Rayman Pirate-Community

Recently there have been elections in Germany and the results have shown a high growth of AfD. The emergence of this type of political parties in Europe is no longer an exception and they are clearly gaining more and more strength in other countries. It isn't enough to win the elections, but clearly they have more representation than 20 years ago. What do you think about it?

DaveRattlehead wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:29 am Recently there have been elections in Germany and the results have shown a high growth of AfD. The emergence of this type of political parties in Europe is no longer an exception and they are clearly gaining more and more strength in other countries. It isn't enough to win the elections, but clearly they have more representation than 20 years ago. What do you think about it?

I don't know enough to comment on it but I believe Germany needs to "rediscover" its right side. This could apply to many other countries but it is notable in Germany because the country appears to have swung hard liberal following the events of the war. This is a good and natural thing, but both sides must be integrated or the country will collapse.

If we take a good attitude, we can see it as an opportunity for a healthy iteration of a conservative Germany. Ignorant and cruel views should always be challenged, but I expect people will generally show more cooperation with the aims of the right, rather than opposing them outright.

Although we fear it, it is obviously naive to think that an extreme right party winning automatically creates a dictatorship and all the nastiness associated with it. I do not wish for such a party to ever take power, but it appears to have surfaced as a compensation to the current state of things. If they take power, it is not simply because they won more votes, but because the state of things demanded it.

My interpretation is that the greens have fostered an environment where AfD thrives. Eastern Germany has long lacked behind West Germany since the iron curtain. The green wants what all European green parties want, except they're totally shutting down the possibility of using nuclear energy. Which is fine for the relatively rich West part of the country but not for the East, as it basically functions as an iron ball attached to their legs. I'm in favor of combatting climate change, but it's quite silly to do so when both the US and especially China don't give a sh!t anymore. The greens in The Netherlands have recently opened new coal plants which were on a 15 year contract and they were warned that they shouldn't close them before the contract has expired. About two months later they broke the contract and closed the coal plants down. Do I think we should build more coal plants? Absolutely not, but it shows that even the greens are having second thoughts. China builds around 3 new coal plants every week or so. It's not just AfD that's growing in the Eastern part of Germany, every non-centrist "radical" movement is growing there. Now you can think whatever you want, but not allowing AfD to have a voice will inevitably collapse the German democracy as that's usually what happens when you alienate a significant part of the voterbase. If I understand correctly, the new German PM will try his hardest to hand the AfD voters an olive branch in some form, because he's the PM of all Germans and not just the Germans that didn't vote for AfD. Personally, I'm against AfD because it will serve as a backdoor to Russian meddling.

Our technology and expertise has grown significantly since the 60s. Chernobyl was a colossal failure in maintaining safety regulations, which was done on purpose. There is no such thing as safe energy. Nuclear waste is quite easy to get rid of. You can prevent eventual radiation leakages by building containment structures. I fear that if we maintain a course for green energy without including nuclear energy into our repertoire, Europe will steadily start lacking behind and become more and more irrelevant.

Luckily though, when nuclear fusion comes around (soon-ish, sooner than you think), this entire energy debate will more than likely vanish.

My first thought is that Hunch and I will have differents opinions on the matter

But as for the focus : I think it is only logical conclusion to a sequence that started 40 years ago and to some aspects echoed what happened in the 40s.

We live in a world where the production of wealth is at an all time high but so is the disparity between rich and poor. And since the problem is accelerating, lower classes are starting to notice. They feel left out, exploited, and they seek an explanation. One might argue that this explanation is due to that we've lived in a world where politics are favoring economic capital rather than society's well being. The argument being that the advantages given to the free market would trickled down on to the working class, a theory which has proven very not true and as such should be reversed immediately.

However, when people turn on any kind of news, that's not what they hear. During the last 40 years, media groups were successively bought by business groups who used it to further the idea that trickle-down economics is working, actually, and that the reason people are losing their jobs is that immigrant are taking them from them for cheaper, on top of other racist fear-mongering about immigrants because it is well documented that rejection of the other is a general reflex when afraid.

