Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"They were ordered" is not and never will be an excuse for committing war crimes. Every single person who willingly went along with the holocaust is as complicit as Hitler himself. To even suggest that it is not an issue because they were "just following orders" is absolutely disgusting.

Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something. Everybody acts like they'd be so righteous when the time comes but self preservation kicks in when you're staring death in the face. It depends really how noble you are and how much you value your life or need to live so that your family can still have a father, son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. the next day.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"They were ordered" is not and never will be an excuse for committing war crimes. Every single person who willingly went along with the holocaust is as complicit as Hitler himself. To even suggest that it is not an issue because they were "just following orders" is absolutely disgusting.

Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something. Everybody acts like they'd be so righteous when the time comes but self preservation kicks in when you're staring death in the face. It depends really how noble you are and how much you value your life or need to live so that your family can still have a father, son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. the next day.

That or you and your family end up in some hell of a concentration camp where you get worked/starved to death.
Yes they had a choice. But some of the consequences of refusing pretty pretty bad. People forget the Nazi Party could ve as cruel to own people as it was to Jews, Russians and such.

 LordofHats wrote:
Sounds like the excuses are thin to me

To be clear I'm not suggesting there was massive and widespread resistance of this type. While many diplomats are now famous for going out of their way, even defying their own countries, to help Jews flee Europe we're really talking about two to three dozen people in a community of thousands. To me the point is that just because some pedestrians walking around a dying girl didn't commit any crimes doesn't mean they weren't responsible on some level for their wilful inaction.* Wilful action in furtherance of immoral acts, is even worse. The buck of responsibility can't be distributed by circumstance, but it is not so easily abdicated.

Yeah, sorry didn't mean it to sound like I was challenging your point. It was a great story and very relevant to the thread. I didn't take it as a claim of what was done everywhere, but as a statement of what could be done.

As to responsibility, I'm a bit mixed on the issue. I think people often assume they personally would be very brave and principled, and so criticise too harshly people who were placed in those situations. But take that idea too far and you end up excusing everyone for going along, and I'm not comfortable with that either.

Maybe it's best to just make sure the historical record stands as it happened, and leave judgement out of it? To me, that's the issue with Le Pen's statement. Austria, or at least that one museum, was very honest about the complicity of Austria. Much of France is also honest about that. Le Pen not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something. Everybody acts like they'd be so righteous when the time comes but self preservation kicks in when you're staring death in the face. It depends really how noble you are and how much you value your life or need to live so that your family can still have a father, son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. the next day.

I think there's a fair point there. I remember seeing images of people who spoke out against the Nazis and were murdered. It's a mistake to assume we personally would be very principled and very brave. But it is also a mistake to expect nothing of people.

And it is also a mistake to assume that all collusion with the Nazis was done out of fear. Make no mistake about it - France was also a very anti-semitic country. There's a line that goes around that if you told someone in 1920 that a major European country would be taken over by a tyrant with a deeply anti-semitic message, people would assume you were talking about France.

 sebster wrote:


As to responsibility, I'm a bit mixed on the issue. I think people often assume they personally would be very brave and principled, and so criticise too harshly people who are placed in those situations. But take that idea too far and you end up excusing everyone for going along, and I'm not comfortable with that either.

Agreed. I think especially when it comes to societal problems, "blame" becomes extremely messy. Especially in a nominal democracy. An elector you're total responsible, even if you voted for the other side I think. A democracy cannot claim to enact the will of the people while simultaneously the people dissolve their responsibility for political outcomes. At the same time it's like a lot of other things in life. You can't control everything. gak happens. Cultural forces limit and impede our ability to act freely. Especially with past stuff it's hard to gauge an appropriate present response.

But ignoring all that is not the answer from a mature adult with even a modicum of perspective. The problem with Le Penn is that she doesn't want to tackle the question at all, and the job she's running for is the last job where anyone should be trying to ignore such difficult quandaries which in my experience is par for the course for nationalist fear mongers stirring the racial/ethnic/xenophobe pot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:


Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something.

