French Elections Called: LePen vs Macron
- Thread starter Morninggloryseed
- Start date
Getting snapped up by his teacher, who is now a senior.. I'd say no.
i'm sure france will find a way to live with your disappointment 
alasdair
alasdair
swilow
Bluelight Crew
^I think there is some reason to think the National Front will be taken to a more centrist platform which could result in both gaining more moderates and alienating the hard right. I've heard some commentators say that this will probably be the National Front's best result now and in the future.
I really don't think the far right will attract people dismayed over the treatment of homosexuals, Jews or women. None of those groups have ever been welcomed by the far right. A leopard cannot change its spots.
I really don't think the far right will attract people dismayed over the treatment of homosexuals, Jews or women. None of those groups have ever been welcomed by the far right. A leopard cannot change its spots.
If they go 'centrist' then surely another right wing party will step up and supercede them. This is part of the problem, everyone wanting a 'middle of the road dont rock the boat' party that ends up dallying around and allowing small issues to escalate into huge problems. That and the ridiculous fear that right wing politics is a one way street to Hitler.. that narrative is getting so old and so oversold by the corporate media.
There can be right wing politics that has spine and balls but doesn't resort to needlessly bashing gays, jews etc. The line between ineffectual central politics and get things done right wing politics seems to have been redefined as being hopelessly narrow so that everyone automatically fears putting one foot over the line into right wing politics.
It's only going to result in bigger problems.
There can be right wing politics that has spine and balls but doesn't resort to needlessly bashing gays, jews etc. The line between ineffectual central politics and get things done right wing politics seems to have been redefined as being hopelessly narrow so that everyone automatically fears putting one foot over the line into right wing politics.
It's only going to result in bigger problems.
^I agree centrism is a problem. The conclusion that socialist policies will lead to Stalin, Mao, etc is equally a big problem. However I disagree with your conclusion, we are already mired in right wing economics and policies. The problem is people like Obama, Hillary, Macron are right wing. The only way to go more to the right is towards a fascist free market oligarchy where there are no regulations, all social safety nets are broken and the poor are openly used as slaves as they are in third world countries.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Obama and Hillary are neo liberals imo
swilow
Bluelight Crew
^Neo liberalism is right wing, but more more to the centre than not. Focus on free-market capitalism, etc.
Yeah, and it will divide the voter bloc. Some will concede and support the more centrist National Front ideals, others will opt for the next further right party. My point was that the 36% vote that Le Pen got is a high water mark, if her party splits.
Thats true, not all right wing political ideals are discriminatory. But I don't know what you mean by "spine and balls". Left wing ideals are counter-intuitive in many senses, most people have inherent bias and prejudice regardless of what they express, but going against the natural inclincation of human instinct does take balls and strength. Its very easy to give in to unthinking prejudice; it takes courage to use reason to diminsh the impact of our natural bias.
Its a typical argument, that the left have been feminised and excessively concilatory and inclusive (i.e. weak) whereas the right are demonstrating strength and fortitude. It is not admirable to give into one's base instincts. It is courageous to try and fight the natural biases that most have as our human heritage.
Yeah, and it will divide the voter bloc. Some will concede and support the more centrist National Front ideals, others will opt for the next further right party. My point was that the 36% vote that Le Pen got is a high water mark, if her party splits.
Thats true, not all right wing political ideals are discriminatory. But I don't know what you mean by "spine and balls". Left wing ideals are counter-intuitive in many senses, most people have inherent bias and prejudice regardless of what they express, but going against the natural inclincation of human instinct does take balls and strength. Its very easy to give in to unthinking prejudice; it takes courage to use reason to diminsh the impact of our natural bias.
Its a typical argument, that the left have been feminised and excessively concilatory and inclusive (i.e. weak) whereas the right are demonstrating strength and fortitude. It is not admirable to give into one's base instincts. It is courageous to try and fight the natural biases that most have as our human heritage.
