How to Defeat Le Pen - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14781180
Le Pen (just like Trump), could be a blessing in disguise and what is actually needed to reform their counterparts.
The so-called "left" stop caring about wealth redistribution, fighting inequalities, providing a platform of regulations that could made globalization more sustainable (especially for what concerns Tax Havens) and more popular, and only focused on civil rights (ok they are important as well, but alone they aren't enough) and foolish immigration policies (scared by the fact that the "pay-as-you-go" pension systems will collapse under our own demographic growth).
By hartmut
#14781544
Kaiserschmarrn wrote: ..
I think the risks associated with the FPOE and more generally with the far right are minimal. ...

Obviously you tend to think so.
But why, in the case of "far right"?
Didn't that special mental group incinerate our Europe twice in 20th. century; down to the abyss of self destruction and, up to now, unknown tragedies?
So why can you reckon them to be harmless?
By fokker
#14781852
hartmut wrote:Obviously you tend to think so.
But why, in the case of "far right"?
Didn't that special mental group incinerate our Europe twice in 20th. century; down to the abyss of self destruction and, up to now, unknown tragedies?
So why can you reckon them to be harmless?


There are different kinds of far right. Take Italian fascists during Mussolini era. They didn't plan to commit genocie on other people, yet still started wars as they wanted to restore glory of Italy. Italians did the same thing like Brits but later and they were "evil", while Brits were "civilized" and bringing prosperity. Italian fascists did think certain nations are superior, but that it was due to cultural and political reasons. On the other hand, German nazis believed superiority is genetic and other races in the east must be subjugated, others like jews erased.

Far right parties today do not advocate totalitarian one party state or intend to wage a war. They also are aware of the damage fascism has done to Europe in the past. Additionally European countries have been democracies for long period and people do not want fascism. Far right parties tend to be more populist than fascist.

I think this makes Kaiserschmarn reach a conclusion that these far right parties are not as dangerous as liberals/socialists claim. There is some danger but today's economy is globalized and "misbehaving" country can be punished through economic means (as Austria already experienced in the past).

There is only very small amount of people that are real fascists. People vote for such parties only as a last resort if other parties fail them.
#14781872
Smear the bitch and that should sort her out.

The European Parliament has lifted French far-right leader Marine Le Pen's immunity from prosecution after she tweeted pictures of so-called Islamic State (IS) violence.
Ms Le Pen is under investigation in France for posting three graphic images of IS killings in 2015, including the beheading of US journalist James Foley.
Her position as an MEP has so far meant she could not be prosecuted.
Ms Le Pen is currently running to be French president.
Opinion polls suggest she is on course to win the first round in April, but centrist Emmanuel Macron is gaining ground and looks likely to beat her in a second round in May.
A Figaro/LCI poll on Sunday put Mr Macron - who was unveiling his manifesto at the same time as it was revealed Ms Le Pen had lost her immunity - on 58% in the run-off, against 42% for Ms Le Pen.
The European Parliament vote - carried by a "big majority", according to acting parliament speaker Dimitrios Papadimoulis - confirmed a preliminary decision taken on Tuesday by the legal affairs committee of the European Union legislature.
Ms Le Pen had dismissed efforts to lift her immunity as "part of the system that wants to stop the French people's candidate that I am".
The allegations date back to December 2015, when she tweeted the pictures in response to a journalist who drew an analogy between her anti-immigration Front National (FN) party and IS extremists.
Mr Foley's parents accused Le Pen of using the "shamefully uncensored" image of their son for her own political ends.
■ French election 2017: Who are the candidates?
■ France's Fillon denies tax evasion
■ What makes Marine Le Pen far right?
■ What does Emmanuel Macron stand for?
However, the vote only lifts her immunity in this particular case and will not cover a separate investigation into whether the FN misused European Parliament funds.
Ms Le Pen has refused to attend a police interview over the latter allegations. She denies wrongdoing and claims that they are a plot to derail her campaign.
Le Pen in trouble - again
Kevin Connolly, BBC News, Brussels
This is not the first time Marine Le Pen has found herself in legal hot water at the European Parliament.
Her immunity was lifted four years ago to facilitate an investigation into remarks she made about Muslims praying in public in France - and she's locked in a long-running dispute about an alleged misuse of parliamentary expenses.
This latest case involves her spreading images of brutal IS executions on social media.
In theory such actions can result in a heavy fine or even imprisonment in France although Madame Le Pen may calculate that this is an issue that will do her no harm with hard-right supporters of her party, the Front National. No charges were brought against her the last time her immunity was lifted.
With her conservative rival Francois Fillon facing an investigation into his family's use of parliamentary salaries and expenses, Thursday's decision leaves France in the unusual position of having two prominent candidates for the presidency facing the prospect of criminal prosecution.
By hartmut
#14781877
Hötzendorf, (I do just imagine it would be you :) )

