“Third in strength, yet winners nonetheless.” With these words, Alain de Benoist, the most prominent representative of the new right in France, commented on the results of the National Rally (NR) in the recently concluded French parliamentary elections. This assessment is not unfounded considering that this party has doubled the number of parliamentary seats.
A BADLY CALCULATED MOVE
Macron’s bold move to try to improve the situation by calling for national elections after his party performed very poorly in the European Parliament elections proved to be a badly calculated move.
Instead of further solidifying his position, the president only further destabilized it. Now, his party, La République En Marche, is officially the second strongest in parliament, behind the far-left coalition New People’s Front. Securing second place doesn’t give Macron much reason to celebrate, as the votes his party received in the second round weren’t truly theirs. This made the current president the biggest loser of these elections.
All of this might seem confusing, as how is it possible that in a democratic process, the winners are third in strength, while the second-placed party is actually the losing one, supported by borrowed votes? The situation becomes clearer when viewed in context.
THE PHENOMENON OF ISLAMO-LEFTISM
In the European Parliament elections held in early June, the National Rally was shown to be the single strongest party in the country, with over 30% of the vote. Macron’s La République En Marche and the socialists together didn’t receive as many votes as the National Rally. If the votes of other right-wing parties are added to the National Rally’s results, it shows that a united right-wing bloc could count on about 40% of the vote, which leaves the president with limited maneuvering space, given that his policy is clearly opposed to the right. Already on election night, Macron announced elections for the French parliament but did not mention his own resignation.
The left responded to the call for elections by forming a pre-election coalition under the resonant name New People’s Front, invoking memories of the 1930s. This colorful group includes communists, socialists, greens, various anti-patriots, and even Islamists. In France, this phenomenon has long been referred to as “Islamo-leftism.” What brought this diverse group together on one list was the desire to prevent the National Rally from coming to power, as well as skepticism towards Macron and his “neoliberal” policies. At least, that’s how it seemed at first.
A DIVIDED RIGHT
The large left-wing alliance further increased pressure on President Macron. On the other hand, the right-wing failed to form such a united bloc. Éric Zemmour not only refused to join forces with the National Rally and Marine Le Pen, but his newly elected European parliamentarians who publicly supported such an alliance were expelled from his party, Reconquête!, including the fresh face of the French right, Marion Maréchal. The Gaullist Republicans also didn’t join the right-wing alliance. This once powerful party of Chirac and Sarkozy received just over seven percent of the vote in the EP elections. True, party leader Éric Ciotti advocated for a right-wing alliance but was expelled from the party for it. Along with him, the youth leader and several newly elected MPs were also expelled. This outlined the key contours for the first round of the French parliamentary elections. The left managed to form a heterogeneous coalition, the weakened center also campaigned united, while the right, despite having a dominant party, remained divided.
A STIGMATIZED PARTY
The first round of elections showed the strength of the National Rally, which managed to secure about 34% of the vote, making it the clear front-runner. The left-wing New People’s Front was in second place, while Macron’s La République En Marche was in third position. The Rally managed to secure a respectable number of mandates in the first round. For instance, in her electoral district, Marine Le Pen received over 58% of the vote. The same applies to several other party candidates in the north of the country, who won an absolute majority in their units. In the Aisne department, part of Picardy, the National Rally won practically all electoral units in the first round. Individual victories were also achieved in the south or Burgundy. In a large number of units, the Rally didn’t achieve an absolute majority, but despite that, it remained the single strongest party there.
It seemed that the National Rally was unstoppable and would certainly be the strongest party, potentially having the prime minister chosen from their ranks. The major media outlets took a particular interest in the character and work of Jordan Bardella, Marine Le Pen’s successor at the helm of the party. This increased the nervousness on the left even further.
Unions threatened a general strike if the Rally won, while leftist extremists and their Islamist allies protested immediately after the results were announced, signaling the unrest that would follow if the French also gave their vote to the stigmatized party in the second round.
LITTLE REASON FOR CELEBRATION
However, victory slipped away from the Rally. Between the two rounds, a deal was struck between the former bitter rivals, Mélenchon and Macron. When it comes to the fight against the right, neo-Bolsheviks and neoliberals managed to find common ground. They essentially formed an alliance against the right and agreed that the weaker party would withdraw its candidates, thereby jointly supporting the candidate with the best chance of winning in their electoral district. The essence of the agreement was to avoid vote splitting, thereby eliminating the National Rally’s candidate. This solution was called the alliance for the defense of “republican values.” Here, however, lies the reason why the two leading forces have little reason to celebrate and why it is said that their deputies were elected with borrowed votes.
SUPPORT FOR THE ARCH-ENEMY
From an ideological perspective, it turns out that the unions, which had been cursing Macron’s “neoliberal” policies and austerity measures, ultimately decided to support their main adversary, against whom they had fiercely protested. The same illogicality applies to Macron’s technocrats who voted for the old-school leftists who had previously hindered them as “obstacles to progress.” In short, the actual unification of neo-Bolsheviks and neoliberals, Islamists and secularists, against the right has completely undermined politics in France. Those who had presented themselves as defenders of democracy were, in reality, seeking ways to undermine democracy, which happened in over 200 electoral districts. Jordan Bardella called it a “shameful alliance” and dangerous electoral arrangements that serve France on a platter to the far left.
