"Gilets jaunes" protests in France.

[alhoon]

Btw, Macron's wife has nothing to do with the popular insurrection.

While few, if any, are out rioting because of Macron's wife... Macron being so shallow, so mind-numbingly dumb to marry a pervert is a clear indication that many of his important decisions would be horribly wrong too and that he seriously lacks in moral axis.

Same way someone saying "I understand pervert Harvey Weinstein has some issues but he is still my best friend!" is someone that would make horrible decisions as a prime minister, so is someone that says "I think an adulteress that abandoned her husband and kids for her underage highschool student is a person I want to spend my life with" is someone that would make bad decisions as president of France.

And those bad decisions led to the current unrest. Those bad decisions could have been avoided if progressives weren't all going "oohhhh, an unconventional couple of a cougar and a homewrecker teacher's pet! " and have never elected Macron to public office, let alone the presidency.

In the end, you can't expect from a fish to fly and you can't expect from a man like Macron to make good decisions.

[Love Mountain]

It is relatively simple. Countries are a lot less likely to go to war when they are economically interlinked. Nationalists, especially today, platform on ending "unfair" deals and other forms of globalization. By breaking off ties and integration with the rest of the world, it becomes a whole lot easier to justify war. Plus, we've all seen the mass cleansing habit that Nationalist movements exhibited in the 19th and 20th century. But, but, but this time it's different, I promise.

[fkizz]

It is relatively simple. Countries are a lot less likely to go to war when they are economically interlinked. Nationalists, especially today, platform on ending "unfair" deals and other forms of globalization. By breaking off ties and integration with the rest of the world, it becomes a whole lot easier to justify war. Plus, we've all seen the mass cleansing habit that Nationalist movements exhibited in the 19th and 20th century. But, but, but this time it's different, I promise.

Nationalism existed because of the Enlightenment wish to create a movement to Dissolve Absolute Power. See: Revolts of 1848.

The idea of Nationalism, which back then was extremely progressivist, was the idea that the Will of the People was the true representative of the country, as opposed to one Single Absolute Monarch who was lucky to be born there. So Nationalism was fostered in order to proceed with division of powers, as John Locke nails it, and to dissolve the trend of Absolute Monarchy that was prevalent in Europe.

So this is why nationalism exists: The progressivists themselves developed it, and it served a purpose for a world with less Absolutism, and movements where the strenght of nation is represented by We the People, rather than One King, become ever the more popular, regardless if outcome is a Constitutional Monarchy or a Constitutional Republic. Nationalist movements was a driving force for this, and pro-Enlightenment progressivist groups foster and help nationalism grow.

Fastfoward a few years, and a scapegoat for WWI disaster is needed by 1917 to calm the public, one side blames "The Jews", the other side blames "The Nationalists", and the two scapegoats became sticky as you can see if they are still talking points in 2018.

[Iskar]

With the slight but important difference that while the Jews didn't start or instigate the war the nationalist propaganda of either side did a lot to kindle the cinders that lit the great fire.

Back on topic, I think part of this wave of violence and protest is at the heart of french political culture, that only replaced the crowned king with an uncrowned president to project national pride for what goes well and general blame for what goes wrong on, and regularly unloads in bursts of violent self-affirmation, be it about milk prices in Bretagne or gasoline prices in Paris.

The half of course if Macron's shocking lack of reflection almost immediately after taking office. Maybe it has something to do with the unfettered pomp and glory the Président de la Republique is constantly exposed to, but maybe also something with the fact that Macron is not a politician in the good sense of the word: He comes from a métier where single individuals or small groups conceive, plan and enact measures to achieve success, take the reward or penalty (more often the former in the current economical situation, since the rising tide floats all boats), and then move on to the next project.
This is very different from having to vie for consensus and public support at every single possible step, go for reconciliation of interests and compromise rather than daring manoeuvres and constantly consider every move under the big overarching picture of "la nation". I could imagine that this is hard for him to even wrap his head around, however smart he may be apart from that (which I think he is). I can see the same difficulties in coping with long term and long range interdependencies, moderation and compromise in many of my friends and colleagues in the banking/consulting business.

[Love Mountain]

Nationalism existed because of the Enlightenment wish to create a movement to Dissolve Absolute Power. See: Revolts of 1848.

The idea of Nationalism, which back then was extremely progressivist, was the idea that the Will of the People was the true representative of the country, as opposed to one Single Absolute Monarch who was lucky to be born there. So Nationalism was fostered in order to proceed with division of powers, as John Locke nails it, and to dissolve the trend of Absolute Monarchy that was prevalent in Europe.

