Rise of the Manchild: Macron, Zuckenberg, Trudeau

[ioannis76]

I am not extremely familiar with French EU politics, but I think that it was Macron who said something like "there is no such thing as French culture". I think that a person who would say such a thing is a sort of a cultural jannisary (pardon the terminology, but this word is quite popular in Greek politics), self hating as they come. How such a man could actually promote a pro-French agenda is beyond me. I've heard that he "vowed to clear immigrants from the streets". But will he do it? Has he done it?
Macron has failed to condemn Islam, saying that "no religion is a problem in France". If one says such a thing then I think that whatever measures he would take are really half measures.
On the other hand, France is a powerful country, and therefore directly having Merkel's Germany dictate policies would guarantee the end of one's political carreer, but even so:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/801...-Angela-Merkel

'France is not strong enough' Macron will NOT be able to stand up to Merkel, says advisor

and perhaps this is where Macron's psyche comes into play. I would say it comes into play MUCH more than his political views, even if they were clear-cut right wing. Macron is probably used to being bossed over by older women. Don't forget that he was practically RAPED by one, and then got married to his rapist. Where does that put him in terms of his capability to stand up to an older woman, who happens to be in charge of a country that has great capabilities within the EU context?
Similarly, what message does Macron's presence send to islamic countries? A man who is married to a woman older than him. A man who is possibly under the control of that woman. If such are European LEADERS, how much less masculine are we, european men in their eyes? Lepen sent them a message when she refused to put on a head scarf (and of course be photographed in one). It may seem funny to us, but there is a lot of leader personality involved when dealing with muslim countries, due to culture. You must have noticed how muslim rulers attempt to put out a "masculine" "macho" sort of image for themselves (Assad seems to be an exception).

But look at Erdogan, for example:

With an aggressive, uncompromising, and domineering “personality,” he aspires to act as every citizen’s father, brother, and husband

http://kamilpasha.com/?p=7166

His very surname means "warrior". Same with other mid eastern/muslim politicians who would even wear military uniforms very often (Saddan, Gaddafi, etc). The leader's image is important when dealing with islamic populations, and it has to be masculine, or at least inspire strength. Does Macron's image do that? Does Trudeau's? Does Zuckenberg's (if he is promoted as the nominee)?

[alhoon]

Please avoid using derogatory words associated with adultery. A passing reference isn't a problem but if half the references to conservatives or neo-cons contain it, it becomes a bit too much.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I am not extremely familiar with French EU politics, but I think that it was Macron who said something like "there is no such thing as French culture". I think that a person who would say such a thing is a sort of a cultural jannisary (pardon the terminology, but this word is quite popular in Greek politics), self hating as they come. How such a man could actually promote a pro-French agenda is beyond me. I've heard that he "vowed to clear immigrants from the streets". But will he do it? Has he done it?
Macron has failed to condemn Islam, saying that "no religion is a problem in France". If one says such a thing then I think that whatever measures he would take are really half measures.
On the other hand, France is a powerful country, and therefore directly having Merkel's Germany dictate policies would guarantee the end of one's political carreer, but even so:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/801...-Angela-Merkel

I believe what he said was there was 'no such thing as a single French culture'- which is entirely true considering France's history of strong regional identities. I believe also it was a nod to the multifaceted influence that the French Empire and North African sphere (Bearing in mind until 1962 Algeria was legitimately 'part of France' as a homeland, not a colony). So its not a rejection of French culture, but as far as i can tell an embracement of it and all its different parts. It comes to what i was saying earlier in that Macron as part of his platform ties in nationalist and globalist elements to appeal to a broad church. I do appreciate the reference to the Jannisaries you guys have though for those extolling another culture over ones own. Interesting phrase mate.

