Journal #8800
Posted 7 years ago2017-04-23 17:37:20 UTC
Turns out a pretty face and a lot of advertising is enough to win an election, no need to have an electoral program!
17 Comments
You must log in to post a comment. You can login or register a new account.
In 40 years when we're climbing from the rubble, maybe humanism can have another shot.
I was talking about Macron, and I'm positive he's going to win by a large majority. The irrational fear people have for the FN will just suffice to elect this program-free, private interest candidate. But things might change in the future, because things are going to get worse.
Very little is enough to convince people that a party or a person is racist or extremist. Standing against islamisation, insecurity or immigration is far more than enough. Even if those are issues most French people know their existence and their importance.
As a reminder, Macron said that insecurity is not that big of an issue. In a country where bullet proof glasses had to be installed in some schools. That's not just an isolated fact, insecurity is a nationwide trend.
Now as usual, most politics urge people to vote against Le Pen, which is not even described as a political opponent but as an enemy of the republic. These politicians include Fillon (you know, the career politician who stole money from tax payers and doesn't admit it) and Valls who passed the law in favour of big businesses against ordinary workers. I'd be suspicious about the real reason why they're qualifying the vote of millions of people as evil, but I'm positive it's not because of their "humanist" views.
FN voters have simply been ignored, the issues they've been confronted to snubbed by the elites with the support of the rest of the population because of their votes systematically being demonised as votes of "fear and hate". They've been prevented from expressing their voice in a so-called republic for decades, and it's going to be the case once again and a few more times.
It's because the key issues the FN plan to address are completely kept ignored by other parties that voters are obliged to cast their votes for a party with such a bad reputation.
I'm not a supporter of the FN and I did not vote for it at this round. But the FN is one of the few parties denouncing the real issues and the longer these issues are kept ignored (because Macron does not plan to address them), the larger FN voters will grow and the more extremist they will get. In the meantime, people ignoring these issues will keep voting for ANYTHING as long as it's not the FN until it's too late.
All in all, it's the usual speech: Not a hateful, fearful vote. They just don't want to vote for the people who've been ignoring (and demonising) them for decades.
I'm just stating a fact. I'm not saying the FN is a good party. But not as bad as it is always described by medias and politics and surely better than Macron. It's a seed of hope, at the very least.
The fact that so many people think going so right-wing you fall off the plane is a SHAKE-UP of the political elite, however, is just insanity. Somehow these evil clowns have convinced the working class that they're on their side, when they couldn't be further from it. The security issue seems to be your biggest motivator, and that's absolutely valid. Your country has taken the absolute brunt of terrorism in the last few years; your continent in the last decade. You know how personally invested I am in the situation - there's a good chance I'll one day call France my home.
But you have to stop thinking so short term. The reason these extremists exist is because of people like Le Pen. They are the cause of it, not the solution. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
She can put soft fluffy bunny ears on all the bloodied pikes that her party hold aloft, but it doesn't stop them being dangerous, xenophobic monsters, and all those attitudes do is breed the next generation of terrorists.
I agree that Macron is a disappointing front-runner - actually I didn't really like any of the candidates. Mélenchon was probably the closest to being a good option, although his anti-EU views are problematic, but any of them would both do far, far less damage than Le Pen.
The UK is currently driving off a cliff with May at the wheel. In just a couple of years it's going to be a fucking disaster and the poorest are going to take the brunt of it. Her plan is to basically make the UK a tax haven for huge corporations to avoid them fleeing the country post-brexit. Her party wants to privatise healthcare like pre-Obamacare USA and basically sell off every single asset the country owns. The short term gains is that she and her party all get very rich and then in 10 years the market crashes again because it's completely unsustainable. This is the cycle of the right wing.
The US? Where do you even start? They're going to be on the brink of nuclear war for the next 4 years, minimum, and once again the poorest people are paying for decisions being made by a man who only wants to profit and see his friends profit.
This is proven time and time again by the right wing. If you give them power, they corrupt it to profit in the short term and leave their country on the brink of collapse by the end of their term. Yet they keep getting elected because they pretend the country's problems are caused by the scary brown-skinned people who want to murder you/rape your daughters/take your jobs/whatever else is the rightwing wank topic of the month.
The real terrorists are the ones who continue spouting that narrative.
Don't think short term. Elect someone who won't fuck your future. Make them deal with the security issue, absolutely, but don't vote for someone whose entire platform is xenophobia.
Meanwhile in Scotland all I can do is hope for indyref2 before Brexit does too much damage.
And I think there is a decent argument to make that radical Islam is definitely trying to put a foothold in the west, and until we have a good system to ensure the safety of our own people, we should keep immigration on a tight hold.
