Macron calls the Far Right Bluff | Frenchman's Cowshed | Page 8 | HibeesBounce
  • Guest, The HibeesBounce invites you to enter our Monthly Draw...

    Enter our Monthly Draw Here

    GGTTH

  • hibeesbounce

Macron calls the Far Right Bluff

Denial of what? What is it I'm denying? And why would ANY political party anywhere not be a bit nativist?

I see nowt wrong with listening to what citizens think about the way the country is run.
Thought you were suggesting RN weren't far right? Hence your question if you're not denying it why the question? Anyway enough if dancing on the head of a pin.

Do you know what nativist means? It expressly excludes some citizens (literally those not born in the country and by extension usually those not of indigenous heritage)
 
I didn't know that mate. I thought nativist was looking after the folk in the country first and once they are sorted THEN look at other countries.
 
Which again goes back to establishment politicians wanting no one else to be involved in their cozy wee club.

But on the plus side Melenchon is a massive critic of the EU and the neo liberalism of said entity.

At he end of the day though workers lives won't change all that much. Profit making is an EU staple.

And any of yous seen the advert on't telly for Viking Cruises? They done the same as P&O and sacked workers and employed cheaper labour.
Kind of says it all about the EU.
 
Do you listen to yourself sometimes Martin? Where have I indicated a desire for revolutionary violence (either homo or hetro erotic). You also I note keep bringing race into it, funny for one who opposes category
Slight pastiche on the middle class fetishisation of revolutionary violence - but only just.

I tell you something for nothing; if I was a black or brown person getting done in I’d far rather eh17 Jimmy walked round the corner than many more pious sorts
To be clear are you characterising the politics of the far and populist right as that of the authentic working class and that of those who opposed fascism as bourgeois. The best anti fascists I know come from working class backgrounds. The history of fighting fascism is largely a working class one.

This is genuinely the stuff of ancient history. Please define for me the terms you are using because I seriously don’t know anymore. As I grew up the left were opposed to undercutting wages and collective bargaining power through shipping in alternative labor, now they’re all for it. Anti Nazis were against Nazism rather than being Nazis. Left wing students were against globalism rather than its vanguard (though tbf not at any point on behalf of western labour, as I recall).

Eh7 Jimmy and Paignton have not moved to the right, you have. Take away indulgent fantasies and you views are identical to Canary Wharf execs in whose presence I have sat. The aforementioned are wrinkles in their plan, you are the grease on the wheels.

That’s fine if it’s a considered choice, but enough, please.of the self glorifying myths.
 
Last edited:
How many times have you watched a cowed workforce, deferentiallly train up their replacements R? How many ashen faces and destroyed futures have you looked into?
 
Last edited:
Thought you were suggesting RN weren't far right? Hence your question if you're not denying it why the question? Anyway enough if dancing on the head of a pin.

Do you know what nativist means? It expressly excludes some citizens (literally those not born in the country and by extension usually those not of indigenous heritage)
Nativist, protecting the interests of native born or established inhabitants against of those immigrants.
Not a lot wrong with that bit of it.
 
Nativist, protecting the interests of native born or established inhabitants against of those immigrants.
Not a lot wrong with that bit of it.
Nothing whatsoever. In Thailand you can buy a condo or a house but not the land it stands on.
There is a massive list of jobs restricted to Thais only.
Although I call myself an immigrant and am fully integrated into the country and culture my visa quite specifically says "non immigrant" which means I'm a glorified tourist until such time as I apply for citizenship or permanent residency. Both have strict and quite onerous stipulations attached.
Thailand is a welcoming country who look after their citizens first and foremost and I see nothing wrong with that and am happy to go along with it.
 
What I find sometimes when saying look after our citizens first is that it is seen by certain sections of society to mean white folk only.

They just cannot seem to accept that folk of other races can be proud of being born here and want the same as most other folk.

A decent job. Decent wage. Decent house. Etc etc
 
What I find sometimes when saying look after our citizens first is that it is seen by certain sections of society to mean white folk only.

They just cannot seem to accept that folk of other races can be proud of being born here and want the same as most other folk.

A decent job. Decent wage. Decent house. Etc etc
Yup. I think it’s because the whole debate has been shaped by racists in academia and the media, who have an interest in setting people against each other and discrediting dissent from the global capitalist dream.

It’s quite silly when looked at objectively. I mean a government prioritising its own citizens of whatever colour or creed; what kind of new madness is this?
 
There is a whole industry that needs to cause strife because they can line their pockets.

They waffle on about folk blaming migrants for creating problems.

Then blame citizens here for migrants having problems.

Brexit unleashed the full box of insults and sneering. But hey us stupid, thick folk won.

