Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Ragabul]

My turn!

Disillusioned non-specific non radical far right. Defined in some ways more but what you wished was true but don't seem to quite believe. Whiffs of some kind of white preservationism. Whiffs of desire for universal order enshrined in a venerable religion. Whiffs of desire for patriarchy (not meant in the hamfisted feminist usage). You overlap with palecons in various ways but it's not a perfect fit.

Again obviously based only on what you've said here and fortune cookie prognostication.

And turn abouts fair play, anybody that wants can feel free to psychoanalyze me. (My self assessment of myself as I've said before is some variety of right wing communitarian, functionally a reluctant center-right liberal for want of anything better. Kinda, sorta a European style Christian Democrat).

Also, I don't subscribe to the NYT. I just use a javascript killer plugin. You can get through most paywalls with that. I subscribe to only 2 things. One I pay like $2 a month for and its literally just this libertarian writer who consolidates links to articles he found interesting that week and emails them to you. And like $10 for Razib Khan who writes long essays about population genetics and history.

[Mazder]

I'll parrot Raga, you don't have a set ideology. Generally centrist, left leaning, but not anchored to any specific place on any issue. Strong appreciation for structure and certain kinds of authority, but structure is vitally important above all else. The tone I usually read into your opinions is a rejection of the "old days," what I'm picturing 1930's England to be like I guess, but a desire to preserve what you find familiar, "your" old days. Moderate (philosophical) liberal is the best label, I think. Which is probably 90%+ of westerners.

I don't think I am 1930's England, if I am it's definitely in the sense of wanting to keep order rather than fall to an authoritarian ruler/invader. But I think most people who enjoy freedom would be aligning towards that.

he other stuff though I'd need to ponder more on.

And turn abouts fair play, anybody that wants can feel free to psychoanalyze me. (My self assessment of myself as I've said before is some variety of right wing communitarian, functionally a reluctant center-right liberal for want of anything better. Kinda, sorta a European style Christian Democrat).

I would but I am not smart enough.

If I were to put it into UK terms at a random guess I'd say you're probably closer to Tory than you are Labour, but that doesn't even remotely encompass a lot of it because there is some stuff that the UK just doesn't remotely touch in comparison to USA politics.

[Ragabul]

Might be closer than you think because I tend to look up to European right-wingers more than US ones. They tend to be less stupid. And my go to answer to "what are you" is I'm whatever the heck Roger Scruton was. He's a British conservative but not a typical Tory. Other right-wingish people I massively look up to are Englishmen C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton. (Aware C. S. Lewis was technically born in Ireland).

[Ragabul]

Most Women Denied Abortions by Texas Law Got Them Another Way

Sad trombone noise. Pretty much what I figured. Law is much ado about nothing.

Then National Review (a conservative rag) saying no, actually that's not true. So who fucking even knows?

*Sigh* I will have to be content with amusement that the people who want this law to be Armageddon find themselves in the strange position of agreeing with the National Review.

[Vol]

Disillusioned non-specific non radical far right. Defined in some ways more but what you wished was true but don't seem to quite believe. Whiffs of some kind of white preservationism. Whiffs of desire for universal order enshrined in a venerable religion. Whiffs of desire for patriarchy (not meant in the hamfisted feminist usage). You overlap with palecons in various ways but it's not a perfect fit.

A man has three hearts, and that's the second one. I'm waiting/hoping for a Caesar or a Washington, and one of them will be coming. But there's nothing deserving of loyalty in what we have, and we've been forcibly uprooted from what was. I don't have the gift of rhetoric. Cannot articulate the revulsion and hatred that wells up when taking the latest petty evils and incorporating them into the overarching systemic level, what allows these things to happen and be fixtures of our lives. Temper it with what I think is a kind of intellectual honesty, to understand the theoretical and actual goods, and a Christian morality despite my inability to find faith.

So, you nailed it!

And turn abouts fair play, anybody that wants can feel free to psychoanalyze me. (My self assessment of myself as I've said before is some variety of right wing communitarian, functionally a reluctant center-right liberal for want of anything better. Kinda, sorta a European style Christian Democrat).

Centrist-right liberal, as you said. A beautifully constructed, intellectually rigorous, well cited house of centrism, insulated with more pol-sci books/blogs than most people have read pages of anything, and will endure until a lit torch is thrown in. A sense that America has gone into self-destructive places, but a principled commitment to maintaining the routes that led there. Non-traditional person who values tradition, not the enforcement. A sense of metaphysical structure, but no definitives. Stereotypical white woman empathy for the popular marginalized groups. Symbolically embody the center-right liberal lifestyle first, then extend outward. Want to remain in the shallows, because in deep waters there are only monsters.

I don't think I am 1930's England, if I am it's definitely in the sense of wanting to keep order rather than fall to an authoritarian ruler/invader. But I think most people who enjoy freedom would be aligning towards that.

he other stuff though I'd need to ponder more on.

I don't know anything about 1930's England, but I'm guessing your great-grandparents would've been alive then, and their lifestyle would probably seem incredibly old-fashioned to us. My impression is that's about the cut-off line for you, where gender roles, weekly church, views on the monarchy, all of it would be unacceptable.

I can trace the changes in my own family, since I did know my great-grandparents as a kid. Then my grandparents even now, then my parents, and now me. And I would point to the great to grand as where the notable break is, because despite living the traditions of their parents, my grandparents openly questioned it and didn't impress it on their kids. Know what I mean?

[Ragabul]

Pretty accurate with two nitpicks. I don't think I actually have much empathy for the popularly marginalized. On the contrary some of them fill me with anger. (Fake refugees absolutely the most. The sense of fucking entitlement these people have will easily fill me with rage if I let it. If there was a magical "deport every person here illegally to whatever shithole they came from" button, I would push it). I also actively dislike performative sexual minorities. ("Normie" gay people never bothered me). I instinctively wish they would shut up and go away because their identity seems predicated on people noticing them. Other eye-rolling but not actively anger inducing ones are 1) perfectly free usually rich women going on and on about sexism, 2) people who voluntarily make really stupid financial decisions (like not leaving San Francicso while working at McDonalds) and complaining they can't afford to live, and 3) petty criminals calling foul when they are treated like petty criminals. I do have some natural empathy for black people which is probably partially the reality of most places I've lived & worked having lots of black people and also not being "the hood." My country hometown was 30-40% black. The small city I went to college in was majority black. The town I work for now is about 30/30/30 white, black, and Hispanic as I've said.

I have to actively suppress some of that both on moral grounds and also because blind rage is 1) a waste of my personal time and energy because most people will not allow hardassed initiatives, and 2) usually doesn't work anyway because those motivated by blind rage are more eager to pursue something that feels right than that actually works. (I was pretty much completely in support of most of Trump's immigration initiatives other than the border wall, recall, including family separation, Remain in Mexico, and using Covid as an excuse for rapid deportations).