But the left is weakening and has to lash out on all different thought groups, so I guess we've just gotta fight in the streets over our beliefs. Fair enough.
When the Daily Mail start publishing anything resembling journalism I'll stop using them as the butt of jokes; it's not hypocritical to call them out for constantly publishing bullshit - I'd do the same for anything that's deliberately misleading people.
So much of this is exactly what I was saying in my wall-of-text. You're buying into the narrative that the elite are spinning to distract you from their crimes. Trump is as much part of that elite as any banker.
What about the foothold that the west put in the east? The illegal wars, the civilian bombings, the occupations, the regime puppetry? The anti-west sentiment which leads to extremism is created by your right-wing buddies getting greedy.
How many domestic terror attacks happened in the U.S. under Obama and his immigration policies? Why do you feel they need to be tighter than that? You have mass murders on a weekly basis by your own citizens, yet you're still more scared of Islamic terrorism?
Islamophobia is deliberate and manufactured, and is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's used as an excuse to bomb countries for their resources, and then we act all surprised when the kids of those who are blown-up grow up to hate the west.
Use. Your. Brain.
Please look at the big picture.
Right, the ongoing effects caused by the lust for a military industrial complex are actually a falsification created by the elite so we don't realize we're being oppressed by OmniCorp.
"What about the foothold that the west put in the east? The illegal wars, the civilian bombings, the occupations, the regime puppetry? The anti-west sentiment which leads to extremism is created by your right-wing buddies getting greedy."
You're exactly right on this point. I still do identify as a liberal because I'm completely against this war-centric sentiment. What I do believe in is isolationism. We have bred this massive contempt from the east, and so we should have a system to distance ourselves from this growing problem we've created.
If you look on the other hand, I can see the reasons why the wars in the east are justified. The east has long been held back before our intervention, and we went in with the intention to create independent capitalistic democracies. With the rise of Islamic terrorism, these efforts became twisted into a perpetual war-on-terror.
And on the other hand, look at the problems facing France and Sweden. A massive influx of migrants with a disproportionate hatred of authority and willingness to commit crime.
How many domestic terror attacks happened in the U.S. under Obama and his immigration policies?
Quite a few that become very popular. The Boston Marathon bombing, the San Bernardino shooting, the Orlando night club shooting. Some decent gun legislation wouldn't be a terrible idea to counter this, but that's never going to happen.
Why do you feel they need to be tighter than that?
Because terrorism from Islamic citizens/migrants is disproportionate compared to what a small percentage of the population they are. That, and when you look at the migrant crisis in Europe, you come to realize we really don't want to risk that happening here.
You have mass murders on a weekly basis by your own citizens, yet you're still more scared of Islamic terrorism?
No shit. The majority of the population is going to commit the majority of crime. What a surprise.
The big issue here is that classical conservatism basically fucked us, but with the rise of identity politics, they're the only ones willing to oppose it and make addresses to the oncoming crises that we've caused.
But I still stand by the idea that this crisis of migration isn't completely the fault of the west. Radical Islam has been a very problematic ideology for a long time. We're talking about societies that persecute and execute people for having different religious beliefs, that subjugate women and tread them as less than half a citizen.
The west succeeds because of our willingness to drop regressive ideas, whereas the Islamic world has remained regressive and unyielding. It's a problem with the Islamic religion and its use as an authoritarian tool, in the same was Christianity was used to control European society.
Two of the three terror attacks you listed were perpetrated by U.S. born citizens. All three were perpetrated by U.S. citizens. Closed borders and isolationism wouldn't have prevented any of them. Gun control would have prevented two of them.
Your 'majority of the population = majority of the crime' is a completely moot point. I'm pointing out that you have far more imminent and present threat to your life than radical islam, yet you're promoting isolationism instead of gun control. Only one of those things is going to save lives.
I agree that radical Islam is horrendous. Radical versions of any religion are terrible², and like you say; I'm extremely thankful that I live in a country where we've mostly moved past it.
But then you go on to say that we succeed because we drop regressive ideas, but you still choose to target immigrants who are fleeing the exact conditions you're talking about. If they're not fleeing the bombs we're dropping then they're fleeing the regressive and unyielding extremism of parts of Islam.
The whole 'migrant crisis' phrase is part of the problem, and again, it's part of that deliberate, focused narrative perpetrated by the right. The actual humans involved in this are just families like yours or mine who have been dealt an absolutely shit hand and are doing whatever they can to try to find a better life.
We both live in nations that are greatly enriched by multiculturalism. We should be aiming for a world where immigration happens for the adventure and opportunity, not out of necessity and fear.