Which was an improvement upon absolute monarchy, itself a terrible and haphazard system. We're past that now, and the majority of the Western world now aspires to democratic systems where all people are represented and where political oppression is frowned upon. Which is why Nationalism should have no place in the 21st century. It's not about your nation or race anymore. It's about citizenship.

So this is why nationalism exists: The progressivists themselves developed it, and it served a purpose for a world with less Absolutism, and movements where the strenght of nation is represented by We the People, rather than One King, become ever the more popular, regardless if outcome is a Constitutional Monarchy or a Constitutional Republic. Nationalist movements was a driving force for this, and pro-Enlightenment progressivist groups foster and help nationalism grow.

Fastfoward a few years, and a scapegoat for WWI disaster is needed by 1917 to calm the public, one side blames "The Jews", the other side blames "The Nationalists", and the two scapegoats became sticky as you can see if they are still talking points in 2018.

Nationalism exists today because a few racists needed something to rally behind. As always, they crowd behind echoes of a nostalgic (and fictional) glorious past. Instead of attempting to improve things, people have resorted to a political blame game where everyone is at fault except their glorious national identity. "Leftists" aren't blaming Nationalists. They're trying to put the breaks on the madness that's rising up around the continent, because they don't want the country to go backwards. The "Nationalists" are the ones doing the blaming. Seeing enemies everywhere except in their own mis-guided beliefs.

[fkizz]

Which was an improvement upon absolute monarchy, itself a terrible and haphazard system. We're past that now, and the majority of the Western world now aspires to democratic systems where all people are represented and where political oppression is frowned upon. Which is why Nationalism should have no place in the 21st century. It's not about your nation or race anymore. It's about citizenship.

Point is, without Nationalism, Enlightenment ideas would assume no pragmatic formation, we would be stuck in absolutist monarchies and the progressives of XIX century funded and helped organize all kinds of nationalistic movements, for the sake of a more egalitarian society.

The original idea of nationalism was that a peasants who loved his/her country was entitled as much as the King in terms of opinion and policy making, at least in Theory, for the former represented the nation as well, not just the King, for nationalism transcended a single individual. A sort of political Kaizen.

Nationalism exists today because a few racists needed something to rally behind. As always, they crowd behind echoes of a nostalgic (and fictional) glorious past. Instead of attempting to improve things, people have resorted to a political blame game where everyone is at fault except their glorious national identity. "Leftists" aren't blaming Nationalists. They're trying to put the breaks on the madness that's rising up around the continent, because they don't want the country to go backwards. The "Nationalists" are the ones doing the blaming. Seeing enemies everywhere except in their own mis-guided beliefs.

The Enlightenment opened the Pandora Box by unleashing the Nationalist movements on the Monarchies, and it's Naive to think one can simply close the Pandora box back again because it is convenient.
The original responsability for nationalist movements having gained life lies in the pre-WWI Progressivist movements.

So, now that nationalism seems like an antique weapon to the progressivists of today, and it is no longer understood, the progressive of XXI century abandons it, while the counter-progressivists have no problem at all in picking up the weapon that the progressivists decided to leave behind. And as such, nationalist impetus is used against its former master.

[Love Mountain]

Point is, without Nationalism, Enlightenment ideas would assume no pragmatic formation, we would be stuck in absolutist monarchies and the progressives of XIX century funded and helped organize all kinds of nationalistic movements, for the sake of a more egalitarian society.

The original idea of nationalism was that a peasants who loved his/her country was entitled as much as the King in terms of opinion and policy making, at least in Theory, for the former represented the nation as well, not just the King, for nationalism transcended a single individual. A sort of political Kaizen.

It's an empty point. Massive concentration of state power is what allowed knowledge and technology to advance in the first place, yet that's hardly an argument against decentralization of state power, is it?

The Enlightenment opened the Pandora Box by unleashing the Nationalist movements on the Monarchies, and it's Naive to think one can simply close the Pandora box back again because it is convenient.
The original responsability for nationalist movements having gained life lies in the pre-WWI Progressivist movements.

So, now that nationalism seems like an antique weapon to the progressivists of today, and it is no longer understood, the progressive of XXI century abandons it, while the counter-progressivists have no problem at all in picking up the weapon that the progressivists decided to leave behind. And as such, nationalist impetus is used against its former master.

