Refractory Gauls, or the French politics thread

[Josquius]

Identity politics is a big, nefarious, incoherent mess, ranging from nazism to islamism, with varying degrees of leftist useful idiots.
Nowadays, the part where the white males, be them bourgeois/"dominant" or not are the new Untermenschen, seems pretty much accepted, except for the local far-right, not imported far-right à
la Indigènes de la République or Grey Wolves (finally banned by Macron's clique for the latter).
Do some research on the PIR(e), starting by their leader Houria Bouteldja.

Maybe things are different in France. I really don't know. But it's funny that this is the total opposite of identity politics in an American-British context.
In the Anglo world identity politics is a tried and tested tactic of the right to get poor people to vote for them-because the rich upper class millionaire is totally more their people than that trans woman living across the street.

[Duque de Bragança]

I certainly hope things are different in France, or in Europe for that matter than the anglo-word, but I am afraid your personal definition of identity politics is seen through rose-tinted glasses.

[Zoupa]

Zemmour may not be far-right in terms of economics, but he is a reactionary racist.

He's well read and a great orator. Wielding the verbal art of ridicule still matters in France, so he does captivate.

Still a reactionary racist though. Probably jerks off to Pétain's portrait.

[Duque de Bragança]

Reactionary is certainly the label he chose. As for racist, for his generation it has a different meaning cf. Colombey-les Deux Églises plutôt que Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées as said by de Gaulle to justify the independence of Algeria. Bonaparte and de Gaulle being his idols, rather than WWII Pétain, to the point of only seeing the good parts.

Besides, Mélenchon has a history of racism or ethnic prejudice against Balts, specially Lithuanians inventing a Lithuanian SS division, not just out of subservience to Putin (Zemmour does not avoid putinolatry but avoids racism against Balts) or blond people.

http://operacritiques.free.fr/css/index.php?2006/05/06/213-jean-luc-melenchon-et-la-lituanie

Jean-Luc Mélenchon critique « l'idée d'une France blonde aux yeux bleus »243 ; il affirme par la suite ne pas pouvoir « survivre dans un pays où il n'y a que des blonds aux yeux bleus »244. Lors de la campagne présidentielle de 2012, il insiste sur l'importance du « vivre ensemble » et prononce une « ode à la Méditerranée et au métissage », déclarant notamment qu'« il n'y a pas d'avenir pour la France sans les Arabes et les Berbères du Maghreb »245. Ce discours lui aurait fait perdre des voix, notamment auprès de l'électorat populaire blanc245,246.

Nice non sequitur, that mythical blue-eyed blonde France. 

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_Mélenchon
From wiki, but the article is sourced and his statements and behavior are well known.

[Sheilbh]

Now, that's mean for populists. I believe demagogue is a better word for Macron since Macron never claimed to stand for the people and spoke and did a lot against the "populo" (the little people in French).

I'm not really sure of the difference or that it matters

Identity politics is a big, nefarious, incoherent mess, ranging from nazism to islamism, with varying degrees of leftist useful idiots.
Nowadays, the part where the white males, be them bourgeois/"dominant" or not are the new Untermenschen, seems pretty much accepted, except for the local far-right, not imported far-right à
la Indigènes de la République or Grey Wolves (finally banned by Macron's clique for the latter).
Do some research on the PIR(e), starting by their leader Houria Bouteldja.

Yeah - I'm not really following on this either, I'm afraid. I am pretty sure that white men are not persecuted however

Meme use à la Syt's sisters? Nice argument.   
Mélenchon is a Robespierre wannabe, so it's 1793 for him, not 1789. 

1793's just the natrual, logical extension of 1789.

And I've always been pro-meme.

So it's just some opportunist dog whistling politics though. But then, even De Gaulle was called far right (by leftists) or even fascist (May 1968) in his days.

Sure - but politics moves and changes it's not fixed. I don't see why we should "no true Scotsman" the far-right into oblivion when we don't to any other political party/movement, unless we want to pretend the far-right doesn't exist.

We don't make up an arbitrary point for the right or left or any other political movement and say that it's the yard stick all future politicians will be judged by for whether they're "left" or "right" - because it would be absurd and turn politics into sort of angels on the pin of a head definitional debates.

