Macron's manifesto for Empire

[innonimatu]

The creature is doing the bidding of its creators, worried that their opportunity may be slipping. He is launching a european propaganda offensive and even publicized a manifesto admitting to the overall plan, of course thinly disguised as "nice" objectives. I believe it is worth reading and discussing, and I'll start with some comments. My position being probably already well known...

a European Agency for the Protection of Democracies to provide each EU member state with European experts to protect their election process against cyber-attacks and manipulation.

We use pen and paper, votes counted in view of witnesses from all parties. What do we need a "European Agency for the Protection of Democracies" for? Perhaps to push electronic voting and destroy a system that actually works and is imprevious to hacking?

We should have European rules banishing incitement to hatred and violence from the internet, since respect for the individual is the bedrock of our civilisation and our dignity.

What city will be hosting the new European Censorship Agency? Not with that name, of course. Perhaps Ministry of Truth will do?

We will need a common border force and a European asylum office, strict control obligations and European solidarity to which each country will contribute under the authority of a European Council for Internal Security.

And once we have this "European Council for Internal Security" we may as well have a new internal police to, say, protect the treaties or whatever. Someone must enforce that censorship and "defend democracy" after all...

increased defence spending, a truly operational mutual defence clause, and a European security council, with the UK on board, to prepare our collective decisions.

Of course we must increase "defense" spending, we are threatened by those hordes of refugees. And must occupy their countries for their own good. And our security! Can't be done without increasing "defense" spending, it won't be as if we will be only doing as we are now, successfully defending our land... France has long been a nuclear power, it's not concerned with defense, it is concerned with offense.

He is also a bald-faced liar and a phony:

a social shield for all workers, guaranteeing the same pay for the same work, and an EU minimum wage, appropriate to each country, negotiated collectively every year.

This from the creature who has been busy destroying worker's protections in France. This in the name of the institutions, the EU, that forced the abolition of social protections in the countries subject to austerity blackmail.
Anyone will be stupid enough to fall for this propaganda?

to counter the lobby threat, independent scientific assessment of substances hazardous to the environment and health.

This from the EU that already has institutionalized bribery as "lobbying rules" in Brussels, copied from the US' model, it introduced it into the continent with its penchant to imitate the Empire in the other side of the Atlantic.

giving the new European Innovation Council a budget on a par with the United States in order to spearhead new technological breakthroughs such as artificial intelligence.

more aping... as if countries haven't been funding research on their own.

A world-oriented Europe needs to look to Africa, with which we should enter into a covenant for the future, ambitiously and non-defensively supporting African development with investment, academic partnerships and education for girls.

Now you know that "world-oriented" means "Imperial". The french colonial obsession with Africa, again after their recent treaty with Germany, disguised as help, "partnership". We can see very easily how France has been "helping" Africa. Now they want to drag the other countries of Europe into its colonial ambitions there.

we can’t let nationalists with no solutions exploit people’s anger. We can’t sleepwalk to a diminished Europe.

Read this as nationalism, or particularism if you will, each group of people in Europe ruling themselves democratically and freely, independently, is in Macron's view the only obstacle standing in the way of the french elite's imperial ambitions. If nationalism is not repressed (that internal security council sure will have a job to do...) then Europe will be "diminuished, unable to rise to the imperial role the french elites keep dreaming of.

There will be disagreement, but is it better to have a static Europe or a Europe that advances, sometimes at different speeds, and that is open to all? In this Europe, the people will really take back control of their future.

What was is the one thing that actually maintained a diverse and democratic Europe, that made Europe a continent where so many new ideas were born, where progress happened quickly? Oh right, political fragmentation and the freedom it granted people in escaping attempts at oppression by moving. Macron's plan is one for inescapable repression and stagnation.

 

[Ferocitus]

Now you know that "world-oriented" means "Imperial". The french colonial obsession with Africa, again after their recent treaty with Germany, disguised as help, "partnership". We can see very easily how France has been "helping" Africa. Now they want to drag the other countries of Europe into its colonial ambitions there.

I just parse it as:
France: "OMD, China arrived in Africa with no historical baggage and it's now using war-like trade and development projects to ingratiate themselves with the locals. Yo, Belgium, help us out!"
Belgium: Blink.