In terms of Macrons ability to currently stand up to Germany, that's to use that most famous of British civil service phrases 'yes and no'. France currently is something of a paper tiger economically, during the euro crisis the issues with the french financial sector were hidden and kept out of the media storm by the issues in neighboring Italy, and also the crisis in Greece- so France managed to chug along relatively well when in actuality it should have been knee deep in the same problems Italy, Spain, Greece etc were in. France has/had issues with productivity, a very hostile labour market for businesses (from a multinational perspective) and a rather politically unstable government who seemed slow to act or provide any semblance of serious economic reform. Macron's reforms are more smoke and mirrors, and as I've said earlier tie well into the typical 'establishment' economic thinking of the right if you will. Its not fit for purpose, and isn't going to work in a digital context. Thus in the mid-term i cannot personally see France being able to rival Germany in the economic sphere, and that's what currently European politics are all about under the EU's umbrella- your soft and hard power are measured by how well the economy is doing, both for its people and as a means to provide political clout.

I think in terms of Macrons psyche, beyond knowing that he like most leaders is a narcissist, probably somewhat psychopathic (apparently that's quite a common trait among people in high-level leadership roles) its not really here not there. France as a parliamentary democracy mitigates the power and importance of its executive (though the French president does indeed have wider ranging powers than is common for most parliamentary democracies) so the traits of one person don't really matter overall. I would say though the idea that masculinity is important in western or international politics is interesting as i believe its something that is dependent on context of where we are. For instance the 'macho' shots of Putin riding a horse while shirtless, or indeed the images of politicians surrounded by large men (as if in a mafia shot) that seems common in certain countries is largely ridiculed in the UK, France and 'West'. Attempts to be overly 'macho' tend to be quite comedic and do not have the same affect- now again i don't know about Greek politics, but if you see a leader trying to be 'manly'- perhaps posing in the center of a group of large men (like a military picture), or doing some kind of physical activity- do you perceive that as a positive or negative? There's no wrong answer really, but in a UK context its seen as very stereotypical of 'eastern' political culture and is largely joked at for being a bit 'desperate'. The UK and i'd extend this to France politically seem to feel that masculinity/femininity/leadership is seen with quiet self-assurance and the need to not aggrandize, as opposed to such louder gestures, which come of as weird. Its arguably why Trump is seen as a bit bizarre, because the masculinity he tries to adopt doesn't fit within typical western political expectations of what it means to be a leader- its desperate, forced and much like when we see leaders like Erdogan, Putin etc something to be ribbed at.

With this in mind dealing with politicians from the middle east doesn't really matter. Both sides i assume would probably see each others domestic political posturing as ridiculous- we laugh at the silly military style uniforms and forced-overly-masculine posing and manners of them, and they probably return the favour in finding the quiet, self-contained and reserved demeanor that the west expects in its leaders as amusingly 'weak'.

Of course none of that really matters as for 'the west' its power comes from its economic and military clout. Something actors like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and co are aware of. If i was to play psychologists on this, its why China's leaders also tend to display the 'western' (though honestly i think its also a historically 'eastern' ideal too) ideals of leadership (reservedness over bouts of masculinity) because they have nothing to prove. You personally don't need to big yourself up if your the first-7th largest economy/military in the world and again its why being overly-aggressive/masculine can be seen as electorally a weakness, as if your compensating for something. Hence again the Putin affect- He needs to act masculine leader, because Russia's position as a global leader was and is being questioned in terms of the stability of its structures to purport such a position.

[ioannis76]

Interesting input, it's always nice to talk to someone from a different culture. Regarding this macho style, I would say it has more to do with having a conscript army vs having a pro army. That is, a leader with an army of conscripts would want to present himself as a "fighter", too (thus Saddam's uniform, Putin's shirtless sniper rifle style, etc) in order to raise morale. With an army of pros, I don't think that morale is that much of an issue (it's just another day in the office for them). Regarding Putin, yes there are people who will admire his shirtless antics (I guess very few leaders could pull this off due to physique), but for me personally it would be just a show (and a ridiculous one, at that) if he didn't actually walk the walk (I mean, he took over from Yeltsin, and made Russia great again). In fact, if I recall correctly, Putin's shirtless poses came rather late in his term, when he pretty much had reinstated Russian legacy as a superpower.

Btw, even in the west, there is some show of "look at me, I'm a warrior"). Since we're talking about Macron, here it is:

Given what you have shown as an insight (and I accept it) of western political thought, I would say that Macron is rather desperately attempting to raise his masculine image. Perhaps for those French voters who didn't follow him precisely because of that, perhaps aiming at Lepen's voters, perhaps in order to elevate himself for female voters (I am not sure if women in the west would vote for a good looking macho guy (whether in uniform or not), I know that in Greece they do). Regarding China, however, I think that the nature of chinese leaders was never overly displaying masculinity to begin with. Interestingly enough, even the North Korean guy is not caught wearing a military uniform than much.

