The French right-wing goes back to conservatism for the presidential race

Auvergnat said:

Because many French people hate France. Especially among the youth. This is how we are raised: to despise France, to mock France. Recently an influential journalist called for the destruction of the palace of Versailles so that we could stop referring to our "past glory" and become the insignificant worms we ought to be; he got applauded. Millions of young Frenchmen can seriously look at you and claim that we are the most racist country on Earth and other incredible and ignorant absurdities.

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who thinks that. So we can drop this caricature right here and now. I'm middle-aged and most of the French people I know are around that age.

To look virtuous in France, spit on France. To look respectable, spit on France. To make a comedy, spit on France. The cause lies in the ww2 defeat and occupation, the Hollywood depiction of French people as cowards, and the post-ww2 chastization and the aftermaths of anti-colonialism where a legitimate critic transformed into an anachronistic and imbecile conditioning. To look like an intellectual, spit on France.

Click to expand...

Whoa!! Big rant here.
You're right about Hollywood, but then Hollywood treats almost everyone badly, not just the French. Do you think Canadians like Hollywood? Or Germans? Or almost anyone else you can think of? No.

I certainly don't agree with you that "the French despise themselves". That is a political position with a strong whiff of the National Front in it. You're sounding like Jean-Marie Le Pen here. You're giving me the NF line.

Most of immigration occurred for economic reasons unrelated to the Algerian independence.

Click to expand...

Yes. I just said that: they were brought in as cheap labour (an economic reason) in the affluent post-war decades.

Nono: So yes, they saw Germany on its knees and unable to offer them a stake. That's what radicalizes people.

Auvergnat: No, that's too simplistic. There is a field of social sciences dedicated to the studies of conflicts and their causes (search for "theories of conflicts"), and absolutely all of them emphasize how important social identity is in conflicts, both as a structuring force but also as a very frequent and prevalent cause.

You're the one being simplistic here. Of course by the time Germany got into an actual war, the Nazis had had over six years hammer home Germano-Aryan Identity.

I am not saying that economy does not matter, sometimes it is an extremely important factor, and it was in 1933. But it is not by far the only factor, this is way too simplistic, you cannot understand Nazism like this and this probably explains why you consider relevant your reductio ad hitlerium that should ashame you.

Click to expand...

Sorry, fella, I studied history at a German university for four years. This was almost 40 years ago, so there were many people around who actually remembered the Weimar Republic and Hitler's rise to power. I heard a lot about it from bright and well-educated people.

So don't accuse me of "reductio ad hitlerium".

No, that's wrong: Canada has 3% of Muslims, not even a half of what we do, and most of them are fresh immigrants. You are in the situation we were decades ago when no one cared about Muslims.

Click to expand...

Again, you are the one who has his facts wrong. Read this (first paragraph): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Canada

Nono: It mostly happens automatically.

Auvergnat: This is what we used to think.

That's how it is. The French Muslims I know are very French.
The industrial city I grew up in the very Protestant Ontario of the day had a lot of Sicilian immigrants to work in the steel industry. They were Catholics (horror!) and, really, a trifle Arab (a great historical influence on Sicily) with black-hooded older women and "honour" killings, etc. They were reviled at the time, but assimilated because they got a fair deal.
Muslims in Canada are no different. Yes, there are a few Islamo-nuts, just as there are a few mafiosi from the Sicilian milieu. That's homo sapiens.

But nothing forced us to allow them to make their wives, children and parents come, like we did. Nothing forced us to cure and educate them for free, like we did. Nothing forced us to keep them when the economy stagnated in as soon as 1970, and to continue to invite more of them year after year since then. Most of immigration by far occurred way after the Trente glorieuses, in a context of a high unemployment.

Click to expand...

By then many of them were citizens.

I'm still waiting to hear what you think should be done, apart from deporting the 3% of non-French Muslims.