We certainly can. Modern society should be based upon citizenship, in which citizens agree to accept the values, institutions, and obligations of the country they live in. Relegating Nationalism and other outdated concepts into the dustbin is not only possible, but necessary. Or are we also going to revisit the notion of colonialism back into mainstream discussion as well?

Counter-movements will seize upon anything that sticks, which is why we see a rise in so many extremists as well. It's not about nationalism, it's about disgruntled people and their search for a leader.

[fkizz]

It's an empty point. Massive concentration of state power is what allowed knowledge and technology to advance in the first place, yet that's hardly an argument against decentralization of state power, is it?

It isn't, I'm just saying the villification of the old weapon used by the Enlightenment and Egalitarians known as Nationalism does not have the Moral "Charge" that it's being given, mainly when it was a progressive movement back then.

We certainly can. Modern society should be based upon citizenship

Republican Rome and Roman Empire were based on Citizenship above all (Pluri-Ethnic, Monocultural Society), and Eastern Rome lasted until 1450s. So it's a very old idea being recycled, which of course, deserves aproval, as the Roman Empire took full advantage of such system to control the whole Mediterranean trade, the question is, have we reached yet the cultural heights and evolution level that the Romans had?

Or are we also going to revisit the notion of colonialism back into mainstream discussion as well?

Not needed, modern tech and modern capitalism made old colonialism models obsolete, now there are ways used to exploit and extract resources, as well as brain drain a country without needing to invade it. Which isn't new concept, but rather the current phase of the cycle, Sun Tzu from 500 BC does say that it is possible to conquer a state intact without waging war.

Counter-movements will seize upon anything that sticks, which is why we see a rise in so many extremists as well. It's not about nationalism, it's about disgruntled people and their search for a leader.

Yes I have to fully agree on that, which raises the ethical conundrum if one can really blame a bunch of disgruntled confused people who wander about lost in life, and have ressonance with first political ideologies that appeals to their negative charged emotions. People are angrier than ever, that's why any extremist point of view has sucess, not because of the quality of its logic, or because of what it offers, but simply because it was written by very angry people as well, for other disgruntled people.

[Diocle]

Last news: Macron said he was wrong! He humbly apologized and asked for mercy and finally he tried to bribe them with 30 pieces of silver ..




I say: when Macron looks for his balls, what does he find? Two grains of rice? A marmelade? Nothing at all?

[Heathen Hammer]

It is relatively simple. Countries are a lot less likely to go to war when they are economically interlinked. Nationalists, especially today, platform on ending "unfair" deals and other forms of globalization. By breaking off ties and integration with the rest of the world, it becomes a whole lot easier to justify war. Plus, we've all seen the mass cleansing habit that Nationalist movements exhibited in the 19th and 20th century. But, but, but this time it's different, I promise.

It looks like you are blaming nationalism for things that are, in fact, caused by globalism, which was the driving reason behind major conflicts of past century. For example, WW1 was caused by globalist alliances such as Entente and Central Powers. Second world War was caused by Versailles Treaty that ignored nationalist concerns in favor of globalist ones. Cold War was a battle between globalist ideologies like communism of Warsaw Pact and pseudo-democratic expansionism of NATO.

Anyways, going back on topic, it looks like Macron has to go. He clearly is not mentally and morally fit to be in the office. He did promise to backtrack on that policy, but at this point is is no longer enough. France needs someone who has better understanding and isn't just a puppet of predominantly foreign financial interests to lead the country. Maybe Le Pen could be up for that challenge.

[Basil II the B.S]

It's funny because if you go back to the French election thread of 1 year ago, I predicted that this would happen. Told you so. Macron is the poster-boy of globalism, he bet that quadrupling down on the policies of the past 30 years would fix things, now he risks ending like Louis XVI.

[Knight of Heaven]

And never forget it was capitalism or neoliberalism if you will that brought Globalism. And im afraid the ship as sailed.

France needs someone who has better understanding and isn't just a puppet of predominantly foreign financial interests to lead the country

Do you believe in unicorns? I dont. One way or the other it is the financial interests that rule the world. That was the premise of globalism, to have free global trade and movement of people and commodities, and above all capital.
That is why you have China buying Europe, little by little. As well as Africa. And lets not forget the US.

Raising taxes is incompatible with laissez faire ideology.

So is he a neoliberal or he isn't? Quite the contradiction...
He is just a social democrat ideally, but hostage to the big financial, and economic institutions and interests. Like Europe has become, in several ways i might add.

Well that law is the reason why he is associated with pedo lobby.