Each country has his own business groups (I'll cite the biggest one but there are usually five or six competing) : Murdoch in the US with Fox News, Bolloré in France with CNews/Europe 1/JDD, MediaSet/MFE in Italy and for Germany the Bertelsmann group, with openly lied for 50 years that they were shut down by Nazis during WW2 to justify their fear-mongering as rational and neutral, when in reality they openly complied with the regime, but more on that later.

While mainstream media was slowly falling, the same thing happened to social media, with two figure cases : they were either bought out by billionaires with far right, libertarian sentiment (X) or started to comply with whomever was in power. In the case of Tiktok, they complied when Trump threatened a ban, and when they came back they pushed more and more far-right content with their algorithm, most notably in Germany. In the case of Meta, Zuckerberg just went with the flow and sided with Trump, maybe because he caved in to Trump's threats. Either way, once Trump gained traction, he was happy to reverse any kind of moderation for all his platforms, which reinstated speech that is illegal in certain parts of the world. This includes nazi talking points in Germany, something that Elon Musk himself has been pushing, and promoting via X, all the while promoting the far-right during the election, despite it not being true and also being election interference. Something he also committed during the american presidency.

So the owners of media groups and social media are all promoting far right, pro-business parties but why do their employees follow? Well, first and foremost because they are employees and disregarding the boss' wishes is grounds for termination, but the few who do and jump to public owned media are rarely critical of this as well. Because, again, if there was a political climate that was grounds for billionnaires to buy media groups, it means that politicians made those policies. And in return, media groups spoke favorably of them. During the 90s and the 00s this system pushed center-right politicians, but the more their policies kept failing to return an investment for the working class (again : trickle-down economics doesn't work as intended) media groups were forced to shift further right to protect their pro-business stance. They had to align with politicians that were willing to find another scapegoat, mostly migrants, to keep the veil up. And politicians adapted : current "center-right" policies in France, for example, are sometimes barely differenciable from the far-right's position. It turns out that the upper-class, what we call the bourgeoisie (a cast with includes most journalists you see on TV) would rather turn to fascist rhetoric and policies rather than give up their advantages in life. As those advantages are more and more called into question, they also shift to the right as a defense mechanism. As the latest example which irked me really much, yesterday, on national radio, a far-right representative stated that in France, social housing is reserved to Algerians due to a submission of the state to Africa, a lie so blatant and racist it should have deserved two smacks across the face but that the journalists present just let slide.

(Also, those politicians are sometimes happy to gut public media so that it is powerless against the private sector. It happened in Hungary where all public speech is dictated by Orban himself and all private media is run by friends of his, it happened in the US where PBS is already a minor channel, which Musk called to the entire removal of its funds last month and it has started in France when public media funding has been transformed from an independant toll on the people to part of the regular toll with objective contracts given by the government itself).

This alignement of the upper-class with fascism has been documented during most major uprising, or rather before them. The French Revolution was only gained traction once the small bourgeoisie wanted to take action, before that they were happy to side with the clergy and the nobles. Before WW2, it wasn't unusual to see openly antisemitic caricatures in media, and it has also been documented that the upper-class was very happy to make business with the nazis even during the occupation. We are re-living this era.

All the while, the far right claims to be on the side of the people, but is way too happy to be on a pro-business platform once they are into power (see : Trump/Musk promises during the campaign and their priorities once in office, and the French National Rally's stance on everything since 2017, for another example close to me.) The actual parties that are on the side of reducing the inequalities are labeled as dangerous dummies (ecologist are insane with their ugly wind turbines, leftists are insane because they believe in 89 genders, etc.)

So to summarize : Far-right has more representation because the media allows them to be represented. Media is a business, and they side with the people who promises them the best business. If you're promoted with something 24/7, you'll start to believe it. That's how marketing works.