 

[Estebonrober]

What was is the one thing that actually maintained a diverse and democratic Europe, that made Europe a continent where so many new ideas were born, where progress happened quickly? Oh right, political fragmentation and the freedom it granted people in escaping attempts at oppression by moving. Macron's plan is one for inescapable repression and stagnation.

Don't forget endless warfare! Brutality beyond measure in the world! And expansionism of said brutality. European Nationalism has a very checkered past, advocating for its triumphant return is reactionary and dangerous.

 

[innonimatu]

European nationalism was dangerous when each country could wage offensive war on its own, each ruler, or at least a series of rulers of the larger polities could dream of becoming (even bigger) emperors.

They are now too small for that kind of offensive warfare. Except for France and possibly Germany and the UK, but even those cannot bite too much... unless they do this European Union and march on Africa again. And indeed "OMD China ahas arrived" can be an excuse for that, but I believe it unlikely. China is a paper tiger. Influential but with plenty of trouble ahead and getting into a premature competition with the US.
There are other asians: Japan, South Korea, India, etc. The real danger for France and the other followers of the idea of an "european imperial renaissance" is africans getting their act together and shaking off the current neocolonial arrangements, replacing those with many more options, getting independent at last. Libya was already punished for that, and it might have been doing it more with koreans and japanese than with the chinese.

 

[Ferocitus]

And indeed "OMD China ahas arrived" can be an excuse for that, but I believe it unlikely. China is a paper tiger.

I hope that I didn't give you the impression that I think that China is, or is seen as, a military threat in Africa by France.
The thought of significant European military action in anything more than a few "hotspots" is going to have to contend with enormous domestic pressure for many of the European participants. Maybe they can weather it, but my guess is that Paris will burn. Again.

China is a paper tiger. Influential but with plenty of trouble ahead and getting into a premature competition with the US.

OTOH, their centralized system might give them advantages over the inertia of rival political/economic systems.
"Trouble ahead...", "premature competition..." are just vacuous crystal ball terms.

There are other asians: Japan, South Korea, India, etc.

From trade and investment figures I have seen, they don't have quite the clout in Africa that China does atm, except (IIRC) possibly India.
(But I'm happy to be disabused of my mistakes!)

The real danger for France and the other followers of the idea of an "european imperial renaissance" is africans getting their act together and shaking off the current neocolonial arrangements, replacing those with many more options, getting independent at last.

Very nicely put. ATM, the dominant genre of this "European imperial renaissance" is mime, with a Benny Hill sound track.

 

[Yeekim]

We use pen and paper, votes counted in view of witnesses from all parties. What do we need a "European Agency for the Protection of Democracies" for? Perhaps to push electronic voting and destroy a system that actually works and is imprevious to hacking?

1) All electoral frauds in history have been committed in elections conducted non-electronically.
2) "Election process" is more than just casting and counting votes.

What city will be hosting the new European Censorship Agency? Not with that name, of course. Perhaps Ministry of Truth will do?

No such agency is intended.

And once we have this "European Council for Internal Security" we may as well have a new internal police to, say, protect the treaties or whatever. Someone must enforce that censorship and "defend democracy" after all...

Another "slippery slope" argument. God forbid we do anything about border control and asylum process, lest rightwingers lose the stick to bash EU with, huh?

Of course we must increase "defense" spending, we are threatened by those hordes of refugees. And must occupy their countries for their own good. And our security! Can't be done without increasing "defense" spending, it won't be as if we will be only doing as we are now, successfully defending our land... France has long been a nuclear power, it's not concerned with defense, it is concerned with offense.

Defense spending has got nothing to do with refugees. Kindly take into account not everyone enjoys your privileged geographical location at the westernmost edge of the continent.

This from the EU that already has institutionalized bribery as "lobbying rules" in Brussels, copied from the US' model, it introduced it into the continent with its penchant to imitate the Empire in the other side of the Atlantic.

What about those rules allows "bribery" and how does Portugal regulate lobbying?

What was is the one thing that actually maintained a diverse and democratic Europe, that made Europe a continent where so many new ideas were born, where progress happened quickly? Oh right, political fragmentation and the freedom it granted people in escaping attempts at oppression by moving. Macron's plan is one for inescapable repression and stagnation.

I'll give you "diverse".
What proportion of Europe was "democratic" before the EU and for how long?

 

[Akka]

It's always a great ironic moment when inno start talking about "propaganda" when it's relative to EU.

 

[innonimatu]

1) All electoral frauds in history have been committed in elections conducted non-electronically.
2) "Election process" is more than just casting and counting votes.