You talk about regression, but if we keep voting en masse to put isolationists in charge, you simply turn back the calendar and start the whole dirty process again.
¹ Citation needed.
² Of course, religion in general is terrible, but that's another discussion.
I do have the feeling that everyone voted Macron because of the media and/or he was "handsome", I think we frenchies have reached the point where stupidity is over 900%.
About Mélenchon Archie, his "leaving the EU" was his plan B, plan A was "negociate with the EU members".
I don't agree with part of what you said, Dim, and Archie already explained why. I'm personally not that much concerned about terrorism. That's just an easy way to twist public opinion and justify extraordinary measures as Georges Bush did, David Cameron did (by qualifying anyone against bombarding Syria as terrorist sympathisers) and last but not least, Marine Le Pen, although not to the same extent (yet she's seen as worse as those two). The argument I often give is that +2000 people die on the roads each year. I'm far more concerned about that. I don't think immigrants are a problem because of the terrorist threat they represent, which is frankly not as high as we might like to think.
Archie, you said that the ruling class is using Islamophobia and racism to divide the people and justify foreign wars. That might be true to some extent. But all I see here are medias and politicians urging people to be open to immigration and Islam. All, including the right leader François Fillon, except the FN and Debout la France (which made less than 5% because of an unfair coverage by the media). Immigration benefit to the economy, but not always to the people. It can drive wages down¹ and fragment society with confronting cultures and religions. Those who are looking for cheap labour don't care, and "those" are big businesses. I think that's part of the reason why medias and politicians make it so hard to be against immigration. Of course, it's also because a lot of people naturally think the way you think, that immigration and multiculturalism are an opportunity and that the one opposed to it are racist. There's some truth in it.
Immigration as it is now in my country is a very important problem. Immigration and fear are probably used by dishonest people and parties to divide the people, but any idea or feeling, good or bad, can be used that way. History has shown us that immigration and multiculturalism can either be opportunities or disasters. Yet, for some reasons, people like to only remember the good part of it. Take Lenanon. The division between druze, shia and sunni Muslims and Christians is NOT a chance, but the reason why this country has been severely damaged with civil wars (it went from a Switzerland to a developing country). Any massive immigration from very different cultures poses substantial threats to the stability of a country. It might not be bad by itself, but it makes society far more vulnerable to any sort of social divide.
The French state is investing millions in "priority" areas: suburbs where immigrant population gather and that are awash with insecurity, poor education and unemployment. Occasionally, something very bad happens. For example, not so long ago, a car of policemen were attacked with Molotov cocktails by some people, including some below 18. They were left with permanent injuries. This lead to police protests nationwide. This kind of events happen very often, although not so dramatic. This sort of delinquency is often done by immigrants from those "priority" areas. It's not always because of them, but because we can't host them in acceptable conditions. Even Sweden, who was priding itself for accepting a lot of immigrants and giving them Swedish lessons is facing problems with immigrants (which in turn leads to a rise in neo-Nazism and antisemitism). There's also the fact that if you plan to accept anyone, you won't only get families fleeing wars or poverty, but criminals as well (as seen in Cologne). I'm not mentioning the racism intra-immigrants, or the fact people from some Muslim populations have anti-Christian and anti-Jew views. Example: https://www.facebook.com/MalalaiseOfficiel/videos/1529794330378730/
As for Marine Le Pen, you're telling me choosing the far-right is always the worst option by drawing comparisons with May and Trump. They have similarities, but they're really different. The question is: is she really far-right? Le Pen is described as far-right for her anti-immigration and anti-islam stance, yet she has a very socialist / left program at the complete opposite from May, Trump or Fillon. So social I wonder where she plans to find the money. She's not misogynistic. She's not accused Hollande of not being born in France as Trump did for Obama. She's not homophobic, the N2 of the FN is gay, and it's one of the reasons why some gay people are voting for her. She's also supported by some immigrants who just want security as well (she's the only major candidate who has a harsh stance on security). She supported Trump, but criticised him when he attacked Syria.
The short-term solution is Macron in my view. By allowing immigration to increase without any plan to fight insecurity and inequality , it will widen social divide even more and lead to more and more extremism in both camps as it's seen in Sweden and in Germany. Why do you think the FN gets more votes at every elections? How long do you think it's possible to keep it away from power? Besides, if she wins, she plans to have a referendum about whether or not people plan to stay in the EU. If she wins now, I'm confident people will choose to stay by a large majority, because the whole country depends on tourism. If she wins later, people would probably be extremist they might choose to leave.
I like Mélenchon as well, so I voted for him on the first round. But I disagree strongly with some of the things he said. As for Marine Le Pen, I don't like her, but I agree with most of her programme.
