Beliefnet
At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Even though France is currently experiencing demonstrations and riots on a scale that hasn’t been seen since at least the historic year of 1968, we’ve heard relatively little about it from our media here at home.

This should suffice to elicit some measure of curiosity from the skeptical.

After all, over the last so many years, whenever France’s North African and Middle Eastern Islamic immigrants would spend a few nights burning cars and attacking police, the media, and the cable news media specifically, would expend no small measure of their time treating viewers to footage of the mayhem.

This is because such rioting served the left’s agenda, a program that consists of the promotion of massive Third World immigration into the West and that relies upon a narrative featuring white oppressors and non-white victims.  These riots could readily be spun as the consequence of unconscionable material inequality, which in turn could be interpreted as the function of the “racism” of the white oppressors.

The latest riotous demonstrations, however, are anything but friendly to most of the media’s ideology.

In fact, the causes for the sake of which hundreds of thousands of folks throughout France have taken to the streets are all but antithetical to those which are characteristically championed by the left.  It is this that explains why the leftist media has spent precious little time attending to the demonstrations, and why what attention journalists and pundits have paid it have been accompanied by efforts to misrepresent it as something that it is not.

For starters, while it is true that demonstrators are indeed incensed over President Macron’s proposed tax on fuel, to know only this is to know next to nothing.  At the very most that anyone is justified in concluding is that this latest proposal of Macron’s is nothing more or less than the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

The tax is especially burdensome because it adds to the exorbitant totality of taxes with which the French middle and lower classes have been saddled, taxes that are the lifeblood of an immense Welfare State, a socialist system from which significant numbers of migrants continue to benefit even as the quality of life of the indigenous French deteriorates.

There is another reason why this latest tax can’t be viewed in isolation from the larger picture to which it belongs: The tax on fuel is of a piece with Macron’s program to combat “climate change.”

By increasing the price of fuel, particularly diesel fuel, it is the objective of Macron’s government—as it is the objective of every “Green” government everywhere—to render it ever more difficult, ever more expensive, for average folks to drive their cars.  That the protestors recognize this is borne out by the fact that they call themselves the “Gilets Jaunes,” or “Yellow Vests”: French motorists are required by law to sport yellow vests while operating their vehicles.

But the fuel tax was merely the catalyst for the Yellow Vest demonstrations.  Macron, the anti-Trump over whom the global media elites swooned not very long ago, has since agreed to drop the controversial tax hike. Yet the demonstrations have only grown, proving that the ever-expanding Yellow Vest phenomenon signifies much more than a single tax.

In fact, among other things, the protesters are demanding “a tax reduction”—tax cuts—“across the board.”

A “climate change” agenda and the astronomical taxes on the working and middle classes that are required to implement it; a socialist-Welfare State (and the astronomical taxes on the working and middle classes that are required to implement it); and a system that encourages the inundation of a country with foreign peoples who not only haven’t an interest in assimilating to its traditions, but who seem to have contempt for them—these and the political elites who advocate on behalf of these things are the objects against which the Yellow Vests have spent nearly the last month rebelling.

In other words, the causes favored by the Yellow Vests sound an awful lot like one and the same causes for the sake of which Deplorables elected Donald Trump to the presidency.

Indeed, there is scarcely an item on the Yellow Vests’ latest list of demands that Trump couldn’t endorse.

Perhaps it is because of the sheer size of the protests that the left-leaning media here (and abroad) would prefer to either not talk about them or misrepresent the facts.  Or, which I think is more likely, maybe it is because the demonstrations are a violent response to essentially leftist, globalist policies that the left would prefer people not know about them.

For all of the left’s hysterics over the allegedly rising tide of “racism” and “white nationalism” that the election of Donald Trump is supposed to have unleashed, leftists know that their political opponents haven’t posed any physical threat to them. To put it simply, Republicans, conservatives, Deplorables—whatever we choose to call them—aren’t known (so far) for instigating politically-oriented violence.

People who oppose Big Government’s efforts to control its citizens via high taxes in the name of fighting “climate change” while forcing those citizens to subsidize ungrateful, frequently hostile Third World immigrants by enlarging the Welfare-State don’t typically riot, much less riot on the scale on which the Yellow Vests are rioting.

