1100, 11/11/18

[HoloDoc]

@rah
Where Eagles Dare is one of the first films I remember seeing at the cinema that I still like.

@HoloDoc
Someone said that Trump has been looking for the next Mrs Trump so he can have a new one for the second term.
He chose another European but when she said she was from Styria he got confused bigly.

Wouldn't it be easier for him to find an immigrant and give her surgery to look like his daughter, than to actively search for models that look like her?

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump thinks Syria is in Europe. If she said Austria, he'd ask her about kangaroos. And probably still think it was in Europe,

 

[innonimatu]

Praising Petain used to be something only far right people did. Which means Macron made a far right fetish mainstream.

Poor guy, you are still in denial about what Macron is.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Poor guy, you are still in denial about what Macron is.

A Romulan?

 

[HoloDoc]

A Romulan?

A hard biscuit.

 

[AdrienIer]

Poor guy, you are still in denial about what Macron is.

On no political scale is Macron far right.

 

[innonimatu]

On no political scale is Macron far right.

Yeah right, he just thought Pétain was a really good leader, poor fellow didn't knew his history.

Funny how when someone puts together a new political party and questions current policies, he's a "populist". When Macron puts together a new political party to neo-liberalize what hadn't been yet in France, he's a "centrist".

The populists are the ones with the wrongthink, the ones who do the same thing to serve the powers that be are all "moderate" and dandy.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

On the off-chance that anyone might be interested in Canada's Remembrance Day ceremonies from Parliament Hill, here is this year's coverage from CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation):

The first 45 minutes are taken up with various interviews, views of the National War Memorial, information about some of the people participating (ie. the Silver Cross Mother), a bit of coverage of Justin Trudeau's trip to France (in Trudeau's absence, his wife, Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau and Minister of National Defense Harjit Sajjan, will lay the wreath on behalf of the Government of Canada), and shots of the crowds of people attending.

Around 45 minutes in, the dignitaries arrive (the Governor-General, the Silver Cross Mother, and others). The actual ceremony begins about 56 minutes in.

Peter Mansbridge always used to mention the unofficial custom of the public laying their poppies on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier; Rosemary Barton didn't bother to mention this, but it can be seen at around 1 hour, 58 minutes.

The main wreaths are a different design this year, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the armistice. As well, the Ottawa Children's Choir sings a new arrangement of "In Flanders Fields".

One quote stood out for me, from one of the speeches: "If the world can be at war, is it not possible for the world to be at peace? It is not only possible, it is terribly necessary."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

One quote stood out for me, from one of the speeches: "If the world can be at war, is it not possible for the world to be at peace? It is not only possible, it is terribly necessary."

It should be noted that if we declared "world peace" based only on as much of the world being at peace as was actually "at war" in the declared "world wars" we'd be obviously lying. Especially if we used "world" war one as the standard.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It should be noted that if we declared "world peace" based only on as much of the world being at peace as was actually "at war" in the declared "world wars" we'd be obviously lying. Especially if we used "world" war one as the standard.

I should have noted the time of that particular speech. Context matters, and he did go on to say that it wasn't enough for peace to merely be the absence of war.

Remembrance Day isn't only about WWI. It began as a commemoration of that war, but now it commemorates the wars Canada has been involved in from the Boer War to present day.

 

[HoloDoc]

Yeah right, he just thought Pétain was a really good leader, poor fellow didn't knew his history.

Funny how when someone puts together a new political party and questions current policies, he's a "populist". When Macron puts together a new political party to neo-liberalize what hadn't been yet in France, he's a "centrist".

The populists are the ones with the wrongthink, the ones who do the same thing to serve the powers that be are all "moderate" and dandy.

Petain was a good military leader in WWI. That's not really in dispute, although exactly how much credit he deserves is. Macron is a relatively garden-variety neoliberal; that isn't even close to the far right. It's much further right than me, and presumably half the board, but it doesn't make him far right. I wouldn't class him as centrist either, but he is in between the Socialists - themselves a centrist party these days - and the National Socialists Front, which explains the inaccurate designation.

 

[Akka]

Considering neo-liberal and nationalist far-right are basically exact opposite in every single way, I wonder how anyone can mix them up.
(except that they are both on the right side of the center with some amounts of left in different areas)

 

[HoloDoc]

Considering neo-liberal and nationalist far-right are basically exact opposite in every single way, I wonder how anyone can mix them up.
(except that they are both on the right side of the center with some amounts of left in different areas)

I wouldn't call them opposite, but they certainly have rather glaring differences.

 

[Akka]

I wouldn't call them opposite, but they certainly have rather glaring differences.

Well, neo-liberal are pro-globalization, pro-immigration, dislike traditions, typically support or don't care about "progressive" aspects of social policies which are unrelated to money and support business.
Nationalist far-right are anti-globalization, anti-immigration, based on traditions, very conservative when it comes to social policies and support some sort of welfare state.
How can they be more different ?

 

[HoloDoc]

Well, neo-liberal are pro-globalization, pro-immigration, dislike traditions, typically support or don't care about "progressive" aspects of social policies which are unrelated to money and support business.
Nationalist far-right are anti-globalization, anti-immigration, based on traditions, very conservative when it comes to social policies and support some sort of welfare state.
How can they be more different ?