Nono said:

I certainly don't agree with you that "the French despise themselves". That is a political position with a strong whiff of the National Front in it. You're sounding like Jean-Marie Le Pen here. You're giving me the NF line.

Click to expand...

Not at all, this is an academic consensus: there is an identity depression in Europe since ww2 and especially in France and Germany, as observed in international studies such as the World Values Survey or the International Social Survey Program (ISSP). The latter's results are available here

Are you { very proud ; very proud + proud } of being { French/Canadian/etc }?
* USA: 80% / 98%
* Canada: 70% / 97%
* Average: 50% / 89%
* GB: 46% / 87%
* France: 31% / 88%
* Western Germany: 16% / 65%

There are some things about { France } that make me feel ashamed of being { French }? { agree strongly ; agree strongly + agree)
* Western Germany: 9% / 58%
* Canada: 12% / 49%
* USA: 18% / 56%
* Average : 18% / 59%
* GB: 18% / 75%
* France: 24% / 55%

To rephrase things, 24% of French people are strongly ashamed of their country. This haters minority is the one mostly encountered in foreign countries. They also mostly belong to the young and educated categories, who are the categories most seen in medias. Distrust levels are also interesting: for decades France has been slowly leaving the rich countries group and is now closer from the developing countries group.

You're the one being simplistic here. Of course by the time Germany got into an actual war, the Nazis had had over six years hammer home Germano-Aryan Identity.

Click to expand...

Ok, social sciences are wrong and you know better. **** sociology, hail to Nono.

And of course you studied German history for four years: this is how you learned that nationalism and antisemitism were only invented by the NSDAP, and that electors did not give a damn before someone put those ideas in their heads? This is how you learned that the NSDAP had no cultural or youth activities, which would have been useless since people were not looking for federation and identity, only mere jobs? This is how you learned that totalitarianism only occurred out of individual megalomaniacs and not because a reinvention of society into a more a communitarian and homogeneous one was precisely what electors wanted? Yes, you understand History so well.

Moreover I find amusing that when it comes to immigration you correctly insist on identity, on the fact that immigrants must be politically and societally included and cannot be mere economic agents, while Germans in 1933 were apparently mere economic agents for you.

So don't accuse me of "reductio ad hitlerium".

Click to expand...

You compared the FN to Nazism twice, of course this is a blatant reductio ad hitlerium. Do you know the FN's program? They want to decrease yearly immigration by 10k. Monsters!

And I imagine that having Muslims amount to a third of the youth in Paris' region is completely comparable to the situation of Jews in Germany in 1933? You know because you studied history so well, and this is how you conclude that Muslims are scapegoats and that as soon as the economy will improve we will all be super happy to see Islam rise even further and become even more present in our societies.

Again, you are the one who has his facts wrong. Read this (first paragraph): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Canada[/quoe]
This article says exactly what I said: there are only 3.2% Muslims in Canada. You seem to have mistook the Toronto's number with the national one. If you want to focus on Toronto, compare with Paris.

I'm still waiting to hear what you think should be done, apart from deporting the 3% of non-French Muslims.

Click to expand...

I already discussed it a few messages ago, when I wrote in bold that we must make French people intolerant against Islam: we need French people to exert a social pressure against the Islamic identity. Rather than using propaganda in favor of Muslims and against Islamophobia as we do today, I would use this propaganda against Islam and in favor of assimilation. Muslim = evil, French brown guy = good. This social pressure is really the most important thing we need to do.

The other part of assimilation is to prevent Islam to spread. Besides immigration halting this means any measure to stop the construction of new Mosques and close existing ones, possibly under indirect reasons rather than a big bold prohibition (although I am ready to go that way if needed). Similar measures against the teaching of Islam. Prosecutions against representatives who subsided Islamic buildings and activities. Prohibition of the Islamic clothes.

Click to expand...

Nono said:

I don't know anyone who thinks that. So we can drop this caricature right here and now. I'm middle-aged and most of the French people I know are around that age.