I don't exactly feel like the media has allowed the far right any representation in my country. In fact, ideas that challenge the public broadcasting's left-wing bias were all laughed out of the room. If it weren't for covid, people wouldn't have been desperate enough to vote far right in the Netherlands I think. I disagree with these right wing parties on a lot of points, but even I agree with them that the media in my country has a left-wing bias. Right now in the Netherlands, since the far right is in power, we are re-opening the political conversation of gay conversion therapy again ffs, which is absolutely insane to me. The media rightfully criticized this, but has been unwilling to critically look at the situation of farmers and the energy crisis. There is also the point of an increase in government meddling in how consumers should behave, many feel that the government wants us to stop eating meat and are pushing us to become vegetarian by putting an excise tax on meat products (much like most countries do with cigarettes). Are these small issues in the grand scheme of things? Yes. Do people like being told how to live their lives? No. There's also the recent online hate censorship ban in Germany, where the police can come to your house and fine you for hurting someones feelings online. This is the kind of madness that pushes certain people to the right.

Personally, I'm very inclined to listen to leftist ideas as long as people's personal freedoms are untouched. I for instance am of the opinion that you should be able to open a bar for smokers if you would want to, as long as there is a legal agreement between the owner and the employees. I cannot tell you whether it is the absolute truth or just the experienced truth of many right wing people, but many feel like their personal choices and opinions are not respected and that the nature of left wing politics nowadays is inherently dogmatic. Going even as far as accusing right wing people to make decisions based on hate and resentment while the left wing is only based on empathy and tolerance, completely demonising even the average right wing voter.

I don't know the state of the Netherlands, so I looked up one video (let's be honest, I stopped at the first one)



It's from 8 years ago and it echoed pretty much what has happened in France to be honest, it also doesn't exactly disprove my point.

When I see this and then read that you feel the media is left wing, I read this as "socially left-wing", as in "muslims and gays should have the right to exist in peace", and not "economic left-wing", as in "our economic system is absolutely unfair on the lower class and should be changed".

Hence, when the working class feels left behind, they see an upper class that is dismissive of their plight and the only one with an explanation is mired in bigotry. In turn, it infiltrated mainstream media , which gives it a bigger platform, and the feedback loops begins. But perhaps you can tell us if there is more segments like Studio Powned now compared to 8 years ago or if it remains the same, especially since at the end of the video it says that the public media head figure acknowledge the rise of the far right and promises to give it a bigger voice.

Meanwhile, far-right figure heads are talking about how immigrants are evil (and they're happy to conflate islam with terrorism, which must be insulting to the 58000 muslims in the Netherlands) and that these people are siphonning medicaid and social benefits, hence why the working class is left behind economically. It has no grounds in reality whatsoever, but the basics of the problem is remaining silent on state or private media.

Okay so I feel like you're hammering on the real socio-economic issues of the right, which is the meat and potatoes of leftism, and where I'm 100% on board with you. I'm talking more about the underlying rhetoric and mindset of the voters of these parties and how these ideals manifest in society at large. Before I begin I will say that the PVV and Geert Wilders are definitely on the far right, but they are not even the worst offenders because the worst of the worst is the Forum for Democracy (FvD). The FvD, without using WW2 rhetoric, is as close as you can get to an outright fascist party right now. Studio Powned used to be right wing, they are now center/center-left. I consider myself to be in the center-left on socio-economic issues and on the center-right on some of the populist issues I've mentioned before. I consider myself a classical liberal.

The best question I can ask you right now is this: how come the working class feel their issues are unnoticed or neglected outright? If the left is in power, the working class should be their top priority right? How come they feel right wing parties are more receptive to their plight? My personal idea is that the left of old, working class vs bourgeoisie, is dead and buried. What matters now is identity. How do you feel? What makes you special? I am all in favor of expressing yourself and you should have all the personal freedom in the world to do so, but I perceive that this culture of identity politics only serves to divide us and to make us fight among ourselves. I am entirely sure that if left-wing activist groups chose to take the high road and to ignore conservatives entirely, living in their own personal sphere and not being as combative, the anti-woke crowd would have never gotten into power in the first place. I'm not saying that if woke never existed, anti-woke would have never won, I'm saying that the left-wing activists overextended their hand and it has resulted in average, moderate people swinging more to the right. I digress. The PVV is actually a unique phenomenon as it's economically right wing on a lot of issues, but very much left wing on some select issues like animal welfare. The PVV promises to lower taxes for everybody, which sounds like a great idea even to people should be in favor of the socialist tax system where they directly benefit from. They're simply either uneducated enough to not realise that they benefit from social safety nets or too ingrained in their alternative media. The real far-left alternative media here has only existed for around 4-5 years and it's called "Ongehoord Nederland" (Unheard Netherlands), which is no doubt part of the FvD media sphere, which is in turn (allegedly) funded by Russia. These parties and media channels have taken advantage of the fact that the average working class citizen no longer feels that left-wing parties are listening to them. It's actually come to the point that those 580000 muslims you're talking about, were some of the biggest supporters for the PVV, which should on paper literally be against their interests. The reason is simple: it's a conservative party that naturally appealed to religious people for being against "woke" ideas in favor of religious traditionalism. We are living in times where the rhetoric and economic policies are part of the exact opposite political spectrum.