Nationalist far right groups don't necessarily support the welfare state, for one thing. They're often corporatist and otherwise pro-business. Neoliberals also aren't necessarily pro-immigration; it depends n whether or not immigration is seen as a money-maker or not. I also think it's a bit much to say they "dislike traditions." And many far right groups are revolutionary, which isn't exactly traditional. The Nazi support for bastards, for example, is also not exactly a conservative social policy.

I think you're defining both these groups too narrowly.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, neo-liberal are pro-globalization, pro-immigration, dislike traditions, typically support or don't care about "progressive" aspects of social policies which are unrelated to money and support business.
Nationalist far-right are anti-globalization, anti-immigration, based on traditions, very conservative when it comes to social policies and support some sort of welfare state.
How can they be more different ?

Your problem is that you believe too much on what the "far-right" politicians say. When they pretend to be saviors from the poverty and dilocation brought about by neo-liberalism and play defenders of the welfare state.... Neo-liberal right or conservative right, their goal is one and the same: increase and defend inequalities among the populations, keep most people disenpowered: politically, economically, socially. The sole difference is that one tries to do that within nations, the other tries to do that internationally. Difference in method, not in goals.
Macron or Le Pen, they're both making themselves available to be the executive committee of the wealthy in managing the country. Just as the "socialists" have been since the 80s and until their phoniness led to the party being wiped out in the last national elections. Perhaps they cater to slightly different groups of the wealthy, but I believed they will be flexible once in power.

Petain was a good military leader in WWI. That's not really in dispute, although exactly how much credit he deserves is.

I never cared much for military history of WW1. But always had the impression that the generals didn't really knew what they were doing, other than throw resources into the meat grinder in the front lines.
Was there ever a better example of a war carried out on the strength of the resources available for the countries involved to waste?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I never cared much for military history of WW1. But always had the impression that the generals didn't really knew what they were doing, other than throw resources into the meat grinder in the front lines.
Was there ever a better example of a war carried out on the strength of the resources available for the countries involved to waste?

The cold war.

 

[HoloDoc]

Your problem is that you believe too much on what the "far-right" politicians say. When they pretend to be saviors from the poverty and dilocation brought about by neo-liberalism and play defenders of the welfare state.... Neo-liberal right or conservative right, their goal is one and the same: increase and defend inequalities among the populations, keep most people disenpowered: politically, economically, socially. The sole difference is that one tries to do that within nations, the other tries to do that internationally. Difference in method, not in goals.
Macron or Le Pen, they're both making themselves available to be the executive committee of the wealthy in managing the country. Just as the "socialists" have been since the 80s and until their phoniness led to the party being wiped out in the last national elections. Perhaps they cater to slightly different groups of the wealthy, but I believed they will be flexible once in power.



I never cared much for military history of WW1. But always had the impression that the generals didn't really knew what they were doing, other than throw resources into the meat grinder in the front lines.
Was there ever a better example of a war carried out on the strength of the resources available for the countries involved to waste?

That's a common misunderstanding. It's a generalisation, but it's fair to say that at the start of the war, no one knew what they were doing, as this was a new kind of war - conveniently forgetting the lessons of the American Civil War. Over time, the states involved learnt and adapted, with Petain being one of those on the French side who did so relatively quickly.

Then the Americans showed up and got cut to ribbons because they hadn't learnt anything watching everyone else fight for three years. USA! USA! USA!

 

[Akka]

Your problem is that you believe too much on what the "far-right" politicians say. When they pretend to be saviors from the poverty and dilocation brought about by neo-liberalism and play defenders of the welfare state.... Neo-liberal right or conservative right, their goal is one and the same: increase and defend inequalities among the populations, keep most people disenpowered: politically, economically, socially. The sole difference is that one tries to do that within nations, the other tries to do that internationally. Difference in method, not in goals.

You're just mixing and making up everything so it fits what you want to see

 

[Wastl]

Your problem is that you believe too much on what the "far-right" politicians say. When they pretend to be saviors from the poverty and dilocation brought about by neo-liberalism and play defenders of the welfare state.... Neo-liberal right or conservative right, their goal is one and the same: increase and defend inequalities among the populations, keep most people disenpowered: politically, economically, socially. The sole difference is that one tries to do that within nations, the other tries to do that internationally. Difference in method, not in goals.
Macron or Le Pen, they're both making themselves available to be the executive committee of the wealthy in managing the country. Just as the "socialists" have been since the 80s and until their phoniness led to the party being wiped out in the last national elections. Perhaps they cater to slightly different groups of the wealthy, but I believed they will be flexible once in power.?

There are basically no similarities between Macron and Le Pen, and Macron is anything but far right, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Different political ideologies overlapping to some extent happens all the time, even if they are polar opposites in almost every area. Holding some positions that the far-right might also agree with (which doesn't even really fit to what you are describing anyway) doesn't somehow make someone far-right. The Greens are in favour of protecting animals, Hitler took measures that protected animals/wildlife, that doesn't somehow make the Greens Nazis.

Basically every somewhat large party is following corporate interests to a large degree, because no one wants to hurt the economy, nor make powerful enemies.

You haven't given one remotely decent argument as to why Macron wouldbe far-right. All you have done is clubber random stuff together that doesn't really mean anything.

 

[Lexicus]

There are basically no similarities between Macron and Le Pen

Macron and Le Pen both believe that African women have too many babies and Le Pen would certainly agree that Africa has a "civilizational problem."

Macron is probably not 'far right' but he is further right than most of his "centrist" supporters will admit. They have constructed this whole populist<-->sensible axis which obscures more than it illuminates unfortunately.