Ha ha ha 😆
 
What I find sometimes when saying look after our citizens first is that it is seen by certain sections of society to mean white folk only.

They just cannot seem to accept that folk of other races can be proud of being born here and want the same as most other folk.

A decent job. Decent wage. Decent house. Etc etc
There is an ethnic component to this sometimes though either explicitly or by inference... that is what I am concerned with. I have no arguement with a policy programme that seeks to benefit society as a whole and for me that'd be broadly about greater equality.
 
There is an ethnic component to this sometimes though either explicitly or by inference... that is what I am concerned with. I have no arguement with a policy programme that seeks to benefit society as a whole and for me that'd be broadly about greater equality.
You seem to take a dim view of the fantasy you attribute to me, of a Christian and conservative Europe. Don’t you think secular France is in any way entitled to be concerned about the rise of Islam? If you accept they do, fine you are consistent, but you are maybe eliding such concerns with racism above (though naturally there are actual racists and I expect a good few are in the RN or voting for it).

If you do not, why not ? If you aren’t discriminating based on race, and if you aren’t more fond of Islam than you are Christianity, then on what basis are you making a distinction ?
 
You seem to take a dim view of the fantasy you attribute to me, of a Christian and conservative Europe. Don’t you think secular France is in any way entitled to be concerned about the rise of Islam? If you accept they do, fine you are consistent, but you are maybe eliding such concerns with racism above (though naturally there are actual racists and I expect a good few are in the RN or voting for it).

If you do not, why not ? If you aren’t discriminating based on race, and if you aren’t more fond of Islam than you are Christianity, then on what basis are you making a distinction ?
I think the conservative right are probably more of a danger to society than radical islam....only because the chances of them gaining power are that much more likely. That's not the same thing as treating them as equal or ethically more suspect. If there was any chance of a Wahhabist insurgency in the UK (or France) I'd be spending more time opposing that. This is at the macro political level in Western Europe. The threats at street level of radical islam (and in other parts of the world) are of course a concern.

I've repeatedly said concerns are valid, it's the prescribed action to address those concerns offered by RN for example I have a problem with. It's not that there are a few bad apples or racists within their ranks it's that their politics is ethno nationalist and we've seen how that plays out in Europe before. Again the reason they are on the rise is a failure of orthodox politics to address the imbalances and structural failures it has generated....I could go on about those but I know we're broadly on agreement in the problems of hyper individualsm, globalisation and laissez faire capitalism. The issue is what to do about it. You rightly claim the left has vacated the debate, concentrated on social liberalism (which I've always thought was a mistake at best) and embraced even championed neo liberalism (see Blair etc) again I have argued against that because of the impacts that are now the concerns being expressed - housing, job security etc. I've also said we must think beyond the economic

Now I might be wrong but France gives some hope that a new left might emerge that takes cognisance of these factors and develops a coherent alternative based on the world of the 21st century (not the C19th).As things currently stand we have a broken system managed by and for the well off whose only significant challenge is coming from the populist and/or ethno nationalist right. Talk about rock and a hard place. Like you I'd reluctantly vote Macron before Le Pen but it's a shite state of affairs and with luck both those chancers will be rejected with something different.
 
I think the conservative right are probably more of a danger to society than radical islam....only because the chances of them gaining power are that much more likely. That's not the same thing as treating them as equal or ethically more suspect. If there was any chance of a Wahhabist insurgency in the UK (or France) I'd be spending more time opposing that. This is at the macro political level in Western Europe. The threats at street level of radical islam (and in other parts of the world) are of course a concern.

I've repeatedly said concerns are valid, it's the prescribed action to address those concerns offered by RN for example I have a problem with. It's not that there are a few bad apples or racists within their ranks it's that their politics is ethno nationalist and we've seen how that plays out in Europe before. Again the reason they are on the rise is a failure of orthodox politics to address the imbalances and structural failures it has generated....I could go on about those but I know we're broadly on agreement in the problems of hyper individualsm, globalisation and laissez faire capitalism. The issue is what to do about it. You rightly claim the left has vacated the debate, concentrated on social liberalism (which I've always thought was a mistake at best) and embraced even championed neo liberalism (see Blair etc) again I have argued against that because of the impacts that are now the concerns being expressed - housing, job security etc. I've also said we must think beyond the economic

Now I might be wrong but France gives some hope that a new left might emerge that takes cognisance of these factors and develops a coherent alternative based on the world of the 21st century (not the C19th).As things currently stand we have a broken system managed by and for the well off whose only significant challenge is coming from the populist and/or ethno nationalist right. Talk about rock and a hard place. Like you I'd reluctantly vote Macron before Le Pen but it's a shite state of affairs and with luck both those chancers will be rejected with something different.
Great post.