No such agency is intended.

Oh really, then what is?
And what will a "European Agency for the Protection of Democracies" do?

Another "slippery slope" argument. God forbid we do anything about border control and asylum process, lest rightwingers lose the stick to bash EU with, huh?

You seriously want me to believe that the same guy who closed the border with Italy to refugees, violating his own professions of faith in the "four freedoms of the EU", wants to do something about refugees? No, of course that is not the purpose of this power grab.

Defense spending has got nothing to do with refugees. Kindly take into account not everyone enjoys your privileged geographical location at the westernmost edge of the continent.

So what is the threat that requires more defense spending? What is badly defensed now that the EU must defend, tax and create a military under russel's command for? Other than the power seats there?

What about those rules allows "bribery" and how does Portugal regulate lobbying?

Regulation would mean acknowledging it as legitimate. Isn't it obvious what the problem is? The EU is bringing that cancer into Europe and spreading it.

What proportion of Europe was "democratic" before the EU and for how long?

What has the EU ever done for democracy in Europe? Other than undermine it through growing discredit among the people? You mean the warmongering in the Balkans, complete with colonial-style governors appointed to rule the newly conquered territories? That must count as "spreading democracy" if we're aping the americans.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No such agency is intended.

EU's postering and repeated attempts to pass laws that suppress information suggest otherwise. It is very easy to define opinions one doesn't like as "incitement to hatred and violence" for example. We've already watched this happen in an EU country.

 

[innonimatu]

Macron's play continues. Today Tusk came out backing Macron and blaming Brexit again on "external anti-European forces":

Finally, let me make one remark about today's editorial by President Macron. Not going into detail, I fully support his way of thinking, also when he says, and I quote, "Our first freedom is democratic freedom: the freedom to choose our leaders as foreign powers seek to influence our votes at every election." End of quote. There are external anti-European forces, which are seeking – openly or secretly – to influence the democratic choices of Europeans, as was the case with Brexit and a number of election campaigns across Europe. And it may again be the case with the European elections in May.

He also calls for a "renaissance of Europe". Renaissance relative to what? Think about it. He is not talking about the EU because the EU is new, you can't have a renaissance if you're being born. No, he's talking about the days of Empire. About the Europe of a century ago. Now united, but with the same aim: rule the world or as much of it as can be grabbed. Be warned: a EU as a world power won't behave any better that any other empire with world ambitions. That way lies eternal wars, together with a bloated military and bureaucracy to support it all. Emulating both Europe's past and the US's present.

Except that I think it would be more like Israel than the US, were Europe united to carry it out: territorial conquest (in Europe's case, Africa again) and a constant occupation of territories larger that the metropolis. Leading to political and social rot back home, and eternal war trying to suppress the natural revolts in the colonies. I don't think Macron and his ilk can do it, but they musk be fought and defeated.

 

[Peuri]

May I start licking boots already? In all seriousness, a hypothetical EU empire is decades away. The EU can't even tie it's own boot laces at the moment, let alone goose step.

 

[innonimatu]

May I start licking boots already? In all seriousness, a hypothetical EU empire is decades away. The EU can't even tie it's own boot laces at the moment, let alone goose step.

Accidents happen, impossible things are suddenly a reality. I mentioned Israel, who in 1946 could anticipate the it'd be in 1967? Who in 1967 anticipated what victory would lead to later?

An EU that for some accident of history gets united in an aim for exercising power abroad can easily be sucked into that kind of trap. If I try to guess it'll happen as a "necessary response" to a migration wave across the Mediterranean. There are already military plans for that, that much I know. Occupy one f"ailed state", then another and another, it's easy enough with some money and covert operations to push a poor state into civill unrest and war, justifying the "need" for intervention. Create a bureaucracy that lives from these occupations, bet business onboard. And you'll have a situation where an empire that is actually a drain on the metropolis is politically impossible to abandon. That much I also know, this just from knowing history. European history. Recent.

Individual european countries do not have the capacity to do it any longer. France does it, true, but it's at the limit of its capacities and facing serious pressure as other countries provide possible allies for its targets to resit it. But the whole western Europe gets into it? It has the economic independence, the population, the industrial and military capacity to do it on the scale of an "european renaissance" indeed. This is extremely dangerous, but people fail to see it - even as the french become more and more open about their aims. If the EU develops a "common foreign policy" and a "common military" then all Paris will have to do is create incidents that "require intervention". The other countries will have a hard time refusing to participate. And once sucked in, scale up things. because hey, a "defeat" is unthinkable, would "endanger European credibility". How did Vietnam start for the US?