Except (and you obviously didn't read the responses), Vichy France was not a country the Nazi's could "issue orders" per se in 1942. Nazi Germany wanted Vichy France to hand over its remaining Navy, and Vichy France said no (then blew up its Navy when Germany tried to force the issue later). No one had a gun to their head. It wasn't "do this or die." In meetings planning the operation French police were more concerned with their public image than they were that "maybe this is kind of gak." Later testimony from post-war criminal trials conducted in Germany, France, and the Netherlands even found that officials were eager to deport local Jews. Some people have even accused the Vichy state of unofficially proposing the plan in the first place. EDIT: And this is without delving into the shocking popularity of the Nazi regime among French citizens until late 1943.

It's really not a comparable event to say, Sri Lanka, were some "freedom fighters" were forced to gun down civilians under threat of being gunned down themselves; or various African conflicts like Sierra Leone where you recruit your army by drugging up young boys, forcing them to murder their families, and then making them do the same to the boys in the next village.

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
There's a museum in Austria commemorating the resistance against the Nazis, Archives to the Austrian Resistance. It was originally built in the 60s celebrating the figures who worked against the Nazis. But decades ago the museum changed its message, now they straight up say as you come in that there was little resistance, and most of it was ineffectual leaflet drops. They accept that while many Austrians weren't necessarily in favour of the atrocities of the Nazis, very few were actually hostile to the regime, and as a result the resistance was very small.

This doesn't mean everyone modern Austrian has to beg for forgiveness in their morning prayers or anything like that. But it is very important to be honest about the past, and admit how many people really were okay with scapegoating ethnic groups, or at least were okay with it enough that they didn't do anything about it. It's a big part of making sure nothing like it ever happens again.

Sounds like the excuses are thin to me

To be clear I'm not suggesting there was massive and widespread resistance of this type. While many diplomats are now famous for going out of their way, even defying their own countries, to help Jews flee Europe we're really talking about two to three dozen people in a community of thousands. To me the point is that just because some pedestrians walking around a dying girl didn't commit any crimes doesn't mean they weren't responsible on some level for their wilful inaction.* Wilful action in furtherance of immoral acts, is even worse. The buck of responsibility can be distributed by circumstance, but it is not so easily abdicated.

When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them? What about a person that has their car break down on the side of the road? How about something super simple like holding the door open for somebody carrying something heavy?

In my experience almost nobody helps for the first two questions. I'll admit feeling bad doesn't count as doing something and often inaction is compliance in a sense. However in this situation when it's your life and possibly their's at risk (if for example you took them into your home to hide) for trying to help them vs just their life at risk which option do you choose. It's probably right to help them but is it right to potentially kill yourself as well when you have family that depends on your life to keep existing?

I'll admit i don't know the exact history or how much is propaganda (written to remove a stain on their history) or what. I'm not saying france didn't have some racists. The USA had a nazi party too and neo nazis continue to exist. It's not completely fair for an entire country to repent for the sins of people that are long dead. I can understand it should be acknowledged some did some bad things however. I suppose it depends how much they were coerced into doing what they did and how much they weren't.

-------

All this said i don't know Le Pen enough so maybe she is racist. It's just i've heard the racist and xenophobic and islamaphobic card pulled so much. I'd almost bet if she wasn't female they'd see if they could pull the sexist against women comment too.

Not saying i like certain political figures. The one that leads us has a lot of character flaws regardless of political stances. I mean the guy is very self absorbed and probably thinks he's the greatest. Some modesty goes a long way even if you are great.

-------

We should get more on topic though with the candidates.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them? What about a person that has their car break down on the side of the road? How about something super simple like holding the door open for somebody carrying something heavy?