I'd also pick at the staying in shallows statement though honestly not because it's wrong so much as I instinctively don't like the way it's phrased. My more romantic self-image anyway is to be anti-chaos. I prefer the maintenance of the impure, the decadent, or even the ugly to the occasionally purifying fire of chaos. Ashes are clean after a fashion but you can't live in them. And there is usually not a just so story about how some hero came along behind the chaos and rebuilt a shining new order. At the very least, a diagnosis of "tear this all down" requires a very sober analysis of how bad it really is compared to how bad it could get. Auschwitz and Sodom and Gomorrah need a cleansing rain of fire without doubt, but, yeah, the idea the modern West is a society so bad it's in need of a mass fire of purification is not a convincing argument to me. I think a lot of assessments like this are very motivated by what individuals find particularly repulsive. Decadent, deviant, fat, selfishness tweaks my sense of disgust but not rage. Maoism meanwhile does fill me with rage. I would execute the kind of people who destroy old temples and allow students to attack their instructors. If my only options were Nazis or Maoists, I would choose Nazis. (Granted Nazis are also totally temple smashers. The only functional difference is that Nazis at least have an end goal in mind. For Maoists, staying in a perpetual never-ending state of smashing and revolution is the point).

Just as a thought experiment on this point. How many violent revolutions (defined as the old order is swept away and replaced with a fundamentally different one by blood and not mostly paper) can you think of that 1) succeeded, 2) did not produce so much blood, chaos, death and destruction that it makes the old order look better by comparison, 3) lasted long enough to have been worth it. The only really tidy one I can think of is the US Revolution. (I'm sure there's some miscellaneous small countries that did well I don't know about). Even ones that *eventually* worked like the French had to take a hundred odd years of detours through assorted dictators, violent uprisings, and wars with neighbors before it truly worked out. As Mao would say, "Revolution is not a dinner party."

*Edit*

One more nitpick and then I will leave off. I do also think I have at least one big metaphysical definitive. I am anti idolatry. I am anti worship of anything but functional equivalent of Yahweh. I oppose worshipping the self, worshipping humans as a proxy to God, worshipping specific men in a cult of personality, worshipping "art" and not what art is supposed to point towards, worshipping ideology, worshipping science, worshipping money, and worshipping faceless natural processes. Nothing is God but God. The created is not the creator.

[Ragabul]

Weird, blast from the past article I heard about:

A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage written in 1989. Apparently this essay was a big deal at the time.

[Vol]

Speaking of the gays, and a former librarian: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status ... 7305764870

It's still hard to accept that librarians, the people who my entire young life were little old ladies who'd help me find books if I couldn't figure out the Dewey system, have become something so radically different. As well as teachers, professors, and every large company. Disney responding to an inane Florida bill to stop schools from targeting children with homosexual content, by targeting children with homosexual content, is like a stupid joke I'd expect from Cracked (back when it was a knockoff of MAD magazine). "Queering the Library" is a masterpiece of coded language, there are so many layers of symbolism, understood and implied meaning, you could write a research paper.

[Ragabul]

Academic librarians and big city public librarians are woke. Librarians from West Podunk Public Library are not but they don't go to ALA conferences. You can still expect librarians to be on the left fringes of whatever is acceptable in their community on average. It's driven by professional organizations and graduate schools as with most such things. PMCs run those and PMCs get to dominate the taste at the top.

[Vol]

Pretty accurate with two nitpicks. I don't think I actually have much empathy for the popularly marginalized.

To put it another way, as a young American woman, you're inherently part of an ersatz coalition of everyone but straight white men. It doesn't matter that you do or do not like your teammates, but it's all for one and one for all. No one gets to leave and keep the uniform and no one stands alone. If a serious movement ever pushed back on the most recent popular victims, things like the ability to dissent on illegal immigration and the deification of Floyd is lost to you if you want to stay on the team, it doesn't matter how far down the bench white women are, they're still on that bench. While on the other bench, their collective best interest is tossing out everything after the Bill of Rights, which I'm defining as the absolute bottom for American foundation. And the conflation of morality and collective best interest makes it all hopelessly muddy. In much the same way as people were right that ice cream parlors would destroy society back in the 1900's, if the momentum is reversed, the slippery slope is just as true, it doesn't stop at first wave feminism.

The premise that even if your lifestyle was nearly identical, which is easily could be, having it all contingent on the men in your life allowing it does not sound acceptable from anything I've read from you. That's the binary choice here, and that naturally flows into a kind of empathy that has to be there, or "extra consideration" if empathy is too strong. That's what I was going for, if it makes sense, a vaguely socially acceptable standard that isn't under real pressure. Whereas other women I know, they equate social popularity and the public act of empathy with morality, and it would be very unfair to apply that to you.

My more romantic self-image anyway is to be anti-chaos. I prefer the maintenance of the impure, the decadent, or even the ugly to the occasionally purifying fire of chaos. Ashes are clean after a fashion but you can't live in them.

I was trying to say the same thing I said to Mazder about valuing structure, but in more evocative metaphor. So yeah, that's all fair, it was the first metaphor I could think of that wasn't convoluted. Better to live in the boring hamlet with the tedious elders than build a cottage in the dark woods.

At the very least, a diagnosis of "tear this all down" requires a very sober analysis of how bad it really is compared to how bad it could get. Auschwitz and Sodom and Gomorrah need a cleansing rain of fire without doubt, but, yeah, the idea the modern West is a society so bad it's in need of a mass fire of purification is not a convincing argument to me.

Imagine if the most wild, extreme claims about global leaders were true. Past a certain level of wealth and power, let's say anything above a mayor, they are all Satanic pedophiles, they engage in horrid orgies, torture, living sacrifices, commune with demons, plot to indirectly genocide troublesome populations, drug the water supply, psyops, and coordinate to make us all poorer and more miserable, but utterly enslaved to their systems. Anything you would find to be totally evil and without any possible merit. Purely hypothetically.

If all of that was true, but life was exactly like it is for us on the ground still, does the knowledge of their unseen total depravity, and our participation and victimization, warrant tearing it all down?

Just as a thought experiment on this point. How many violent revolutions (defined as the old order is swept away and replaced with a fundamentally different one by blood and not mostly paper) can you think of that 1) succeeded, 2) did not produce so much blood, chaos, death and destruction that it makes the old order look better by comparison, 3) lasted long enough to have been worth it. The only really tidy one I can think of is the US Revolution. (I'm sure there's some miscellaneous small countries that did well I don't know about). Even ones that *eventually* worked like the French had to take a hundred odd years of detours through assorted dictators, violent uprisings, and wars with neighbors before it truly worked out. As Mao would say, "Revolution is not a dinner party."

America, arguably Japan. The problem I have with that line of thinking is that it assumes there exists anything else. What else but violent revolution has led to any order? What else has replaced foolish governance with wise governance? What theoretical eternal nation are we envisioning? We're locked into the symbolic pattern of Cain and (B)abel, it's envy and hubris at the end of every kingdom, and the best humans do is minimize the necessary chaos. Our revolution is weirdly unique that way, and makes for a very good template.

[Ragabul]

The premise that even if your lifestyle was nearly identical, which is easily could be, having it all contingent on the men in your life allowing it does not sound acceptable from anything I've read from you.

I don't like being intellectually humored. Some kind of Mary Shelley type "oh how quaint a woman novelist and by Jove she doesn't even write about nothing but marriages and dowries." For most other things, I don't know if I care terribly or not if they were contingent on male permissiveness. Most of the things I do already are in some fashion a product of male permissiveness. I can hunt on my own but only because my dad taught me. I work in IT with a bunch of dudes but only because a dude hired me and the other dudes in the department put up with me. I would probably be fine if allowed some deviance but hiding it with acceptable fakery like writing angry letters to the editor with a male pseudonym. Or getting to debate politics with other women at "the knitting circle." I don't believe this is how such a "men may explicitly prevent women from doing things with legal sanction" society would actually work, but if it did, I would not rebel at the mere idea of it.

