I did not call Obama a fascist I called him a weak apologizing President.
still going with old tired talking points?
so what did he apologize for?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
yea, i guess tweeting like a scorned teenager and using the government to fight his personal grudges = strength.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
f one feature of any truly revolutionary moment is the complete failure of conventional categories to describe what’s happening around us, then that’s a pretty good sign we’re living in revolutionary times.
It strikes me that the profound confusion, even incredulity, displayed by the French commentariat—and even more, the world commentariat—in the face of each successive “Acte” of the Gilets Jaunes drama, now rapidly approaching its insurrectionary climax, is a result of a near total inability to take account of the ways that power, labour, and the movements ranged against power, have changed over the last 50 years, and particularly, since 2008. Intellectuals have for the most part done an extremely poor job understanding these changes.
Let me begin by offering two suggestions as to the source of some of the confusion:
1. in a financialised economy, only those closest to the means of money-creation (essentially, investors and the professional-managerial classes) are in a position to employ the language of universalism. As a result, any political claims as based in particular needs and interests, tended to be treated as manifestation of identity politics, and in the case of the social base of the GJ, therefore, cannot be imagined it as anything but proto-fascist.
2. since 2011, there has been a worldwide transformation of common sense assumptions about what participating in a mass democratic movement should mean—at least among those most likely to do so. Older “vertical” or vanguardist models of organization have rapidly given way to an ethos of horizontality one where (democratic, egalitarian) practice and ideology are ultimately two aspects of the same thing. Inability to understand this gives the false impression movements like GJ are anti-ideological, even nihilistic.
Let me provide some background for these assertions.
Since the US jettisoning of the gold standard in 1971, we have seen a profound shift in the nature of capitalism. Most corporate profits are now no longer derived from producing or even marketing anything, but in the manipulation of credit, debt, and “regulated rents.” As government and financial bureaucracies become so intimately intertwined it’s increasingly difficult to tell one from the other, wealth and power—particularly, the power to create money (that is, credit)—also become effectively the same thing. (This was what we were drawing attention to in Occupy Wall Street when we talked about the “1%’—those with the ability to turn their wealth into political influence, and political influence back into wealth.) Despite this, politicians and media commentators systematically refuse to recognize the new realities, for instance, in public discourse one must still speak of tax policy as if it is primarily a way of government raising revenue to fund its operations, whereas in fact it is increasingly simply a way of (1) ensuring the means of credit-creation can never be democratized (as only officially approved credit is acceptable in payment of taxes), and (2) redistributing economic power from one social sector to another.
Since 2008 governments have been pumping new money into the system, which, owing to the notorious Cantillon effect, has tended to accrue overwhelmingly to those who already hold financial assets, and their technocratic allies in the professional managerial classes. In France of course these are precisely the Macronists. Members of these classes feel that they are the embodiments of any possible universalism, their conceptions of the universal being firmly rooted in the market, or increasingly, that atrocious fusion of bureaucracy and market which is the reigning ideology of what’s called the “political center.” Working people in this new centrist reality are increasingly denied any possibility of universalism, since they literally cannot afford it. The ability to act out of concern for the planet, for instance, rather than the exigencies of sheer survival, is now a direct side-effect of forms of money creation and managerial distribution of rents; anyone who is forced to think only of their own or their family’s immediate material needs is seen as asserting a particular identity; and while certain identities might be (condescendingly) indulged, that of “the white working class” can only be a form of racism. One saw the same thing in the US, where liberal commentators managed to argue that if Appalachian coal miners voted for Bernie Sanders, a Jewish socialist, it must nonetheless somehow be an expression of racism, as with the strange insistence that the Giles Jaunes must be fascists, even if they haven’t realized it.
These are profoundly anti-democratic instincts.
To understand the appeal of the movement—that is, of the sudden emergence and wildfire spread of real democratic, even insurrectionary politics—I think there are two largely unnoticed factors to be taken into consideration.
The first is that financialized capitalism involves a new alignment of class forces, above all ranging the techno-managerials (more and more them employed in pure make-work “[censored] jobs,” as part of the neoliberal redistribution system) against a working class that is now better seen as the “caring classes”—as those who nurture, tend, maintain, sustain, more than old-fashioned “producers.” One paradoxical effect of digitization is that while it has made industrial production infinitely more efficient, it has rendered health, education, and other caring sector work less so, this combined with diversion of resources to the administrative classes under neoliberalism (and attendant cuts to the welfare state) has meant that, practically everywhere, it has been teachers, nurses, nursing-home workers, paramedics, and other members of the caring classes that have been at the forefront of labor militancy. Clashes between ambulance workers and police in Paris last week might be taken as a vivid symbol of the new array of forces. Again, public discourse has not caught up with the new realities, but over time, we will start having to ask ourselves entirely new questions: not what forms of work can be automated, for instance, but which we would actually want to be, and which we would not; how long we are willing to maintain a system where the more one’s work immediately helps or benefits other human beings, the less you are likely to be paid for it.