Re: the bold -- to what extent do you think that the only cogent answer to those issues is some for of, well, nationalism?

The communists aspire to a global workers' state, which I think all but a very few of us would agree is a total fantasy -- among many reasons, the disparity in cultures is simply too great a divide to bridge effectively. Hence, any form of collective justice must take place within smaller defined polities, of which the nation state -- basically a proxy for broadly discernible cultures -- is our best vehicle.

So in a way, the rehabilitation of the word 'nationalism' may be overdue; it has become negative/pejorative by association with certain movements, and seen as naming something inherently evil or flawed, or necessarily rooted in "blood and soil" ethnic issues. But, aren't all political parties 'nationalist', inasmuch as they set out a vision that in effect says "this is how we, on behalf of all inhabitants, think we should do things here, in this place". This was always the argument (what are now 'old school') SNP supporters traditionally made.
 
I think the conservative right are probably more of a danger to society than radical islam....only because the chances of them gaining power are that much more likely. That's not the same thing as treating them as equal or ethically more suspect. If there was any chance of a Wahhabist insurgency in the UK (or France) I'd be spending more time opposing that. This is at the macro political level in Western Europe. The threats at street level of radical islam (and in other parts of the world) are of course a concern.

I've repeatedly said concerns are valid, it's the prescribed action to address those concerns offered by RN for example I have a problem with. It's not that there are a few bad apples or racists within their ranks it's that their politics is ethno nationalist and we've seen how that plays out in Europe before. Again the reason they are on the rise is a failure of orthodox politics to address the imbalances and structural failures it has generated....I could go on about those but I know we're broadly on agreement in the problems of hyper individualsm, globalisation and laissez faire capitalism. The issue is what to do about it. You rightly claim the left has vacated the debate, concentrated on social liberalism (which I've always thought was a mistake at best) and embraced even championed neo liberalism (see Blair etc) again I have argued against that because of the impacts that are now the concerns being expressed - housing, job security etc. I've also said we must think beyond the economic

Now I might be wrong but France gives some hope that a new left might emerge that takes cognisance of these factors and develops a coherent alternative based on the world of the 21st century (not the C19th).As things currently stand we have a broken system managed by and for the well off whose only significant challenge is coming from the populist and/or ethno nationalist right. Talk about rock and a hard place. Like you I'd reluctantly vote Macron before Le Pen but it's a shite state of affairs and with luck both those chancers will be rejected with something different.
I agree with most of that other than relative assessment of threats. If by conservative right, though it’s more morphing of terms, you mean the likes of LePen, then in the very short term I’d probably agree. I consider the conservative right to be people like Kemi Badenoch, who may very well be crucial in saving the UK from our own LePen someday.

Longer term though, I think LePen is no more dangerous than other components of the tangle they are part of. And that’s the real issue; the centre needs to sort things pdq or it will be too late. I mean I think it already is in France. If we accede to the technocrats self description as the centre, they are the most dangerous of all in one sense, in that they have created this mess and continue to aggravate it. But not in other senses, and sickeningly Macron remains the best option.

Let’s see what the left front do. Depending on how that shakes out it may be little better than LePen, or it could become something more moderate and less damaging. Let’s hope so, but le drame Francaise is not over yet. If the front allow islamo Gauchisme mentalists to the fore, then LePen gains. If they fall apart into factionalism then Macron and Le Pen both gain.
 
Great post.

Re: the bold -- to what extent do you think that the only cogent answer to those issues is some for of, well, nationalism?

The communists aspire to a global workers' state, which I think all but a very few of us would agree is a total fantasy -- among many reasons, the disparity in cultures is simply too great a divide to bridge effectively. Hence, any form of collective justice must take place within smaller defined polities, of which the nation state -- basically a proxy for broadly discernible cultures -- is our best vehicle.

So in a way, the rehabilitation of the word 'nationalism' may be overdue; it has become negative/pejorative by association with certain movements, and seen as naming something inherently evil or flawed, or necessarily rooted in "blood and soil" ethnic issues. But, aren't all political parties 'nationalist', inasmuch as they set out a vision that in effect says "this is how we, on behalf of all inhabitants, think we should do things here, in this place". This was always the argument (what are now 'old school') SNP supporters traditionally made.
Great post yourself.

I think this is bang on though the term nationalism brings me out in hives, and I don’t even like the nationalist aspects of Indy campaigns.

It’s probably the word we are stuck with though for the aims you state. I prefer patriotism to denote your concepts versus nationalism denoting more a sense of national superiority, or of grievance politics.