But the brute fact of the matter is that, while there are indeed leftist elements involved with the Yellow Vest demonstrations, rolling over France is a rebellion that is populist and nationalist in character.  Macron’s is the face of a leftist, globalist elite whose election was seen by his fellow supra-nationalists throughout the West as a welcome counter-response to the election of Donald Trump and Brexit.

At the time of his election in 2017, the BBC reported:

Most of those running the EU [European Union] were breathing a sigh of relief, given [the right-wing, immigration-hawk] Ms. [Marie] Le Pen’s policies and last year’s Brexit vote.   

“Eurpean Commision chief Jean-Claude Juncker tweeted, ‘happy that the French chose a European future’ while German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Mr. Macron ‘carries the hopes of millions of French people, and of many people in Germany and the whole of Europe.’”

Macron was the “It Kid,” as far as the West’s globalists were concerned.  

Now, though, just a little more than a year after he was elected, his own people—between 70% and 80% support the Yellow Vest rebellion—want Macron gone.

It isn’t just the middle class bakers, farmers, blacksmiths, etc. who back the resistors. So too do many police officers.

The morale of the attendees at the United Nations Climate Conference, currently transpiring in Poland, has been dramatically undermined by the Yellow Vest revolt.

The spirit of the Yellow Vests is now spreading across Europe: The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Sweden are the most recent countries in which it’s manifesting itself.

Will it spread to America? Time will tell.  But those media and political elites in America who are intent upon treating their political opponents as subhuman “deplorables” should pay meticulous attention to the events unfolding across the pond.

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of crowing today on the part of Democrats. I get it. They had a decent night and they need to take what they can get given how badly Donaldus Maximus has been thrashing them for the last couple of years. But now I’m going to have burst their bubble–it’s the least that I can do given how they’ve refused for two years to accept the outcome of the last election:

First, there was no “blue wave.” Some are trying to spin it this way. Less dishonest Democrats, like Jake Tapper, say, and Ed Rogers, of the Washington Post, admit to knowing otherwise. The Fake News media, with their fake pollsters, spent the better part of this past year sparing no occasion to convince voters that a “Blue Wave” was inescapable. Make no mistakes: By “Blue Wave,” they meant a total sweep by Democrats of both chambers of Congress.

This didn’t happen.

Second, Democrats won a historically average number of House seats, enough to secure them control, while Donaldus Maximus defied the historical odds by actually gaining Senate seats. There have only been five times in more than a century that any President has managed to do this during a midterm election.

This means that the Republicans now have more control in the Senate than they had before Tuesday night.

Third, every candidate for whom Trump campaigned won.

Fourth, those candidates who distanced themselves from the President, particularly those who are NeverTrump, lost.

Fifth, the “progressive” rock stars, those for whose victory Hollywood, Oprah Winfrey, and Barack Obama gave all—Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum, Bill Nelson, and Beto O’Rourke—lost.   Trump rallied voters for the opponents of these Democrat aspirants, and, once again, as in 2016, he prevailed.

Sixth, those Republicans who now constitute the minority of the House, as well as those who comprise the even larger majority of the Senate, are more solidly behind the President now than were their predecessors, the Flakes, the McCains, and the Corkers.  Last night’s election solidified GOP unity behind Trump and his agenda.

Seventh, with Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House, the next two years promise to supply a bottomless treasure trove of galvanizing gems for the Republicans and Trump’s reelection campaign.

Given the relentlessness with which the Democratic-controlled media attack the President, the Democrats should have performed better last night. That they captured only an average number of House seats while losing the Senate to the Republicans confirms the observation of Ed Rogers, a Democrat writing today in the Washington Post:

“Democrats may have won the House, but Trump won the election.”

 

There are several reasons for my judgment that it is Republican voters who will awake happily following the primary contests on Tuesday.