Click to expand...

Shortened for length.

I'm in my 30's, so much less life experience than yourself. However, just to note, I know many French expats here in HK that think exactly the way Auvergnat has expressed. They are extremely proud of being French, and would rather live in France, even with lower pay conditions. But one thing they frequently cite is the increasing lack of free speech, and the feeling that they are losing what it means to be "French". One of my friends from BNP Parnibas can say exactly what he thinks about the "Moslemization of my country", as he likes to put it, in a public restaurant, without fear of losing his job, or have his children ostracized at FIS. They're sick of France turning into something else, and feel more "French" in the close-knit French community here. In the beginning, his wife was all bonkers about having to move to HK. Now, they don't want to go back.

And I don't see how you can state that the "French Muslims I know are very French". It seems to me that almost every Frenchmen I know, including our resident Frenchie we have here at DP, feel the opposite.

There's a similar situation that I can relate to, which takes place all the time in SoCal, USA. Forms / schools / signs / whatever in foreign languages, where the host country seems to go out of their way to promote divisiveness and segregation via getting people to stay in their comfort zones and NOT integrate. As a Chinese American, I take ENGLISH-based DMV tests, fill out ENGLISH forms for my property purchase, and SPEAK ENGLISH at Gelsons or wherever. I don't expect staff to approach me at a Rodeo store speaking Chinese (frankly I find it condescending), and I find it disgraceful that there are so many Chinese Americans (not a majority, but there are many...a few relatives also fit this to a tee) that refuse to learn English while living in the US, and instead send their kids to attend Chinese schools. Eat only at Chinese restaurants. Work or socialize only with Chinese speakers. Attend Chinese-only buddhist temples. Constantly harp about how Chinese culture is "superior". Then WTF is the point of living in the US melting pot anyway?

It's better among 2nd and 3rd generation Chinese Americans, who are better "integrated", but it's still happening due to recent immigration, especially from the PRC (my god, idiots celebrating Mao's birthday while saying how great the communist system is...wtf they living in Los Angeles then?) Making me, a guy that used tries his best to integrate, to make friends with all races, that enjoys Mexican food, and dated a white chick, a pariah.

This silent racism is the worst part of immigrants with ideological prejudices that refuse to assimilate, and it is rampant both in my Chinese American community, and in the Islamic community worldwide. Staying insulated in these so-called ethnic enclaves, while subconsciously (and sometimes blatantly) encouraging those around them, including their children, to stay within these boundaries. Eat the same food, discuss the same topics. They are being taught to avoid the "other". "Don't be friends with the black people, or the Mexicans". "The whites are racist, they hate China, and they love gay people."

That exact **** happens in the Islamic enclaves in Rotterdam, in London, and, I imagine, in Paris. You can literally feel the hairs on your neck you are taking a walk after dinner with Dutch friends, including children, when a bunch of young men walk over to your group in Rotterdam and say "This area is for Muslims only, you are not welcome".

Your refusal to acknowledge that it is often immigrants and minorities that are the most racist and prejudiced, instead defending their actions, is why societies are being split apart.

French public schools should teach in French. Limit religious proselytizing for all religions; France is a secular country. No creation of ghettos by allowing Muslim immigrants to congregate in specific areas through their incredibly generous housing policy. Spread people out, and integrate them.

Or continue as we have and end up just like Paris now (and the same situation is rampant in cities in the Netherlands AND Germany) with increasingly radicalized, refusing to assimilate, Moslemized ghettos that feel their culture is superior to yours, yet have no problem leaving the nations where that culture is so dominant they remain hellholes.

Auvergnat said:

Are you { very proud ; very proud + proud } of being { French/Canadian/etc }?
* USA: 80% / 98%
* Canada: 70% / 97%
* Average: 50% / 89%
* GB: 46% / 87%
* France: 31% / 88%
* Western Germany: 16% / 65%

Click to expand...