No. I tought it was his wife. The bill actually tighten the laws and punishments for the crime...

If you threaten livelihood of people (some jobs depend on driving, transportation, etc.) then these people had every right to riot. The EU "let them eat cake" mentality is also not helping.

Rioting is not a right... Im not even defending this tax, and people rioted for various reasons. At some point everything can be an excuse to show discontentment. The core of this discontentment, it is more profound then some fuel tax.

[JP226]

It is relatively simple. Countries are a lot less likely to go to war when they are economically interlinked. Nationalists, especially today, platform on ending "unfair" deals and other forms of globalization. By breaking off ties and integration with the rest of the world, it becomes a whole lot easier to justify war. Plus, we've all seen the mass cleansing habit that Nationalist movements exhibited in the 19th and 20th century. But, but, but this time it's different, I promise.

Awwww, this is so romantic. Wish you told that to someone in the know before WW1 started.

[Basil II the B.S]

The argument that nationalism causes wars is purely ideological. What causes the nationalist upheaval to begin with? Two countries are economically internlinked, one is a permanent loser, it decides to quit the game. So it's not ''nationalism'', it's simply refusal to be on the losing side of the trade for too long. Those who argue against breaking the system so far have consistently failed to provide a solution on how to make the losing side not lose anymore. The recurring argument these days is ''world government''. Except for the fact that it simply shifts the cards, but doesn't eliminate the problem. Those participating in the ''global community'' aka the capitals/big cities get rich, the sub-urban to rural side loses. Global elites also get deeply entrenched within their own echo-chamber, do not understand or simply dismiss the problems of those outside their club and eventually the left-out revolt. So instead of a war between nations, you have a war between classes.

Nationalism, in the end, has hardly anything to do with it. You can pick two non-nation communities, if one is permanently on the losing edge, you'll have the same thing. They'll get pissed and quit the game.

[The spartan]

It looks like you are blaming nationalism for things that are, in fact, caused by globalism, which was the driving reason behind major conflicts of past century. For example, WW1 was caused by globalist alliances such as Entente and Central Powers. Second world War was caused by Versailles Treaty that ignored nationalist concerns in favor of globalist ones. Cold War was a battle between globalist ideologies like communism of Warsaw Pact and pseudo-democratic expansionism of NATO.

You do love revising history, don't you? The League of Nations and the UN were responses to the intense nationalism present in Europe (and elsewhere) because the survivors saw how dangerous militarism and nationalism are together. Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points was the "globalist" perspective of how events should be handled after the war, Globalism didn't even exist as an idea before then, and they were discarded during the writing of the treaty of Versailles in favor of French and British *cough cough* nationalist *cough cough* interests. Not that the treaty of Versailles "led" to WW2 anyways; it was being ignored for years before the war and the world had be rather compliant with Germany reasserting themselves up until the Czechs were occupied for Germany's national interests.

But seriously, nationalism wasn't a major contributor to the World Wars? Give me a break. I recommend the Great War series by Indy Neidell to touch up on your history:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Basil II the B.S]

If nationalism caused the world wars, then why there were wars in Europe before the nation-states?

Nor nationalism made wars more deadly. Scientific development did.

[The spartan]

If nationalism caused the world wars, then why there were wars in Europe before the nation-states?

What? Nationalism is not the only possible motivation for war, no one is saying that. I also didn't say nationalism "caused" the World Wars, that is far too simplistic of an understanding. It was a major contributor; likely the main motivation for the romantic view of war that most European nations had at the time. "For god and country!" and all that. Nationalism and militarism seem to pair together often.

[Diocle]

What? Nationalism is not the only possible motivation for war, no one is saying that. I also didn't say nationalism "caused" the World Wars, that is far too simplistic of an understanding. It was a major contributor; likely the main motivation for the romantic view of war that most European nations had at the time. "For god and country!" and all that. Nationalism and militarism seem to pair together often.

The Communist leader Stalin, in the name of Socialism, caused the death of more than 8,000,000 Russian socialists and communists soldiers and, with the help of Hitler, caused the death of 6,028,000 Polish citizens and soldiers, not that bad as Social-Communist war spirit!

[Basil II the B.S]

Don't forget the Ukrainians.

[Morifea]

@ Basil: You mean those People behind artifical Borders that are actually Russian but forgot that they`re Russians? Ah, dang it, to much RT for me

@Topic: I think everyone agrees, that France has some serious economical and social problems. Maybe we could look at those and discuss how Macron tried to solve those instead of talking about his wife.