I am not opposed to hard screening on who gets to vote or who gets to hold office. This is a pipe dream but I have no doubt that reinstating property requirements for voting would improve the condition of the government by ludicrous orders of magnitude. I also wouldn't be opposed to some kind of Starship Troopers you earn the franchise through public service scenario. I *am* opposed to barring people from pursuits, professions, or civic engagement on such stupid grounds as "oh you have dark skin color" or "oh you have ovaries." If property requirements are the criterion for voting, say, it is stupid to deny industrious black people or women the means of procuring property for no reason except that they are women or black people. The only reason to do this is a belief that black people, women, or whoever, are intrinsically unfit for responsibility like children. Or else that individual rights are irrelevant and everybody has to fill in their role for the good of the species or the nation or whatever, in which case it's stupid to have a Bill of Rights for individuals at all.

This seems to me to be fundamentally different from "you get the right to vote by virtue of existing." If the right to vote (or any right really) is contingent on nothing but "I exist," yes, there is an unending slippery slope that would probably eventually encompass anybody who is able to yell "Me too!" Basing voting on "do you have a penis?" doesn't have the slippery slope, but it's just as arbitrary and inane. It does no better of a job of controlling for sanity or quality unless you believe men are intrinsically saner or whatever. The system in which the stupid 18 year old Bernie Bro can vote, but the wise old widow cannot does not seem better to me.

What theoretical eternal nation are we envisioning?

There are none. There also are very few to no "wise governments." There are only governments that are on average less stupid than others. Violent revolutions don't make wise governments. They sometimes clear the way for less stupid governments to emerge through boring processes. If we don't fight the Revolution, there is no Constitutional Convention. But the actual structure we have is from the Constitutional Convention. I don't know the history of Japan but apparently the Meiji Reformation was a huge deal. Did that follow a war or revolt?

And these are somewhat weird, atypical examples. Most order is organic. Like why is my neighborhood not shitty but 5 miles north of here is a murder slum? They are both in Houston City limits, subject to the same city ordinances, police department, court system, mayor, etc. You cannot *design* order which is why attempts to do so are almost unanimously spectacular failures. What usually happens is a revolution pulls everything up by the roots. There is chaos, death, destruction, and murder for X years afterword. Eventually regular people figure out how to rebuild from the ground up or some elites get sick of the chaos and start doing boring institution building despite the chaos. Or else you get somebody like the aforementioned Ming dynasty founder who hates the disorder and despotism of the previous dynasty so fights a giant war and puts in place a new dynasty which is functionally the equivalent of the predecessor.

This is largely a matter of framing, but I insist on the point because I do not believe decadence or poverty or effeteness or sloth or deviance is a greater moral horror than mass death. Mass death will often happen anyway. And fairly bloodless major transformations also exist. But to openly flirt with bloody overthrow is saying "I value the satisfying destruction of this system more than lives of innumerable people who are in it." Or else "I value hypothetical posterity more than flesh and blood humans here right now."

Another thought experiment. What is the actual society you have in mind? What evidence it can exist? If no evidence, why is your utopia more probable than other utopias?

If all of that was true, but life was exactly like it is for us on the ground still, does the knowledge of their unseen total depravity, and our participation and victimization, warrant tearing it all down?

This would justify guillotining the lot of them. It still wouldn't justify burning down the local church, the elementary school one street over, and the post office. If the only way to get rid of them was to also burn down the church, the school, and the post office, the questions have to be "how many people die or are ruined in order to do this?" and "will we get something better for elites in the aftermath for any notable period of time?"

That's how it often goes. Sure, the peasant born Mao gets to purge the shit out of all these bougie class enemies of the old order. Starving several 10s of millions of peasants to death or letting students club random history professors to death at provincial schools is just part of the broken eggs for the omelette.

But also, outside the hypothetical, what actual historical group of elites have been that bad? The only ones that come to mind are elites who themselves justified themselves with the "need" for violent revolutions (Nazis, Maoists, Stalinists, etc.)

*Edit*

A pithy quote that sort of summarizes my whole shtick here. "Don't immanentize the eschaton."

*Edit*

One more and I'm done for real. To go back to my second point on order being organic. It is the case that our Constitution is contingent on a certain kind of organic culture to function well and that that culture is going extinct. I am not sanguine about the odds of its revival. But to say the old order is dying amidst squalid decadence still does not mean that a revolution will fix it. It also doesn't mean that everything and everyone in the new culture is singularly awful and contemptible or even that most of them are. Put another way. My projection is that if a revolution happens it will not renew us. It will just generically suck and whatever comes after it will also mostly just generically suck though probably less so than the revolution itself.

[Ragabul]

Gonna take a breather from the forum for awhile again. Realized I'm once again getting sucked into internet stuff and while I do a good job of not letting the web drive me insane, it is an attention drain and encourages me to do self-performative stuff that is just not good.

[Vol]

I'll keep the lights on, you go and rebalance the chakras. Until later then.

[Vol]

So onto the ongoing war, how is the press covering it in Europe?

Over here, it's effectively "We must go to war with Russia" across the board. Radio, print, TV, internet, all the bit outlets are unified on agitating for some sort of combat intervention, but not in those words. Material aid is a given, humanitarian aid is obvious, seen quite a few advocates for sending planes loaded with supplies to drop them into besieged cities, baiting anti-air defenses. Also a sense that Ukraine is outright winning the combat and could probably march on Moscow.

The most disturbing take was on the radio earlier, when the host was casually talking about if Putin used a "tactical nuke," then surely the rest of the world has to obliterate Russia, and vassalize the ruins.

[Alienmorph]

This obviously isn't something people in mainstream news or politics endorses, but...



You can thank the usual suspects from the right wing parties, who up until a few weeks ago were openly chummy as fuck with Putin, so a lot of (dis)functional analphabets are still simping for him.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdKmOGMrzuM&ab

well if nothing else Russia war with Ukraine have open the door for new possibilities to happen, who know maybe now the EU will become the super power some of it want it to be.

it is weird to see history unfold like this, but what the consequences will be, well we can only guess and speculate and probably see in a few years to a decade from now.

[TTTX]

This obviously isn't something people in mainstream news or politics endorses, but...


You can thank the usual suspects from the right wing parties, who up until a few weeks ago were openly chummy as fuck with Putin, so a lot of (dis)functional analphabets are still simping for him.

not sure if I should laugh or cry over that.

[Vol]

You can thank the usual suspects from the right wing parties, who up until a few weeks ago were openly chummy as fuck with Putin, so a lot of (dis)functional analphabets are still simping for him.

Huh. I'd assume it's trolling, but I suppose you guys have much larger economic interaction with Russia, longer history too. Meanwhile, America's been forewarned of potential food shortages, because the cost of fertilizer, necessary for our brilliantly planned crop cycles, has skyrocketed. Doubt it'll ever get serious, or maybe I'm too used to rampant obesity to believe it possible. But if that happens, ho boy, Americans without burgers would be like taking wine from the French.

