"Gilets jaunes" protests in France.

[Love Mountain]

Some people just can't deal when certain facts are brought up with them, hence the whole "kill the messenger" thing with BPS videos. I recall similar reactions to Wikileaks findings. Of course it is an anti-globalist movement, and very nationalistic one at that. Denying that by calling everyone who disagrees with you a "nazi" is a great way to expose yourself as irrational member of liberal/left camp.
Same applies to people who shed fake tears over "refugees" while also cheer on governments using brutal force against non-violent protesters.

BPS is at making a good argument. His rhetoric is toxic and he's incapable of accurately presenting information. This has nothing to do with "Kill the messenger" tactics. BPS kills his own message when it's backed up by innuendo and simply inaccurate information.

But he is not making them up, these are rather objective aspects, you simply are denying they exist out of some ideological bias, whatever those are.

Not really. Again, you should probably understand meaning of labels before you start throwing them at things you don't like or simply don't understand yet.

It's not my fault you're incapable of properly defending BPS. Many of BPS's videos are not even just anti-feminist, they're anti women. In fact, he rarely talks about feminism academically likely because he's not actually familiar with it. You can extend that to all of his videos actually, including the one about the "European Spring". Not only is there no such thing, but in the very first few minutes he didn't even read the article he himself cited and uses it to push a narrative the opposite of what the article actually says. It's sad really.

[Infidel144]

Not sure why we should waste our time with a black pigeon or far-right propaganda blogs. The former is mainly notorious for plagiarism,

As Nobunaga said:
"Black Pigeon is reading an article by Samuel P. Huntington, which he links in the description of his video."
Various people commenting on the video note that as well.
Did you know that this 'Black Pigeon' guy provides his sources, Abdulmecid?

[Abdülmecid I]

I can live with them being whittled away gradually.

Out of curiosity, why are you negatively disposed towards the ''gilets jaunes" movement? Their demands (fiscal equality, reinforcement of social welfare, humane treatment of refugees, more direct democracy, state intervention at the expense of free market and etc.) are obviously inspired from the traditional doctrines of center-left. I am not aware of the political leanings of their English variation, but, in France, they cannot be described as far-right. In fact, Le Pen's circle is clearly afraid of their potential, following the failures of the party to hijack them, because their populist rhetoric may undermine the National Rally's popularity in deprived, urban or rural, areas.

Black Pigeon is reading an article by Samuel P. Huntington, which he links in the description of his video.

He's still responsible for plagiarism, though. Adding an article to the bibliography does not exonerate someone from plagiarism. What the pigeon did was to quote almost verbatim the contents of the article, without notifying his audience about the copy-paste, probably due to lack of time and the prestige accumulated by confiscating the sophisticated vocabulary of experienced journalists.

Some people just can't deal when certain facts are brought up with them, hence the whole "kill the messenger" thing with BPS videos. I recall similar reactions to Wikileaks findings. Of course it is an anti-globalist movement, and very nationalistic one at that. Denying that by calling everyone who disagrees with you a "nazi" is a great way to expose yourself as irrational member of liberal/left camp. Same applies to people who shed fake tears over "refugees" while also cheer on governments using brutal force against non-violent protesters.

I already linked to the demands of the "gilets jaunes", where, despite the pigeon's claims, White Genocide is nowhere to be seen. As it has been clarified, their concerns are related to the declining quality of social services, in spite of the fact that taxes remain as high as ever. To be honest, it's quite difficult to argue against the pigeon's viewpoints about the riots in France, because he essentially never talks about them, presumably due to his ignorance. He's simply parroting the same old mantra about the upcoming doomsday and the rise of fascism to prominence, without providing any data or actually bothering to study the French case, without being distracted from the totally irrelevant issue of Brexit. At least, unlike Defend Europa, he refrained from abusing the French language.

[Heathen Hammer]

BPS is at making a good argument. His rhetoric is toxic and he's incapable of accurately presenting information. This has nothing to do with "Kill the messenger" tactics. BPS kills his own message when it's backed up by innuendo and simply inaccurate information.

Like I said, you have not presented any counter-arguments to what he said, just throwing irrelevant buzzwords.

It's not my fault you're incapable of properly defending BPS. Many of BPS's videos are not even just anti-feminist, they're anti women. In fact, he rarely talks about feminism academically likely because he's not actually familiar with it. You can extend that to all of his videos actually, including the one about the "European Spring". Not only is there no such thing, but in the very first few minutes he didn't even read the article he himself cited and uses it to push a narrative the opposite of what the article actually says. It's sad really.