It may seem unimportant because Macron keeps having contradictory statements but his position in the economics axis is pretty well known.

It seems unimportant because it is. There was more or less class warfare in 70s and 80s with proper organised labour and propoer organised capital - capital won. And since then we've seen many core economic issues pushed out of democratic politics. Monetary policy shifts in full to the independent central banks as do other stabilisation mechanisms ("The ECB is a monument to
the proposition that money is too serious to be left to politicians: in these matters there is no such thing as a responsible politician, democratic money is bad money"); there's various restrictions through international trade standards and, in Europe, trade policy is squarely an EU competence as are a number of regulatory areas; to encourage fair competition there's restrictions on state aid and nationalisations; now there are restrictions on fiscal policy.

So if you want fundamental economic reform on any of those points you have to be positing an overthrow of certain technocratic functions, tearing up treaties or some other serious disruption. Again, that's deliberate and those politicians are broadly out of the mainstream or beyond the pale. The consequence of removing so much of economic policy from democratic politics is that what you're left with is questions of distribution which will always end up being about immigration/identity (who's in/out, deserving/not etc) and culture. The liberal turn in the 80s banked their economic policy wins, but the consequence is our current politics, including all the dysfunctional bits. And that's going to keep happening until we either bring back core economic questions as subjects of debate and difference within democratic politics, or (within the Eurozone) move the democratic politics up a level so the powers sit with elected European officials.

Macron's economic stance is meaningless - the space for operation within the mainstream is basically between third way, 90s centre left and 2010s austerity centre right. There are differences but they're pretty marginal.

I'm glad to see you agree with Mélenchon and Zemmour about rules and treaties having (too?) much power.

It's not too much necessarily - this is partly why I liked Macron to begin with. My view is that the Eurozone needs to take the plunge and start having democratically decision makers at a European level - especially if it moves into doing more policies like the coronavirus recovery fund (which is very good). That needs to be wrestled from the hands of technocrats and be a subject of debate, discussion and difference within Europe.

Absent that, especially if there's no follow up to the recovery fund, then I think Europe just rolls on with a half complete union until the next crisis and we just keep repeating that cycle (I think the risk of the FDP being in a coalition in Germany and taking the Finance Ministry, aligning more with the Netherlands/Austria etc bloc is a real worry because I think it'd have really negative long-term consequences).

Having said that I think the EU is operating at the edge of the treaties right now and for the last few years and I think the treaties probably need to be re-opened to legitimise anything else. My hope would be that's in the direction of more integration and more Europe, not less.

[viper37]

Reactionary is certainly the label he chose. As for racist, for his generation it has a different meaning cf. Colombey-les Deux Églises plutôt que Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées as said by de Gaulle to justify the independence of Algeria.

somewhere along the way, somebody fucked up nicely!

[Duque de Bragança]

Reactionary is certainly the label he chose. As for racist, for his generation it has a different meaning cf. Colombey-les Deux Églises plutôt que Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées as said by de Gaulle to justify the independence of Algeria.

somewhere along the way, somebody fucked up nicely!

Ask Zemmour who it was. 

[Duque de Bragança]

Now, that's mean for populists. I believe demagogue is a better word for Macron since Macron never claimed to stand for the people and spoke and did a lot against the "populo" (the little people in French).

I'm not really sure of the difference or that it matters

It does. Words have meaning. Macron never claimed to stand for the people though he even claimed once he was a socialist.  Of course, populists may very well use demagoguery, cf. Mélenchon.

Identity politics is a big, nefarious, incoherent mess, ranging from nazism to islamism, with varying degrees of leftist useful idiots.
Nowadays, the part where the white males, be them bourgeois/"dominant" or not are the new Untermenschen, seems pretty much accepted, except for the local far-right, not imported far-right à
la Indigènes de la République or Grey Wolves (finally banned by Macron's clique for the latter).
Do some research on the PIR(e), starting by their leader Houria Bouteldja.