But maybe this is just pointlessly abstract. The more significant question is probably; do we have coherent nations anymore. I’m not sure we do, and if all migration of the last 20 years hadn’t happened, it wouldn’t change this suspicion.
 
Great post.

Re: the bold -- to what extent do you think that the only cogent answer to those issues is some for of, well, nationalism?

The communists aspire to a global workers' state, which I think all but a very few of us would agree is a total fantasy -- among many reasons, the disparity in cultures is simply too great a divide to bridge effectively. Hence, any form of collective justice must take place within smaller defined polities, of which the nation state -- basically a proxy for broadly discernible cultures -- is our best vehicle.

So in a way, the rehabilitation of the word 'nationalism' may be overdue; it has become negative/pejorative by association with certain movements, and seen as naming something inherently evil or flawed, or necessarily rooted in "blood and soil" ethnic issues. But, aren't all political parties 'nationalist', inasmuch as they set out a vision that in effect says "this is how we, on behalf of all inhabitants, think we should do things here, in this place". This was always the argument (what are now 'old school') SNP supporters traditionally made.
I was and probably remain an advocate for the civic nationalism as made by many old skool indy supporters. It was contentious amongst old labour types because of their identity/values around internationalism (I think). For me defining and even codifying what we mean by 'civic' nationalism is would be important. I'd see that as an important function of a new state based on principles and a procedure clearly articulated.
 
I was and probably remain an advocate for the civic nationalism as made by many old skool indy supporters. It was contentious amongst old labour types because of their identity/values around internationalism (I think). For me defining and even codifying what we mean by 'civic' nationalism is would be important. I'd see that as an important function of a new state based on principles and a procedure clearly articulated.
Even civic nationalism depends on a broad consensus on how you think a country should be. Hard to do without fraternity, which is hard to have without etc…
 
No arguement there, was there a point?
The point is it's not completely detached from some things that would be considered right wing from the definition you quoted. I'm also not sure all countries are nations any more, given how deeply different some view points are, and how atomised many people are. I don't think Scotland is in this spot though.
 
The point is it's not completely detached from some things that would be considered right wing from the definition you quoted. I'm also not sure all countries are nations any more, given how deeply different some view points are, and how atomised many people are. I don't think Scotland is in this spot though.
Can you join the dots for me please M? Anyways for the avoidance of doubt I'm pro social cohesion based on an agreed 'contract' between state and demos whether that's right or left wing. Critical of course is the terms of that contract....
 
And the contract is supposedly the manifesto that said political parties stand on.

How often in real life is that contract kept?
 
And the contract is supposedly the manifesto that said political parties stand on.

How often in real life is that contract kept?
Manifestos are clearly not worth the paper they are written on what I'm talking about is something far deeper reaching and enshrined in law that sets the context within which politics operates. Ideally taking citizenship would be an active choice but that instinct is fraught with difficulty in practicable terms
 
Yep manifestos are just a load of auld bollocks.
So in reality they are no better than what the populists offer.

So if that's the case what's the problem voting populist? Their waffle is no worse than the mainstream waffle.
 
Can you join the dots for me please M? Anyways for the avoidance of doubt I'm pro social cohesion based on an agreed 'contract' between state and demos whether that's right or left wing. Critical of course is the terms of that contract....
The state is not society is where I’m going, it’s a product of society, not the other way around. It’s certainly not going to provide cohesion, but rather requires cohesion to operate with consent and to pursue coherent goals.

So we need to be careful not to follow other countries into internal division. That’s what makes culture wars so dangerous. I rather suspect some of the items on the right wing list you previously posted are necessary to facilitate this coherence, such as shared traditions or a sense of nationhood. I think the alternative is ultimately authoritarian where you require a state to impose on the population to keep it together.
 
The state is not society is where I’m going, it’s a product of society, not the other way around. It’s certainly not going to provide cohesion, but rather requires cohesion to operate with consent and to pursue coherent goals.

So we need to be careful not to follow other countries into internal division. That’s what makes culture wars so dangerous. I rather suspect some of the items on the right wing list you previously posted are necessary to facilitate this coherence, such as shared traditions or a sense of nationhood. I think the alternative is ultimately authoritarian where you require a state to impose on the population to keep it together.
I'm fine with all that I don't see the broad characteristics as sacrosanct or a model to follow, I don't see left as wholly good and right as wholly bad just that on balance I favour the values of the left. We've discussed libertarian socialism before I'd contest your assertion that liberty and egality are antithetical but let's not re-rehearse
 

Support The Bounce

Goal
£100.00
Earned
£48.75
Ends in......
0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
  48.8%
Back