The article corresponds with what he said. You just deny what he said and what the article said for some odd and probably ideological reason. And his critique of feminism is quite rational, he is obviously not anti-women. I'm under impression that you simply looked up some leftist article about him and built your opinion form that.

What the pigeon did was to quote almost verbatim the contents of the article, without notifying his audience about the copy-paste, probably due to lack of time and the prestige accumulated by confiscating the sophisticated vocabulary of experienced journalists.

No, he literally cited the article, it is right in the video description. I don't think you understand word "plagiarism" means.

I already linked to the demands of the "gilets jaunes", where, despite the pigeon's claims, White Genocide is nowhere to be seen. As it has been clarified, their concerns are related to the declining quality of social services, in spite of the fact that taxes remain as high as ever. To be honest, it's quite difficult to argue against the pigeon's viewpoints about the riots in France, because he essentially never talks about them, presumably due to his ignorance. He's simply parroting the same old mantra about the upcoming doomsday and the rise of fascism to prominence, without providing any data or actually bothering to study the French case, without being distracted from the totally irrelevant issue of Brexit. At least, unlike Defend Europa, he refrained from abusing the French language.

He never mentioned White Genocide or anything or rise of fascism to prominence. BPS is not the only one who pointed out the anti-globalist leanings of the movement, whether from right or from left. Again, this just shows that you either never bothered to watch the video (or at least read the sourced article) and/or just desperately trying to disregard his assertion while avoiding to actually argue against the points he is brining up.

Hard to sympathize with a rampaging mob smashing store windows and setting people's cars on fire. These types of movements never end well. Once one scapegoat has been gotten rid of, another will need to be found.

As long as Macron is removed from power, by whatever means possible, things will normalize, especially once new French government would take coherent steps to repair the damage done by him and globalist presidents before him. Maybe Le Pen would be up for that task.

[RandomPerson2000]

uhhhh I watched Kraut's video but... Black Pigeon is reading an article by Samuel P. Huntington, which he links in the description of his video. Said video is linked in Kraut's own video below... did Kraut not read it??? Actually I clicked all the videos which are being referenced to (although only 4 are listed) as examples of plagiarism and they link the articles in the description.

It's a bit more complicated than simply citing sources. I think the problem with BPS's video on the subject is that its probably an example of mosaic plagiarism, in where entire paragraphs of the article are mixed in with his summary of the article with nothing (e.g no quotation marks) to differentiate the parts of the script that are his summary and the parts that are taken directly from the article.

Some sources that explain mosaic plagiarism better than here
https://books.google.ie/books?id=i33...page&q&f=false
https://abacus.bates.edu/cbb/quiz/intro/types.html
https://alcor.concordia.ca/~mlipson/mosaic.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4212376/

Edit
Just wanted to explain what others may have meant by ad verbatim regarding the video. As for the topic of the article itself, I found Huntington's claim that the U.S may evolve into a Quebec syle situation with Latin American immigration to be a bit of a joke. Unlike in Canada, the U.S is a lot more stricter on state secession and separatist movements are a lot weaker in the latter than the former, very rarely managing to get any sizeable portion of any recent gubernatorial vote.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

So technically this is plagiarism by academic standards? It seems like a rather irrelevant detail to fixate on, in general this is what You Tubers do. Personally I don't see this as a reason not to trust them, but if I've heard it before in the actual source I would have no reason to watch their video.

Certainly Kraut in his extremely bad Japan video took almost all (if not all) his information from a single book. Just that he changed the wording a little bit. As such I don't watch his content anyway.

But does that fundamentally change or disprove their arguments? Not really. However I've already addressed BPS' arguments from the Yellow Jackets video. In general he is correct about the state of Europe, but that this specific incident will bring an imminent change is incorrect. The repercussions are actually long term. Both due to the events themselves and the underlying reasons which caused them.

[Love Mountain]

Like I said, you have not presented any counter-arguments to what he said, just throwing irrelevant buzzwords.

I've already addressed this. His "European Spring" video contains inaccurate and misleading information in the very first minute, it's obvious he didn't read the Pew article he himself cited.

The article corresponds with what he said. You just deny what he said and what the article said for some odd and probably ideological reason. And his critique of feminism is quite rational, he is obviously not anti-women. I'm under impression that you simply looked up some leftist article about him and built your opinion form that.

Evidence of him being "anti-women" is evident by the videos on his channel. I watched his video and his arguments are either inaccurate or straight up lies. In fact, a video debunking one of his videos has already been posted. You haven't responded to that particular video I noticed, most likely because you didn't watch it.