Yeah - I'm not really following on this either, I'm afraid. I am pretty sure that white men are not persecuted however

First part, your ignorance of the local "French" Identity Politics removes any chance of serious analysis of the French situation.
Second part is you putting words into my mouth. Ever heard of class warfare? White proles? Specially those living in the banlieues? Not to mention proles can be female. Women get other "challenges" in the banlieues.

Meme use à la Syt's sisters? Nice argument.   
Mélenchon is a Robespierre wannabe, so it's 1793 for him, not 1789. 

1793's just the natrual, logical extension of 1789.

Not at all. 1793 was the consequence of mistakes by Girondins, namely the war, which Robespierre opposed. One has to show proper credit to Robespierre, for once. 

And I've always been pro-meme.

Sorry, not good enough.

So it's just some opportunist dog whistling politics though. But then, even De Gaulle was called far right (by leftists) or even fascist (May 1968) in his days.

Sure - but politics moves and changes it's not fixed. I don't see why we should "no true Scotsman" the far-right into oblivion when we don't to any other political party/movement, unless we want to pretend the far-right doesn't exist.

The leftists still use of far-right is for nazism, they are the one who have not changed. Until then, far-right is too vague and has to be described more in detail.

We don't make up an arbitrary point for the right or left or any other political movement and say that it's the yard stick all future politicians will be judged by for whether they're "left" or "right" - because it would be absurd and turn politics into sort of angels on the pin of a head definitional debates.

Who's we? Like it not, 1917, 1922 or 1933 will still remain as political references for some time. Some candidates in France even go as far as 1789, with some merit, though their interpretation leaves much to desire.

It may seem unimportant because Macron keeps having contradictory statements but his position in the economics axis is pretty well known.

It seems unimportant because it is. There was more or less class warfare in 70s and 80s with proper organised labour and propoer organised capital - capital won. And since then we've seen many core economic issues pushed out of democratic politics. Monetary policy shifts in full to the independent central banks as do other stabilisation mechanisms ("The ECB is a monument to
the proposition that money is too serious to be left to politicians: in these matters there is no such thing as a responsible politician, democratic money is bad money"); there's various restrictions through international trade standards and, in Europe, trade policy is squarely an EU competence as are a number of regulatory areas; to encourage fair competition there's restrictions on state aid and nationalisations; now there are restrictions on fiscal policy.

My point earlier on. Class warfare still exists but not as successful for the proles, divided by Identity Politics.
Macron's disparaging comments on poors, proles and the like are infamous in the French context.

So if you want fundamental economic reform on any of those points you have to be positing an overthrow of certain technocratic functions, tearing up treaties or some other serious disruption. Again, that's deliberate and those politicians are broadly out of the mainstream or beyond the pale. The consequence of removing so much of economic policy from democratic politics is that what you're left with is questions of distribution which will always end up being about immigration/identity (who's in/out, deserving/not etc) and culture. The liberal turn in the 80s banked their economic policy wins, but the consequence is our current politics, including all the dysfunctional bits. And that's going to keep happening until we either bring back core economic questions as subjects of debate and difference within democratic politics, or (within the Eurozone) move the democratic politics up a level so the powers sit with elected European officials.

Agreed but overthrowing technocratic functions is far from overthrowing a democratic regime, a common accusation against those who advocate renegotiation of withdrawal of those treaties.

Macron's economic stance is meaningless - the space for operation within the mainstream is basically between third way, 90s centre left and 2010s austerity centre right. There are differences but they're pretty marginal.

There may very well be less maneuver margin but add in a divisive character such as Jupin and there is even less.

I'm glad to see you agree with Mélenchon and Zemmour about rules and treaties having (too?) much power.

It's not too much necessarily - this is partly why I liked Macron to begin with. My view is that the Eurozone needs to take the plunge and start having democratically decision makers at a European level - especially if it moves into doing more policies like the coronavirus recovery fund (which is very good). That needs to be wrestled from the hands of technocrats and be a subject of debate, discussion and difference within Europe.

Probably the case, but Jupin being an archetypal technocrat is the worst possible candidate for that kind of reforms.