So tell me: why should I be "proud"? I did not make this Country? I like to live here. I like the countryside. I like (some of) the People living here. I like (parts of) our history - but proud? - No one should be proud of anything only depending on luck beeing born there. Something he did not do anything for. I am proud of my work. Proud of my children - because there I have influence.

Beeing proud of a Nation or Country is the first step to "we are better than the others. By law, society and genetically" - and there you have Nazi ideology - my forefathers been there - I am able to learn from history.

german hick said:

No one should be proud of anything only depending on luck beeing born there.

Click to expand...

It is not about where you were born, it is about who you became by growing up there. You became French, Swiss or German by absorbing this culture, you made it a part of you, of your own identity. Being proud of your nationality means being proud of who you are, of your culture.

Beeing proud of a Nation or Country is the first step to "we are better than the others. By law, society and genetically" - and there you have Nazi ideology - my forefathers been there - I am able to learn from history.

Click to expand...

No, you drew the wrong lessons from history, naive ones that ignore everything social sciences have taught us about social identity and human nature over the recent decades.


People need a social identity, they need to be part of something, of a tribe, and whatever you will do they will have a dominant identity. When trying to go against this, you try to achieve something impossible and harmful, and instead you simply redirect people to another identity. Instead you should have asked yourself which identity is the less prone to conflicts. And the answer is the nation, because it encompasses a territory where that identity can dominate and be sovereign, which minimizes the risks of conflicts. As opposed to religions or ethnic groups who need to cohabit with each other and produce an instable mix when one does not legitimately dominate, or regions submitted to a federal state.

Worse: by trying to destroy national identities, we produced weak and instable identities. Such situations create violent backlashes when people attempt to recreate a common identity. Nazism and Fascism were born in Germany and Italy precisely because those nations had recent, immature and broken national identities. This is why those people then tried to create strong identities through extremism.

The cure is the poison: nationalism reemerges today in a peaceful and wealthy Europe precisely because we have tried to destroy our nations. The far-right is currently far less dangerous than the left.

I can accept your thinking, it seems lofgic. But I can´t agree. Here the right idiots burn refugees homes, beat people up and it goes until murder.

That the left went brutal is long ago. Times of the RAF are gone. Lefties today want fair societies and fair dispersal of wealth. I think that are suitable aims.

My social identity is my family, hometown and region (Sauerland) - and in greater terms the EU or mankind

german hick said:

But I can´t agree. Here the right idiots burn refugees homes, beat people up and it goes until murder. That the left went brutal is long ago. Times of the RAF are gone. Lefties today want fair societies and fair dispersal of wealth. I think that are suitable aims.

Click to expand...

When I said the left is dangerous, I was not referring to communism or other things of the past. I was referring to their desire to increase immigration and subjugate us under the power of a foreign bureaucratic empire. This is really the perfect way to revive nationalism and bring back war in Europe, exactly the opposite of what they sought.

If you want to prevent violence against immigrants, banning immigration is the way to go. If you insist to shove down more immigrants into our throats despite the popular opposition (70% of the French opinion think there are too many immigrants), do not be surprised that it will cause violence and strengthen ideas you dislike.

My social identity is my family, hometown and region (Sauerland) - and in greater terms the EU or mankind

Click to expand...

Yes, like many Swiss and German people you traded national identity for regional identity. How is it different? Moreover the regional identity seems more prone to conflicts because the federal state remains a foreign power that coerces your life.

Auvergnat said:

~...........................If you want to prevent violence against immigrants, banning immigration is the way to go...........................~

Click to expand...

In fact, if one wants to take that thought further, annihilating what immigrants are there, will serve even better for the purpose of preventing violence against them. .

After, that is, the initial one-off.

I seem to recall that Goebbels, Himmler and Co. had similar goals of "ultimateness" wrt Jews.

Not their fault that outside interference upset the applecart. :roll:

Auvergnat said:

To rephrase things, 24% of French people are strongly ashamed of their country.