Why is it not admirable to embrace base instincts? See this is where I fundamentally disagree with your position, and it seems familiar to the perspective of many left-wing people I know (family, friends, others) in that there is this tendency to avoid accepting what we are, namely an animal, and that these instincts and base impulses are somehow dirty and to be pushed down by 'enlightened' thinking that typically arises out of academic and social institutions dominated by left-wing and liberal minded people. Psychology can not be voted on democratically or molded politically, and neither can morality..
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Neo-liberal is a pretty loose term, but a centralist politician could very easily be called neo-liberal as well.
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Come on guys, let's drop the personal stuff. We can do better than throwing poo at each other I think.
Humans evolved to operate in social groups of about 150 individuals. We can probably have a decent, cohesive society up to around that level because that 150 will consist of a lot of family/extended family, but scaling it up has been disastrous. And that is what we are seeing globally. We are animals, yes, and the type of animal we are is not egalitarian and "fair" or concerned with human rights or equality. We have evolved traits which compels us towards greed and accumulation of resources, excessive aggression and tendency towards organised warfare (Warrior hypothesis, warrior gene), bigotry and instinctive bias towards 'out-group' individuals (again, male warrior hypothesis) regardless of what comprises the 'in-group' and a tendency to focus on physical force to resolve conflict. To an extent, we see this sort of behaviour in our closest ancestors such as baboons and chimpanzees. All of these traits are why the human world is so rife with suffering and pain. They are not "bad" things, they are our animal nature and we should never try an forget our heritage. In fact, we should examine deeply the animals we evolved with and from to see what our nature truly is. It is not pretty but it also simply 'is'.
Why is it not admirable to embrace base instincts? Because some of our base instincts are the cause of immense suffering globally and not at all just for humans. Our base instincts drive capitalism, organised warfare, environmental degradation, resource disparity. Our animal nature did not evolve within the hugely scaled up society we accidentally find ourselves in, with every action having global consequences. We can't put the genie back in the bottle and return to smaller and more workable societies, so we either need to give up on our civilisation entirely or use reason to shape it into something that doesn't condemn the majority to bullshit, needless futile painful lives. You've written your thoughts on this world a few times, SS, and its never been especially positive- and I agree. This world is brutal, this is not a planet I would choose to live on. Its a ball of rock with everything running around eating everything else, life is not pretty or beautiful or a miracle, it is a competition to see who dies first.
If you cannot see that the global disaster that we see unfolding is caused by our "base instincts" than you are simply part of the problem.
Humans evolved to operate in social groups of about 150 individuals. We can probably have a decent, cohesive society up to around that level because that 150 will consist of a lot of family/extended family, but scaling it up has been disastrous. And that is what we are seeing globally. We are animals, yes, and the type of animal we are is not egalitarian and "fair" or concerned with human rights or equality. We have evolved traits which compels us towards greed and accumulation of resources, excessive aggression and tendency towards organised warfare (Warrior hypothesis, warrior gene), bigotry and instinctive bias towards 'out-group' individuals (again, male warrior hypothesis) regardless of what comprises the 'in-group' and a tendency to focus on physical force to resolve conflict. To an extent, we see this sort of behaviour in our closest ancestors such as baboons and chimpanzees. All of these traits are why the human world is so rife with suffering and pain. They are not "bad" things, they are our animal nature and we should never try an forget our heritage. In fact, we should examine deeply the animals we evolved with and from to see what our nature truly is. It is not pretty but it also simply 'is'.
Why is it not admirable to embrace base instincts? Because some of our base instincts are the cause of immense suffering globally and not at all just for humans. Our base instincts drive capitalism, organised warfare, environmental degradation, resource disparity. Our animal nature did not evolve within the hugely scaled up society we accidentally find ourselves in, with every action having global consequences. We can't put the genie back in the bottle and return to smaller and more workable societies, so we either need to give up on our civilisation entirely or use reason to shape it into something that doesn't condemn the majority to bullshit, needless futile painful lives. You've written your thoughts on this world a few times, SS, and its never been especially positive- and I agree. This world is brutal, this is not a planet I would choose to live on. Its a ball of rock with everything running around eating everything else, life is not pretty or beautiful or a miracle, it is a competition to see who dies first.