Absent that, especially if there's no follow up to the recovery fund, then I think Europe just rolls on with a half complete union until the next crisis and we just keep repeating that cycle (I think the risk of the FDP being in a coalition in Germany and taking the Finance Ministry, aligning more with the Netherlands/Austria etc bloc is a real worry because I think it'd have really negative long-term consequences).

Having said that I think the EU is operating at the edge of the treaties right now and for the last few years and I think the treaties probably need to be re-opened to legitimise anything else. My hope would be that's in the direction of more integration and more Europe, not less.

Not arguing with this part. I don't see Macron being part of the solution, just more of the same with an already obsolete rebranding of the old PS alliance plus some turncoat centrists. A nightmarish version of Giscard's dreams . Jupin (colloquial version of Jupiter) is just a young Juppé.

[Sheilbh]

Sorry, not good enough.

What? I like memes - see the Brexit thread Labour posts

The leftists still use of far-right is for nazism, they are the one who have not changed. Until then, far-right is too vague and has to be described more in detail.

Okay:

Not a single small town or little French village is safe from savage bands of Chechens, or Kosovars, or Maghrebians, or Africans who steal, rape, pillage, torture, kill.

[/quote]

The "great replacement" is neither a myth nor a conspiracy, but a relentless process.

The individualism, born four centuries ago on the borders of the Italian Renissance and German Protestantism has come to the end of its disheveled race: it has transformed our old nations into a society of fearful and capricious individuals who demand from the state the recognitions of their sensibilities and their fragile feelings. On the other hand, Islamic civilisation has gained a foothold on European soil with ever-growing diasporas imposing their mores, laws, imaginations, surnames in the logic of colonisation. [...] they are allied against the same enemy: the French people, their mores, their history, their state, their civility, their civilisation. It's the Nazo-Soviet pact.

And if we must turn back to 80 years to correctly understand what is and isn't far-right, I'd note he has a rich vein of form for defending Vichy ("Vichy protected French Jews and gave foreign Jews" - which is a lie) and, say, defending Papon at length.

If this isn't far-right what is? You know, it's like saying he can't really be far-right because he wears a white and not a black shirt.

Who's we? Like it not, 1917, 1922 or 1933 will still remain as political references for some time. Some candidates in France even go as far as 1789, with some merit, though their interpretation leaves much to desire.

We is people talking about politics. The past can be a reference point but it's not a trap that we can't escape or an answer. Does left-wing politics in the 2010-20s look like left-wing politics in the 1930s? Obviously not - the nature of the economy is different, climate is an issue now, there's the legacy of sexual, social, cultural liberation. That also applies to the far-right.

My point earlier on. Class warfare still exists but not as successful for the proles, divided by Identity Politics.

So I disagree. I don't think class warfare or class politics have been displaced into culture wars and identitiy politics - not least because I think that ignores the service worker/precariat working class.

Rather the lack of class politics/economics being subject to democracy acts as a sort of centrifugal force so it sort of scrambles early post-war style class lines (I think there's something to Piketty on this). So I think the urban and public sector middle class and the service working class/precariat go to the left, while the sort of petty bourgeois and manufacturing (or rural) working class are going to the right.

So I don't think what we are seeing is class politics but on cultural lines (though this is what the right want you to think) of the working class populists on the right v middle class/elites on the liberal left. Rather I think because economics has been removed from politics and is a void the issues of distribution and culture scramble those traditional lines.

Probably the case, but Jupin being an archetypal technocrat is the worst possible candidate for that kind of reforms.

As I say I'd position Macron as a technocratic populist or populist technocrat.

[Duque de Bragança]

Reactionary is certainly the label he chose. As for racist, for his generation it has a different meaning cf. Colombey-les Deux Églises plutôt que Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées as said by de Gaulle to justify the independence of Algeria.

somewhere along the way, somebody fucked up nicely!

Ask Zemmour who it was. 

On his book le Suicide français, he more or less says : "le regroupement familial est la revanche des partisans de l'Algérie Française". 
Humor, Zemmour style! 

[Duque de Bragança]

Sorry, not good enough.

What? I like memes - see the Brexit thread Labour posts

Not arguing that you don't like memes about Brexit.  I just find them tiresome after a while in a discussion.