I actually believe enclosed internet spaces on social media sites are much more culpable in brainwashing people to the far right than traditional media. Even the alternative media channels aren't nearly as effective as certain circles on X/Facebook I think. People want to stay in their comfort zone and they want their emotional political choices to be validaded by someone else, even if it's just a random person.

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pm I actually believe enclosed internet spaces on social media sites are much more culpable in brainwashing people to the far right than traditional media. Even the alternative media channels aren't nearly as effective as certain circles on X/Facebook I think. People want to stay in their comfort zone and they want their emotional political choices to be validaded by someone else, even if it's just a random person.

Well before everything : thanks for the feedback!

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pmOkay so I feel like you're hammering on the real socio-economic issues of the right, which is the meat and potatoes of leftism, and where I'm 100% on board with you. I'm talking more about the underlying rhetoric and mindset of the voters of these parties and how these ideals manifest in society at large

My overall point is that those issues are misrepresented/silenced in media, media that is being used by people to inform themselves.

I can only use France as an example here, but historically this sentiment has been created in open, almost caricatural racism by a man (Jean-Marie Le Pen) that has suddenly been invited on TV by a left-wing president as a political move to divide the right (it was in the 80s, TV wasn't allowed to be owned privately then). Thing is, dude can be as vile as they come, but he knows how to present himself and while on TV, he limited himself to reasonable talking points. That was the initial surge of the far right in France. Le Pen was eventually caught saying the most vile shit on camera and was pretty much ostracized for it, but his movement was picked up by his daughter who vowed to limit herself as presentable on media. And it works. They promise left wing policies on the economic side, and even though the reality is that each time they actually had to vote on policies, they sided with pro-business. However, they brush off these critics are "left-wing slander", and the current media side with them because our left wing has a tendancy to not present well and be aggressive most of the time.

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pmThe best question I can ask you right now is this: how come the working class feel their issues are unnoticed or neglected outright? If the left is in power, the working class should be their top priority right?

In theory yes. In practice (and in France, again), the last time it happened the left wing candidate betrayed his promises and sided with the pro-business policies. Apparently it is supposed to be common sense, because if you don't, they leave. I see this as blackmail by people uninterested by their patriotism even though they are the ones ultimately wanting to talk about identity and nation, and as such should be expropriated if they are so proud to be French (but that's the turbo-leftist in me. I know that's a fringe position even among leftists).

So we had a left wing that felt it had to align with pro-business, anti-workers policies, and all their actual leftist maneuvering was on the social side : gay marriage, anti racism, pro LGBT, etc. All the while workers had to suffer through the effects of globalization . The lower class felt left out in favor of muslims, gays and other LBTs, and all they had in response to their questions was media owned by right wing billionnaires telling them that leftism is failing them, instead of telling the actual truth that the dominant left parties are promoting the economic status quo. Most of the dominant left parties in the world during between 1995 and 2015 were like this : Socialist Party in France, SPD in Germany, Labour in the UK and of course de Democrats in the US. All of them couldn't put into question the economics of globalization if their life depended on it, and the media was happy to play along and move further and further right in the process.

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pmI perceive that this culture of identity politics only serves to divide us and to make us fight among ourselves. I am entirely sure that if left-wing activist groups chose to take the high road and to ignore conservatives entirely, living in their own personal sphere and not being as combative, the anti-woke crowd would have never gotten into power in the first place.