Soup kitchens are more productive (point your local hobos to them even if you don't volunteer or donate), I honestly wouldn't be able to help anyone with a car I'm mechanically idiotic (bet I'd make it worse), I hold open doors even for people who are carrying nothing because its polite and seriously you're doing the same thing Le Penn did when she proclaimed the horrors of people coming to change the wallpaper. Even ignoring the xenophobic/racist bent to that comment it's notable for just being weird. I don't think it's a cultural thing either because the French seem as baffled by it as the rest of us XD

 Galas wrote:
France should have learned from Spain. We kick out our jews in 1492, when it was cool, and so far in history that no one will use it today as a political weapon

Spoiler:

I'm joking, obviously

No one expects the
Spanish Inquisition!

Franco did his own part sending jews to nazi germany or even puting them in concentration camps in Spain. It is famous too, many Republican exiles in France that where jailed and put to death by the Vichy Goverment, or just sended back to Spain.

Many goverments in that period of history did very horrible things (Basically everyone. The URSS and USA had concentration camps too. And not nice ones), and those goverments don't ruled over a population of robots, but of people that allow or even helped them to do that. When someone try to ignore those things is because they have an agenda, just like when communist defend the crimes of Stalin or Mao.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them?

Once in a blue moon, yeah, but there's a lot of hobo in Montreal. Now let's say you see a hobo with a knife sticking out of his chest. Would you not, at least, you know, do something.

And then let's say you realize the guy was shanked by a distant relative of yours you haven't even met.

Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them?

Once in a blue moon, yeah, but there's a lot of hobo in Montreal. Now let's say you see a hobo with a knife sticking out of his chest. Would you not, at least, you know, do something.

Yep. Take the safety off my full auto wiener dog, and leave the area in case whoever did it has another knife.

And then let's say you realize the guy was shanked by a distant relative of yours you haven't even met.

In that case I'd have to help find a nearby pig farm wouldn't I.

Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.

Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.

 Frazzled wrote:

Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.

Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.

Wouldn't it be an issue for a german politician to deny that Germany was historically responsible for the Holocaust?

FN legitimize radical opinions by offering an acceptable outlet to lukewarm racism and xenophobia, something which the French have always had in troves.
FN came from Ordre Nouveau (New Order, in part funded by a Korean sect), which itself came from Groupe Occident after the 1960s.
Groupe Occident was (and was proud of being) a blackshirts organisation which attacked vietnamese students in university, before devolving in so much paranoia that it disintegrated as members kidnapped, tortured and interrogated each others.

With a filiation like this, decency seems to dictate that one shouldn't deny random racist events that your not even responsible for. It's pretty freaking crass.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.

Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.

Wouldn't it be an issue for a german politician to deny that Germany was historically responsible for the Holocaust?

FN legitimize radical opinions by offering an acceptable outlet to lukewarm racism and xenophobia, something which the French have always had in troves.
FN came from Ordre Nouveau (New Order, in part funded by a Korean sect), which itself came from Groupe Occident after the 1960s.
Groupe Occident was (and was proud of being) a blackshirts organisation which attacked vietnamese students in university, before devolving in so much paranoia that it disintegrated as members kidnapped, tortured and interrogated each others.

With a filiation like this, decency seems to dictate that one shouldn't deny random racist events that your not even responsible for. It's pretty freaking crass.

Wouldn't the German individual had to have been asked about it first? What I mean to say is, why was she asked in the first place?

I would like to see more on their actual policy positions and less on the "ism" charges.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.

Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.

Wouldn't it be an issue for a german politician to deny that Germany was historically responsible for the Holocaust?

FN legitimize radical opinions by offering an acceptable outlet to lukewarm racism and xenophobia, something which the French have always had in troves.
FN came from Ordre Nouveau (New Order, in part funded by a Korean sect), which itself came from Groupe Occident after the 1960s.
Groupe Occident was (and was proud of being) a blackshirts organisation which attacked vietnamese students in university, before devolving in so much paranoia that it disintegrated as members kidnapped, tortured and interrogated each others.

With a filiation like this, decency seems to dictate that one shouldn't deny random racist events that your not even responsible for. It's pretty freaking crass.