Click to expand...

Good lord, you really are being simplistic here. The question was (according to your post) "Are there some things about France that make me feel ashamed of being French?". A quarter said Yes. If I were French, I would also respond Yes and cite: the high degree of collaboration with the Nazis, colonialism, the Dreyfus affair, etc. These are not things to be proud of. On the contrary.

So, this Quarter of respondents have the intelligence to recognize that France has its faults, like all countries. Good for them.

But you misconstrue what they're saying and draw the Totally Erroneous Conclusion that they "hate" their country. I hope you don't work as a detective or mathematician (2+2 = 5).

Ok, social sciences are wrong and you know better. **** sociology, hail to Nono.

Click to expand...

This is Auvergnat acting silly. If you want to debate with me, you'll have to grow up a little.

The rest of your post is increasingly vitriolic rant that doesn't merit a response.

german hick and Chagos have the right idea.

I'm Canadian. I feel very grateful to have been born and to have grown up there, but how can I be "proud" of this? It was pure happenstance. It's a good place to live, but that is not thanks to me.

So all this "proud" stuff is nonsense. One should be able to take an objective look at one's country. That means taking a step back from one's own ego.

In German language we have two words "Volk" and "Bevölkerung" - first means people, second means citizen.
First was often used by Nazies and was therfore "smelling" until recent times the AFD uses it again.

I think it was right, because you can´t have a peaceful together if some are out and some are in.

The problems are social problems, not heritage or religious ones.

two examples:

1) I had a lot of foreign rooted collegues on the college. Turkish, Iranian, Greek, Russian - what you want. And they were all quite the same as the German rooted, besides some interesting stories they could tell from ther countries of origin. Why? They were educated and had chances.

2) We had also problems with "German Russians" - who spoke our language and were of German heritage and Christian.

Problems are young, uneducated poor fellows with low chances. The turkish Döner or Fruit dealer here who has income, family and a life worth living is always a nice guy who would give every islamist a big kick in the ass although he is muslim. He wants a save nice life and that does not fit together with bombings.

german hick said:

In German language we have two words "Volk" and "Bevölkerung" - first means people, second means citizen.
First was often used by Nazies and was therfore "smelling" until recent times the AFD uses it again.

I think it was right, because you can´t have a peaceful together if some are out and some are in.

The problems are social problems, not heritage or religious ones.

two examples:

1) I had a lot of foreign rooted collegues on the college. Turkish, Iranian, Greek, Russian - what you want. And they were all quite the same as the German rooted, besides some interesting stories they could tell from ther countries of origin. Why? They were educated and had chances.

2) We had also problems with "German Russians" - who spoke our language and were of German heritage and Christian.

Problems are young, uneducated poor fellows with low chances. The turkish Döner or Fruit dealer here who has income, family and a life worth living is always a nice guy who would give every islamist a big kick in the ass although he is muslim. He wants a save nice life and that does not fit together with bombings.

Click to expand...

It's pretty much the same in UK, Spain (where I live) and France. Except, in the latter country, not in the echo bubble that the poster dwells in.

Nono said:

~............................This is Auvergnat acting silly...............................~
.

Click to expand...

Oh, let's not short sell somebody here. He DOES have occasional flashes of insight.

Like

Auvergnat said:

~............................But what do I know? I cannot be a super-smart and hyper-educated liberal, I am a dumb anti-immigrationist who has "the worst possible understanding of maths and growth statistics" and obviously no education. And I am probably poor! And smelly! Ook! Oook!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, sarcasm and irony mixed.

But where I'd not have formulated the assessment in quite such unkind words, it's still a pretty good shot at self-reflection. :mrgreen:

Nono said:

Good lord, you really are being simplistic here. The question was (according to your post) "Are there some things about France that make me feel ashamed of being French?". A quarter said Yes. If I were French, I would also respond Yes and cite: the high degree of collaboration with the Nazis, colonialism, the Dreyfus affair, etc. These are not things to be proud of. On the contrary.