Did Italy join in on the sanctions?

well if nothing else Russia war with Ukraine have open the door for new possibilities to happen, who know maybe now the EU will become the super power some of it want it to be.

it is weird to see history unfold like this, but what the consequences will be, well we can only guess and speculate and probably see in a few years to a decade from now.

It's an odd situation. EU benefits from having America be the global military force, and individual countries especially. But after seeing the ways America can financially shut down a country, plus our corporations, should be eye-opening. I don't like be reliant on the American government, and that's _my_ government.

[TTTX]

It's an odd situation. EU benefits from having America be the global military force, and individual countries especially. But after seeing the ways America can financially shut down a country, plus our corporations, should be eye-opening. I don't like be reliant on the American government, and that's _my_ government.

The EU needs to get its shit together and not rely on the US so much.
it is okay to have the US as an ally but if your existence depends on them well that's not a good thing in the long run.

this might the thing that lead the EU become that so called united states of Europe that some wants it to be, not that I expect every country in Europe will join up for it.

I don't think Denmark would ever really agree to not exist, other then some kind of state in a greater country.

[Someone With Mass]

Well, Sweden passed the Russian border with fighter jets today. Not like straight across the Baltic Sea, but more south towards Poland (which sanctioned the move) and the to the east towards the splinter states. I wouldn't be the least surprised if Russia starts bitching and moaning about it, even though they have violated our airspace more times than I care to count, just to show us the "might" of their military force. Which is apparently worth about as much as their ruble when they don't use the threat of nukes and other big bombs.

Putin is just showing the entire world that one person will never be enough to govern a nation. I hope the sane Russians are going to violently overthrow him soon. One man's inability to think should not be worth more than the millions of lives that have already been affected by it.

[Vol]

The EU needs to get its shit together and not rely on the US so much.
it is okay to have the US as an ally but if your existence depends on them well that's not a good thing in the long run.

this might the thing that lead the EU become that so called united states of Europe that some wants it to be, not that I expect every country in Europe will join up for it.

I don't think Denmark would ever really agree to not exist, other then some kind of state in a greater country.

Wouldn't that recreate the same situation? Whoever has the most influence would be the new "America." We started out as a union of states, which were very independent, but over time, the money and power that the federal government can wield has eroded that down to letting states play pretend while begging for funding.

Which is what's happening in the poor countries in the EU, I suppose.

Well, Sweden passed the Russian border with fighter jets today. Not like straight across the Baltic Sea, but more south towards Poland (which sanctioned the move) and the to the east towards the splinter states. I wouldn't be the least surprised if Russia starts bitching and moaning about it, even though they have violated our airspace more times than I care to count, just to show us the "might" of their military force. Which is apparently worth about as much as their ruble when they don't use the threat of nukes and other big bombs.

Putin is just showing the entire world that one person will never be enough to govern a nation. I hope the sane Russians are going to violently overthrow him soon. One man's inability to think should not be worth more than the millions of lives that have already been affected by it.

It happens quite a lot. Every so often I've heard about Russian jets violating American airspace, or getting too close to our ships. I think countries do it to annoy each other. Active war probably won't make it more serious, nobody wants to actually join up with either side, but it's more meaningful a gesture, I guess.

I've read some articles claiming that Russians have been ingrained to have a supreme leader for so long now that revolution isn't a serious possibility. Sort of the opposite of Americans, who hate our government, no matter who's in power, but are so used to it that there's nothing to focus on. Just wait it out until your side gets a turn again.

[TTTX]

Wouldn't that recreate the same situation? Whoever has the most influence would be the new "America." We started out as a union of states, which were very independent, but over time, the money and power that the federal government can wield has eroded that down to letting states play pretend while begging for funding.

Which is what's happening in the poor countries in the EU, I suppose.

depends on who wins the power struggle, France wants the EU to have more of an influence over the world, while Germany wants the EU to just focus on Europe.

however for this US of Europe to happen, every country in the EU have to agree to it and that is basically the crux of the problem as to why the US of Europe haven't happened in the first place, at least not yet.

Personally I think there is a bigger chance for the Nordic countries to band together and create a new version of the Kalmarunionen, then any of the Nordic countries then them become parts of the US of Europe.

[Someone With Mass]

It happens quite a lot. Every so often I've heard about Russian jets violating American airspace, or getting too close to our ships. I think countries do it to annoy each other. Active war probably won't make it more serious, nobody wants to actually join up with either side, but it's more meaningful a gesture, I guess.

I've read some articles claiming that Russians have been ingrained to have a supreme leader for so long now that revolution isn't a serious possibility. Sort of the opposite of Americans, who hate our government, no matter who's in power, but are so used to it that there's nothing to focus on. Just wait it out until your side gets a turn again.

Yet another reason to not have a leader for such a long time that they get to indoctrinate an entire generation. It's outright aggravating to see the Russian people eat up all the BS about their army "de-Nazi-fying" Ukraine and they can't question it without getting sent to jail.

[Vol]

https://twitter.com/HousingCrisisW/stat ... 8923182082

We've created a landed gentry with no ties or care for the land they own. It's the worst part of feudalism without any benefits. Trying to regulate what enormous, infinitely wealthy companies can own is asking the fox to guard the hen house.

I generally don't like the concept of landlording, but there are fair and moral versions of it. And then guys/companies like this, if I had the means, I would rather go all French on them than debate how many rental houses it's reasonable for them to own. What's interesting is that there's clearly a line between a moral landlord and head chopping, but I can't place it.

[Vol]

depends on who wins the power struggle, France wants the EU to have more of an influence over the world, while Germany wants the EU to just focus on Europe.

however for this US of Europe to happen, every country in the EU have to agree to it and that is basically the crux of the problem as to why the US of Europe haven't happened in the first place, at least not yet.

Personally I think there is a bigger chance for the Nordic countries to band together and create a new version of the Kalmarunionen, then any of the Nordic countries then them become parts of the US of Europe.

I thought it was the other way around, that Germany wants to lead the EU and expand influence.

"The Kalmar Union (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish: Kalmarunionen; Finnish: Kalmarin unioni; Latin: Unio Calmariensis) was a personal union in Scandinavia, agreed at Kalmar in Sweden, that from 1397 to 1523[1] joined under a single monarch the three kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden (then including most of present-day Finland), and Norway, together with Norway's overseas colonies[N 1] (then including Iceland, Greenland,[N 2] the Faroe Islands, and the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland)."

I have never heard of this before in my life. Interesting. Since the problems that caused it to break up no longer exist, or are not as important, is there anyone advocating for it to happen?

Yet another reason to not have a leader for such a long time that they get to indoctrinate an entire generation. It's outright aggravating to see the Russian people eat up all the BS about their army "de-Nazi-fying" Ukraine and they can't question it without getting sent to jail.

Incidentally, I've heard the Russians have stopped talking about de-Nazy-fying as part of the peace conditions. I imagine the average Russian knows they're being lied to, in the same way we know our leaders and press are lying, but with more post-communist fatalism.

"Of course they lie, they know we know they lie, and yet they continue to lie."

[TTTX]

I thought it was the other way around, that Germany wants to lead the EU and expand influence.