Wouldn't the German individual had to have been asked about it first? What I mean to say is, why was she asked in the first place?

I would like to see more on their actual policy positions and less on the "ism" charges.

I'll watch the interview and report, just a few min.

edit.

It was on a very highbrow political show (le Grand Jury). The theme was Marine's brand of nationalism, starting on the subject of a statement she made towards Corse's status within France.

One (stupid) theme of the election was the existence of a shadow cabinet within the goverment. She was asked if she trusted France's justice. She replied by saying she had great faith in her country, but didn't trust those in power. She then took the opportunity to snipe in and say that it was like Vel d'Hiv, France's isn't responsible, the people in power at the time were. Which is just as useless as it can get as far as a statement goes.

Honestly, the "Jury" didn't even grab the comment, it was so freaking random. Imagine Trump saying "And honestly, folks, Hitler wasn't even that bad of a guy" in the middle of an address on climate issues.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"They were ordered" is not and never will be an excuse for committing war crimes. Every single person who willingly went along with the holocaust is as complicit as Hitler himself. To even suggest that it is not an issue because they were "just following orders" is absolutely disgusting.

Ok you say that when somebody points a gun to your head with the intent to shoot you and commands you to do something. Everybody acts like they'd be so righteous when the time comes but self preservation kicks in when you're staring death in the face. It depends really how noble you are and how much you value your life or need to live so that your family can still have a father, son, brother, daughter, mother, etc. the next day.

Honestly, no, especially when we are talking about tens of thousands of people. I'd rather die that kill an innocent person. I can die with the knowledge that I have done good, I couldn't live lie with the knowledge that I had killed an innocent person.

And we are talking about people willingly following orders, no theoretical guns on theoretical heads. I'd thought we learned after the Nuremberg Trials that being ordered doesn't absolve people of guilt.

What date is the actual election?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What date is the actual election?

Sunday the 7th iirc. I should know I am going to vote (you'll never guess for whom though!)

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What date is the actual election?

Can't find it officially on english website, but I believe it's next weekend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What date is the actual election?

Sunday the 7th iirc. I should know I am going to vote (you'll never guess for whom though!)

Your Hillary Clinton.

 LordofHats wrote:
Agreed. I think especially when it comes to societal problems, "blame" becomes extremely messy. Especially in a nominal democracy. An elector you're total responsible, even if you voted for the other side I think. A democracy cannot claim to enact the will of the people while simultaneously the people dissolve their responsibility for political outcomes. At the same time it's like a lot of other things in life. You can't control everything. gak happens. Cultural forces limit and impede our ability to act freely. Especially with past stuff it's hard to gauge an appropriate present response.

I really like that distinction between societal and individual responsibility. That helps clarify my thinking on the issue. Cheers for that. Also that line that a democracy cannot enact the will of the people, and also dissolve them of responsibility for the outcome was rather good. I'm going to make this conversation happen somewhere in the real world just so I can use that line and look clever

But ignoring all that is not the answer from a mature adult with even a modicum of perspective. The problem with Le Penn is that she doesn't want to tackle the question at all, and the job she's running for is the last job where anyone should be trying to ignore such difficult quandaries which in my experience is par for the course for nationalist fear mongers stirring the racial/ethnic/xenophobe pot.

As we've seen the various populist/racists that have been popular in various first world democracies in the last few years, I'm starting to wonder if xenophobia isn't the primary element. Maybe it is more just about simple solutions for complex problems, and particularly about simple solutions that flatter the voting base. Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.

 Frazzled wrote:

Le Pen's reaction, in this scenario, is to cover her eyes and pretend there is no hobo corpse in front of her, to save her the shame of guilt-by-association. To something no one asks her to be guilty about.

Why is this even an issue? I'll admit I've not seen this as a debate question often used in the states.

I think you can draw a parallel to the people who keep insisting that the American Civil War was all about states' rights and had nothing to do with slavery.