The leftists still use of far-right is for nazism, they are the one who have not changed. Until then, far-right is too vague and has to be described more in detail.

Okay:

Not a single small town or little French village is safe from savage bands of Chechens, or Kosovars, or Maghrebians, or Africans who steal, rape, pillage, torture, kill.

Made-up quote, a cheap trick often used against him, specially since even the original French is damning enough most of the time. Zemmour, as the polemist is, is not adverse to hyperbole.
The original is, among other things :

"les grandes invasions d'après la chute de Rome" avec les "bandes de Tchétchènes, de Roms, de Kosovars, de Maghrébins, d'Africains, qui dévalisent, violentent ou dépouillent".

https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x1t9spj


The communities quoted are overrepresented in French prisons, though ethnic statistics are officially forbidden, it is not big secret. PC point to Zemmour for speaking or Roma (Roma) instead of Gypsies (gitans) or Tziganes.

So if you go by Zemmour quotes, I will discuss only the original, in context. So find them, and tell me what you understood.
Not whatever biased translation, explanation or comment found in whatever non fact-checking outlet.

Besides, nazis and fascists, the far-right for leftists (Salazar, Dolfuss and Metaxas existed too!), were quite ok with Islam so that's a big no-no for Zemmour. Historically, in France at least, the left was not too big on immigration, often opposing it, namely on the communist side. (cf. Mélenchon and his racist ravings on Central and Eastern Europeans, white people and blond people etc.). At least, Marchais, former PCF leader, the last gaullist according to Zemmour (that's quite controversial btw) declared himself opposed to all immigration as late as in the early '80s which meant no space for FN.

Even the so-called fact-checkers of l'Immonde (starting from a Flabby gaffe of confusion  ) are in great trouble when reminded of that fact.
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/04/20/le-fn-dit-il-la-meme-chose-que-les-communistes-il-y-a-trente-ans_4619300_4355770.html
They can only produce some cop-out with "two different eras, hard to compare". (1981 vs 2011).
Link and quotes for Georges Marchais fans:

3. « L'immigration nuit aux travailleurs » : le discours de Marchais
Plus largement, le discours que porte Georges Marchais, premier secrétaire et candidat, réclame une limitation de l'immigration, perçue comme nuisible aux droits et aux conditions des travailleurs.
« En raison de la présence en France de près de quatre millions et demi de travailleurs immigrés et de membres de leurs familles, la poursuite de l'immigration pose aujourd'hui de graves problèmes. Il faut stopper l'immigration officielle et clandestine », déclarait ainsi Georges Marchais, le 6 janvier 1981.

Cette vision de l'immigration reste radicale : elle rend responsables du chômage les travailleurs immigrés. 

  :
« Il faut résoudre d'importants problèmes posés dans la vie locale française par l'immigration [...] se trouvent entassés dans ce qu'il faut bien appeler des ghettos, des travailleurs et des familles aux traditions, aux langues, aux façons de vivre différentes. Cela crée des tensions, et parfois des heurts entre immigrés des divers pays. Cela rend difficiles leurs relations avec les Français. Quand la concentration devient très importante [...], la crise du logement s'aggrave ; les HLM font cruellement défaut et de nombreuses familles françaises ne peuvent y accéder. Les charges d'aide sociale nécessaire pour les familles immigrées plongées dans la misère deviennent insupportables pour les budgets des communes peuplées d'ouvriers et d'employés. L'enseignement est incapable de faire face... »

January 1981 "Il faut stopper l'immigraition officielle et clandestine" (worse or stronger than Zemmour)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIy5qIgTg9g

February 1981 "Nous posons le problème de l'immigration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCfVkATt1vs

Unlike Mélenchon however, Marchais avoided outright racism.

The "great replacement" is neither a myth nor a conspiracy, but a relentless process.

Ever heard of Colombey-les Deux Églises vs Colombey les-Deux-Mosquées?
https://www.liberation.fr/tribune/1999/06/18/de-de-gaulle-a-de-gaulle_275833/

Est-on sûr, d'ailleurs, que son engagement fasse insulte à la mémoire du Général? A quelques années de distance, on peut constater de troublantes convergences entre certaines des positions de De Gaulle et celles de Le Pen. Sans même parler de l'Europe: en ce qui concerne l'immigration maghrébine, par exemple.