"The Kalmar Union (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish: Kalmarunionen; Finnish: Kalmarin unioni; Latin: Unio Calmariensis) was a personal union in Scandinavia, agreed at Kalmar in Sweden, that from 1397 to 1523[1] joined under a single monarch the three kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden (then including most of present-day Finland), and Norway, together with Norway's overseas colonies[N 1] (then including Iceland, Greenland,[N 2] the Faroe Islands, and the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland)."

I have never heard of this before in my life. Interesting. Since the problems that caused it to break up no longer exist, or are not as important, is there anyone advocating for it to happen?

not really France still has somewhat of an empire in the world (still a good number of colonies floating about) obviously it is in their best interest to keep it together and probably stick it to English about finally uniting Europe under one banner (or at at least most of it), Germany still have that fear of become nazis again so they want to only focus on Europe rather then the rest of the world.

not really (at least none I have heard of), but should the US of Europe be created and none of the Nordic countries join, the Nordic countries would most líkely or at at least create something similar to the Kalmar union would be recreated as a counter point and probably with some more countries then the original since I suspect England would join and probably some of the other countries as well that don't or just won't want to be part of the US of Europe.

the Nordic countries just have more in common with each other then we do with the rest of Europe (and considering how much we have fought with each other over the last 1000 years or so, which is a lot more then the French and English has, it is surprising we pretty much considering each other friends and allies.)

mind you it really depends on whether or not the EU can get all the countries to agree to become a supernation in first place (because the bill for US of Europe have a very clear rule on every country have to agree to it before it passes), which is very unlikely, but there is a chance that support for it to happen will increase a lot in the near future as Russia continues its expanse into Europe and that could lead to a scenario where all the countries that want it to happen just push out all the countries that don't want to (I know the Danish people don't want to) which could lead the Nordic countries to band together and create their own union (and possible other unions might be made depending what countries get pushed out) to protect themselves from Russia and the new super nation.

[Someone With Mass]

Yeah, unlike Russia, the Scandinavian countries got tired of fighting over each other's lands centuries ago.

Speaking of which, I just read that Ukrainian peace negotiators as well as one Russian billionaire were showing the symptoms of being poisoned after a meeting with Russian delegates. None of them died, but it's really obvious whose fault it is.

[TTTX]

Yeah, unlike Russia, the Scandinavian countries got tired of fighting over each other's lands centuries ago.

just for a little historical context, the last time Denmark and Sweden clashed in war was during the Napoleonic wars, where Denmark decided, after being pressured, to ally with Napoleon (you can easily guess who won the clash).

we haven't fought against each other in war since as far as I know.

[Someone With Mass]

just for a little historical context, the last time Denmark and Sweden clashed in war was during the Napoleonic wars, where Denmark decided, after being pressured, to ally with Napoleon (you can easily guess who won the clash).

we haven't fought against each other in war since as far as I know.

The worst we get is a bunch of chucklefucks with shovels that gather once per year to "disconnect" southern Sweden so it can drift off to Denmark.

Other than that, our last war was with Norway in 1814.

Also, here's a quote from a Ukrainian radio operator that intercepted Russian communications (because they're so smart that they use unencrypted channels during their oh so special military operation) while the Russians were taking casualties: "The air support isn't coming, (Russian callsign). It's better to be a deserter than fertilizer."

[Vol]

mind you it really depends on whether or not the EU can get all the countries to agree to become a supernation in first place (because the bill for US of Europe have a very clear rule on every country have to agree to it before it passes), which is very unlikely, but there is a chance that support for it to happen will increase a lot in the near future as Russia continues its expanse into Europe and that could lead to a scenario where all the countries that want it to happen just push out all the countries that don't want to (I know the Danish people don't want to) which could lead the Nordic countries to band together and create their own union (and possible other unions might be made depending what countries get pushed out) to protect themselves from Russia and the new super nation.

I think a European "supernation" is inevitable. The USA has been in charge too long, but run by fools for generation. Other powers smell the weakness. Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine if they thought the US would hurt them seriously. But with the homogenization of nation-states, as well as replacing natives with people who have no reason to care about the place they live, the difference between any 2 areas is smaller than ever. It seems like the only thing keeping us from being merged into super-nations is that our governments can't decide who would get to be in charge and have all the money.

The worst we get is a bunch of chucklefucks with shovels that gather once per year to "disconnect" southern Sweden so it can drift off to Denmark.

Other than that, our last war was with Norway in 1814.

Also, here's a quote from a Ukrainian radio operator that intercepted Russian communications (because they're so smart that they use unencrypted channels during their oh so special military operation) while the Russians were taking casualties: "The air support isn't coming, (Russian callsign). It's better to be a deserter than fertilizer."

Is southern Sweden stereotypically "more like" the Danes?

I've seen photos of Russians using some sort of proper encrypted equipment now, at long last. Seems to be their way, do things properly after a bunch of people have been killed pointlessly.

Edit: https://twitter.com/MogTheUrbanite/stat ... 4970530821

Interesting thread I stumbled on. Ignore the political leanings, the examples are the point. I've noticed a lot of them, the "little decay." Realized that in a few months of near daily walks into the heart of town, at all times of day, I haven't actually seen more than 1 or 2 couples, ever. One is a pair of bull dykes (lesbians), the other were in their 80s. Empty single serve liquor bottles are more common, as well as countless facemasks caught up in the trees around the river. Food places seem to be holding on, other than this one location that's had 4 different owners in 8 years. I don't interact with Zoomers at all, but I would think they've inherited our fatalism too.

[TTTX]

I think a European "supernation" is inevitable. The USA has been in charge too long, but run by fools for generation. Other powers smell the weakness. Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine if they thought the US would hurt them seriously. But with the homogenization of nation-states, as well as replacing natives with people who have no reason to care about the place they live, the difference between any 2 areas is smaller than ever. It seems like the only thing keeping us from being merged into super-nations is that our governments can't decide who would get to be in charge and have all the money.

that, + culture, language and in Europes case centuries of war and what not.

as for the ones being in charge it will be either Germany or France 2 countries who have spend a lot of time on trying to control Europe in some way or other, going to be honest I don't trust either of them to lead us right, however it is possible I will either be a very old man or dead when the European supernation become a thing.

Is southern Sweden stereotypically "more like" the Danes?

we did own the lands for centuries before we gave it to Sweden in order to make sure they didn't totally conquer us, can't quite remember the year we did that though I think it was somewhere in the 16 hundreds.

[Sinekein]

Re: all that stuff about the EU, France, Germany or Scandinavia.

To put it simply: for the longest time (up until 2000), France was the leader of the EU back when there were 15 countries, due to a combination of military power and projection ability (unlike Germany), relative economic health, and actually caring about it (unlike the UK).

In the 2000s, Germany had a spectacular economic growth while France hit a rough patch it is only getting out of right now (according to some...maybe the rough patch is still going). They put a *lot* of people in strategic positions of the EU, and became the de facto leaders, helped by the fact that they had the same leadership for 15 years. They had by far the strongest economy, right when many more countries joined the EU, so they basically ran the show up until 2017, mostly because France's leaders were either really old (Chirac) or really bad (the next two).