Second, the events of 2011, starting with the Arab Spring and passing through the Squares movements to Occupy, appear to have marked a fundamental break in political common sense. One way you know that a moment of global revolution has indeed taken place is that ideas considered madness a very short time before have suddenly become the ground assumptions of political life. The leaderless, horizontal, directly democratic structure of Occupy, for instance, was almost universally caricatured as idiotic, starry-eyed and impractical, and as soon as the movement was suppressed, pronounced the reason for its “failure.” Certainly it seemed exotic, drawing heavily not only on the anarchist tradition, but on radical feminism, and even, certain forms of indigenous spirituality. But it has now become clear that it has become the default mode for democratic organizing everywhere, from Bosnia to Chile to Hong Kong to Kurdistan. If a mass democratic movement does emerge, this is the form it can now be expected to take. In France, Nuit Debout might have been the first to embrace such horizontalist politics on a mass scale, but the fact that a movement originally of rural and small-town workers and the self-employed has spontaneously adopted a variation on this model shows just how much we are dealing with a new common sense about the very nature of democracy.
About the only class of people who seem unable to grasp this new reality are intellectuals. Just as during Nuit Debout, many of the movement’s self-appointed “leadership” seemed unable or unwilling to accept the idea that horizontal forms of organization were in fact a form of organization (they simply couldn’t comprehend the difference between a rejection of top-down structures and total chaos), so now intellectuals of left and right insist that the Gilets Jaunes are “anti-ideological”, unable to understand that for horizontal social movements, the unity of theory and practice (which for past radical social movements tended to exist much more in theory than in practice) actually does exist in practice. These new movements do not need an intellectual vanguard to provide them with an ideology because they already have one: the rejection of intellectual vanguards and embrace of multiplicity and horizontal democracy itself.
There is a role for intellectuals in these new movements, certainly, but it will have to involve a little less talking and a lot more listening.
None of these new realities, whether of the relations of money and power, or the new understandings of democracy, likely to go away anytime soon, whatever happens in the next Act of the drama. The ground has shifted under our feet, and we might do well to think about where our allegiances actually lie: with the pallid universalism of financial power, or those whose daily acts of care make society possible.
These guys telling on themselves by sharing that they think an effete trust fund doofus who wilts at the first sign of stress is “tough” will never get old.
(By the way, 40 once cited the clip Clem just posted as evidence of his claim that Trump would’ve ran into the Parkland shooting unarmed to stop the shooter).
I’m not really interested in a Zapruder investigation into that particular moment.
The guy is a complete wimp on every level and aspect of his entire life.
Specifically, I was mocking 40 for using that particular clip as his evidence that Trump would’ve ran into the Parkland shooting unarmed, which everyone should clearly mock.
But in a broader sense, I think it’s hilarious that people think that a spineless dork who crumbles at the first sign of adversity is “tough”.
They’re telling on themselves and they’re oblivious to that fact.
You've got the board. I'm done. You go on and berate and belittle people people all you want. It's all you do. Mock people. That's cool, that's your style.
Same with many others, although not to the degree you My issue isn't with you, it's with people that used to have some common sense.
You've got the board. I'm done. You go on and berate and belittle people people all you want. It's all you do. Mock people. That's cool, that's your style.
Same with many others, although not to the degree you My issue isn't with you, it's with people that used to have some common sense.
Oh well.
Mad Online.
Dude, people don’t dislike Trump because Hillary lost.
Hillary is awful and no one likes her outside of a very very small niche subset.
People don’t like Trump because he’s incredibly dumb, he’s incredibly weak, he’s incredibly lazy, he’s a pervert with no moral or ideological compass, and he’s an all-around disgusting human being.
Why you continue to defend him baffles me, because I know that despite our differences you’re a decent and moral dude.
The only reason I can think why arch defends Trump is a knee-jerk reaction against a perceived opposition.
Can you name a single area where he is not only moral, but competent?
how come he dodged your question and started running his mouth at Vers?
i thought those were fair questions to ask.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The funniest part about this thread is that it's a wildly socialist movement, but 40 posted it because he read Trump's tweet and thinks it bolsters his point.