I can only 100% disagree. Disqualification based on identity politics has been around since forever. It's now called wokism, a few years ago it was call islamo-leftism... In the 1930s it was called judeo-bolchevism. And we all know what happened to the Jews in the 1930s. If taking the high road is letting it slide, then I'm not sure it's an option on the table. Recent events in the US indicate that we're heading on the same path, with the Trump administration deporting people the wrong color indiscriminately, barring black people and women from government jobs up to a point that aerial safety administration is in crisis and more planes crashed in two weeks than in 15 years.

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pmThe real far-left alternative media here has only existed for around 4-5 years and it's called "Ongehoord Nederland" (Unheard Netherlands), which is no doubt part of the FvD media sphere, which is in turn (allegedly) funded by Russia. These parties and media channels have taken advantage of the fact that the average working class citizen no longer feels that left-wing parties are listening to them

Ours is called LFI and it is also alledged that it is funded by Russia... but it turns out it was a false flag coming from the center-right in power to discredit them, with a complicit media. All the while the far-right has been openly funded by Russia for at least 2017 and the media does not care.
(But I completely agree that any party funded by Russia, regardless of color, should be disqualified in the current climate. Worst of all is the french communist party, which is happy to parrot Moscow views on everything despite being proven to not receive a penny from Russia.)

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pm The reason is simple: it's a conservative party that naturally appealed to religious people for being against "woke" ideas in favor of religious traditionalism. We are living in times where the rhetoric and economic policies are part of the exact opposite political spectrum.

I actually agree with that. Religious people seem to be more likely to be conservative even if, in their respective country, it means voting against their interest. I don't have much sympathy for these people to be honest. They expressed their freedom, now they have to face consequences.

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pm I actually believe enclosed internet spaces on social media sites are much more culpable in brainwashing people to the far right than traditional media. Even the alternative media channels aren't nearly as effective as certain circles on X/Facebook I think. People want to stay in their comfort zone and they want their emotional political choices to be validaded by someone else, even if it's just a random person.

I'm not sure I agree because these are non complimentary sentences : yes, I agree that social media are much more potent on the brainwashing side than traditional media, but since people want to stay in their comfort zone, they have to have each their potency of brainwwash to reach their respective audience. Different media, different public, but the founding principle remains the same : all of them are owned by either libertarian, sometimes openly racists billionnaires
who are happy to push far-right views or people that ride the wave to conserve their advantages and go with the flow, which in the current climate means renouncing to "wokism", aka letting LGBT and migrant people be. Either way, the general public is screwed.

Pirez wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:58 pm Well before everything : thanks for the feedback!

Happy to talk and discuss whatever, including politics. I like respectful discourse and I can't find it on Reddit, which I'm trying not to use as much.

Pirez wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:58 pm My overall point is that those issues are misrepresented/silenced in media, media that is being used by people to inform themselves.

I agree, I think it's all just about the "us vs them" mentality.

Pirez wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:58 pm I can only use France as an example here, but historically this sentiment has been created in open, almost caricatural racism by a man (Jean-Marie Le Pen) that has suddenly been invited on TV by a left-wing president as a political move to divide the right (it was in the 80s, TV wasn't allowed to be owned privately then). Thing is, dude can be as vile as they come, but he knows how to present himself and while on TV, he limited himself to reasonable talking points. That was the initial surge of the far right in France. Le Pen was eventually caught saying the most vile shit on camera and was pretty much ostracized for it, but his movement was picked up by his daughter who vowed to limit herself as presentable on media. And it works. They promise left wing policies on the economic side, and even though the reality is that each time they actually had to vote on policies, they sided with pro-business. However, they brush off these critics are "left-wing slander", and the current media side with them because our left wing has a tendancy to not present well and be aggressive most of the time.

So it was him that originated it? I've heard of him yes, and I definitely notice this trend of populist parties. I think left wing parties not presenting theirselves well is an inherent trait because leftists worst enemies are most likely other leftists, disagreeing amongst theirselves.

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C

Pirez wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:58 pm

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pmThe best question I can ask you right now is this: how come the working class feel their issues are unnoticed or neglected outright? If the left is in power, the working class should be their top priority right?