Germany still has issues about its past. This is, in part, why they signed so many trade agreements with Russia, which has always been keen to remind them of the atrocities of the SS & the Wehrmacht in Russia during WW2. But that's not the only reason: Germany never had a colonial Empire to speak of and lacks natural resources to produce its energy. And, unlike France, it never really invested in nuclear power. So being friendo with a gigantic gas supplier was, at the time, a very smart move, and led to Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2 to be built.

Due to being way less interventionist than the UK or France on the international scene, this Germany-led EU became almost only a financial superpower. And it worked okay as far as capitalistic utopias go (including during the pandemic), although the refugee crisis clearly showed some political cracks - with Turkey in particular.

But several things have changed in the last few years. First, France elected Macron, which does not change anything economically speaking (as he might be the most laissez-faire capitalism president we've had in a century), but he's very much interested in changing the EU's politics and make it more than just about money and trade. Second, Germany also chanced leadership with Scholz replacing Angela. And Third, Russia attacked Ukfraine, meaning that Germany's position within the EU dramatically weakened as they all had to be dragged down to eventually accept to use economical sanctions on Russia.

Suddenly, being chums with Vlad looked like a horrific political decision - also highlighting the incredible political influence Russia had in Germany, with former chancellor Schroeder being one of Putin's closest friends and in the leadership of a major Russian oil company; if Putin really had the tenth of his influence in Germany on Trump, I'm pretty sure he would actually have been impeached - and with the change of leadership in France and Germany, plus France having at the moment the presidency of the Union (it rotates between all members, it just so happened that it was our turn), then many measures have been taken to, mostly, make the EU an independent political force.

Both to be protected from Russia, and to stop relying on the US or NATO. And, for that, you need an army, which the EU didn't have - mostly because Germany (and the UK before...) killed every project that went in that direction. Part of it because of the inner struggle - France has by far the largest military in the EU, so the more militarized the EU becomes, the more influent France will be - and part of it because Germany thrives in times of peace with its very, very strong industry (with very little of it being weapons - again, unlike France, which is now third in the world when it comes to sell arms I think? Yeepee...).

For what it's worth, I would very much like to see this "military EU" to become reality, because from my point of view, as far as major political powers in the world go, the EU is by far the least sucky one whether you compare it to China, Russia, India or the US.

Now, we for sure are facing an uphill battle. France and (probably for 5 more years, we'll know next month) Macron will likely try to establish themselves as the leader of the bunch. Many other countries - either the historically neutral, like the Scandinavians or Austria, or the other "big countries" like Germany or Italy - will want to make sure this power is counterbalanced. The Hungarian problem isn't solver yet, as Orban still remains cordial with Putin despite what is happening (the Polish one, however, looks like it's being solved as suddenly Poland is like super-aligned with the EU for some reason). We're still dealing with the aftermath of Brexit, although now it's mostly an afterthought (for us at least.- can't speak about the UK). The poorer countries will have to be motivated to contribute to the military effort, as they signed for peace and economy.

There will also be energy issues while countries try to cut themselves from Russia. Many countries relied, and still rely, on Russian gas. There aren't many natural resources in Europe. One solution would be nuclear energy but...once again, it's an industry in which France is a leader, so obviously Germany would rather go fully into renewables instead as they are more likely to reap benefits there (also due to some crap management, France is having its own issues with nuclear energy, mostly that no one really invested in it for years, especially since Fukushima).

Still...the reaction to Russia has been stronger than I expected from the EU, and faster. So I can hope that it will become a relatively healthy superpower to live in in the next decades, that is neither a dictatorial hellhole like China, nor a fractured libertarian wet dream like the US.

[Someone With Mass]

I just hope that EU won't do the horrible mistake other countries have made and just have one dude in charge of everything, because we really don't need another delusional idiot who's blind with narcissistic power while being surrounded by limp-dick yes men.

Also, I saw somewhere that the Russians around Chernobyl had to withdraw because of radiation sickness that came about because they apparently didn't expect the site of the worst nuclear accident in history to be that bad. It is difficult to feel sorry for someone when they're being that stupid.

[TTTX]

I just hope that EU won't do the horrible mistake other countries have made and just have one dude in charge of everything, because we really don't need another delusional idiot who's blind with narcissistic power while being surrounded by limp-dick yes men.

Also, I saw somewhere that the Russians around Chernobyl had to withdraw because of radiation sickness that came about because they apparently didn't expect the site of the worst nuclear accident in history to be that bad. It is difficult to feel sorry for someone when they're being that stupid.

I don't think any of the countries want that to happen.

I feel somewhat sorry for the soldiers, but only because it is their masters who ordered the stupid pointless war in the first place.

[Mazder]

Honestly the only real thing the EU could do for a leader is a rotating presidency/head of state across all the nation states. With a set rotation period linking to a standard election cycle within each country (say every 4 years so that at least in 100 years at least one nation has been in charge once in a century, or as close as possible, maybe 3 years so it can be shortened to around 80) you can have a head of state from every nation in Europe to encourage mixing/co-operation in the union whilst also just not making it the "big 3 show" (Germany, France and Italy), at least from a PR perspective.

You would have to change the cycle of elections in each member state to match but I think that's worth it.

You'd still also need the actual EU council to do administrative stuff. I imagine EU president would be closely related to the US one but the congress counterpart already exists, maybe reform it so there is not SOOO MANY members to the council.
Or if you do then add a second layer so all councillors have, like, a head councillor to report their votes and then that vote is the vote for the nation and then with 27 member states they have to do a majority that way.
So you'd need 14 nations to get a simple majority, 18 for a 2/3's majority and 20-21 for a 3/4's majority.
A lot of extra bureaucracy, but if the current EU councillors are replacing the internal stuff for each nation then maybe that balances out?
I dunno a lot will need to be done and I am not smart enough, I just like my top down stuff, lol.

[Vol]

Speaking of the EU elections, I'm hearing Viktor Orban won yuge in an election in Hungary, but the EU is looking to impose some punishment on the country in the aftermath. Every source I check has a different take, so I'm not quite sure what's going on. Any of you lads know?

[Mazder]

Speaking of the EU elections, I'm hearing Viktor Orban won yuge in an election in Hungary, but the EU is looking to impose some punishment on the country in the aftermath. Every source I check has a different take, so I'm not quite sure what's going on. Any of you lads know?

This video should explain a bit as to why EU is not 100% happy with Hungary's voting system/Orban himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FQzvyf5KFM&ab_channel=TLDRNewsEU

[Vol]

Apparently Le Pen has a solid chance of beat Macron, nearly even as of the last polling. The weird bit is that the right-wing support is strongest amount French youth, and least among the elderly. Which is novel. If you're around, Sine, please give us context on how that happened.

[TTTX]

Apparently Le Pen has a solid chance of beat Macron, nearly even as of the last polling. The weird bit is that the right-wing support is strongest amount French youth, and least among the elderly. Which is novel. If you're around, Sine, please give us context on how that happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eLn6Xz_bpg&t

[Vol]

I see you two use the same sources.

@Hungary: So nationalism + generous social programs work, huh? Who would've guessed. Heh. But fiddling with the rules of the election system to benefit them, while leaving the vote itself open and free, sounds about right. Means, motive, opportunity, why not? Anyone who can, would.