Click to expand...

The matter is not whether it is legitimate to be proud of one's country or not, the matter is that French people are less proud and more ashamed than nationals from other countries. More ashamed than Germans, more ashamed than Americans, more ashamed than Canadians.

Now do not worry, it was clear for everyone that you have grave prejudices against France and in favor of Muslims, and therefore decided to blame France for everything. This is also why you confuse your buddies' prejudices with objectiveness.

The rest of your post is increasingly vitriolic rant that doesn't merit a response.

Click to expand...

The rest of my post was a futile attempt to educate you. You prefer a numb ignorance, fine for you.

german hick said:

The problems are social problems, not heritage or religious ones.

Click to expand...

So why no other immigrant group exhibit such identitary, radical and religious behavior? I estimate that about half of Muslims are islamists (*), you cannot simply blame economic problems, this is a grave misunderstanding and overlooking of human nature, this is wishful thinking.

Besides in substance you claim that religiosity or identitarism (please clarify) decrease when increasing education and economic opportunities, but I never saw any data supporting this. Violence, jihadism, is indeed negatively correlated with social integration, but not Islamism or faith. You can easily find in France Islamists who are physicians, politicians, lawyers, CEO, etc. And they use their connections and money for lobbying and to fund Islamic schools and Mosques.

Moreover, even if your hypothesis that education (please clarify) would solve all problems, we are entering a new wave of automation and there will likely be less jobs for graduates in the future. If your hypothesis is that it is actually economic integration that matters (please clarify), then most of jobs in the future will be proximity jobs that will take place in your neighborhood, allowing Muslims to live with other Muslims all day long.


(*) based on the fact that 40% of Mosques are controlled by the islamist UOIF, that half of Muslims are homophobe and antisemitic (Koopmans' study that concluded into 50% of "fundamentalists"), that three quarter of them want to ban blasphemy (UK study).

Two more questions regarding the hypothetical relationship between our problems and the lack of education and economic opportunities:

* Why do we have more problems today than in the 90's despite the fact that Muslims are now more educated and enjoy more opportunities?
* Why do all Muslim countries have problems with Islamism today than in the 80's when they were poorer and less educated?

Hollande has just now 'surprisingly' announced that he will not seek to be the Socialist candidate from the Presidency. Actually no surprise at at all as he, like every one else, knows that if he had stood in the party's primary next year he would have been humiliated.

A Fillon/Le Pen run off which Fillon will win. This is an example of that rare thing, a political certainty.

Sweden said:

A Fillon/Le Pen run off which Fillon will win. This is an example of that rare thing, a political certainty.

Click to expand...

No, I would not call it a certainty, no more than Clinton's victory was, or Juppé's victory was (the man how was supposed to trivially win the right-wing primary election).

Fillon is a fragile candidate. To win this election, the right-wing was supposed to trivially play at the center, but instead he chose to play at the right, both societally and economically. It allowed him to win his own party, but it will be hard to win the center and the left, and he will not win the far-right either.

Two surprising things could happen:
* A center-left candidate could defeat Fillon. This seemed impossible a few weeks ago, but Valls or Macron could do it and we would then have a left versus far-right duel.
* More leftists than we thought could prefer Le Pen to Fillon, or simply refuse to vote Fillon. Le Pen's precarious strategy for the past ten years has been to conquer the left by appearing as an economic leftist, and staying away of societal issues aside of immigration and security, themes that many leftists are now ready to embrace.

Auvergnat said:

No, I would not call it a certainty, no more than Clinton's victory was, or Juppé's victory was (the man how was supposed to trivially win the right-wing primary election).

Fillon is a fragile candidate. To win this election, the right-wing was supposed to trivially play at the center, but instead he chose to play at the right, both societally and economically. It allowed him to win his own party, but it will be hard to win the center and the left, and he will not win the far-right either.