Moreover his passage from 1:35-2:42 is at odds with what the article actually said. I applaud Black Pigeon for being able to find anything that supports his conclusion from the article, however, he omitted half of it and did not even acknowledge passages that directly contradicted his statements.

He did not back up his claims about globalization with a single piece of evidence, and no, these things are not self-evident. Nor are his statements about "people feeling like strangers in his own home". This is complete opinion, unsupported by any polls or data in the video.

"Despite evidence that..." Blah blah blah. What BPS did not mention whatsoever, and what was a large point of the pew article, was that favorability in the EU is significantly up from previous year the survey was taken. In fact, that piece of information was on the first page. BPS obviously didn't mention it and frames the article as if data in there supports a counter argument. On the very next page, the article reports that European have a "sunnier view of their economy". This is directly contrary to the "gloom and doom" about the global economic situation that BPS reports.

So no, he literally ignored parts of the article he didn't agree with. He didn't present counter-information, he didn't address how the article disputes his claims, and he does this in all of his videos. Famously, in the "Do Women Destroy Civilizations" he cropped an article title that supported his narrative, while ignoring the subheader and the content of the articled that directly went against the narrative he was reporting.

No, he literally cited the article, it is right in the video description. I don't think you understand word "plagiarism" means.

I don't think you do and you don't watch his videos. He regularly narrates entire passages or articles without properly crediting them. The only original thought he's capable of is conspiracy weaving.

He never mentioned White Genocide or anything or rise of fascism to prominence. BPS is not the only one who pointed out the anti-globalist leanings of the movement, whether from right or from left. Again, this just shows that you either never bothered to watch the video (or at least read the sourced article) and/or just desperately trying to disregard his assertion while avoiding to actually argue against the points he is brining up.

The letter he keeps mentioning does. "You can not decide alone to erase our civilisational landmarks and deprive us of our homeland" Just goes to show, that HH, doesn't watch the video he himself links.

As long as Macron is removed from power, by whatever means possible, things will normalize, especially once new French government would take coherent steps to repair the damage done by him and globalist presidents before him. Maybe Le Pen would be up for that task.

Uh huh. Again the buzzword "Globalist".

So technically this is plagiarism by academic standards? It seems like a rather irrelevant detail to fixate on, in general this is what You Tubers do. Personally I don't see this as a reason not to trust them, but if I've heard it before in the actual source I would have no reason to watch their video.

Certainly Kraut in his extremely bad Japan video took almost all (if not all) his information from a single book. Just that he changed the wording a little bit. As such I don't watch his content anyway.

But does that fundamentally change or disprove their arguments? Not really. However I've already addressed BPS' arguments from the Yellow Jackets video. In general he is correct about the state of Europe, but that this specific incident will bring an imminent change is incorrect. The repercussions are actually long term. Both due to the events themselves and the underlying reasons which caused them.

He's not correct about the state of Europe whatsoever. The situation if far more complicated and multi-lateral rather than the Globalist-Nationalist divide he reports. It's disingenuous and not only is his argument about the Yellow Jackets devoid of any substantive information, but it directly sources information from Breitbart. He paints a one-sided narrative.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Both the Right and Left elements which are on the rise in France are against Liberal globalism. Melenchon (Left wing, populist, socialist) has criticized the European Union for being Neo-Liberal. Basically synonymous with Globalist.

[Love Mountain]

It's an interesting buzzword, "Globalist". A term with no meaning, just a useful label to shove everyone who disagrees with you into.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

In the case of Macron and the modern establishment, "Globalism" means free market, open borders and Capitalism.

"Rosenboim find that the modern concepts, although not the terms themselves, of "globalism" and "globalisation" arose in the post-war debates debates of the 1940s in the United States. In their position of unprecedented power, US planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which, in economic terms, meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States."

"The British accused him of by destroying their own three million poundwealth, and obstructing “free trade”, one of the highest of the"civilization" principles. British merchants seeking an equal treatment forthemselves in Chinese lands and the British Kingdom demanding toincrease trade between two nations requested diplomatic presence andfree trade opportunities from the Qing government. However, as anexcerpt from an edict of his below reveals, the Qing Emperor Qianlongresponded each time with apathy on taking the self-sufficiency of Chinainto consideration:All European nations, including your own country's barbarian merchants,have carried on their trade with our Celestial Empire at Canton. Such hasbeen the procedure for many years although our Celestial Empirepossesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within itsown borders. There was therefore no need to import the manufactures ofoutside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silkand porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces are absolutenecessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, asa signal mark of favour, that foreign hongs should be established atCanton, so that your wants might be supplied and your country thusparticipate in our beneficence."