@Peuri, if this is not blocked now, odds are your sons will be drafted to go kill africans for the greater glory of Europe. And "freedom", of course. Always "freedom".

 

[Yeekim]

Oh really, then what is?

Having European rules does not require having European agency to enforce them. Else we would have thousands of them, as opposed to 40 or so.

And what will a "European Agency for the Protection of Democracies" do?

Cyber manipulation does not mean hacking into election software. It can also mean using spambots on social media to spread fake news, for example. Pen and paper elections are no more protected agaist that than e-elections.
I am far from convinced we need another agency against that, but your paranoia here is even more misplaced than usual.

You seriously want me to believe that the same guy who closed the border with Italy to refugees, violating his own professions of faith in the "four freedoms of the EU", wants to do something about refugees? No, of course that is not the purpose of this power grab.

Something like common border force and strict control obligations? Makes perfect sense, he's seen why they are necessary.

So what is the threat that requires more defense spending? What is badly defensed now that the EU must defend, tax and create a military under Brussel's command for? Other than the power seats there?

Defense spending is normally required to counter military threat. And "increased defence spending, a truly operational mutual defence clause, and a European security council, with the UK on board, to prepare our collective decisions" does not say anything about "military under Brussel's command".

Regulation would mean acknowledging it as legitimate. Isn't it obvious what the problem is? The EU is bringing that cancer into Europe and spreading it.

And here I thought that listening to feedback from stakeholders is integral part of governance in any democratic society.

What has the EU ever done for democracy in Europe? Other than undermine it through growing discredit among the people? You mean the warmongering in the Balkans, complete with colonial-style governors appointed to rule the newly conquered territories? That must count as "spreading democracy" if we're aping the americans.

"What have the Romans ever done for us!?"
I notice you deftly sidestepped my question about how much of Europe was democratic before EU, so I'll ask that again.

 

[Hehehe]

European Nationalism has a very checkered past, advocating for its triumphant return is reactionary and dangerous.

Oh yes, Europe before nationalism used to be a bastion of peace and tolerance

 

[Estebonrober]

Oh yes, Europe before nationalism used to be a bastion of peace and tolerance

Nationalism didn’t help. It won’t help now. It’s a dead end path for the species. It solves nothing except how to blame others.

 

[Hehehe]

Nationalism didn’t help. It won’t help now. It’s a dead end path for the species. It solves nothing except how to blame others.

It seems like you do not even understand what the concept means. At it's core, nationalism means nothing more than the love for one's fellow man. We could go into detail, and maybe we should, but I fear that would be slightly off-topic. For further reading, I suggest you read this article by Geopolitical Futures. I will quote a part of it here, but in this case I feel like the entire article is very much relevant.

Too much nationalism on top of political and social instability can lead to the rise of a regime like the Third Reich. Too little nationalism can lead to the current situation we see in Syria. “Syria” is a fabrication, a flippant creation of European imperialism. When Syria came apart at the seams in 2011, the result was the proliferation of a dizzying number of rebel groups that to this day are as busy fighting among themselves as they are with resisting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. The humanitarian horrors in Aleppo are a reminder that the international community’s promise of “never again” has never been kept. National self-determination is not just a principle enshrined in the U.N. Charter, it is also, for better or for worse, the best way political communities have found to secure power in the modern world. Many in the West are nervous about the rise of nationalism; the Syrian rebels in Aleppo would gladly take some of that nationalism if they could.

Nationalism is ultimately an ideology. Ideology very rarely drives geopolitics; it is almost always the other way around. The fact that nationalism is rising today is a signal that there are tectonic shifts happening at fundamental political, social and economic levels that are causing individuals and nations to feel insecure about their place in the world. These challenges can also lead to authoritarianism in some countries and bigotry in others, but these are all separate phenomena. The important thing to remember is that increased nationalism comes not from the ether but from instability, and that it is not synonymous with various other “-isms” that many lop into one large category of poisonous ideologies. The world is built on nation-states. Take out the nation and you’re left with a house of cards.

 

[innonimatu]

Indeed nationalism has been the cause of the fall of empires and the spread of democracy, replacing its necessarily more tyrannical government. "self-determination" is nationalism.