Yo eve sorry for the late reply I saw it last night. I talked to my boy who lives over there with his new Arabian night wife lololol.
Anyways, this has less to do with the EU and more to do with domestic policy the French people are sick off.
CHS is correct that this is a leftist protest, even though it’s very much a mixture of left and right leaning people protesting the government.
Everybody has to remember that a right leaning person in Europe is still solid left here in America. Just remember that aspect. What they are protesting is Macrons elitist policies.
Eve, this is gonna sound familiar to you: the French are mad that macron decided to implement a new gas tax, even though macron slashed the French wealth tax, and implement a new flat tax rate on capital gains, which lowered the tax burden on corporations and the wealthy. The wealthy got huge tax cuts, while the middle/poor class are watching heir purchasing power dwindle, have less disposable income, and paying more in taxes/goods.
What country in North America does that sound like to you?
Anyways, there’s some resentment with regards to the EU, but most people still support staying in the EU and what not. It’s more like the inevitable issues that ANY alliance would have to deal with at some point in time. The time just happens to be now.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I am always amazed that when something like this comes up it becomes a "That's not like us" pissing match.
Just by the mere fact that this is France, you have to skew just about any politician left. Even if Macron were "right" in France that's like the Clinton's in our modern era. Hard to imagine that anyone would call Macron a right wing leader while calling for a "French Islam" is pretty ridiculous.
Quote:
The latest calls by French President Emmanuel Macron and Hakim El Karoui, a leading voice on how Islamic traditions fit within French culture, to create a “French Islam” in the name of improved security indicate the primary goal of religious integration policy.
Eve, this is gonna sound familiar to you: the French are mad that macron decided to implement a new gas tax, even though macron slashed the French wealth tax, and implement a new flat tax rate on capital gains, which lowered the tax burden on corporations and the wealthy. The wealthy got huge tax cuts, while the middle/poor class are watching heir purchasing power dwindle, have less disposable income, and paying more in taxes/goods.
I believe this is accurate. I've spent a little bit of time reading up on the causes for the unrest in France. My understanding is that the tax on fuel was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Many citizens live in rural areas and/or outside the cities and they are dependent on their cars. They see the tax as yet another example of how the government/Macron consistently favor the upper classes in all economic matters.
Macron is seen as a "darling of the West" for his clean-air policies, but the French people see him as a villain in the financial woes that many citizens are having to deal with. I thought this quote captured that feeling nicely:
“[The elites] worry about the end of the world while we worry about the end of the month.”
I don't see this de-escalating anytime soon. The protestors who represent the common folks in France want Macron gone and they want more equal balance of power and fiscal systems, including bringing back the tax on the mega-rich that Macron abolished.
the way macron is viewed here in the states isn't how he's actually seen in his own country.
i mean clear air policies? thats like...all of europe. they're all super progressive when it comes to go going green, so thats not even a quality of macron so much as its the minimum standard for a politician to be all in on green in europe.
people over there are fine with paying taxes as long as the wealthy are paying their share as well. if macron didn't cut capital gains and other taxes, and the gas tax happened, there's a good chance these riots might not even be going on right now.
but he ended up just pulling a typical corporate politician nonsense, and here we are.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
My company has a few offices in France, including Paris. It's a contentious time and honestly doesn't feel dissimilar to what's going on here in the US. Or the UK. Or Poland. Or Hungary. Or Italy. Notice a theme?
We've been sold that globalism is the way forward for decades while ignoring the damage that it can cause the working class. I understand the "advantages" globalism can bring, and as someone who works in software I benefit greatly from it. Yet I can't sit and say that it's all roses. Not when I have family that lives along the Monongahela River in rural PA. France has dealt with this too, where the city centers are booming yet the small textile towns are dead. Single industry towns are rotting away and being taxed more on top of it.
i might get killed for saying this, but thats where socialist policies are suppose to come into play.
and you see that with a lot of western european countries, specifically germany and others.
they've embraced globalism and the markets demand for going green, while making sure they have retraining programs in place that way they bring as many people forward as possible.
thats the issue with england, france, and the US. especially the US, who literally lead the way to this global economy to begin with. now we're fighting against our own doing, not trying to embrace innovation, and not making sure we have the retraining in place to not leave people behind.
whats worse is that we aren't doing a good job AT ALL of explaining to our citizens why its important to do so.
for example we could absolutely retrain these coal miners, who are losing their job because the MARKET dictated that consumers want green energy. but the politicians are in bed with the very corporations who don't want the change, and so we end up having to deal with a disaster when we could've been well ahead of the issue if we weren't so stubborn.