[Love Mountain]

In the case of Macron and the modern establishment, "Globalism" means free market, open borders and Capitalism.

"Rosenboim find that the modern concepts, although not the terms themselves, of "globalism" and "globalisation" arose in the post-war debates debates of the 1940s in the United States. In their position of unprecedented power, US planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which, in economic terms, meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States."

"The British accused him of by destroying their own three million poundwealth, and obstructing “free trade”, one of the highest of the"civilization" principles. British merchants seeking an equal treatment forthemselves in Chinese lands and the British Kingdom demanding toincrease trade between two nations requested diplomatic presence andfree trade opportunities from the Qing government. However, as anexcerpt from an edict of his below reveals, the Qing Emperor Qianlongresponded each time with apathy on taking the self-sufficiency of Chinainto consideration:All European nations, including your own country's barbarian merchants,have carried on their trade with our Celestial Empire at Canton. Such hasbeen the procedure for many years although our Celestial Empirepossesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within itsown borders. There was therefore no need to import the manufactures ofoutside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silkand porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces are absolutenecessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, asa signal mark of favour, that foreign hongs should be established atCanton, so that your wants might be supplied and your country thusparticipate in our beneficence."

Almost nobody today is open borders. So that terminology makes no sense. In fact, I'd say even the majority of far-right rhetoric would actually argue for borders that aren't "closed" or static. In fact, I doubt anyone here has encyclopedic knowledge of border policy and in what places exactly the border policy should change. Judging by the last time I saw a discussion of US immigration policy (you know, the one where the Forum couldn't seem to agree on the moral compass of separating children from parents), the knowledge of immigration procedures, rights, and where such things should change is remarkably poor here.

So when somebody brands a politicians here as "open borders" or being a "Globalist", I'm skeptical with good reason. Especially since politicians never fit neatly into such descriptions.

[Aexodus]

Almost nobody today is open borders.

What do you think Schengen is.

[Love Mountain]

An agreement between many European nations on border policy. They do not allow just anyone in and out of Europe, if that's what you're asking.

[Aexodus]

An agreement between many European nations on border policy.

- to abolish said borders between them.

They do not allow just anyone in and out of Europe, if that's what you're asking.

Why did you think that was my question? It wasn’t.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Open borders could be interpreted in various ways with regards to border policy. In many regards Europe is more towards open borders as we saw with the massive migrations in the last couple years. Macron has been contradictory as he has stated both that France could take in migrants while in another instance saying that France could not accept migrants. However even some migrants could be interpreted as an open borders position. The point is that they oppose migrants in generals, whether they are using open borders incorrectly isn't really the point. We really shouldn't get stuck in jargon but focus on what is meant.

Now a Schengen type agreement still has an element of open borders policy in the sense that it is more liberal as to how people can enter the country. Some have interpreted this as an open borders policy, true in some ways I suppose. Open borders with regards to Europe.

Open borders and free markets go hand in hand. As I illustrated above with the Opium Wars, the British were allowed to trade only in Canton. However the British wanted the right to be able to trade anywhere in China. To be able to achieve that, the borders would have to be open to these merchants.

[Love Mountain]

- to abolish said borders between them.



Why did you think that was my question? It wasn’t.

To adopt a common border policy in regards to EU citizens.

Open borders could be interpreted in various ways with regards to border policy. In many regards Europe is more towards open borders as we saw with the massive migrations in the last couple years. Macron has been contradictory as he has stated both that France could take in migrants while in another instance saying that France could not accept migrants. However even some migrants could be interpreted as an open borders position. The point is that they oppose migrants in generals, whether they are using open borders incorrectly isn't really the point. We really shouldn't get stuck in jargon but focus on what is meant.

Now a Schengen type agreement still has an element of open borders policy in the sense that it is more liberal as to how people can enter the country. Some have interpreted this as an open borders policy, true in some ways I suppose. Open borders with regards to Europe.

Open borders and free markets go hand in hand. As I illustrated above with the Opium Wars, the British were allowed to trade only in Canton. However the British wanted the right to be able to trade anywhere in China. To be able to achieve that, the borders would have to be open to these merchants.

It is precisely because the alt-right ignores "jargon" and technical information that they are so inconsistent. Let's just call it for what it is, racism and xenophobia. The sooner these people accept that, the sooner everyone can move on and focus on real issues. Sigh, and again this is why I detest democracy. You have to appeal to the stupid.

[Aexodus]

To adopt a common border policy in regards to EU citizens.