In theory yes. In practice (and in France, again), the last time it happened the left wing candidate betrayed his promises and sided with the pro-business policies. Apparently it is supposed to be common sense, because if you don't, they leave. I see this as blackmail by people uninterested by their patriotism even though they are the ones ultimately wanting to talk about identity and nation, and as such should be expropriated if they are so proud to be French (but that's the turbo-leftist in me. I know that's a fringe position even among leftists).

I agree with part of your sentiment, but the word "blackmail" seems a bit of an exaggeration to me. It's a purely emotional argument that has its roots in laziness I think. That, or people simply do not have the time to rationally analyze political stances or check their sources anymore. I'm not quite sure if the default setting of an average far right sympathizer is to rely on their patriotism, I think they're being fearmongered into a position where they feel they need to defend theirselves from an enemy on the inside. Fascists thought often abuse this to push their views, but I don't think this is unique to the right.

Pirez wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:58 pm So we had a left wing that felt it had to align with pro-business, anti-workers policies, and all their actual leftist maneuvering was on the social side : gay marriage, anti racism, pro LGBT, etc. All the while workers had to suffer through the effects of globalization . The lower class felt left out in favor of muslims, gays and other LBTs, and all they had in response to their questions was media owned by right wing billionnaires telling them that leftism is failing them, instead of telling the actual truth that the dominant left parties are promoting the economic status quo. Most of the dominant left parties in the world during between 1995 and 2015 were like this : Socialist Party in France, SPD in Germany, Labour in the UK and of course de Democrats in the US. All of them couldn't put into question the economics of globalization if their life depended on it, and the media was happy to play along and move further and further right in the process.

I think classical liberalisms main failure is that it doesn't account for globalization and foreign sabotage of the flow of information. I'm going to be very careful about what I write now because I am staunchly against censorship, but I do believe there have to be certain authorities or institutions that have the responsibility to fact-check on statistics used in political discourse in order for people to not be manipulated by outright lies and falsehoods. I imagine they would need to be completely objective and work independently, with the caveat that none of them are seen as the sole authority. I'd like to avoid a ministry of truth, but I have to recognize that we live in the information age where information itself has been weaponized.

Pirez wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:58 pm

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pmI perceive that this culture of identity politics only serves to divide us and to make us fight among ourselves. I am entirely sure that if left-wing activist groups chose to take the high road and to ignore conservatives entirely, living in their own personal sphere and not being as combative, the anti-woke crowd would have never gotten into power in the first place.

I can only 100% disagree. Disqualification based on identity politics has been around since forever. It's now called wokism, a few years ago it was call islamo-leftism... In the 1930s it was called judeo-bolchevism. And we all know what happened to the Jews in the 1930s. If taking the high road is letting it slide, then I'm not sure it's an option on the table. Recent events in the US indicate that we're heading on the same path, with the Trump administration deporting people the wrong color indiscriminately, barring black people and women from government jobs up to a point that aerial safety administration is in crisis and more planes crashed in two weeks than in 15 years.

I'd like to readjust my statement because I don't really agree with how I worded it myself anymore. I'm frankly just disgusted by my own generation, we love to ostracize someone socially simply for having different political viewpoints. We don't actually try to understand why they hold those viewpoints, we don't care whether it's because of their upbringing, socio-economic situation or where they come from. We just call them a fascist or a bigot and we go about our days. It pushes people into a corner and I've seen it radicalize people. I always try to bring nuance onto the table. My point is that the left has been too agressive in how it relays its message, it comes across to some people as "bend the knee".

Pirez wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:58 pm

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pmThe real far-left alternative media here has only existed for around 4-5 years and it's called "Ongehoord Nederland" (Unheard Netherlands), which is no doubt part of the FvD media sphere, which is in turn (allegedly) funded by Russia. These parties and media channels have taken advantage of the fact that the average working class citizen no longer feels that left-wing parties are listening to them

Ours is called LFI and it is also alledged that it is funded by Russia... but it turns out it was a false flag coming from the center-right in power to discredit them, with a complicit media. All the while the far-right has been openly funded by Russia for at least 2017 and the media does not care.
(But I completely agree that any party funded by Russia, regardless of color, should be disqualified in the current climate. Worst of all is the french communist party, which is happy to parrot Moscow views on everything despite being proven to not receive a penny from Russia.)