Differences in between "far right" are probably less than you point out, albeit it is true that disciples of such movements are of different shape. At least at their beginnings.

Conrad, you know well, or should, that Gavrilo Princip was more "far right" than you,
who yourself fought against a highly aggressive nationalism in the balkans, destabilising, and at last killing, a comparably mild and prospering multicultural empire.
And clearly it was a poisoned germ which brought almost suddenly very severe troubles over Europe, and vast parts of the globe.

Therefore Franz,
I would say, we should pay more attention to patterns of virulence, and a bit less to compositions of current backers.
But, whom do I tell this?
I just fancied, I´d talked to Hötzendorf.
:D
#14781878
The criminals are every European that supports making free speech a criminal offense. :( Friggin' insanity.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14781903
One Degree wrote:The criminals are every European that supports making free speech a criminal offense. :( Friggin' insanity.


Do you want politicians to tweet pictures of your children being beheaded?
#14781919
Rugoz wrote:Do you want politicians to tweet pictures of your children being beheaded?


I would not like it, but were these pictures not already available? It is not like she took them and released them.
By fokker
#14781956
hartmut wrote:Hötzendorf, (I do just imagine it would be you :) )

Differences in between "far right" are probably less than you point out, albeit it is true that disciples of such movements are of different shape. At least at their beginnings.

Conrad, you know well, or should, that Gavrilo Princip was more "far right" than you,
who yourself fought against a highly aggressive nationalism in the balkans, destabilising, and at last killing, a comparably mild and prospering multicultural empire.
And clearly it was a poisoned germ which brought almost suddenly very severe troubles over Europe, and vast parts of the globe.

Therefore Franz,
I would say, we should pay more attention to patterns of virulence, and a bit less to compositions of current backers.
But, whom do I tell this?
I just fancied, I´d talked to Hötzendorf.
:D


So much joy from talking to me :D

We need to look at what triggers nationalism. Is it not globalization and attempts to solve population problems with immigration? Europe had a very long period of prosperity, with nationalism basically dead, until some socialists decided opinions of people do not matter and will pursue their agenda regardless. They think people have nobody else to vote for. It is socialists who are hell bent on ignoring referendums, or avoiding them at all cost and far right who is demanding them. Perhaps democracy has degenerated into clever multi-party dictatorship where elites will do everything to remain in power and quickly forget promises.

European union is a globalist project and didn't bring benefits to every EU country as the founders claimed. Perhaps people realized globalization is a scam that erodes national sovereignty and doesn't lead to prosperity to everyone as promised as not every country is able to deal with the problems it causes. Many countries however benefited from globalization until it started causing mass migration. So it appears the political project that helped bring prosperity into Europe is now causing nationalism.

Is nationalism dangerous? Surely it is, it triggered multiple wars in Europe including the one you pointed at. But I don't believe in supressing it as that doesn't solve the problems that triggered it. Similarly I don't believe in supression of communists.

Gavrilo Princip was a terrorist/nationalist, I wouldn't label him far right at all. He was just a radicalized student. Not every nationalist is far right. Serbs see him as freedom fighter and erected statues for him. And as you could expect, I strongly oppose Serbian EU membership.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14781990
We need to look at what triggers nationalism. Is it not globalization and attempts to solve population problems with immigration? Europe had a very long period of prosperity, with nationalism basically dead, until some socialists decided opinions of people do not matter and will pursue their agenda regardless. They think people have nobody else to vote for. It is socialists who are hell bent on ignoring referendums, or avoiding them at all cost and far right who is demanding them.