Two surprising things could happen:
* A center-left candidate could defeat Fillon. This seemed impossible a few weeks ago, but Valls or Macron could do it and we would then have a left versus far-right duel.
* More leftists than we thought could prefer Le Pen to Fillon, or simply refuse to vote Fillon. Le Pen's precarious strategy for the past ten years has been to conquer the left by appearing as an economic leftist, and staying away of societal issues aside of immigration and security, themes that many leftists are now ready to embrace.

Click to expand...

Of course you are right in pointing out what could happen Auvergnat. I should have talked about probabilities not certainties. Perhaps I was swayed by personal preference as I might even vote Fillon against Le Pen myself.

Btw thank you for your thoughtful and informative posts.

Well, with all this talk about identity, I wonder how is reenforcing our European identity connected to our identity as Western liberals?

Do we need to throw Western liberalism over board, in favor of being able to preserve our "identity", whatever that is?

All these nice ideas -- all humans are worth the same, all humans have the same rights, no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, sex or origin, freedom of religion --, are they obsolete?

Are 300 years of enlightened liberalism a dead end we must do away with, if we are to survive?



I think the fact that many advocates of national identity don't address this problem, is what actually causes such extreme reactions by their opponents: When islam-sceptics say "identity", they mean survival; what their opponents hear is "doing away with 300 years of enlightened liberalism".

Some islam-sceptics may indeed disguise totalitarian or authoritarian views in their identity talk; they're genuine fascists. But most probably aren't. Or are they? They should address this question then, how their views, if implemented, would not eliminate freedom.

That's the one answer I'm waiting for. If they can't provide that answer? Well, then they shouldn't complain about comparisons to Nazis or other fascists.

Auvergnat said:

No, I would not call it a certainty, no more than Clinton's victory was, or Juppé's victory was (the man how was supposed to trivially win the right-wing primary election).

Fillon is a fragile candidate. To win this election, the right-wing was supposed to trivially play at the center, but instead he chose to play at the right, both societally and economically. It allowed him to win his own party, but it will be hard to win the center and the left, and he will not win the far-right either.

Two surprising things could happen:
* A center-left candidate could defeat Fillon. This seemed impossible a few weeks ago, but Valls or Macron could do it and we would then have a left versus far-right duel.
* More leftists than we thought could prefer Le Pen to Fillon, or simply refuse to vote Fillon. Le Pen's precarious strategy for the past ten years has been to conquer the left by appearing as an economic leftist, and staying away of societal issues aside of immigration and security, themes that many leftists are now ready to embrace.

Click to expand...

That's interesting.

Are you sure Fillon cannot at least convince a part of the far-right? Maybe those reluctant Le Pen voters who felt Sarkozy -- or even Juppé -- are not conservative enough? Aren't there some who might be satisfied with a staunch catholic who preaches old values? Or have those people not been voting for the Front National anyway?

Assuming the Socialists nominate someone like Macron -- doesn't he have a rather "third-wayish" image and might sway many moderate conservatives to vote for him in a second turn? If yes, could he bridge the gap to the far-left?

German guy said:

~..........................Some islam-sceptics may indeed disguise totalitarian or authoritarian views in their identity talk; they're genuine fascists. But most probably aren't. Or are they? They should address this question then, how their views, if implemented, would not eliminate freedom.

That's the one answer I'm waiting for. If they can't provide that answer? Well, then they shouldn't complain about comparisons to Nazis or other fascists.

Click to expand...

Historical experience answers what I bolded in that the only avenue of conclusion goes to "yes".

We know that it doesn't just take the demagoguery of Mussolini, Goebbels or Milosevic (to name but a few) to put "the bitch in heat again" (Brecht= "der Schoss ist fruchtbar noch........................").

None of the rat catchers would find existence without the necessary attentive and receptive crowd that cheers at finally having its baser instincts acknowledged.