C'est là l'un des thèmes majeurs de Le Pen. Mais que disait donc de Gaulle à Alain Peyrefitte? «Les musulmans, vous êtes allé les voir, vous les avez regardés, avec leurs turbans et leurs djellabas? Si nous faisions de l'intégration ["], mon village ne s'appellerait plus Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises, mais Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées"» (C'était de Gaulle, 1994). Cette crainte est sans doute l'une des explications de sa politique algérienne; il jugeait les Algériens musulmans inassimilables et il n'entendait pas que l'Algérie française conduise un jour à une France algérienne avec turbans, babouches et mosquées. Elle est aussi celle de Le Pen (qui fut autrefois pour l'Algérie française"), dont le discours fait écho aux propos du Général, qui disait encore à Alain Peyrefitte en 1963: «Nous ne devons pas nous laisser envahir par la main-d'oeuvre algérienne, qu'elle se fasse passer ou non pour des harkis! Si nous n'y prenons garde, tous les Algériens viendraient s'installer en France!"»

So de Gaulle far-right for you as well, as the leftists of yore? I even recall a history teacher describing him as so, at least in his tough IVth Republic years "traversée du désert".
His view on the matter are explained in his Suicide français book by quoting Tahar ben Jelloun, hardly a far-rightist, who spoke of "recomposition du paysage humain". A poetic explanation according to Zemmour who emphasized the local aspect.

The individualism, born four centuries ago on the borders of the Italian Renissance and German Protestantism has come to the end of its disheveled race: it has transformed our old nations into a society of fearful and capricious individuals who demand from the state the recognitions of their sensibilities and their fragile feelings. On the other hand, Islamic civilisation has gained a foothold on European soil with ever-growing diasporas imposing their mores, laws, imaginations, surnames in the logic of colonisation. [...] they are allied against the same enemy: the French people, their mores, their history, their state, their civility, their civilisation. It's the Nazo-Soviet pact.

Being a North African Berber by origin, Zemmour has understandably a quite dim view of Islam.
Still, I would like the original French quote, I don't trust too much translations (as a translator ) on controversial topics, unless I can do or check them. 

And if we must turn back to 80 years to correctly understand what is and isn't far-right, I'd note he has a rich vein of form for defending Vichy ("Vichy protected French Jews and gave foreign Jews" - which is a lie) and, say, defending Papon at length.

Zemmour pointed out that 75 % of Jews in France survived, some helped by Vichy low-ranking officials. That's a quite high survival rate but Zemmour explains it as Vichy deliberately sacrificing foreign Jews in the beginning, and low-ranking officials disagreeing with Vichy big brass and not doing their part.
Lots of Jews were in North Africa, as in Zemmour's family, but they would have been harder to deport, for obvious logistical reasons.
As for Papon, you are missing his part during the Algerian War, more relevant to Zemmour and FN/RN people today.

If this isn't far-right what is? You know, it's like saying he can't really be far-right because he wears a white and not a black shirt.

See? Dog whistling politics. Black-shirt = Fascism. You have improved a bit though going from brown shirts to black shirts. 
Why not Salazar (inspirer in part of Pétain), Dolfuss or Metaxas? Reactionary as well.

Who's we? Like it not, 1917, 1922 or 1933 will still remain as political references for some time. Some candidates in France even go as far as 1789, with some merit, though their interpretation leaves much to desire.

We is people talking about politics. The past can be a reference point but it's not a trap that we can't escape or an answer. Does left-wing politics in the 2010-20s look like left-wing politics in the 1930s? Obviously not - the nature of the economy is different, climate is an issue now, there's the legacy of sexual, social, cultural liberation. That also applies to the far-right.

Unfortunately, left-wings politics are very different from the 1930s, that's one of the reasons left-wing politics have lost the working class around here.
Unfortunately, left-wings politics are trapped in their reference point.
Circumstances obviously change, but well-connected business macronistes need their cheap labour or votes.