THE RIGHT-WINGER IS THE LAST TABOO
As a consequence of this agreement, the National Rally remained in third place, despite winning the most votes. This type of calculated marriage effectively created an excuse for any incompetent government in the future, which will always be able to excuse its results by citing the fight against the right, because it’s better to have a bad government than right-wingers.
In short, the results of the second round of elections, which arose from this agreement, clearly showed that the last ideological foundation in the West is the fight against the right. As noted by German philosopher Frank Lisson in his book The Contempt of One’s Own, the right-winger is the last taboo. Everything else is more or less allowed and can be somehow justified or at least understood. Acts of violence by people of foreign origin and Islamists can be overlooked, justifying their actions with poor social conditions. Their no-go zones, ruled by gangs and drug dealers, are not a reason for mobilization.
THE EXECUTIONER SWEARS BY HUMANITY
Hooligans who set cars on fire in European capitals can always count on finding a defender among the journalistic elite who will speak of them as dissatisfied young people. After all, a leftist can, with some effort, still be included in the liberal coordinate system – after all, they still somehow believe in the “good man.” It has long been stated that for the media elite, a communist is just a fallen angel, while a right-winger is the devil from the very beginning. Media will tolerate and forgive the “sins of youth” for politicians and intellectuals on the left, i.e., their Stalinist, Maoist, and generally extremist past, which can always ultimately be justified by good intentions, because in the end, their goals were “humane,” even if their realization involved means such as terror, concentration camps, or mass executions. This apology does not apply to right-wingers.
However, it remains unclear why it should be easier for the victim if the executioner swears by “humanity” or “equality.”
INTERNAL ENEMY
Thus, the French informal pact between communists, socialists, Trotskyists, ecologists, and Islamists on one side and technocrats and liberals on the other has clearly indicated who is seen as the internal enemy. This, of course, does not apply only to France, but to the West in general. That enemy is the right, embodied in France by the National Rally. When the right is designated as the enemy, then zealously participating in the persecution of that enemy becomes one of the ways to demonstrate one’s civic virtue. Therefore, against the right, in the final analysis, even illegal means are allowed. Street violence against members and officials of the National Rally or insults from “respected journalists” directed at Rally voters show that the enemy cannot count on equal treatment. When labeling no longer helps, bans can always be resorted to. Thus, just these days in Germany, the social-democrat interior minister, Nancy Faeser, banned the magazine Compact by Jürgen Elsässer. Freedom of speech has its limits, and it does not apply to right-wingers.
A SCARECROW FUNCTIONING AS SOCIAL INTEGRATION
Also, when the right is designated as the last enemy, then everything undesirable can be rejected if it is associated with the right. For example, although protests against anti-COVID measures were far from any ideological homogeneity, the established media resorted to the old trick and labeled the demonstrators as “right-wingers.”
The right-wing enemy and the alleged right-wing threat, tirelessly pointed out by the established media, may be the last way to artificially hold a society together, where general permissiveness and multiculturalism have weakened social bonds. The right-wing scarecrow serves the function of integrating society, but in a way that does not violate the principle that diversity, that “signum of modern society” (Frank-Walter Steinmeier), is preserved. Defenders of diversity unite society by eliminating those who do not fit in – the right-wingers. Therefore, society is constituted not as a society of those who share the same past, tradition, or culture, but as a society of those connected only by their rejection of the right.
ELIMINATION OF POLITICS
Simply put, society is based on desirable political orientation. It is not difficult to establish a parallel with the Yugoslav communist project, where the ideological enemy, i.e., the enemy of socialism and “brotherhood and unity,” was also understood as the enemy of the community. How this looks in reality could be seen last winter in Germany, when the ruling parties organized demonstrations against the opposition.
French elections have thus only laid bare the reality. Those unionists who, for years, in the name of workers’ rights, called for demonstrations against Macron’s “neoliberal” policies and austerity measures, obediently went to the polls and gave their votes to their biggest adversary, while the liberals who demanded “reforms” ultimately, without much grumbling, circled the names of hardcore socialists on the ballot. Simply put, when the fight against the right is set as the ideological foundation of society, it results in the elimination of politics. When the situation becomes acute and boils down to a simple choice, then liberals, socialists, and Islamists, as if on command, stand together against the stigmatized right.
THE POLITICAL FORCE THAT RAISES ISSUES
Of course, the strategy of opposing the right has its limits. If today’s lines of political division are those between the “elite” and the “people,” or between their fundamental moral-political orientations, as claimed by German political scientist Lothar Fritze, then the right remains the only political option available to the people. The elections in France showed that even the left, which recites songs against the elite and often calls for street protests, when a serious case arises, sides with those same elites. Thus, French leftist leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon can call his hardcore followers to vote for Macronist candidates.
Therefore, the right remains the only political force that raises issues such as the failure of multiculturalism, the Islamist threat, problems caused by uncontrolled immigration, the disintegration of the country’s cultural identity, the consequences of globalization, the decline of internal security… For liberals and Islamo-leftists, these topics are not real issues. Mélenchon has nothing against mass immigration; he even welcomes it. However, these issues are important to ordinary citizens who must endure the blessings of multiculturalism daily. For them, the “great replacement” (Renaud Camus) is not a conspiracy theory but almost a tangible reality. This applies not only to France but more or less to all of Europe. Therefore, the success of the right in the European Parliament elections should not be surprising. Thus, reality has drawn the measure of the success of the fight against the right.