The whole identity thing is thus conveniently conflated with the indeed justified issue of pride in one's nation, history, heritage etc. (the question of whether such endeavours are permissible or not), to the point that the asinine claim of own culture being subverted by foreign hordes is turned into a central issue that has nothing to do any more with pride or identity.

What it has to do with is an inferiority complex that the demagogues are rabidly fuelling in pursuit of their own ulteriuor motives. And have fuelled in 1914, after 1918 and ever since, fortunately so far not with the same results that the first dates provided.

You have nicely (and very aptly) outlined those values actually at risk, same values obviously being worthless to those advocating their abandonment in search of an order that, beyond supposedly being different, finds no particularly intelligent definition.

And one doesn't need to be waving Swastika flags to be termed a peril to the very society that has made one's existence possible at all.

Lack of education (especially in societies that provide at least a minimum of its availability) and ignorance get nobody the "get out of jail card".

Making this:

Well, then they shouldn't complain about comparisons to Nazis or other fascists.

Click to expand...

indisputable.

German guy said:

Well, with all this talk about identity, I wonder how is reenforcing our European identity connected to our identity as Western liberals?

Click to expand...

The European identity is built against national identities, and the concentration of powers in European hands goes against national sovereignties and democracies. Therefore the EU is attacking our national identities and participate in the backlash against this.

In other words the EU is fueling nationalism, which was gently sleeping before the EU decided it had to destroy our nations (and replace them with a nation).

German guy said:

Are you sure Fillon cannot at least convince a part of the far-right?

Click to expand...

He can convince a significant part of the old guard (anti-tax high-earners and ultra-catholics) but not the working class majority that joined the party since Marine Le Pen took its head. Even the old guard will be defiant since Fillon has been the prime minister of Sarkozy for five years, who promised a far-right program and served them a center-right program mixed with far-right taunts.

Assuming the Socialists nominate someone like Macron -- doesn't he have a rather "third-wayish" image and might sway many moderate conservatives to vote for him in a second turn? If yes, could he bridge the gap to the far-left?

Click to expand...

No, no chance in hell that a millionaire kid who claims to be beyond the left-right schism, who bashes the labor code, who calls for discarding manufacturing, and encourages young people to become billionaires can convince the ideologue working class who votes for the far-left, who despises wealth and corporations, who values manufacturing and agriculture, to vote for him.

Many would rather vote for the FN. Many others would not vote.

Anyway Macron is probably just a fluke who has no chance. His position about societal issues is to stand above them, ignore them, and pretend they are mere economic problems. Throw him in the arena with this stance and he will be devoured in a few weeks. In this election, immigration and Islam cannot be avoided like that.

Auvergnat said:

The European identity is built against national identities, and the concentration of powers in European hands goes against national sovereignties and democracies. Therefore the EU is attacking our national identities and participate in the backlash against this.

In other words the EU is fueling nationalism, which was gently sleeping before the EU decided it had to destroy our nations (and replace them with a nation).

Click to expand...

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Why is another layer of identity an attack on a primary layer of identity?

I'm a proud Berliner (ask a Bavarian ), but that doesn't exclude my identification with German identity. Or European identity, for that matter.

German guy said:

Why is another layer of identity an attack on a primary layer of identity?

I'm a proud Berliner (ask a Bavarian ), but that doesn't exclude my identification with German identity. Or European identity, for that matter.

Click to expand...

In Germany the regional and federal identities became compatible with time, probably through the various wars against enemies. When you stand in the same trenches, something happens.

For now the European identity usually opposes the national identities because the European powers seizes powers from the national entities: it is a coercion to a foreign power. Of course you could also, with time, render this situation acceptable. Just start a nuclear war with Russia or encourage a Muslim invasion, and make the EU the savior of this story - provided anyone remains.

Btw, the social classes who best accept the European identity are the social classes who reject national identities the most (far greater share of people who are ashamed or not proud of their countries among educated classes - you may think it the virtue of education but I think it is just an acquired cultural behavior in those social classes).