Does play into the larger trend of shifting away from "democracy" all over the world. Not necessarily in function, elections and congresses aren't going anywhere, but in the spirit of the times. The press likes to run scare pieces on the rising tide of authoritarians, because of populism/racism/bad people, but there's more a sense of "returning to nature" that overshadows all of it. While most people wouldn't admit it, I imagine deep down, a lot of Hungarians just want a competent leader who seems to do a decent job for them, and who it is and how long they stay isn't a principled concern.

@France: Ah. So still unlikely, her polling usually doesn't reflect turnout. Given she's supposed to be doing better with the youths, that makes sense. Never heard of a right-wing politician "detoxifying" themselves before. Mitt Romney was spun as a nutjob Mormon Nazi with binders of women when he ran for president, and no amount of being a boring, wholesome weirdo saved him, until his position as a moderate, anti-Trump GOP senator was useful. Much less if an _actual_ right-winger had the balls to speak their mind, there would be no mercy or detoxifying.

[Mazder]

I see you two use the same sources.

@Hungary: So nationalism + generous social programs work, huh? Who would've guessed. Heh. But fiddling with the rules of the election system to benefit them, while leaving the vote itself open and free, sounds about right. Means, motive, opportunity, why not? Anyone who can, would.

Does play into the larger trend of shifting away from "democracy" all over the world. Not necessarily in function, elections and congresses aren't going anywhere, but in the spirit of the times. The press likes to run scare pieces on the rising tide of authoritarians, because of populism/racism/bad people, but there's more a sense of "returning to nature" that overshadows all of it. While most people wouldn't admit it, I imagine deep down, a lot of Hungarians just want a competent leader who seems to do a decent job for them, and who it is and how long they stay isn't a principled concern.

@France: Ah. So still unlikely, her polling usually doesn't reflect turnout. Given she's supposed to be doing better with the youths, that makes sense. Never heard of a right-wing politician "detoxifying" themselves before. Mitt Romney was spun as a nutjob Mormon Nazi with binders of women when he ran for president, and no amount of being a boring, wholesome weirdo saved him, until his position as a moderate, anti-Trump GOP senator was useful. Much less if an _actual_ right-winger had the balls to speak their mind, there would be no mercy or detoxifying.

Not exactly source, more like it's just a good aggregate because they do decent work explaining it without being too biased.
What the BBC was supposed to be, but is less so these days.

And TBH I introduced them to him so.....my fault

As far as Hungary it's more the fact that while they're in the EU they're doing this and it's a slippery slope towards breaking EU law as well as just being an internal Russia-like state with the "free" elections.
I don't think it's a too large a trend of shifting away form democracy around the world. And it's not a sense of democracy being less preferable. A flawed democracy is still better than outright authoritarianism and no democracy.
You've also got to remember that these are old nations who also had monarchies (some still do) and they remember the single figurehead aspect of their history. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're always going to return to it but it's a reason why it feels familiar to those nations.
I think it is right that Hungarians want stability, especially in these unstable times, but I don't think that means they wish to give up what freedoms they have to give it all to a guy who may not share the same ideals over time.

What the Hungarian situation basically comes down to is a split in the right wing party with some joining the left wing coalition made the entire political scene unstable and made the majority the left side was going for as a coalition to break the power struggle fail. A bad gamble.
But when the guy in power holds all the cards in the stacked deck then it's very hard to see any elections as free AND fair, without it all being a farce and he doesn't just declare himself king.



As far as France goes, I don't know too much about Marie Le Pen other than she's a more hardcore version of Macron and is very much the Trump of France but with actual competency.
If she gets into power there is a rather big risk of division in Europe over opinion, and maybe even policy that might shake up the power across the region, but most likely won't as if she fucks up too much France will let her know. Hell the stereotype is France strikes more than it works for a reason, lol.

Honestly it's too close to call right now, but if she does get picked then France is going to not be too great for a while.

And just so we're clear, authoritarianism isn't good.
It just isn't.
The 2 biggest ones being China (whos is really more of a fractured auth state who basically does the best to what they can to hold onto power but picks and chooses as it's external view needs to not be ostracized too much) and Russia (who is failing to display it's power and crush it's neighbour and has the democratic world choking it to a slow death), both of which none of us would dare to live in because we know we'd no longer be as free as we are. Maaaaaybe Poland but they've been a thorn in the EU for a while now.

All the other ones either have a resource the west needs (and is thereby justified only by that convenience but is looked on with disdain, ie places like the UAE, who have oil deposits in their nation) or they're a minor nation/developing world nation who are essentially in the state of power and control in order to grow stronger, in their eyes, and who were affected by old European powers form back in the 150's-1800's. Or they're basically in the spheres of other places and are slowly being turned away from authoritarian views.

[Someone With Mass]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4WEBwsuQf0&ab_channel=OperatorStarsky%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%A6

I have to constantly pause this video because my mind can't handle such aggressive regression from Russia all at once. Like, holy shit, it's not even funny how out of touch they are if only a fraction of this is true.

I live in one of the countries where the Rus mentality and attitude (it's basically a viking warrior mindset as the word has a rough relation to Leif the Red) originated from and we stopped that shit over a thousand years ago.

I don't think that any other country wants to live in Russia's backwards La-La Land either, but have fun getting that fact through their thick skulls.

[TTTX]

I live in one of the countries where the Rus mentality and attitude (it's basically a viking warrior mindset as the word has a rough relation to Leif the Red) originated from and we stopped that shit over a thousand years ago.

well we didn't get taken over and ruled by the mongol horde for centuries like Russians did. that did change their culture a lot among other things.

[Someone With Mass]

well we didn't get taken over and ruled by the mongol horde for centuries like Russians did. that did change their culture a lot among other things.

Still, though. I know that the Russian state controls the media like any other totally-not-communist country and are telling the people what to think, but goddamn. Don't they ever wonder if they could be living better and be able to do what they want without having to river dance around the minefield that is their government's fragile ego?

[TTTX]

Still, though. I know that the Russian state controls the media like any other totally-not-communist country and are telling the people what to think, but goddamn. Don't they ever wonder if they could be living better and be able to do what they want without having to river dance around the minefield that is their government's fragile ego?

the Russians, much like the Chinese didn't really evolve into democracies, they over threw the zar and emperor, but they were eventually taken over by extremist dictators and basically continued what the zars and emperors did before and the people have just been conditioned to accept it or well "disappear".

they are just different cultures to ours even if democracy had formed there well it would most likely still be very dictatorship ish in how it would have government as their people were still very uneducated compared to the rest of the world at the time and well poor educated people is easier to rule, because they don't know better.

[Sinekein]

Apparently Le Pen has a solid chance of beat Macron, nearly even as of the last polling. The weird bit is that the right-wing support is strongest amount French youth, and least among the elderly. Which is novel. If you're around, Sine, please give us context on how that happened.

The elderly in France mostly vote for Macron and the center-right in general. You have a bunch of former paratroopers and the like who have never been pushed away by outright racism, but for most old people, the far right means Jean-Marie Le Pen - Marine's father - and he is a deeply repulsive human being unless you're unashamedly racist yourself. His electorate basically was those who hated Africans (so, families of Algerian pieds-noirs) and the very traditionalist catholics.

Marine turned that away with her dédiabolisation, meaning detoxifying indeed - basically, she kicked the worst racists out, made antisemitism a no-no (despite her daddy's tendencies), and focused more on a different target : disenfranchised populations from the French equivalent of the rust belt, with few job opportunities and high levels of poverty. That includes young people, and they tend to be relatively disciplined and to vote more than the average young person.