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Agreed. I think especially when it comes to societal problems, "blame" becomes extremely messy. Especially in a nominal democracy. An elector you're total responsible, even if you voted for the other side I think. A democracy cannot claim to enact the will of the people while simultaneously the people dissolve their responsibility for political outcomes. At the same time it's like a lot of other things in life. You can't control everything. gak happens. Cultural forces limit and impede our ability to act freely. Especially with past stuff it's hard to gauge an appropriate present response.

I really like that distinction between societal and individual responsibility. That helps clarify my thinking on the issue. Cheers for that. Also that line that a democracy cannot enact the will of the people, and also dissolve them of responsibility for the outcome was rather good. I'm going to make this conversation happen somewhere in the real world just so I can use that line and look clever

But ignoring all that is not the answer from a mature adult with even a modicum of perspective. The problem with Le Penn is that she doesn't want to tackle the question at all, and the job she's running for is the last job where anyone should be trying to ignore such difficult quandaries which in my experience is par for the course for nationalist fear mongers stirring the racial/ethnic/xenophobe pot.

As we've seen the various populist/racists that have been popular in various first world democracies in the last few years, I'm starting to wonder if xenophobia isn't the primary element. Maybe it is more just about simple solutions for complex problems, and particularly about simple solutions that flatter the voting base. Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.

Mainstream leaders offer no real differences. Thr parties blend into one. Then suddenly the popularists come claiming to have a answer, however simplistic but they claim to have answers, they claim to bring change to the problems that never seem to end.

Musch as there claims might be a facade, and not much behind em, you can see why they are gaining ground.
If the mainstream took on some of the difficult problems, thr ones that may not sound nice but are genuine things that need to be discussed. They may weaken there reasons to exist.

 sebster wrote:
Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.

I think people who look for simple solutions/explanations to complex problems end up prone to such. No one but God can judge anyone by their head space, and when presented with the distinction between "actual racist/xenophobe/bigot" and "person who says lots of racist/xenophbic/bigoted gak" I just fail to see why I should care to notice that a distinction might exist. It's such a paper thin difference, and practically they lead to racist/xenophobic/bigoted gak happening whether the person saying it earnestly believes it or not.

It's the kind of detail that matters in an autobiography, not an election.

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.

I think people who look for simple solutions/explanations to complex problems end up prone to such. No one but God can judge anyone by their head space, and when presented with the distinction between "actual racist/xenophobe/bigot" and "person who says lots of racist/xenophbic/bigoted gak" I just fail to see why I should care to notice that a distinction might exist. It's such a paper thin difference, and practically they lead to racist/xenophobic/bigoted gak happening whether the person saying it earnestly believes it or not.

It's the kind of detail that matters in an autobiography, not an election.

True but if people feel like no ones litioning, nothing being done they tend to go with the irrational solutions over the more sensible voices at times.

 jhe90 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.

I think people who look for simple solutions/explanations to complex problems end up prone to such. No one but God can judge anyone by their head space, and when presented with the distinction between "actual racist/xenophobe/bigot" and "person who says lots of racist/xenophbic/bigoted gak" I just fail to see why I should care to notice that a distinction might exist. It's such a paper thin difference, and practically they lead to racist/xenophobic/bigoted gak happening whether the person saying it earnestly believes it or not.

It's the kind of detail that matters in an autobiography, not an election.

True but if people feel like no ones litioning, nothing being done they tend to go with the irrational solutions over the more sensible voices at times.

Interesting point. I just looked up the French unemployment rate, and it's at 9.6%. Relative to the US, UK, and Germany, this is abysmal...more than double. So just on the economy alone, I can see why affected people are inclined to abandon the existing institutions, even if the alternatives are problematic. If these institutions were effective, it's likely Le Pen would not have gained whatever level of support that she has, because why rebel against a system that is working?

It's also no wonder that anti-immigration politics would gain support when there is not enough work to go around for the people who are already citizens.