If you cannot see that the global disaster that we see unfolding is caused by our "base instincts" than you are simply part of the problem.
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Wow, that was a hugely off topic post. Anyway, feel free to reply SS but I think we need to get back to talking about animals like Le Pen 
I'm not sure why you pick the number 150 individuals as being the sweet spot, unless you want to go back to tribal living, which personally I'm keen to avoid. Scaling up worked fairly well over a long but painful process until we reached nation states and the modern era, but then we collectively decided to kick apart many social and religious institutions in favor of violent and selfish degeneracy. That's the real problem. It's not the base instincts causing this problem, it's our collective failure to sublimate them.. it's a personal choice, and together collectively we're not doing enough. Two institutions in the West that have collapsed in the past 100 years are directly correlated to the decrease in social cohesiveness and fabric that binds us together - marriage, and Christianity.
Refusing to embrace and work with what we are is what is causing problems. 7 billion human beings who do not know who they are, what they are, in combination with deteriorating moral restraints that evolved over thousands of years gives us the mess we have now. My views on this world are not positive no, because there is no real hope for 7 billion people suddenly taking even a slight interest in learning who they are while the degeneracy accelerates. It's just a question of what fails first.. our technology.. or our social fabric.
Thinking about the main thread.. part of the reason why Le Pen was successful, and why right-wing sentiment is rising in many places is because the left have for far too long actively denied specific, related and converging issues - immigration, multiculturism, national and cultural identity. It's the same type of process thinking as explained above in regards to social and moral institutions being eroded, and the right-wing is taping into this intuitive perception many people now have that their identity (personal, family, community, national culture) is under attack from different but seemingly connected issues.
The left can continue to deny there is a problem and rationalize it all away with quaint academic concepts and rebuttals, but it only masks the problem. Sooner or later those base instincts will explode.
"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." - Gospel of Thomas
Refusing to embrace and work with what we are is what is causing problems. 7 billion human beings who do not know who they are, what they are, in combination with deteriorating moral restraints that evolved over thousands of years gives us the mess we have now. My views on this world are not positive no, because there is no real hope for 7 billion people suddenly taking even a slight interest in learning who they are while the degeneracy accelerates. It's just a question of what fails first.. our technology.. or our social fabric.
Thinking about the main thread.. part of the reason why Le Pen was successful, and why right-wing sentiment is rising in many places is because the left have for far too long actively denied specific, related and converging issues - immigration, multiculturism, national and cultural identity. It's the same type of process thinking as explained above in regards to social and moral institutions being eroded, and the right-wing is taping into this intuitive perception many people now have that their identity (personal, family, community, national culture) is under attack from different but seemingly connected issues.
The left can continue to deny there is a problem and rationalize it all away with quaint academic concepts and rebuttals, but it only masks the problem. Sooner or later those base instincts will explode.
"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." - Gospel of Thomas
Last edited:
Sounds like a quaint justification for a pogrom.
I'm glad the french people did the right thing; fascists can fuck right off.
Trump's done humanity a favour by demonstrating to all of us what a bunch of dysfunctional, dishonest, disgusting haters the far right tend to be. Fuck em, and good riddance.
Unity not racist "base instincts".
Most humans are smarter than that.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
I'd argue that humans have done rather well at scaling up.
We've probably been living in larger societies than 150 people for at least 7,000 years, and perhaps it can even reach 10,000 years ago. We're versatile - perhaps we evolved to keep 150 relationships in our head, but that doesn't mean that we can't deal with populations beyond 150 people, as long as we use various tricks.
We've probably been living in larger societies than 150 people for at least 7,000 years, and perhaps it can even reach 10,000 years ago. We're versatile - perhaps we evolved to keep 150 relationships in our head, but that doesn't mean that we can't deal with populations beyond 150 people, as long as we use various tricks.
except they're not.
that figure was embraced by some in the media for a while but was debunked a couple of months ago by the adam smith institute.
alt facts i suppose?
alasdair
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Tell that to Japan. They may have a demographic issue but they don't suffer the problems france has. Functional, high tech, high culture, high civility.
Seems more unified than France from where Im standing.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
And serious economic problems.