Panda
Metal head
Hehe
I don't think one should take anything Simon says seriously
If they promise the only immigrants they'll let in are good-looking 17-years-old women and lower the alcohol tax, they'll get my vote
Jean-Marie Le Pen - 17.4% !!!
- Thread starter IceBlaZe
- Start date
Hehe
I don't think one should take anything Simon says seriously
If they promise the only immigrants they'll let in are good-looking 17-years-old women and lower the alcohol tax, they'll get my vote
GenghisK
...
Maybe but he's not far from being Bruno Megret, in some of his behaviours...
Btw, good to see you again, Supernaut. Long time we last met
and please activate your PM thanks 
I think Flatlander Fox touched on the real problem (way back on the first page of this thread) that politics in Europe have become too compartmentalized, too bound to ideology. This chokes off debate and discussion because the political group's ideological credentials have become more important than the issues they claim to espouse.
Le Pen and his ilk (Haider, Zhirinovsky, Csurka, etc.) win electoral support by touching on legitimate issues that people are concerned about (crime, immigration, the economy, etc.), though they play down the fact that their programs offer extreme solutions for them. But because these extremists talk about these issues, the more moderate political groups won't talk about them - as if these issues had been contaminated by association with the extremists. Because of this, legitimate issues are often left to the political fringes and in this way the extremists are more often able to achieve political success in Europe, from both the left and the right. Legitimate fiscal conservatives, for instance like Berlusconi, are forced by the system to effectively get in bed with the extremists (Mussolini-nostalgic fascists in his case) just to be able to maintain a government. The core problem though is that legitimate political issues can often only be aired through immoderate political channels. Le Pen is a slimey ultra-nationalist but he articulated some things that French people were clearly interested in, and because the moderates of the left and right wouldn't talk about those issues France now has the embarrassing situation of a political low-life getting uncomfortably close to a leadership role.
European (French and Italian government systems being the most extreme examples of this phenomenon) governmental systems were developed to maximize democracy in their systems, but for the parties, not for issues. Party loyalty is paramount in Europe and each party "owns" its cadre of political issues, each issue coming with its respective constituency. The problems begin when an issue strays across traditional political constituencies; all too frequently the only ones who can seize them then are the extremists like Le Pen.
Le Pen and his ilk (Haider, Zhirinovsky, Csurka, etc.) win electoral support by touching on legitimate issues that people are concerned about (crime, immigration, the economy, etc.), though they play down the fact that their programs offer extreme solutions for them. But because these extremists talk about these issues, the more moderate political groups won't talk about them - as if these issues had been contaminated by association with the extremists. Because of this, legitimate issues are often left to the political fringes and in this way the extremists are more often able to achieve political success in Europe, from both the left and the right. Legitimate fiscal conservatives, for instance like Berlusconi, are forced by the system to effectively get in bed with the extremists (Mussolini-nostalgic fascists in his case) just to be able to maintain a government. The core problem though is that legitimate political issues can often only be aired through immoderate political channels. Le Pen is a slimey ultra-nationalist but he articulated some things that French people were clearly interested in, and because the moderates of the left and right wouldn't talk about those issues France now has the embarrassing situation of a political low-life getting uncomfortably close to a leadership role.
European (French and Italian government systems being the most extreme examples of this phenomenon) governmental systems were developed to maximize democracy in their systems, but for the parties, not for issues. Party loyalty is paramount in Europe and each party "owns" its cadre of political issues, each issue coming with its respective constituency. The problems begin when an issue strays across traditional political constituencies; all too frequently the only ones who can seize them then are the extremists like Le Pen.
Supernaut
Prince
Originally posted by GenghisK
Maybe but he's not far from being Bruno Megret, in some of his behaviours...
That's what I mean - the nationalists in Israel are so extreme that they make Sharon look like a moderate.
Btw are there any other British people out there who find it difficult to take seriously a potential war criminal called Sharon?