But I think that when dealing with eastern countries, particularly when "addressing" their populaces, a little personal "aggression" on the part of the western leader, would go a long way in acting as a deterrent for whether the populace itself would favour acts of aggression toward the western country whose politician displays it. But there is a catch, the politician has to look convincing when he does it. Putin gets it right, Greek politicians, for example, well... don't:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[PointOfViewGun]

I wonder where this phobia of Macron comes from. Is it the cruel awakening of rationality? Rejection of bigotry and ignorance? There is clear words of fear here. Too much demagoguery and sensationalism. It gets irritating when such voices shout the loudest in compensation of the lack of merits in their position.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Interesting input, it's always nice to talk to someone from a different culture. Regarding this macho style, I would say it has more to do with having a conscript army vs having a pro army. That is, a leader with an army of conscripts would want to present himself as a "fighter", too (thus Saddam's uniform, Putin's shirtless sniper rifle style, etc) in order to raise morale. With an army of pros, I don't think that morale is that much of an issue (it's just another day in the office for them). Regarding Putin, yes there are people who will admire his shirtless antics (I guess very few leaders could pull this off due to physique), but for me personally it would be just a show (and a ridiculous one, at that) if he didn't actually walk the walk (I mean, he took over from Yeltsin, and made Russia great again). In fact, if I recall correctly, Putin's shirtless poses came rather late in his term, when he pretty much had reinstated Russian legacy as a superpower.

Btw, even in the west, there is some show of "look at me, I'm a warrior"). Since we're talking about Macron, here it is:

Given what you have shown as an insight (and I accept it) of western political thought, I would say that Macron is rather desperately attempting to raise his masculine image. Perhaps for those French voters who didn't follow him precisely because of that, perhaps aiming at Lepen's voters, perhaps in order to elevate himself for female voters (I am not sure if women in the west would vote for a good looking macho guy (whether in uniform or not), I know that in Greece they do). Regarding China, however, I think that the nature of chinese leaders was never overly displaying masculinity to begin with. Interestingly enough, even the North Korean guy is not caught wearing a military uniform than much.

But I think that when dealing with eastern countries, particularly when "addressing" their populaces, a little personal "aggression" on the part of the western leader, would go a long way in acting as a deterrent for whether the populace itself would favour acts of aggression toward the western country whose politician displays it. But there is a catch, the politician has to look convincing when he does it. Putin gets it right, Greek politicians, for example, well... don't:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The conscript vs professional army is an interesting point you've raised and one i hadn't considered. I'd imagine your probably right that indeed for nations used to obligatory armed service/where everyone has in some capacity been part of the military, the attitude of seeing a politician dressed up in macho/military uniform would seem not only 'normal' but also in a far more positive light. Perhaps in the same manner that many MP's in the UK are taking Cameron's lead (i believe he started it) and the lead of those at silicone valley by 'dressing down' (i.e. ditching ties) to appeal to and keep up with the changing work environment of the average person (where uniforms and formal attire are steadily being ditched). In terms of Putin, i agree the shirtless pics were for domestic consumption iirc to show people that Russia was again/still is a real international player, embodied by Putin- who is indeed a very competent (in my view) statesman.

In terms of Macrons image there, i'd be interested to see what sort of reaction that received. But him doing the ridiculous thing of dressing up in uniform (I don't believe he's ever been part of the armed forces?) is part of that populist platform i spoke about earlier- its aimed to appeal as you've put forward here correctly i think, to the 'right-wing' and 'France First' crowd of the electorate. Its the same way that we recently had Theresa May state the unprecedented when she said she was quite willing to 'strike first' and initiate a nuclear exchange- The reason that has never been uttered before is that the UK deterrent wasn't designed for that, its not the strategy followed by the armed forces in regard to Trident, and nor realistically do we have the capacity. It was a dumb statement to please the far-right who where complaining about the cut downs to Britain's security. Its a reach out to those constituents who 'go' for that kinda thing, but by and large isn't something 'typical' or seen in a particularly electorally favorable light. (much in the same way by the sound of it as your own Greek politicians there!)