I'm sorry but I made a mistake here, with big implications hahaha. They're a far-right party, not far-left.

Pirez wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:58 pm

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pm The reason is simple: it's a conservative party that naturally appealed to religious people for being against "woke" ideas in favor of religious traditionalism. We are living in times where the rhetoric and economic policies are part of the exact opposite political spectrum.

I actually agree with that. Religious people seem to be more likely to be conservative even if, in their respective country, it means voting against their interest. I don't have much sympathy for these people to be honest. They expressed their freedom, now they have to face consequences.

Yup, you reap what you sow.

Pirez wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:58 pm Either way, the general public is screwed.

Oh we're definitely screwed.

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 5:38 pm I agree, I think it's all just about the "us vs them" mentality.

It's irationnal, but it has started to become my mentality, honestly. I know the mechanism of radicalisation and lately I'm afraid I've been too far gone to the left (in fact I'm preparing to ask my local political bureau if I can join them as a media assistant because lord knows they suck at it)

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 5:38 pm leftists worst enemies are most likely other leftists, disagreeing amongst theirselves.

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C

Exhibits weren't needed, bro. I'm all too aware of that
Usually right winger have a culture of the boss and tend to fall in line behind him, more or less depending on the sensibility. As for what it implies in France, I usually despised what Macron did with his deputies that were pretty much forbidden to fall out of line. But it's proving very useful now that Macron is acting as a protector of the European values opposing Trump, something that is really needed right now. If our leftists were at the same spot, we would most likely by under russian boot already.

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pm I agree with part of your sentiment, but the word "blackmail" seems a bit of an exaggeration to me. It's a purely emotional argument that has its roots in laziness I think. That, or people simply do not have the time to rationally analyze political stances or check their sources anymore. I'm not quite sure if the default setting of an average far right sympathizer is to rely on their patriotism, I think they're being fearmongered into a position where they feel they need to defend theirselves from an enemy on the inside. Fascists thought often abuse this to push their views, but I don't think this is unique to the right.

This is another of my fringe beliefs (and, according to some people online : cringe) but I honestly believe it's a form of blackmail. CEOs everywhere in the west are way too happy to delocalize for their own profit, and then parade in our media participating in the debate over national identity (which was a thing ten years ago and is gearing up to come back under our current PM) about how it is wonderful to be french, except for the fact that there are too much taxes. But they won't say that they exploit poverty elsewhere for their own benefits and recently the richest man in France, Bernard Arnault, said that we deserve to do the same things Trump have done, otherwise he would consider leaving.

Also, a bit unrelated but since I'm already venting, there is a form of PTSD amongst my parents on that particular front : they've been traumatized by the first time it happened (it was called le tournant de la rigueur in 1983 where a huge wave of companies were delocalized and the government decided to bow to liberal policies and never came back. During that time, capital fled and my parents, both in the public sector, couldn't be paid for three months. During that time, none of the CEOs who decided for delocalization had interest into being a patriot and helping french people. So honestly, fuck them.

But yeah, I agree that on this debate I'm irrational to some extent. But to go back to my original point, communication is everything especially in the social media era, so I do believe first and foremost that if the far-right is considered as acceptable it's because media, in its many forms, describes them as acceptable. There is a great series on Youtube called Rhinoceros that frequently describes the mainstream media failings in this regard, and it is sometimes staggering. Only in French, though...

Rsandee wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:26 am Luckily though, when nuclear fusion comes around (soon-ish, sooner than you think), this entire energy debate will more than likely vanish.

Such optimism…

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 5:38 pm Oh we're definitely screwed.

Juxtaposed with such pessimism!

Unless you're referring to WWIII, which could also involve the sequence "nuclear fusion, energy debate vanishes", but in a way that screws everyone

EDIT: What a 38000th post!

PluMGMK wrote: Wed Mar 05, 2025 10:58 pm

Rsandee wrote: Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:26 am Luckily though, when nuclear fusion comes around (soon-ish, sooner than you think), this entire energy debate will more than likely vanish.