Still, young French people steer to the left like most youths, it's just that as it stands the left is a gigantic mess so many didn't bother voting because it looked like a lost vote anyway.

@France: Ah. So still unlikely, her polling usually doesn't reflect turnout. Given she's supposed to be doing better with the youths, that makes sense. Never heard of a right-wing politician "detoxifying" themselves before. Mitt Romney was spun as a nutjob Mormon Nazi with binders of women when he ran for president, and no amount of being a boring, wholesome weirdo saved him, until his position as a moderate, anti-Trump GOP senator was useful. Much less if an _actual_ right-winger had the balls to speak their mind, there would be no mercy or detoxifying.

Le Pen is better with the media than Romney was, and that's an understatement. She looked like she was going nowhere last year when Zemmour entered the race, started polling above her, and got a bunch of prominent party members to defect to him (little by little too, as if he was bleeding her dry), including her own niece. However, he was targeting the same voters as Daddy Le Pen, ie the wealthy ultra-catholics and openly racists who weren't really happy with Marine's change of style but voted for her anyway due to a lack of better options (and those people vote a lot).

But then he started to show he was a nasty little man during his campaign (and that he was plainly bad at it when not just talking alone on a TV show like he used to). Now, when the Ukrainian war started, both Le Pen and Zemmour were in deep trouble, because they were big Putin admirers and supporters...but Zemmour was dumb enough to not even being able to say yes to Ukrainian refugees, which A/obscured Le Pen's own position (she did condemn the invasion even though she obviously was not the most agressive in her criticism of Russia) B/really did not please his core electorate, because Ukraine is catholic, and despite being adamantly anti-immigrants, they were absolutely ready to make an exception for fellow catholics.

Meanwhile, Marine Le Pen went on TV to talk about her cats, which was a stark contrast with Zemmour rambling about the "Grand Remplacement" (the conspiracy theory that says that foreigners are plotting to replace the Europeans in their own countries). In the end, she demolished him just by being a savvy campaigner (and seeing him with a measly 7% was one of my schadenfreude moments yesterday).

Speaking of the EU elections, I'm hearing Viktor Orban won yuge in an election in Hungary, but the EU is looking to impose some punishment on the country in the aftermath. Every source I check has a different take, so I'm not quite sure what's going on. Any of you lads know?

That's because he is passing laws to control the media & the justice system. The EU has in its constitution to have a press & judiciary system that are independent from political influence. That's the sole reason from the punishment.

That would probably have happened a while ago if there had been no Brexit.

As far as France goes, I don't know too much about Marie Le Pen other than she's a more hardcore version of Macron and is very much the Trump of France but with actual competency.

She has displayed no actual competency so far, and in fact her debate against Macron five years ago was an absolute disaster for her, and it's an understatement. The main difference between her and Trump is that she mellows down come campaign time (against, the cat thing - she does seem to love cats) while Trump went more and more extreme and his supporters loved it. Le Pen fans like that she sounds normal and not like an unhinged psychopath.

But competency-wise, they are roughly similar.

The major difference with Macron is on the international scene. Macro is pro-EU and West oriented, Le Pen is anti-EU and supports Russia. If I go to vote for the second round it will solely be for that reason because economically, I don't think there will be much of a difference if either of them gets voted in.

Honestly it's too close to call right now, but if she does get picked then France is going to not be too great for a while.

The main reason for this is that Macron is by a significant margin the most fucking arrogant president we ever had, and we had Sarkozy, De Gaulle and Mitterrand.

Right now, I'm mostly on the "don't vote" side for the second round because once again he is showing the middle finger to anyone with a left-wing sympathy and saying that he'll do his (very much laissez-faire) economic reforms if he gets voted in no matter what. Well, that means he doesn't need me, so I am not going to move for him.

Maybe if I start hearing polls about 50-50 I'll bother moving for the EU's sake, but as it stands the twat can go fuck himself.

[Mazder]

She has displayed no actual competency so far, and in fact her debate against Macron five years ago was an absolute disaster for her, and it's an understatement. The main difference between her and Trump is that she mellows down come campaign time (against, the cat thing - she does seem to love cats) while Trump went more and more extreme and his supporters loved it. Le Pen fans like that she sounds normal and not like an unhinged psychopath.

But competency-wise, they are roughly similar.

The major difference with Macron is on the international scene. Macro is pro-EU and West oriented, Le Pen is anti-EU and supports Russia. If I go to vote for the second round it will solely be for that reason because economically, I don't think there will be much of a difference if either of them gets voted in.

Well it sounds like she's going to lose given the current climate is very anti-Russia.

Or is france being pro-Russia despite what macron says and does?

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abprpm7Q3M0&ab

Well it is nice to see the US is as corrupt as ever. *sarcasm*

[Vol]

Still, though. I know that the Russian state controls the media like any other totally-not-communist country and are telling the people what to think, but goddamn. Don't they ever wonder if they could be living better and be able to do what they want without having to river dance around the minefield that is their government's fragile ego?

I would assume every former communist country's people would be acutely aware anything official is bullshit at best.

What frustrates me to no end is why all the rest of us, even those who profess to know we're being propagandized to, don't have a viciously hostile and critical attitude to the state media.

And just so we're clear, authoritarianism isn't good.
It just isn't.

Somewhat related, while catching up with my childhood friends, one insisted we talk about politics. Since they're all living cosmopolitan lives in big cities, and I wished them the very best in that, they're also obviously quite progressive.

The most productive part of that political discussion was seeing what moral standards we take for granted, as if they're intuitive without justification. So authoritarianism is bad not because it just is, but for specific philosophical and historical reasons. And if non-authoritarian systems produce those same results, they're also bad, and that does not make authoritarianism good. It means they're both bad.

Not that I'm making a point against you, it's just something I noticed in conversation.

Now, when the Ukrainian war started, both Le Pen and Zemmour were in deep trouble, because they were big Putin admirers and supporters...but Zemmour was dumb enough to not even being able to say yes to Ukrainian refugees, which A/obscured Le Pen's own position (she did condemn the invasion even though she obviously was not the most agressive in her criticism of Russia) B/really did not please his core electorate, because Ukraine is catholic, and despite being adamantly anti-immigrants, they were absolutely ready to make an exception for fellow catholics.

For the sake of clarity, Ukraine is Eastern Orthodox. Have their own patriarch. They split from the papacy a millennia ago over the filioque (and papal authority to modify it).

That said, yeah, in practice, they're going to be much more similar to French Catholics than any other refugees coming into Europe right now.

[Vol]

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-te ... ngover?s=r

Obviously a growing concern that many children are being unnecessarily carved up and medicated because online influences and the entire medical/education/government establishment failed them.

But another point to make is that these girls are getting prescriptions for testosterone on their first meeting. Whereas, for men, who've had cratering testosterone rates in the west, you don't got a drop unless you're well below the lowest normal range. Have to go find a steroid junkie at a gym if you want to boost your own. An oddity that affirming an internal sense of self, "Let's make you look like what you feel you are," only works when given political will.

I thought there was still a process. Many meetings with doctors, counseling, conventional treatments, before going into puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Which made the detransitioning cases tragic, but harder to foresee.