Btw, good to see you again, Supernaut. Long time we last met
Good to see you too my continent conquering friend. Am just off home now, but will try to sort the PM out soon
Supernaut
Prince
Vrylakas, I agree totally with what you say (well, except for calling Berlusconi legitimate ). The European system worked pretty well for 40 or so years, but has now become ossified and needs to be shaken up - it's not just extremists who are benefiting from this, witness the rise of Green parties around the place. The big problem is that the parties became so important - in Austria, the two parties effectively split all public sector posts between their members, so it's no wonder people wanted a third force - unfortunately this was Haider and co. But as Churchill once said, the only cure for the problems of democracy is more democracy.
). The European system worked pretty well for 40 or so years, but has now become ossified and needs to be shaken up - it's not just extremists who are benefiting from this, witness the rise of Green parties around the place. The big problem is that the parties became so important - in Austria, the two parties effectively split all public sector posts between their members, so it's no wonder people wanted a third force - unfortunately this was Haider and co. But as Churchill once said, the only cure for the problems of democracy is more democracy.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
"...says a 20-year old arrogant kid who dreams openly from a fascist empire?"
Juize, weren't you going to start behaving like a mature human being, or was that just a teenage mood swing? The correct phrasing is "20 year old arrogant man who dreams openly of a fascist empire".
I am not a baby goat by any stretch of the imagination.
The phrase taken out of context so kindly by you was manifestly correct. It is a penchant for youths to label as fascist anything not in a Rage Against the Machine song, in the manner so adroitly typified by Neil of the Young Ones. This is established anthropological fact*(see note).
It is also a penchant for the young and garbled, as they can think of no more appropriate branding reproach to hurl at whoever they are criticizing.
You constant attempts at flaming never even ascend to the point of being tiresome, or a monocellular parasite perched on the back of an elephant. They prove no point, do not offend me, and only serve to reinforce your status as a young hothead. Try saying something productive, or, if you feel moved to criticism, then try and behave in a civilized manner.
"I don't think one should take anything Simon says seriously"
You should take everything one says very seriously. History awaits, and will absolve me.
*Nb: Established by Professor Otto von Schlinkklink-Uberghamblin and Professor Sir Fforbes St. John Slater-Nazi of the Horst Wessel Memorial School of Insane Anthropology. A department of the Stalin Institute.
Juize, weren't you going to start behaving like a mature human being, or was that just a teenage mood swing? The correct phrasing is "20 year old arrogant man who dreams openly of a fascist empire".
I am not a baby goat by any stretch of the imagination.
The phrase taken out of context so kindly by you was manifestly correct. It is a penchant for youths to label as fascist anything not in a Rage Against the Machine song, in the manner so adroitly typified by Neil of the Young Ones. This is established anthropological fact*(see note).
It is also a penchant for the young and garbled, as they can think of no more appropriate branding reproach to hurl at whoever they are criticizing.
You constant attempts at flaming never even ascend to the point of being tiresome, or a monocellular parasite perched on the back of an elephant. They prove no point, do not offend me, and only serve to reinforce your status as a young hothead. Try saying something productive, or, if you feel moved to criticism, then try and behave in a civilized manner.
"I don't think one should take anything Simon says seriously"
You should take everything one says very seriously. History awaits, and will absolve me.
*Nb: Established by Professor Otto von Schlinkklink-Uberghamblin and Professor Sir Fforbes St. John Slater-Nazi of the Horst Wessel Memorial School of Insane Anthropology. A department of the Stalin Institute.
GenghisK
...
We shall see how History will keep track of that bloody starting of millenium... Ok I'm not Brit though
At least I can see I'm not the only one to think there is something wrong with him. Rabbin, missed Rabbin...I meant that you should turn your PM system on
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
True but not new.
Populism and polemics exist as long as politics does. The problem is that most people seek for simple solutions to their concerns and often make their decisions based on very few if not even just one issue(s). Obviously crime related to immigrants (or 'foreigners') has been a big issue in France for alot of people. But over that they missed that politics (and life for that matter) is more than just that.