My point earlier on. Class warfare still exists but not as successful for the proles, divided by Identity Politics.

So I disagree. I don't think class warfare or class politics have been displaced into culture wars and identitiy politics - not least because I think that ignores the service worker/precariat working class.

Rather the lack of class politics/economics being subject to democracy acts as a sort of centrifugal force so it sort of scrambles early post-war style class lines (I think there's something to Piketty on this). So I think the urban and public sector middle class and the service working class/precariat go to the left, while the sort of petty bourgeois and manufacturing (or rural) working class are going to the right.
[/quote]

I was about to agree but public sector middle class includes police, gendarmerie, military, prison guard and they are not know for their left-wing votes.
Not displaced ,but the culture wars and identity politics are a strong enough diversion to put class warfare into the background. The once red suburbs of Paris and other big cities have no longer any class conscience and most don't even know what class warfare is.

So I don't think what we are seeing is class politics but on cultural lines (though this is what the right want you to think) of the working class populists on the right v middle class/elites on the liberal left. Rather I think because economics has been removed from politics and is a void the issues of distribution and culture scramble those traditional lines.

Right or far-right? Zemmour's anti-immigration gaullo-bonapartism?

Probably the case, but Jupin being an archetypal technocrat is the worst possible candidate for that kind of reforms.

As I say I'd position Macron as a technocratic populist or populist technocrat.

You are the only one seeing Macron as a populist, even if "technocratic populist" (great de facto oxymoron).
We'll have to disagree on this one, but know that most Jupin's fans will strongly object to that label, with merit.

[Sheilbh]

Not arguing that you don't like memes about Brexit.  I just find them tiresome after a while in a discussion.

I've used one. Once

Made-up quote, a cheap trick often used against him, specially since even the original French is damning enough most of the time. Zemmour, as the polemist is, is not adverse to hyperbole.
The original is, among other things :

"les grandes invasions d'après la chute de Rome" avec les "bandes de Tchétchènes, de Roms, de Kosovars, de Maghrébins, d'Africains, qui dévalisent, violentent ou dépouillent".

[...]
The communities quoted are overrepresented in French prisons, though ethnic statistics are officially forbidden, it is not big secret. PC point to Zemmour for speaking or Roma (Roma) instead of Gypsies (gitans) or Tziganes.

So if you go by Zemmour quotes, I will discuss only the original, in context. So find them, and tell me what you understood.
Not whatever biased translation, explanation or comment found in whatever non fact-checking outlet.

It's from his latest book:

Besides, nazis and fascists, the far-right for leftists (Salazar, Dolfuss and Metaxas existed too!), were quite ok with Islam so that's a big no-no for Zemmour. Historically, in France at least, the left was not too big on immigration, often opposing it, namely on the communist side. (cf. Mélenchon and his racist ravings on Central and Eastern Europeans, white people and blond people etc.). At least, Marchais, former PCF leader, the last gaullist according to Zemmour (that's quite controversial btw) declared himself opposed to all immigration as late as in the early '80s which meant no space for FN.

Again I just don't see the relevance of any of this.

Ever heard of Colombey-les Deux Églises vs Colombey les-Deux-Mosquées?

Again? What's the relevance. Why does this matter to whether Zemmour is far-right or the election in 2021? To go a little bit Macron we're in ni les annees 30 ni les annees 60.

Being a North African Berber by origin, Zemmour has understandably a quite dim view of Islam.
Still, I would like the original French quote, I don't trust too much translations (as a translator ) on controversial topics, unless I can do or check them. 

Zemmour pointed out that 75 % of Jews in France survived, some helped by Vichy low-ranking officials. That's a quite high survival rate but Zemmour explains it as Vichy deliberately sacrificing foreign Jews in the beginning, and low-ranking officials disagreeing with Vichy big brass and not doing their part.
Lots of Jews were in North Africa, as in Zemmour's family, but they would have been harder to deport, for obvious logistical reasons.
As for Papon, you are missing his part during the Algerian War, more relevant to Zemmour and FN/RN people today.