Lets meet in the middle and call it freedom of movement

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

To adopt a common border policy in regards to EU citizens.



It is precisely because the alt-right ignores "jargon" and technical information that they are so inconsistent. Let's just call it for what it is, racism and xenophobia. The sooner these people accept that, the sooner everyone can move on and focus on real issues. Sigh, and again this is why I detest democracy. You have to appeal to the stupid.

Okay but you are missing my point. It isn't really about the terminology, rather than what they mean by said terminology. The Schengen Zone is a form of open borders between various states rather than in an absolute sense of open borders (we can call it something else it doesn't matter), which facilitates the free market economic system.

Now whether certain people are opposed to the Schengen Zone is somewhat of a different matter but in this case some do, as far as I can tell it is not a major focus of the protests. There seems to be more focus on the European/Brussels economic control over France.

So back to my premise; they are in opposition to "Globalists" in the sense of a international system rather than one in which the French state itself takes priority. Which in this case extends to French workers and the French economy. "Globalists" with regards to Macron is a reference to international banking (as Macron was a banker) and international interests rather than French interests.

[Love Mountain]

Okay but you are missing my point. It isn't really about the terminology, rather than what they mean by said terminology. The Schengen Zone is a form of open borders between various states rather than in an absolute sense of open borders (we can call it something else it doesn't matter), which facilitates the free market economic system.

Now whether certain people are opposed to the Schengen Zone is somewhat of a different matter but in this case some do, as far as I can tell it is not a major focus of the protests. There seems to be more focus on the European/Brussels economic control over France.

Which would certainly be an interesting argument if we were talking about national sovereignty. I did notice that alt-righters have switched their talking points in regards to this issue. Most likely due to repeated allegations of racism and xenophobia. Not that such allegations needed to be made, the alt-right crowd makes videos which don't really leave any doubt on the matter.

Open borders are most often used to refer to refugee flows in and out of the Eurozone as well as their movement between European countries. None of these alt-right groups ever made such a huge fuss about open borders until the migrant crisis. Probably because Europeans don't really mind other Europeans. Moreover, such obvious xenophobia is seen even more obviously in United States, where open borders pretty much exclusively refer to the Mexican border. So no, I'm not mincing around with terminology. When it comes to "open borders" we all know what people are talking about. Non-Europeans entering freely into Europe, which has never been the case and no politician is actively campaigning for such radical measures (as far as I know). In fact, the UN agreement on the topic of refugee flows would've probably tightened the borders as it campaigns for control of refugee flows, not necessarily letting more refugees into Europe. But of course that particular agreement had more issues with national sovereignty over borders, not the migration crisis itself.

So back to my premise; they are in opposition to "Globalists" in the sense of a international system rather than one in which the French state itself takes priority. Which in this case extends to French workers and the French economy. "Globalists" with regards to Macron is a reference to international banking (as Macron was a banker) and international interests rather than French interests.

Which makes no sense because almost no politicians campaigns for "globalist" goals as alt-righters state them. Macron is remarkably centrist (center-right, center-left by American standards), and is pro-France and pro-EU. That does not make him a Globalist. I would also say that France and Germany disproportionately benefit from the EU, and if "Anti-Globalists" are all about country first, then their position on the EU should be entirely based on which country they are in. As an example, the most "anti-globalist" country on Earth is Russia. A country that has a much more active foreign policy than France. A country that's much more corporatist than France. A country that's much more ethnically diverse than France. A country that's much more authoritarian than France. Yet it is perhaps the most self-centered country on Earth and opposes the international system at every single opportunity. The term "Globalist" has very little to do with actual policy and much more with how each side can spin the narrative. The entire terminology is nebulous and for good reason, the reason why you can label someone as "globalist" or not, is by forming conspiracy theories and motives for one particular action or another. Not the actual impact of the actions themselves. Discussion of this term will lead nowhere, because the justification behind labeling someone as Globalist or not, will change every single time, due to inconsistency. The Alt-Right would be much better off using IR theoretical lenses.

[Aexodus]

Not that such allegations needed to be made, the alt-right crowd makes videos which don't really leave any doubt on the matter.

Ok but we’re talking about Emmanuel Macron not BPS

None of these alt-right groups ever made such a huge fuss about open borders until the migrant crisis.

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but (big) if true maybe because the sovereign parliament in the UK opted out of Schengen in 1997, after already being outside schengen for over a decade.

The UK at least was squarely against open borders. I don’t know why you obsess witht the alt right, they are a miniscule movement.

Oh look at this.

Expanding Schengen outside the EU

When it comes to "open borders" we all know what people are talking about.

You don’t really.