 

[Estebonrober]

It seems like you do not even understand what the concept means. At it's core, nationalism means nothing more than the love for one's fellow man. We could go into detail, and maybe we should, but I fear that would be slightly off-topic. For further reading, I suggest you read this article by Geopolitical Futures. I will quote a part of it here, but in this case I feel like the entire article is very much relevant.

Beyond the point that this excerpt contradicts itself I actually agree with the point that this is how we are organized currently. I disagree that it can get society any further than it already has and fundamentally will lead to greater conflict in the future.

This utopian idea seems to be coming from the idea that nation states should be homogenous populations that largely agree politically and philosophically. That changes from generation to generation though and anyways it’s a completely unteneable supposition as the world exists now.

Nations are fractious structures that are largely cobbled together from scraps for all sorts of reasons. The idea that Syria is any more of a false nation than the US is because it was drawn up by the wrong people and than failed.

What a rise in nationalism will lead to in the long term is more violence like it did the last time. The key difference being that nuclear weapons will be used this time. Nationalism is driving the PakistanIndia conflict right now and it is the most dangerous conflict currently going. Nationalism is driving the NK/USconflict and it’s the second most.

I agree with the idea of having local control over one’s region (states), but that has to be tempered with the acknowledgement of international law moving forward. I think the US’s lack of joining the World Court has done a great disservice to itself and humanity for this very reason.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Thanks, Bonaparte.
I like how this piece of text is so obviously French written into English.

Macron is just trying to polarize, here, pretending he plays politics.
"Yet we need to do more and faster [...] Yet Europe is not just an economic market. It is a project."
Classic liberal vocabulary : we need to reform, make a first step. It's always only a first step, no matter how many steps we took before. There's always only a single direction towards which we can walk. That of progress. It is not up to us citizens to define progress. It takes courage to take that first step. We should admire him who leads us in the right direction.
Progress has been solved. Our scientists have discovered the algorhythm for progress, derived it from the human DNA. It will be implemented for your own good, against your own will. We have the means to socially engineer it. You will get used to it, you will come to like it, you will come to need it.

"Project." His favourite term and the favourite expression of managers all around the globe.
Defining the project is unnecessary. There can be only one. What matters is adhering to the project. Consenting to it. Forming a sense of identity around it. Organizing energies ; occupying people enough that they do not dissent.


"I propose the creation of a European Agency for the Protection of Democracies
[...]
The EU needs to set its target – zero carbon by 2050 and pesticides halved by 2025"
So : Blame the Russians. That's in poor taste. Nasty. It's cool when we meddle but we don't appreciate it so much the other way around, uh ?
And : It's the EU's fault that France rejected a law on pesticides earlier this year.

Macron has his Nationalist/European/Global reference frames all very confused. Or maybe it isn't an innocent mistake.
He adequates Nationalist to the extreme right ; he needs not be paternalist, that would be the EU's job, so he can blame the EU on that ; what can't be blamed on either, blame it on Russia. Very subtle, most elegant.

Also, the most tangible part of his "project" for Europe is about security, immigration and border control.
Meanwhile, we wage a pitiless economic war against the poorest regions of the globe, sell weaponry to each and every party and initiate wars ourselves when the world becomes too peaceful / starts organizing outside our patronage.
Then, only then, do we say : "oh noez, migrants, they're a problem !" This used to be far right rethorics. It's now plenty acceptable accross the spectrum. And the citizens fall for it ? GRRRR !

re : Project.
The concept it replaced in management books is that of hierarchy. Hierarchy is the old-school equivalent to the project.
Hierarchy you need to obey. It is enough that you respect your orders and do not skip your shift. "Enough" being the key term. The hierarchy doesn't infringe on your personnal sphere, doesn't ask what you like and dislike for diner.
The project is a different beast that you need to embrace as a whole. It isn't enough to "do your part". You need to integrate the project as a constitutive part of your identity. The project integrates your self. You cannot put barriers between yourself and the project, as you would between yourself and the hierarchy. Because the project requires another kind of support
Do not embrace the project and you are in dissent, a suspicious element, probably a danger. A danger to society but, foremost, to yourself. A sick member of society that needs medicine. Guidance within reason.
Hegemon is the project. It asks that you be free to embrace it.

 

[Ironsided]

He is a French Hillary. It’s all about the facade and very little about the content.