Replace the word "socialists" with the word "liberals", and I would agree with you. :)

Perhaps democracy has degenerated into clever multi-party dictatorship where elites will do everything to remain in power and quickly forget promises.

So you've finally noticed, have you? What took you so long? ;)
By noir
#14782052
Potemkin wrote:Replace the word "socialists" with the word "liberals", and I would agree with you. :)


So you've finally noticed, have you? What took you so long? ;)


Just reading about this binary in British politics. Wasn't aware of that before. It seems the "rights" talk belongs to the British liberals.
#14782469
hartmut wrote:Obviously you tend to think so.
But why, in the case of "far right"?
Didn't that special mental group incinerate our Europe twice in 20th. century; down to the abyss of self destruction and, up to now, unknown tragedies?
So why can you reckon them to be harmless?

I would dispute that the far right / nationalism was responsible for WWI - it was mainly caused by great power politics of (multinational) empires. On the other hand nationalism played a role in driving out the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans in the early 20th century. Was that a tragedy?

As for WWII, as you might imagine I'm a bit tired of the association with faschism and nazism. It is to some extent understandable that it looms so large, but in my view we have developed an outright nationalism-phobia that is not serving us well. Just like Corbyn is no Stalin - and hardly anybody would suggest that he is despite his far left leanings - the current far right isn't faschist and their leaders aren't Hitler.

Like anything that taps into human base instincts, nationalism is extremely powerful and potentially dangerous. However, the worst thing to do in response is to suppress it and offer nothing coherent to replace it. Humans wish to identify and belong to something and they will inevitably fill the vacuum, usually with some form of tribalism which in the west today takes the form of identity politics. It is just as emotionally charged as nationalism since it goes to the heart of who people feel they are. This is why it is extremely unlikely that the left will give up identity politics and its demonisation of and onslaught on nationalism. They have found a way to fill the void and now act as an umbrella organisation for the the various "tribes" that are not the majority - the so-called rainbow coalition. This gives them, among other things, incentive to push for more immigration and amnesties for illegals in order to expand their voters.

What we are increasingly seeing today is the majority in Western countries also identifying as a "tribe" in response. In other words we are to some extent regressing and possibly undoing what was actually an achievement of nationalism: the unification of various different groups of people under one identity who are prepared to sacrifice for and stand in solidarity with each other. I put the blame mostly at the feet of the right who has for some time now given in to nationalism-phobia and hence has absolutely nothing to offer people that would emotionally bind them in response to identity politics. In my opinion, this is a major reason why people are defecting to the far right and why Trump won in the US. Trump has tapped into something that Republicans have deliberately refused to use and harness, exclusively choosing rationality over emotion, i.e. America as a set of ideas and ideals rather than feeling American. The hand-wringing of many Conservatives over Trump's moderate and - importantly - inclusive patriotism would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerously misguided and potentially detrimental for the right.

The danger, in my view, is that if the right doesn't come to terms with this and steps up, and perhaps even closes ranks with the left (as has happened in Germany), we might see an acceleration in the tribal response of the majority in line with the increasing polarisation in politics. And since tribal politics tend to work by the different groups securing privileges and resources for their own and often to the exclusion of "the other", this is potentially dangerous. To combat this, we need something that can unify us emotionally, otherwise we will in all likelihood continue to regress into ever more tribalism, with a (small) chance of violence in the long run.
By hartmut
#14782764
fokker wrote:So much joy from talking to me :D

We need to look at what triggers nationalism. Is it not globalization and attempts to solve population problems with immigration? .. (Hötzendorf. That does not fit for your time. Neither was there a attempt to solve "population problems" by immigration, nor was a need for it. Globalisation was already well on it's way, but less powerful than today. Still there was a very lively nationalism.)
European union is a globalist project and didn't bring benefits to every EU country as the founders claimed.
(So which Member is less well off after joining?....)
Is nationalism dangerous? Surely it is, it triggered multiple wars in Europe including the one you pointed at. But I don't believe in supressing it as that doesn't solve the problems that triggered it. Similarly I don't believe in supression of communists.
(The real Hötzendorf gave me quite an other answer. :D )

