French President François Hollande made it clear. Everybody (i.e. Le Pen included) is less dangerous than Mélenchon.
Hollande was elected on “revolutionary” slogans, declaring that “my real adversary is the world of Finance”. Upon election, he appointed a Rothschild’s banker as Minister of Finance.
Bernard-Henri Levy, the leader of the French “New Philosophers” was the architect of the French interventions in Libya, once a prosperous Arab country. (1)
Now they are selling slaves in the central market of its capital Tripoli and Mr. Levy has said he will quit France for good if Mélenchon is elected.
Nobody thought one month ago that Mr. Mélenchon could win the elections. It was only very recently that the polls begun to show him on a rapidly ascending trajectory, while both Macron and Le Pen were losing ground.
At the end of this article you will find an analytical diagram outlining the evolution of voters’ preferences over the last two months.
At one point, the ascending Mélenchon curve was poised to cross Le Pen’ s curve. Then the French bourgeoisie begun to take fright. They began to compare Mélenchon with Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin. They attacked him as irresponsible, dangerous, an old-fashioned fellow who would destroy the European Union.
Then Islam and fears of upheavals entered the equation. According to a “secret memo” of the French services (so secret that it was immediately leaked to the “Parisien” newspaper) the main threat to the security of the presidential elections were the Islamic jihadists.
French counter-espionage seems to know something about Islamists that the rest of us do not understand very well. Why would jihadists like to launch an attack on the eve of the elections, thus helping the great warrior against radical Islam to become President of France?
In case the public was not scared enough by all that, French services explained, through their “secret” memo, that serious turmoil will most probably erupt if Mélenchon and Le Pen make it through the first round of the elections.
Ideas are good, but they have to be substantiated with facts. Suddenly a completely unexplained attack took place in Paris, one day after a “terrorist conspiracy” was discovered in Marseilles!
They say it cannot be a provocation, because nobody is going to commit suicide in order to launch a provocation. That may be true for the person committing suicide, but it is not true for those who influence his behaviour. The Italian Red Brigades, for example, did not know that they were acting on behalf of the US services when they killed Aldo Moro.
All this is small beer for any secret service in the world. Now the public also seems fated to learn its lessons the hard way, as happened in Italy in the ’60s and on many other occasions. As for the French secret
services, they have a very strong and solid tradition, from the near-assassination of General de Gaulle by OAS (the ancestors of Marine Le Pen’s Front National) to the assassination of Ben Barka.
These are dormant elements from the French state’s past but they may reawaken if the “antisystemic candidate of the system”, Marine Le Pen, is elected or if Mr. Mélenchon really tries to implement his ideas. But of course the French people also have a revolutionary tradition, so the combination of these two factors makes France one of the very few European countries where, at least in theory, a civil war is not impossible.
Of course we are not there, but the sudden eruption of terrorism in the election campaign is a worrisome signal, whoever the next President is to be. The French media have already created a warlike atmosphere, taking advantage of the “terrorist attack” in Paris. “Terrorism” and its perceptions has been used in the last two days to influence the French presidential election in a decisive way and at the most critical moment of the campaign.
Given the particularities of the French election system, today’ s reaction or non-reaction of the voters may determine who will become President of France, as four candidates are now racing neck and neck: Mélenchon, Macron, Fillion and Le Pen.
The decision French voters will take will have enormous consequences not only for the European crisis. It will also greatly influence the course of the war against Syria and Iran (and by extension Russia) and against North Korea (and by extension China) that Donald Trump inaugurated at the beginning of April.
For the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, some of the most authoritative figures in the USA (for ex. Leon Panetta, ex-Secretary of Defense, Mike Morris, ex-acting Director of the CIA), have warned that we are already in a situation where nuclear war is again becoming possible.
If we are (and we very much seem to be) in a dynamic leading to a war, then politics have to prepare the war. The prospect of war conditions political choices. Such a situation will make it necessary for “extraordinary”, unusual, methods, to be employed, methods we had regarded as long forgotten for the “advanced countries” of the Western world.
The rhetoric that Mme. Le Pen is using in connection with Islam is exactly the political discourse needed for preparing public opinion for the new and even larger and more dangerous war probably coming in the Middle East. The positions adopted by Macron and also Hamon on that subject lead to the same result, albeit with less force than with Le Pen.
The coming war is probably the reason Mrs. May decided to hold the anticipated elections, hoping to a Labour defeat and the overthrow of such a radically “antiwar” politician as Mr. Corbyn.
As for the “Islamic Terrorists”, they are acting systematically in a way that greatly assists Western politicians who are using their attempts to rally support for their agenda of “war against Islam” and curtailment of democratic rights.
Objectively, the attack is doing harm only to Mélenchon and helping Fillon and Le Pen. But it would be best to wait and see. The “terrorism” card has already been overplayed by the media and the political system. People are beginning to understand that they are being manipulated. They also understand that “Islamic fundamentalism” and “terrorism” are also a product of the catastrophic interventions of the West in the
Middle East and Africa, which has ruined millions of human lives and legitimated terrorism for some of its victims.
Both the terrorism and the refugee problem cannot be addressed without fundamental alteration of the military and economic policies of the (un)civilized West
Dimitris Konstantakopoulos (1) http://) http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2011/11/20/97001-20111120FILWWW00182-libye-bhl-s-est-engage-en-tant-que-juif.php