On Papon - I'm not missing that and I think it is striking given that we're just a few weeks from the 60th anniversary.

Again the section of his latest book:

See? Dog whistling politics. Black-shirt = Fascism. You have improved a bit though going from brown shirts to black shirts. 
Why not Salazar (inspirer in part of Pétain), Dolfuss or Metaxas? Reactionary as well.

My point was that you're pettifogging over minor details and historic minutiae about who is or isn't far-right to whittle the term out of existence.

I could do that with a joke about shirts - my repertoire of Dolfuss jokes is less developed

You are the only one seeing Macron as a populist, even if "technocratic populist" (great de facto oxymoron).
We'll have to disagree on this one, but know that most Jupin's fans will strongly object to that label, with merit.

I'm not - I'm literally and shameleslly stealing the ideas of Chris Bicketeron and Carol Accetti in their book "Technopopulism: The New Logic of Democratic Politics" - useful summary here:
https://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.queens.cam.ac.uk/files/downloads/202043_032_chris_bickerton_final_published_version.pdf

[Duque de Bragança]

Zemmour's books, as other books, need to be read in fully, not just putting some quotes chosen for scoring points. No question about your googling skills in finding some Zemmour quotes but you did not read any of his books.
If I want to read or hear any selective quoting, most mainstream French media will be enough. Means only le Figaro and the odd voice (Jean-François Kahn one no link with DSK) will try to not condemn automatically.
Even so, the English translation does not match the French original. The part about "équipée sauvage", an old-school reference typical of Zemmour think of Brando's the Wild One, so not exactly a common occurence, is strangely missing,  plus the typical confusion of de and des by the English. He points at gangs of the above mentioned "communities" rather than all of them (I'm disappointed I have seen more hyperbolic stuff by Zemmour).
Back to topic, like it or not, those gans exist.
Chechens were recently news when fighting between gangs of Chechens and North Africans broke up in a provincial town. Not good enough for Zemmour I guess.

Point about élucubrations "genres" or "racisées" is spot on but you do not mention, it for some reason. Not as hyperbolic? Too partial?

Description of Papon by Zemmour is not really sympathetic cf. antipathique (antonym) et revêche. The reminder of of the Armistice article 3 is interesting, if true, but I do not recall it being challenged.
Little known legalese detail, such as the full constituting powers (constituante for a new Constitution) give to Pétain, not full powers.
Nice potshot at the Klarsfelds though, typical Zemmour. 

Zemmour's position on the role of French police was more or less the one of Mitterrand in his presidential years (not pro-Pétain years). The left carefully avoided the topic. Only Chirac, the one who got Mitterrand elected changed the stance.

I'll answer with more detail when/if I read it but I would avoid the ni ni argument of Macron, that rings too close to a reference to Le Pen ni gauche, ni droite français.
In the meantime, I will gladly accept jokes about Salazar, Metaxas or even Greek colonels, in desperation, or Schusnigg.

Pray (not Jupiter obviously) that it ends up soon in a public library. Earlier ones did, even if they were hard to borrow given the hype and controversy around them. Zemmour's books don't show up in pocket editions so second-hand only gets to be an option after a few years.

Description of Papon by Zemmour is not really sympathetic, "antipathique (antonyme) et revêche".

If you don't see the relevance of proto-grand remplacement talk by de Gaulle, not one usually described as far-right abroad (unlike leftists in France in the past) there is not much too discuss.
Same for Salazar and Pétain, not historic minutiæ cf. the famous Pétain quote "Puisque j'ai les idées de Salazar et le costume de Carmona"...
Both inspired by Maurras, now that' a far-right link that makes more sense but still not national-socialiste or even fascist.

As for the British link, having populist and technocratic for Macron shows how completely irrelevant is that writer's analysis to France.

[Oexmelin]

Man, the far-right really uses the same tricks everywhere.

"It's quoted out of context" ; "It's just a reaction against PCness"; "Please perform a finely-tuned, in-detail exegesis of this guy's oeuvre/discourses/radio show before you dare call him a racist"; "He's not a racist - racists just really like him for some weird reason".

[PDH]

Well, there are good people on both sides of this.