I think its interesting though, if we build on your Chinese point, i'd perhaps say that historically it hasn't been for quite some time the 'done thing' for western leaders in the UK, France etc to be 'militant' looking )off the top of my head certainly after the 20th century). Perhaps this has something to do with the historically autocratic and multi-ethnic nature of eastern Europe meaning monarchs and a more 'presidential' style of government was in play and accepted- and thus it was more important for a leader to show off their virtues to their people- military dress, macho rhetoric etc being key here to bind different peoples under their banner- while in say the UK or France with their parliamentarian democracies and more homogeneous states the 'individual' leader was less important and needed to appear more 'professional-like'- thus subdued suit and tie, and emphasis on appearing scholarly/reserved.

I think in regard to your final point about how western leaders should 'fire-up' their rhetoric and outlook when dealing with their eastern counterparts, i'm sure if it suited as you said the person that would be fine...but who May, Corbyn, Boris et al would all look quite ridiculous. I'd also point to Trump who is trying to style himself as the 'macho' man and it doesn't really seem to be helping him much on the world stage in the east or elsewhere. His 'fire and fury' comment regarding N.Korea indeed has created something of a political mess, considering the lack of ability to 'back it up'.

[ioannis76]

I too don't think that Macron had served. But hey, image makers probably thought he would look good in a uniform, AND it would be some sort of "answer" for those who believe that he's not "macho" enough, so, there we have it. Full combat pilot suit, like he stepped out of "Top Gun" or something.
I believe we live in an era of superficiality. We care more for what we see, the "cover" of a book, so to speak, and much less for what we actually get. And not just in France, and not just now. For example (it may really be just my idea, and you might find it funny) I can't for the life of me, recall one US President who was bald. It's really funny, but even though they all are of a certain age, they all have a full head of hair, somehow. It's as if image makers will promote the guy who has the "ideal looks" for the position.
In the past it wasn't so. Here is, for example one of the greatest military minds in Greece:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Veteran of the 1897 Greek-Turkish war, veteran of the Balkan wars, architect of the first Allied victories over the Axis, a person for whom "no (military) problem was unsolvable" (according to his German teachers in the Berlin Kriegsacademie) and yet you don't see him in a flamboyant uniform. Why? I think because he had nothing to prove. I guess it's people who think they have something to prove, as you said, desperate, who will do that. We live in such an era, governed by insecure individuals with internal problems. Unfortunately, we live in a very dangerous era, and their narcissism tends to make it even more dangerous.

Btw, just some food for thought, wasn't it Hitler who was the first politician to don a military uniform? I can't seem to recall anyone before him.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I too don't think that Macron had served. But hey, image makers probably thought he would look good in a uniform, AND it would be some sort of "answer" for those who believe that he's not "macho" enough, so, there we have it. Full combat pilot suit, like he stepped out of "Top Gun" or something.
I believe we live in an era of superficiality. We care more for what we see, the "cover" of a book, so to speak, and much less for what we actually get. And not just in France, and not just now. For example (it may really be just my idea, and you might find it funny) I can't for the life of me, recall one US President who was bald. It's really funny, but even though they all are of a certain age, they all have a full head of hair, somehow. It's as if image makers will promote the guy who has the "ideal looks" for the position.
In the past it wasn't so. Here is, for example one of the greatest military minds in Greece:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Veteran of the 1897 Greek-Turkish war, veteran of the Balkan wars, architect of the first Allied victories over the Axis, a person for whom "no (military) problem was unsolvable" (according to his German teachers in the Berlin Kriegsacademie) and yet you don't see him in a flamboyant uniform. Why? I think because he had nothing to prove. I guess it's people who think they have something to prove, as you said, desperate, who will do that. We live in such an era, governed by insecure individuals with internal problems. Unfortunately, we live in a very dangerous era, and their narcissism tends to make it even more dangerous.

Btw, just some food for thought, wasn't it Hitler who was the first politician to don a military uniform? I can't seem to recall anyone before him.

