
Your reference to a "de" is that the same as what we would think of as an Alpha Male?"

I am not expressing myself well.
What I mean is a bit different from what you have taken from it. What I mean is that efforts have been made, from the Revolutionary generation and its philosophes, through Marx, through the Darwinists, and through the modernists, to redefine the world of men, to pretend that the hierarchy of society is based upon accident of power, or money, or superior intellect. What each of these things has in common is a desire to pretend that there is an elite by status, education, money and luck, but not a nobility by blood.
But in truth there is a nobility by blood, and that the particular feature of nobility is not intelligence (which can be developed by education), or wealth (which can be accumulated) but a native quality of charisma - the native, biological status of being one to whom others turn. This tends to run in the blood, which is the primary reason not only that there were long lines of leaders, but also why, in spite of every effort to stamp out nobility, take all of their money, deny their existence and ignore their titles, those survivors of the noble bloodlines float to the top with a surprising resilience.
Our civilization does not acknowlege the existence of this trait. But it spends a lot of negative energy pretending that it does not exist, and trying to find some other, more egalitarian explanation for the differences among men.

What I meant by the "de" was more simple than that. In France, of course, there are no titles of nobility. At least not formally. They were eliminated at the end of the revolutionary cycle. Old families may continue to call THEMSELVES the Marquise of Aurillac or the like, but this has no status. Efforts have been made to actively suppress any re-emergence of such titles even in informal use. For example, on official documents one cannot sign "Jean, Marquis du Vallon."
Marquis is inadmissible. France does not permit anybody to be referenced by these juridically extinct title.

And yet there remains in France a vestige of nobility in family names. Those names with a "de" in them are generally noble. Not "Dupont", meaning "of the bridge" or "Dubois" (of the woods), but for example the American billionaire Pierre Du Pont's full name is Pierre du Pont de Nemours. De Nemours is a noble name.
The particle "de" in French names indicated nobility.
Thus, Valery Giscard d'Estaing (a distant descendant of the Admiral who won the American Revolution battle off of Yorktown), or Dominique de Villepin.
There are no titles of nobility, and yet there are certain people in France whose family names themselves quietly state, by the presence of the particle "de" that they are nobility.
I say ARE even though France will say that there are no nobles, because the presence of that particle affects social relations. It affects comportments. It changes everything. Honore Balzac, the great French writer of the 19th Century, penned himself Honore de Balzac.

The paradox is that by mentioning this, one makes too much of it. 9 out of 10 people will tell you this is meaningless. And 10 out of 10 will silently prefer that their daughter should marry a suitor with a "De" in his name.

In France names are not so easily changed as in America. And what is more, France does not grant titles of nobility.
A movie star could, perhaps, enjoy a stage name of "de Machin-Chouette", but cannot in most cases insert the particule legally.

This is what I meant by "de".
"First to follow truths and last to leave old truths behind".
Whole great edifices of philosophy and structure have been created and are supported by most people that says that those old concepts have passed away, were meaningless in the first place, that nobility was just old money, or simple arrogance, or did not exist, or was a fantasy.
And yet one "de" on an invitation card increases the prestige of the meeting. And there will be a "de" on every corporate board. And so on across the society.

This does not seem to matter.
And yet it matters deeply.
For this is the REAL racial divide of France, the thing that is not expressed, the old truth that has been left behind and yet that persists. It is the thing, nobility, that whole trompe l'oeil philosophies have sought to pretend does not exist.

So, in light of your original question about race pimping in France. No, there is none of that. And the social class struggles that one sees, and that play out in politics is not based on race. France is a nation where are all equal and the state seeks to make sure that is clear. And yet in this world remain, as an affront from the past, those with the particule, which is at once meaningless and probably the single greatest social advantage one can have in a land that studiously avoids acknowledging that there is any substance behind the old concept.

"Well he certainly explained why they put that tomato hot house right in the middle of the Louvre."

LOL. That is exceedingly funny. It perfectly sums up Vicomte13's "basking" comment by way of one short and very succinct example. Couldn't have come up with a better one than this. Kudu's.

No you've done very well. I'm not familiar with the "de" concept.
Sounds very close to the German's "Von" prefix.
Having spent less than a month there, I wouldn't even try to understand the culture, politic or economic.
Most of my contacts* there was with serving police officers as I was. The majority of them felt that one charismatic leader could "set the whole lot off".
Hence my questions about the 'race pimps'. I didn't see it, as all the North Africans were the most mellow, if not passive people I ever met.

*Drank a lot of that Pernod stuff in the course and scope of my employment, Duty Called !