(1)The pollsters who have been telling us for months about a “blue wave” have abandoned this line altogether. Considering that the polls, being of a piece with the rest of the media, are in the majority of instances designed and administered by Democrats, the modest advantages that they show for their fellow Democrats should be taken as a hint that they know they are in trouble;

(2)There are a few movements, like the “Walk Away” movement, whose founder is a gay man who is a former Democrat and which has already attracted hundreds of thousands of other former Democrats, that has received little to no coverage by most of the (Democrat-dominated) media. Yet both the rapidly growing size of this phenomenon as well as the media’s resolve to neglect it suggest that it indicates a pattern of increasing disenchantment with the Democratic Party;

(3)The Kavanaugh debacle;

(4)The “caravan” of thousands of undocumented invaders coming from the South that we’re all able to watch in real time;

(5)Leftist violence and intimidation;

(6)Even with over 90% tireless, negative coverage by the Democratic-controlled media, reputable polls have shown Trump’s popularity rating exceeding 50%. This in all likelihood means that it is actually much higher;

(7)Trump’s rallies continue to dwarf in size anything that any politician has managed to achieve. Obama’s crowd numbers are, at best, half that of Trump’s. The enthusiasm for the President is as high—higher—than it’s ever been. No Democrat, including the sainted Obama, generates any enthusiasm among the party’s base, much less a fraction of that which consumesTrump’s constituents;

(8)Because of the nastiness of Trump-haters and the fact that Trump-hatred is all of the rage within the popular culture, many people who sympathize with Trump, or at least who share none of the zealotry of those who would slice their own mothers’ throats to take him down, are not likely to reveal their willingness to vote Republican;

(9)Even among traditional Republican voters, pollsters are now informing us that they are significantly less likely than Democrats to openly share their voting preferences. And when it is considered that “independents” are even less likely than Republicans in this regard, “polls forecasting Democrat victories” should be seen for their questionable character;

(10)Aside from the biases of individual pollsters, there is an intrinsic bias in polling: In two significant respects, they are outdated:

First, unlike in times past, this generation, given the boundless sea of information (and misinformation) flowing from multiple, competing “news” sources that it has at its collective fingertips, is dramatically more skeptical toward those, like the pollsters, who are in any way affiliated with the media.

Second, since the rise of the cellphone, the attempt on the part of pollsters to do what they have always done and reach voters by phone has proven to be a formidable task indeed.

In other words, there is perhaps today a larger chasm separating the appearances conveyed by polls, on the one hand, and, on the other, the real world than there has ever been.

There is but one more reason for my confidence in a Red victory:

Donald Trump.

Both the President’s enemies as well as many of his supporters still have not grasped the significance of his victory two years ago.  Their prognostications continue to reflect a mindset of an earlier era, a pre-Trump era, and they still refuse to accept that Trump is as world-historic a figure as they come.

Both Republican and Democratic commentators (and pollsters) have not figured out—doubtless, many don’t want to figure this out—that their old templates, scripts, models, and even the whole Republican/Democrat paradigm central to their worldview have been relegated by Trump to the same place to which he dispatched the Obamas, the Clintons, the Bushes, and the entire GAME (Government-Academia-Media-Entertainment complex): the trash heap of history.

If Republicans and those who Trump has made into Republican voters get to the polling stations tomorrow, the GOP will win handily.

 

 

Official Conservatadom, i.e. Big Conservatism, or the Big Con, is doing what it does best and playing directly into the hands of their (nominal) opponents.

As high-profile Democrats, one after the other, receive “suspicious packages” and makeshift bombs, Republican politicians and their apologists in the media do what they do best by going on the defensive, loudly denouncing the political violence while accepting lock, stock, and barrel the idea that the Democrats truly are in the crosshairs of some deranged right-leaning zealot.

It’s at moments like these that we’re reminded of the virtual uselessness to the right, and usefulness to the left, of the Big Con. The latter, as if on cue, takes its eye off of those issues that place the Democrats at a decisive electoral disadvantage in order to eagerly purvey a narrative, a narrative birthed by the Democrats that depicts them as victims of right-wing crazies.

And those in the Big Con do this with less than two weeks to go before an election over which they’ve been obsessing for the last several months.

Many of the peddlers of Big Conservative media have, correctly, followed the President’s lead and taken to calling their (ostensible) counterparts in the leftist press “Fake News.” Yet they too are guilty of promoting the same, for if they were genuinely concerned about journalism, then they would express at least some measure of skepticism toward the reports of these bomb threats.

Instead, they are, as per usual, more concerned about convincing leftists and Democrats that they will all too happily endorse whatever line the Dems decide will dominate the (fake) news.