I think your assessment is a fair one in terms of this being perhaps politically an 'age of Narcissism' People in the UK for instance typically blame Blair for importing and making the 'slick, clean and well spoken' more important than the substance, but i would it goes back far before that, Blair was just its ultimate culmination, followed by Cameron and then ruined by May who attempted to adopt it, but for a variety of reasons has discredited it and is now seen as 'robotic' (all style, no substance). Moreover more important perhaps for the health of democracy, we're seeing leaders across the west attempt (and admittedly fail thus far in the main) to subsume parliamentary or party politics and agendas to their own- May epitomized this by making the last GE not about Conservative vs Labour and others, but HER against Labour and others, her name early on appeared on all the leaflets, she was put into the print of local candidates (who literally have nothing to do with her) and the phrases used were 'I will lead' and 'My team' as opposed to 'The Conservative party'. I think there has been a miss-assumption among the establishment that radicals like Sanders or Corbyn or Le Penn arguably are 'popular' because they are so called 'populist' and that the best way to beat them is to become 'populist' yourself- As Macron and Trump have where their establishment but attempting to appeal to as broad a church as possible. The reality of course is that social and economic upheaval are creating the contexts for so-called 'radicals' to rise- not the fact that Corbyn or Bernie is a 'rock-star'. In this way the current establishment end up hollowing themselves out by not actually have coherent policies or politics in an attempt to be 'populists' while the actual so-called 'populists' are popular a threat because they actually have an alternate and thought-through platform that could change peoples situations for the better. Style over substance has become the established line, and luckily thus far- it seems that the 'substance' that is actually being provided by these challengers may win out.

Your historic example there is very interesting actually, thanks for that. I'd not heard of him before, but a very interesting person indeed. The also bringing up of Hitler is a good juxtaposition here too, as indeed it was 'Fascism' in general during the 1920s-30's (I can't recall if it was Mussolini or Hitler who first donned a military outfit in civvy politics) that started the 'popular' trend among democracies (Monarchies of course its been that way since time immemorial) for politicians to shape themselves while in civil politics as if they were in the military/emphasize their military links so blatantly. The idea of course was that Fascism was supposed to be a new and virile answer to what was seen as the failure of liberal-democracies after WW1 to deliver the better world promised post-war, economic and political instability rocked any attempt for them to do this. Liberal-Democracy of course as based heavily on enlightenment principles of rational discussion, debate and consensus. Fascism- which was formed out of the 'action-first' tradition of the First world war and the young men who had fought in it painted this as being 'weak'- action and strong leadership was more important than rationalism or debate. Building a consensus was for the old weak men, The First World War had shown that during chaos (and it was applied that post-war life was chaos too, and that nations of course were all out to get each other) immediate action, even violence was key to survival and success and thus it was in politics too. So Fascism adoption of the military uniform for leaders who followed its dogma was a sensible step to physically portray their difference between them and the 'tailcoated gentlemen who doddered'.

Its perhaps this that currently leaders try to emulate when donning military dress. I'm sure again with Macron that is indeed part of that populist image- so show he's a 'do-er' and not a 'talker'. Now of course he and others are by no means fascist, merely that fascism has had a lasting influence on European political discourse.

[Cyclops]

The French president is head of the armed forces, and is entitled to wear the uniform of all services. IIRC he did not undertake national service, although he seems to be reintroducing it.

...

Btw, just some food for thought, wasn't it Hitler who was the first politician to don a military uniform? I can't seem to recall anyone before him.

A number of politicians have appeared in uniform, Hitler was entitled to do so as a vet and as Chancellor. In the 19th century politicians and members of Royalty often donned uniforms for the cool look.

[Mayer]

Macron is indeed a manchild, he was announcing a big reform package before the election which would supposedly streamline french labour law and make the country more competitive in the Eurozone. Now he is doing nothing but schmoozing with the trade unions.
Merkel has given him full support prematurely, knowing very well that he demands Eurobonds(socialized debt). Now we germans have to pay for french debt indefinitely because that retard thinks he is the new Napoleon or something.