I won't say these issues are left for the extremists. That's how it was in this case, but not in general. You are right that anti-immigration talk has the stigma of right-wing extremism in Europe. But that is justified, in my opinion. Fact is that acting against foreigners and immigrants won't solve the problems of a country. It's more or less a scapegoat thing. Here in Germany it's a frequent phrase of the (far-)right to say immigration was the reason for unemployment. But that's definetely not true. There are regions with about 20% unemployment and 5% foreigners, nevertheless the right-wingers earn huge support for that thesis in these regions, which is obviously wrong.
Besides that I think that the rise of alternatives to the usually two big parties is not that much connected to issues, but more to disappointment with politics in general, which also shows in the huge numbers of non-voters.
Hitro wrote:
I won't say these issues are left for the extremists. That's how it was in this case, but not in general. You are right that anti-immigration talk has the stigma of right-wing extremism in Europe. But that is justified, in my opinion. Fact is that acting against foreigners and immigrants won't solve the problems of a country. It's more or less a scapegoat thing. Here in Germany it's a frequent phrase of the (far-)right to say immigration was the reason for unemployment. But that's definetely not true. There are regions with about 20% unemployment and 5% foreigners, nevertheless the right-wingers earn huge support for that thesis in these regions, which is obviously wrong.
Great post Hitro! But that's still my point - that there is a legitimate issue concerning immigration, but it's left to the extremists to exploit the basest fears of the population because moderates don't want to be seen talking about it. It's a pariah issue for moderates. That's unfortunate because it is a legitimate political issue, and those who do talk about it publicallygain some legitimacy for themselves in the electorate's eyes - hence Le Pen.
Imagine Germany being overrun with Turks or Poles. Every Pole knows someone who works in Germany. Imagine the Polish birthrate in Germany far out-stripping the German so that in 30 years Polish constituencies could begin demanding special language laws for their districts, that all government functions take place in both Polish and German. What about healthcare for foreign tourists visiting Germany? (If it becomes free will people flock from all over the world to get the high quality healthcare in Germany for nothing? Should that be allowed? Do German taxpayers mind paying for that?) Is a Libyan child born to Libyan tourists visiting Germany a German citizen - and then by default its parents? What kinds of background checks are legitimate for foreigners visiting Germany or staying longer? These are all questions every state faces, and these issues need to be discussed publically since it is important policy. Countries benefit immensely from immigrants socially, economically, politically, etc. (now why would I believe something like that...?
...) but immigration needs to be regulated. The EU for instance is making Poland spend lots of money policing and controlling its eastern border, to stop illegal immigrants from the former Soviet Union. It is an issue...
But again, because the extremists are the only ones willing to talk about it out loud we all connect their extremist views with the whole topic: "Deport 'em all!", "Build a wall!", "Send them home!", etc. When you say "immigration policy" in public in Europe, people immediately think neo-Nazis and skinheads. The topic has been given to them. And because of that it isn't discussed publically. The issues that "belong" to the extreme nationalists in France are important to the electorate now, and so they did well in the polls. The counter-demonstrations will probably guarantee that Chirac wins, but it will be an ideological victory ("Keep the extremists out!") rather than a triumph of one party's ideas over another's in any public debate.
I won't say these issues are left for the extremists. That's how it was in this case, but not in general. You are right that anti-immigration talk has the stigma of right-wing extremism in Europe. But that is justified, in my opinion. Fact is that acting against foreigners and immigrants won't solve the problems of a country. It's more or less a scapegoat thing. Here in Germany it's a frequent phrase of the (far-)right to say immigration was the reason for unemployment. But that's definetely not true. There are regions with about 20% unemployment and 5% foreigners, nevertheless the right-wingers earn huge support for that thesis in these regions, which is obviously wrong.