Gavrilo Princip was a terrorist/nationalist, I wouldn't label him far right at all. He was just a radicalized student.
(Seven kind of ISIS-fighters, that is a good comparison by Margret Macmillan, stood ready at the apple kay in Sarajevo for Franz Ferdinand, and his beloved wife Sofferl. )
Not every nationalist is far right. Serbs see him as freedom fighter and erected statues for him. And as you could expect, I strongly oppose Serbian EU membership.
(Franz Conrad, I would assume, you'd agree, that extreme nationalism is accompanied with "far right".)


I hope, Franz,
it is ok. for you, that I simply inserted answers.
By fokker
#14782773
hartmut wrote:We need to look at what triggers nationalism. Is it not globalization and attempts to solve population problems with immigration?

.. (Hötzendorf. That does not fit for your time. Neither was there a attempt to solve "population problems" by immigration, nor was a need for it. Globalisation was already well on it's way, but less powerful than today. Still there was a very lively nationalism.)


Emergence of nationalism in late 19th century had different causes than its re-emergence in 21th century. After WW2 it was a dead concept. After being associated with so many deaths, there must be very strong reasons for its re-emergence if people are willing to forget that.

hartmut wrote:European union is a globalist project and didn't bring benefits to every EU country as the founders claimed.

(So which Member is less well off after joining?....)


Southern EU countries are doing badly economically without a chance to recover as long as they remain in the euro area. The common currency is a catastrophy. But even ditching euro will probably not be sufficient as they are not competitive against the eastern EU members and deep in debt. The EU is benefitial to competitive members but those less competitive ones have hardly reasons to stay in. Common currency doesn't help them as they need to devalue, they pay huge amounts of money to EU and receive little back as they are still too rich. Too much money is being siphoned out of them by repaying their debt that could be spent on education or could otherwise be invested. They are sentenced to decades of stagnation. They would be much better off with the EU being just a free trade organization.

See Government_debt_gdp

hartmut wrote:Is nationalism dangerous? Surely it is, it triggered multiple wars in Europe including the one you pointed at. But I don't believe in supressing it as that doesn't solve the problems that triggered it. Similarly I don't believe in supression of communists.
(The real Hötzendorf gave me quite an other answer. :D )


There is time difference of 100 years between us :D
By hartmut
#14783520
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I would dispute that the far right / nationalism was responsible for WWI - it was mainly caused by great power politics of (multinational) empires. On the other hand nationalism played a role in driving out the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans in the early 20th century. Was that a tragedy?

It was a tragedy, of course.
In ways of bloodshed, in driving out hundreds of thousand citizens from there native soil.
And also because that brought the torch to a explosive situation.
You "would dispute that the far right / nationalism was responsible for WWI....". I agree that it would be to simple to see main "responsibility" there.
Never the less, it was a important spice in a very toxic meal.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:

Like anything that taps into human base instincts, nationalism is extremely powerful and potentially dangerous. ...

.... To combat this, we need something that can unify us emotionally, otherwise we will in all likelihood continue to regress into ever more tribalism, with a (small) chance of violence in the long run.


I think that hits an important point of human nature. We still feel the need of being convinced "emotionally".

Albeit, I would say, it is most remarkably optimistic, to assume that "more tribalism" would conjure only a "(small) chance of violence in the long run."
Doesn't that turn things upside down, by simply believing that peace prevails by itself?
And if that posit should be the core of such perception;
is there evidence to think so?
User avatar
By Donna
#14783706
Potemkin wrote:Replace the word "socialists" with the word "liberals", and I would agree with you. :)


There aren't a lot of distinguished terms available for capitalists who become welfare cases/bums.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14783710
There aren't a lot of distinguished terms available for capitalists who become welfare cases/bums.

Personally, I prefer the Soviet term "former person". :)
By hartmut
#14783850
fokker wrote:Emergence of nationalism in late 19th century had different causes than its re-emergence in 21th century. After WW2 it was a dead concept. After being associated with so many deaths, there must be very strong reasons for its re-emergence if people are willing to forget that.