[ioannis76]

@Dante Von Hespburg
It appears that it takes only one person to start a bad "tradition" and then the others follow suit, apparently because it works. It's always so much easier to have appearance rather than substance. It's really interesting that here in Greece, many say that it's only Greeks who get impressed by a politician who talks big and is generally flamboyant, and that such politicians as George Papandreou (junior) or Tsipras (dubbed "sexy Alexis" by some young women before, of course he became overweight) would never have any luck in "Europe".
All this make me wonder if they (politicians) are the narcissists, or we (the people are). Looking for some leader to adore, some sort of saviour who has it all: At the same time "manly" (uniform) and "soft-hearted" at the same time a champion of the people and a member of the elite. Well, it doesn't work like that, it seems. So, the image makers know that we are looking for such a persona, and, abiding by the laws of demand and supply, they supply it for us. I call them the "disposable" politicians. Once the public sees that they can't deliver (which they can't, I think that the last person who was everything in one was Alexander, and perhaps even he wasn't all that we think he was, but time and favourable press created much of the image).

btw if you are interested, you can also look up Ion Dragoumis. He was a Greek nationalist intellectual, and a supporter of Metaxas.

As for fascism, you make interesting points. And to add to that, if I may, I would say that it's a sort of movement that stems from "when in doubt, go back tot he roots". People always look for their roots in times of trouble, they tend to look back, because looking forward may seem too bleak. After all, when we hit a wall, we naturally take a step back. In Italy, if I recall correctly, the fascist party made mention of the glorious Roman era. Germany had some similar references (old Norse people, runes, etc). Even its concern with racial purity was a retrospective move-looking back when "the race was purer"- and detecting the cause of the problem in the "tainting" of the race.

Merkel has given him full support prematurely, knowing very well that he demands Eurobonds(socialized debt).

LOL, eurobonds are a holy grail (and wishful thinking) of the Greek politicians, too. It's not going to happen, Germany and the "Hanseatic league" would never have it. Chances are, he's going to just push the French population harder and harder, until the French just kick him out (and turn to Lepen, in which case, the EU is just finished, Lepen will have none of it). Either full breakup, or some sort of loosely linked "zones". Either way, it's quite clear to me that the "United Europe" experiment is finished, and all for the better. Europe is too "progressive" for my liking. I am just a simple Balkan peasant *picks up his pitchfork and gulps down a chunk of garlic*. .

[Mayer]

So far, it looks like Macron isn't willing to push anything on the french because he knows very well that he is barely tolerated. Instead he presents himself as the last line of defense against the extremist(with german money). Also he can win a handshaking contest with Mr.Trump and that must count for something

Germany isn't filthy rich either, sure Mr. Schäuble is presiding over his black zero (there is a joke going around that Merkel is the black zero), but the money is wasted on god-knows what, refugees and lobbyists. Living in the cities has become unbearingly expensive, the housing market turned into a virulent bubble about to break everything, child poverty is endemic and the unemployment rate falsified, even part-time jobs become rare due to the refugees.
The Deutsche Bank is a pyramide scheme and you would probably only find debt if you open its vaults.

I would have much preferred Marine Le Pen's economic program: Just abandon the Euro, a return to the Franc with a currency reform and everyone would be better off. And she wanted to stop immigration and protect jobs from outsourcing to make France more prosperous.

[ioannis76]

This is exactly what I was talking about. the caption reads "attention to body language". For many Turks, the image demonstrates Erdogan's superiority over Macron. This is enough to encourage these people to press for a more aggressive stance toward that county (if France was unfortunate enough to have common borders with Turkey).

[Mayer]

Talking about Macron's inferiority, according to Le Monde he thinks he's dead when Merkel forms a coalition with the FDP(which doesn't support his expensive EU plans). Since that's now happening, Macron already admitted he's a failed president.

And yes, he is another cuck who thinks Islam is not a problem.

[swabian]

Macron is a typical representative of the modern European politician: glib, opportunistic and yet supposedly determined to fend off the right wing gloom and doom. The only exception: he's good looking, thus he tends to be hated by other men.

As for accusations of "populism": This term is completely unprecise, pseudoscientific garbage. Everyone and nobody can be a 'populist'.