Such optimism…

Rsandee wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2025 5:38 pm Oh we're definitely screwed.

Juxtaposed with such pessimism!

Unless you're referring to WWIII, which could also involve the sequence "nuclear fusion, energy debate vanishes", but in a way that screws everyone

You're right on the money! The rich get richer and the average citizen's lives seemingly matter less and less, as national narratives take the stage. Disinfo reigns supreme and people by and large are unable to separate truth from fiction by the sheer amount of information. It's not looking good in terms of peace.

Rsandee wrote: Thu Mar 06, 2025 12:13 am You're right on the money! The rich get richer and the average citizen's lives seemingly matter less and less, as national narratives take the stage. Disinfo reigns supreme and people by and large are unable to separate truth from fiction by the sheer amount of information. It's not looking good in terms of peace.

Hideo Kojima saw this coming, though as with any prediction the signs were always there to those who see them. But where there is pessimism, there is necessarily optimism. An era of confusion will squeeze truth into blossoming, as odd as it may sound. It will create opportunities for good. Those who do not chase money will be rewarded if they follow their principle and live according to their own hearts. To idly place all blame on the obvious sinner is the sin to watch out for.

Rsandee wrote: Thu Mar 06, 2025 12:13 am You're right on the money! The rich get richer and the average citizen's lives seemingly matter less and less, as national narratives take the stage. Disinfo reigns supreme and people by and large are unable to separate truth from fiction by the sheer amount of information. It's not looking good in terms of peace.

OK, so your post had only this "hidden" meaning then? You weren't actually talking about imminent viable fusion for civilian energy production?

Here’s a thought question: do you think that believing a bad person is 100% right makes you an as bad person as the one you admire? Like, for instance, does loving Hitler, believing everything he did was 100% correct and saying you’d do the exact same thing as him in his position, make you bad as the big man himself?

Your example is a bit flawed because I don't think nazi sympathizers don't think as themselves or Adolf as bad people. Only villains in cartoons are aware that they are doing bad things are celebrate it.

I think that being unable to recognise Hitler as a bad person whilst knowing what he did makes you an inherently bad person.

Greengoop wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 5:41 pm Here’s a thought question: do you think that believing a bad person is 100% right makes you an as bad person as the one you admire? Like, for instance, does loving Hitler, believing everything he did was 100% correct and saying you’d do the exact same thing as him in his position, make you bad as the big man himself?

Evil is like a kind of potential energy. Like magma beneath the earth's surface, an evil person who has not acted upon their evil thoughts is like a volcano that could irrupt given the right conditions.

The person with good thoughts, however, also has evil thoughts, though they are banished to the unconscious. This is why there is value in becoming conscious of one's own shadow.

The hypothetical person you describe, who loves Hitler and is willing to become a Hitler, might believe his way is a means of producing good through enantiodromia, or they might simply derive pleasure from power and destruction of the perceived "inferior." It doesn't really matter whether they have a rationale or are completely irrational, though. We might as well all consider ourselves a potential Hitler or a potential Christ. It is pointless to estimate the true nature of the object, because the object only reveals part of its nature at any given moment.

Hugo wrote: Mon Apr 28, 2025 6:05 pmIt is pointless to estimate the true nature of the object, because the object only reveals part of its nature at any given moment.

Yep, I agree. Any one of us might be capable of something horrific if our trains of thought and emotions are contorted the right way

In the case of people defending Hitler, I've met at least one before, but he grew out of it as he got older and understood the gravity of these things. In accordance with the above, I think most people who claim to support him would shut down if given the opportunity to enact his crimes first-hand. So no, I think most people who claim to support him wouldn't actually be as bad as him.

Am I right in perceiving that the situation in the UK is reaching a boiling point? It seems people are resisting against the draconian censorship laws and are angry at the parliament's refusal to curb immigration. It's been going on like this for over a decade now and it seems the fatigue is really kicking in now. This is my view as an outsider, just reading headlines and seeing people flying the English flag even though it's banned (no other flag is banned by the way). I hope a UK citizen can pitch in and give their 2 cents.