¹: I've heard some theories stating that it initially drives wages down but that in the long-run, everything goes back to normal. However those theories were only using examples and were not mentioning what would happen if the immigration flow was staying the same or increasing (as it is now).
I can't help but feel a lot of your points would be non-existent if religion was dead and buried where it belongs, but that's a pipe dream for now.
She's much better than Trump, you're right, but they both come from the same crop and the same core values. I understand it's not fair to judge someone on their fathers' actions, but it's also really difficult to ignore the early days of the party under his leadership. There are still plenty within her party who have that mindset, and that is scary, even if she is personally trying to distance herself from it. While you're voting for a person, they do come with the whole party.
As we saw with the aftermath of Trump's election and Brexit's referendum, a lot of extremists (particularly white nationalist extremists) use these isolationist victories as permission to be overtly racist and violent. They're just thugs and morons, and I'm not for a moment suggesting that everyone who voted for Trump and Brexit are morons¹, but they have been given rationalisation to incite hatred.
I'm not against sensible border control and realistic immigration policies - but they should be presented in the terms that you're using, Loulimi. What these far-right parties often promote is the sort of language that Trump² uses; an ideology where there is a definite 'them' and 'us' which is just disgusting. Where you were born doesn't entitle you to more rights than any other human. You just got lucky.
I guess at the end of the day I'm much more concerned about legacy than any current problems. I'd rather do the hard work now so that my kids are left with a better world than I was. The Baby Boomers fucked it for Gen X, Gen X fucked it for us and now we're well on our way to fuck it for the next generation. And it's all because the leaders we elect are campaigning on short-term populist problems and the ones who could actually make a difference are dismissed because their plan would probably require effort.
I dunno. I'm just despondent at the state of the world. Globalism is somehow becoming a dirty word, as are liberalism and humanism. Bright kids are getting swept up into the Hitler Youth by the overtly right-wing establishment under the guise of a rebellion against that exact same establishment. The class divide was pointed out to mass outrage and then we proceeded to... continue to vote for bankers and the rich elite. Putin is pulling strings on a conspiracy-theory-level scale and we're all just waiting for something to escalate to the point of no return.
Here's a little aside to give a smidgen of hope:
Scotland just beat its 2020 target by 3 years of creating enough wind and solar energy to power the entire country. We're a progressive, socialist, atheist country and we're fucking nailing it despite being constantly shackled by Westminster. Imagine if more countries prioritised renewable energy, quality of life and science. Elect the right people - the ones who are looking beyond today.
Also we can be thankful that Pebs finally got unicode support working on TWHL.³
¹ Although it is fucking tempting.
² And therefore Dimbark
³ Pebs for President 2020
socialist
better dead than red, my friend
The legacy of the FN is the main reason why people are afraid of it. I think it's mostly clean now considering how many people she sacked, but I understand why people see it as some sort of hidden fascist force trying to look like a normal party just to get elected.
A "clean" alternative to the FN would be Debout la France. They're anti-EU as well though and his leader, Dupont-Aignan, sees De Gaulle as a God, which is never a good thing. Anyway, he made an impressive performance during the last TV show confronting all the 11 candidates which I strongly invite you to watch: https://youtu.be/gJnWNX9G7U8?t=7m42s
Extremely loud sarcasm aside, I'd like to point out that Iran and Afghanistan, both Muslim-majority countries we nowadays associate with "them terrorists" were fairly peaceful, modern, and religiously tolerant societies in the 70s until two separate revolutions went in and mucked things up. And just so we're on the same page, the rulers of both countries before their respective depositions had been Muslims.
Religion has nothing to do with antisocial, warlike, or oppressive behavior. It's assholes, who much of the time use religion as a veil for their actions, both for the convenient "God wills it" excuse and as a recruitment tool, who are the problem. And regardless of whether the asshole in question is using religion as their soapbox, or politics, or whatever else have you, they are always, always, presenting their actions as an "Us Vs Them" fight.
Religious extremism, Nationalism, Sports teams, it's all bullshit designed to keep the people under someone else's thumb by giving them outsiders to hate and eventually assault in order to turn the inevitable counter-attack into a positive feedback loop. (You can see this sort of loop very clearly in the Israel-Palestine conflict - at this point it's honestly less over the root causes and more for the reasons of "Yeah but he attacked me yesterday" - hence why no progress or even real attempts at negotiations have been made in 50 goddamn years) And even if the feedback loop doesn't manage to take hold, they'll just try again with another "Them" and make it seem like the villain of the hour is the One True Threat We Have Always Had To Fight.
Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.