Established parties are offering simple, superficial 'solutions' all the time, whilst standing together against some supposed threat; which, for instance, can mean to populistically exploit the frustrations of the voters, by promising to team up against some obscure danger that doesn't really exist.

Teaming up against something is bonding and relating to others. This is the basic emotion that politicians exploit since the dawn of historical times. Macron is, of ourse, not different.

[Heathen Hammer]

Established parties (both center-right and center-left) have entirely abandoned the interests of the population and merely serve the upper class and foreign interests which sponsor their campaigns, positive media coverage, etc. Let's face it, politicians like Trudeau, Macron, Merkel and countless other centrist bobbleheads would be nothing if it wasn't for all the support they receive from the above-mentioned groups.
Of course to them anyone who would rather do the opposite and prioritize interests of population is a "populist".
There is no need to view "populism" as something necessarily negative. As we see now, "populist" parties in Europe are a much better alternative to pseudo-progressive globalist establishment parties.

[athanaric]

The leader's image is important when dealing with islamic populations, and it has to be masculine, or at least inspire strength. Does Macron's image do that? Does Trudeau's? Does Zuckenberg's (if he is promoted as the nominee)?

I think you're overlooking one thing: one of these three is not like the others. Zuckerberg is a self-made billionaire, Macron is also a successful financial whiz (IIRC). Trudeau, by contrast, is quite possibly a retard.
I can't really imagine Zuckerberg winning anything like the US presidency, because that would require charisma as well as an aura of gravitas, power, dominance or something comparable. That's why Obama became president and Hillary didn't. Even Trump has some of these (minus the gravitas thing and the common sense thing).
However Zuckerberg is at least really smart in some way and might possibly make an efficient politician (e.g. secretary of state) in, say, tech or finances.
Same goes for Macron except he's better looking and better dressed (one of the reasons why he's actually managed to become president, if not of the US, at least of France). I think he has potential to grow.
Now Trudeau...

[ioannis76]

More on topic, I think that Zuckenberg's tech skills would leave the ever rising islamic populations rather unimpressed. This guy totally lacks in masculinity (he even looks like a child), which would make most islamists have absolutely no respect for him. In fact, his very appearance (and completely lacking in common sense support for multiculturalism) would encourage them to "immigrate" (invade, I would say), the country he would be running in even greater numbers, with the same tragic results that we recently saw in Norway, with the police declaring that they lost control of Oslo to islamists:
http://yournewswire.com/norway-radical-islam-oslo/
I think this newspiece may have been from some time ago, but it goes to demonstrate my point a bit. If you look at the image, there are two scared women, dressed up as police officers, declaring the fall of Oslo. How iconic is that? In my view, it is the western culture personified, ie, lack of masculinity, and relying for protection on people who cannot even seem to be able to protect themselves.

[Heathen Hammer]

AFAIK Zuckerberg doesn't really have "tech skills", there was nothing technologically ground-breaking about Facebook. Anyone older then 25 would remember generations of social media before it, such as msn and myspace. In 10 years Facebook will be another semi-abandoned version of "myspace", no more no less.

[NorseThing]

More on topic, I think that Zuckenberg's tech skills would leave the ever rising islamic populations rather unimpressed. This guy totally lacks in masculinity (he even looks like a child), which would make most islamists have absolutely no respect for him. In fact, his very appearance (and completely lacking in common sense support for multiculturalism) would encourage them to "immigrate" (invade, I would say), the country he would be running in even greater numbers, with the same tragic results that we recently saw in Norway, with the police declaring that they lost control of Oslo to islamists:
http://yournewswire.com/norway-radical-islam-oslo/
I think this newspiece may have been from some time ago, but it goes to demonstrate my point a bit. If you look at the image, there are two scared women, dressed up as police officers, declaring the fall of Oslo. How iconic is that? In my view, it is the western culture personified, ie, lack of masculinity, and relying for protection on people who cannot even seem to be able to protect themselves.

I cannot see why it matters one bit if the perception in another part of the world is favorable or unfavorable of a candidate for elected political office. I do not think my opinion of the manner of dress, prowess, or education of Putin affects his popularity one bit with the Russian electorate. Your arguments about any one of the three on how they are perceived in the Arabic world matter no more to their respective electorates either. Why persist with logical fallacy?