Great post Hitro! But that's still my point - that there is a legitimate issue concerning immigration, but it's left to the extremists to exploit the basest fears of the population because moderates don't want to be seen talking about it. It's a pariah issue for moderates. That's unfortunate because it is a legitimate political issue, and those who do talk about it publicallygain some legitimacy for themselves in the electorate's eyes - hence Le Pen.
Imagine Germany being overrun with Turks or Poles. Every Pole knows someone who works in Germany. Imagine the Polish birthrate in Germany far out-stripping the German so that in 30 years Polish constituencies could begin demanding special language laws for their districts, that all government functions take place in both Polish and German. What about healthcare for foreign tourists visiting Germany? (If it becomes free will people flock from all over the world to get the high quality healthcare in Germany for nothing? Should that be allowed? Do German taxpayers mind paying for that?) Is a Libyan child born to Libyan tourists visiting Germany a German citizen - and then by default its parents? What kinds of background checks are legitimate for foreigners visiting Germany or staying longer? These are all questions every state faces, and these issues need to be discussed publically since it is important policy. Countries benefit immensely from immigrants socially, economically, politically, etc. (now why would I believe something like that...?
...) but immigration needs to be regulated. The EU for instance is making Poland spend lots of money policing and controlling its eastern border, to stop illegal immigrants from the former Soviet Union. It is an issue...But again, because the extremists are the only ones willing to talk about it out loud we all connect their extremist views with the whole topic: "Deport 'em all!", "Build a wall!", "Send them home!", etc. When you say "immigration policy" in public in Europe, people immediately think neo-Nazis and skinheads. The topic has been given to them. And because of that it isn't discussed publically. The issues that "belong" to the extreme nationalists in France are important to the electorate now, and so they did well in the polls. The counter-demonstrations will probably guarantee that Chirac wins, but it will be an ideological victory ("Keep the extremists out!") rather than a triumph of one party's ideas over another's in any public debate.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Well this and the other points you mentioned actually are issues here, not only within the far-right, that's where I disagree with you. Talking ABOUT immigration is a very common thing these days, just talking (strongly) AGAINST it has the extreme right wing "smell". But it has been one of the main issues in German politics (can't speak for the other European countries) ever since the current "red-green" government has been elected.
In fact the government and the opposition held many talks to find a consensus about the issue and how immigration should be regulated (concerning the questions mentioned in your post). The government wanted to get the issue out of the election campaign for the reason that it get's so easy into the hand of demagoges and, if you look at public opinion, would probably not be to their (the left) advantage.
Of course the opposition, especially the conservatives, want it to be a main issue, if not THE main issue of the campaign, naturally because they expect to get more votes from those frightened of immigrants than the left.
So here the problem I mean comes into play. Instead of contructively arguing and finding a compromise to bring it forward, the parties are using the issue for election tactics. And that works far better with this issue than with most if not all others.
And there are problems which get more an more urgent, specifically the "integration" of immigrants into society (to prevent such developments like the one mentioned in the quote above), as well as the industry's (self-declared) need for well-educated foreign employees.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Whatever. This guy (La Pen) has the ability to sound an awful lot like Hitler, doesn't he?
And, just to be clear, I was talking Bill Simon....not Simon Darkshade.
So, maybe the time for right and reason HAS come.
Just so long as the b@st@rd doesn't win.
And he won't. I doubt there are enough that are THAT far right in France to get a fascist like this elected. So, yes, right and reason will prevail.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Quite a few right wing demagogues 'sound like Hitler', as he's the one they are judged by and compared to. But I can see where you are coming from.
There is no chance whatsoever he will get elected, with both left, right and centre joining up. I do hope it serves as a wake up call to the politico's of the dangers of not listening to the people's concerns, and at the least addressing them, rather than ignoring them.
And I shed no tears with the departure of the evil Trotskyist communist spy Jospin.
There is no chance whatsoever he will get elected, with both left, right and centre joining up. I do hope it serves as a wake up call to the politico's of the dangers of not listening to the people's concerns, and at the least addressing them, rather than ignoring them.
And I shed no tears with the departure of the evil Trotskyist communist spy Jospin.