globalism isn't just a financial way of life. its a cultural one as well. but certain countries still have ass backwards thinking, and we all know whats gonna happen:
we will finally do something about it when its already too late.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Ive learned to pick and choose. There ares some posters in this forum you can hold conversations with and have constructive discussions with. Then there's those who are just here to be disruptive. I treat each individual here based on those guidelines. They get what they give.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
its just...ya know a certain poster starts posting stupid memes and then another with a terribly simplistic view on the world, and then the convos go into chaos.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
also, UK might be in flames too because of Theresa May.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Yeah...........I actually believe that there quite a few intelligent posters on this board that would enjoy having open-minded discussions. Some of those guys don't post much. I'm guessing they get frustrated w/the nonsense. I think of dawglover05 or something like that. He's very intelligent. I think he's an attorney. He's written some things that really made me think. I like that.
The other thing is that a lot of us are probably guilty of responding harshly after going to multiple threads, reading biased garbage, and then replying to one of them w/irritation. LOL
I want to add that I am not one to believe we should all agree. Objections are great. They promote higher level thinking and that is how we learn and grow.
also, UK might be in flames too because of Theresa May.
That situation sounds like a bloody mess. I'm not really well-informed about what's going on because I have only read a few articles about it. I did read something earlier on BBC about folks being outraged about her delaying the Brexit vote. The situation w/N. Ireland seems sketchy to me, but that might be because I haven't read much about it.
i like to give backdrops to everything before i get to your actual comment, if you know what i mean.
so, the UK is actually a 4 block group. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
England and Wales voted in favor of Brexit. Scotland and NI voted to remain in the EU.
so there's the hairy split there, which made the situation complex. scotland and NI REALLY rely on the EU since their industrial backgrounds took a hit.
here's a factor that a lot of people aren't aware of:
the scots and irish actually need the immigration policies the EU sets, because THEY are the ones who actually seek work away from scotland and NI. so leaving the EU would take a huge hit on their economy and work prospects, especially since the EU funds a lot of economic projects in those countries. scots and irish actually leave to mainland europe to find work. a brexit would severely limit their immigration policies.
there's a lot more to it obviously, but thats part of the reason there's a split. and other big aspects have to do with historical background that have a very limited/no understanding of.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I'm sure I am missing some of the finer details but here goes:
Brexit vote was a disaster. The vote was called for because the Conservatives in power thought it would be squashed and silence some ever more vocal and disruptive politicians who were campaigning to leave Europe.
The campaign to stay was awful and lacked any education on what benefit being in the EU brought England/UK.... the campaign to leave told a bunch of lies. On top of that the referendum itself was incompetently set up - it was "leave" or "stay" with no middle ground or discussion of what some of the implications were.
Add to this that - once the narrow vote was to 'leave' - it was only then that anyone realized what a cluster fk it was to try to administer the process. . . . it's a bit like (or reminds me of) Trump saying "who new Healthcare was so tricky" !
There are lots of issues with the exit - with literally millions of Britains living abroad or owning properties in EU - which all gets thrown into confusion now because they have no legal right to enter those countries anymore. There's all sorts of trade issues with agreements and ratification of Britain being able to continue to do what it's been used to doing for decades. . . . probably a lot more here than I am aware of.
The Ireland issue came to light early and is a situation that I don't know the current proposed solution. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and tied to the Exit. Southern Ireland remains part of EU. While the rest of the UK is an ISLAND unto it's and therefore they have natural borders and regulation/control of a fixed point that can be policed (a requirement if UK is not in the EU with free movement across borders) - Nthn and Sthn Ireland do not want a border/wall/control point between their countries - but to acheive Brexit they would HAVE to. You can't have EU citizens having free and unrestricted entry into Southern Ireland - and then free entry into Nthn Ireland from the South (or vice versa) .... it would be how any "illegal" could obtain entry to the UK if they wanted .... or vice versa.
So yes - it's a mess. I don't think it will turn violent. I think it's fair to say most of the 'youth' would prefer to stay while a disproportionate % of the elderly bought into the fear mongering of the Exit campaign about immigration and voted to Exit.
There has been a steady movement to try to hold a revised referendum with more options than a simple stay/go ... I never thought it would happen but it seems like it is closer to being an option than I ever thought. If it does happen - I think the UK would vote to STAY with a significant margin compared to the initial Brexit result.
Last edited by mgh888; 12/10/1802:39 PM.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