Southern EU countries are doing badly economically without a chance to recover as long as they remain in the euro area. The common currency is a catastrophy. But even ditching euro will probably not be sufficient as they are not competitive against the eastern EU members and deep in debt. The EU is benefitial to competitive members but those less competitive ones have hardly reasons to stay in. Common currency doesn't help them as they need to devalue, they pay huge amounts of money to EU and receive little back as they are still too rich. Too much money is being siphoned out of them by repaying their debt that could be spent on education or could otherwise be invested. They are sentenced to decades of stagnation. They would be much better off with the EU being just a free trade organization.

See Government_debt_gdp



There is time difference of 100 years between us :D

(Underlined by me)

Of course a Eurozone member is deprived of the choice to devalue the own currency, if felt to be needed.
It needs consent of a greater group, that would be equally affected.
If you (Austria or Italy for instance) would find yourself outside of Eurozone, the tool devaluation would still be a very tricky one.
Moreover, you'd possibly shrink to a monetary size, that would allow hedgefonds to play football with your money. (As Helmut Schmidt took it, sie würden mit einem Lire Fußball spielen, ..they would play football with the lira)
So, the "catastrophy" lurks at other places not less.
And btw, do you think that without the big counterbalances of Remnibi and Euro, the US-induces financial crises would have been less harmful?

Two further remarks:
- You claim that "Southern EU countries" are damned to stagnation forever, if they do not leave Euro.
Did you realize that Spain and Portugal and Italy have growing economies at present?
And having a closer look on Spain and Italy, you can see high national obstacles, that are not at all on the account of Euro, or EU.
So, why the hell, uniting Europe should be the cause of every trouble, while national folly claims to be innocent by shifting the blame?
- indeed huge debts are to be repaid. But why do you think that they are paying huge amounts to Europe?
They do not.
And simply being a free trade zone is not simple but needs common rules, that should include prosperity, human rights and dignity.
Nowhere on earth is that at present better realized, than in EU.
By fokker
#14784583
hartmut wrote:And btw, do you think that without the big counterbalances of Remnibi and Euro, the US-induces financial crises would have been less harmful?

I can't comment on severity of the crisis without euro but without a common currency economies can recover faster after crises. The reason is own currency allows more flexibility.

hartmut wrote:Two further remarks:
- You claim that "Southern EU countries" are damned to stagnation forever, if they do not leave Euro.
Did you realize that Spain and Portugal and Italy have growing economies at present?
And having a closer look on Spain and Italy, you can see high national obstacles, that are not at all on the account of Euro, or EU.
So, why the hell, uniting Europe should be the cause of every trouble, while national folly claims to be innocent by shifting the blame?
- indeed huge debts are to be repaid. But why do you think that they are paying huge amounts to Europe?
They do not.
And simply being a free trade zone is not simple but needs common rules, that should include prosperity, human rights and dignity.
Nowhere on earth is that at present better realized, than in EU.


Look at the performance over the last 10 years. What I see is stagnation. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/italy/gdp-growth-annual (click on 10Y). Then proceed to look at Spain http://www.tradingeconomics.com/spain/gdp-growth-annual, again 10Y. Then Portugal http://www.tradingeconomics.com/portugal/gdp-growth-annual (again 10Y) to find out if any of them actually had any real progress. Results in 1-2 years are irrelevant. To argument for euro with last year results is pure propaganda.

After looking at those charts compare how debt has increased over the last 10 years. The next global financial crisis is going to kill euro. It has no future.
#14784929
Why not looking over the last 17? If you view only the last ten years, you mix in the severe finance crisis of 2008 and following results.
So have a look on Spain from 2000 on, when EURO was adopted:
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/ ... 2=20171231
Spain is no narrowing the double GDP since start of EURO.

What you see is "stagnation". More over, even no "chance to recover".
Isn't it, at least partly, bizarre to try to extract such posits from the statistics you quote?
(Thank you for your interesting link!)
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Another resource of degenerates who want to watch […]

There are many ways to approach a construction si[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I disagree with this, but I also don't think &quo[…]

The actual argument (that the definition is being[…]