People in the UK and USA are doing the same revolting against the system that supposedly is working there. People in Spain aren't revolting against a system that supposedly is working a lot worse than in France.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People in the UK and USA are doing the same revolting against the system that supposedly is working there. People in Spain aren't revolting against a system that supposedly is working a lot worse than in France.

The impression I get in the US is that there's a perception that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are working for the American people, so Trump rises. The impression I get from Brexit is that the people who voted in favor do not want to be under the thumb of EU officials that they did not elect or subject to an authority they view as inherently foreign and not working for their interests.

I don't have enough info to form an impression for what's going on in France, which from most accounts here is indeed not going to revolt, but when you have almost 10% unemployment, it comes as no surprise to me that there would be some level of unrest, and some level of antagonism towards liberal immigration policies.

Maybe the Spanish are cool with every thing because they take siestas.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I think you can draw a parallel to the people who keep insisting that the American Civil War was all about states' rights and had nothing to do with slavery.

It wasn't all about States rights. But at the core, that was the KEY issue that the other major issues, such as slavery, revolved around. There was a line to be crossed between the few and defined powers of the Federal Government, and the broad and general powers held by the Several States. The fight over where that line was, ultimately, led to the war itself. And it's legacy is part of the reason for the breakdown in our checks and balances system, a Federal Government that has a bad habit of overreach, and the continued racial divide in the United States.

sebster wrote:
As we've seen the various populist/racists that have been popular in various first world democracies in the last few years, I'm starting to wonder if xenophobia isn't the primary element. Maybe it is more just about simple solutions for complex problems, and particularly about simple solutions that flatter the voting base. Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.

The people blame the Establishment because the Establishment is a part of the problem. A big part. You are correct that the voting public has to take some responsibility, due to their participation in the body politic. But to absolve the Establishment of any blame is A: Putting too much faith and trust in the political and financial establishments, to the point of naivete. And B: To fall for the Establishment's "party line" that anybody who opposes the spun narrative is a "racist" or a "xenophobe", even directed at those with legitimate concerns about such policies and their effects on their homelands and lives.


Sooner or later, some among the "sheeple" will get tired of it, and stop falling for the bull spoon fed to them by vote-hungry, money-hungry politicos and fat cats, and their agenda ridden useful idiots. Others among the "flock" will get desperate and grab on to any politician smart enough to play on concerns (legitimate or otherwise), while offering no real solutions. I fall into the first category. And understanding the historically proven fact that politics is just another form of prostitution, that ALL politicians are driven by self-interests (money, influence, and power), and are inherent liars/silver tongued devils, doesn't convince with of anything else otherwise.

flamingkillamajig wrote:
When you see a hobo walking along the street and possibly asking for food or money do you help them? What about a person that has their car break down on the side of the road? How about something super simple like holding the door open for somebody carrying something heavy?

This is an interesting point. This also ties partly into my response to sebester above.


Any of the above, obviously, will be dictated by circumstance and personal experience.



Asking for a sandwich and a drink because they are hungry? I have done so, and will probably do so again. But I WILL be on my guard. Drug addicts have used this as a technique to get people to let their guard down, in order to mug them for dope money/valuables to pawn.


Asking for money? The answer is no. The most likely result is that the panhandler in question will take that money, and buy dope or booze. And I would be on my guard for potential belligerence or robbery.


Stopping to help somebody on the side of the road? Not likely, unless it's obviously a potential life or death situation (like a car wreck). This has been used as a set-up for insurance scams, robbery, or car jackings in the past.

Holding open the door for somebody? You bet. That's low risk and a whole different animal than the other examples you used above.


The same goes for politics, politicians, and my world view. You have to be on your guard for potential risks in daily life, and understand Human nature. That includes dealing with potential, and actual, scumbags who are a threat to your life and Liberty. That's not throwing around blame or being paranoid. That's just good caution and plain, old fashioned common sense. Trust has to be EARNED. Human beings are not inherently good or trustworthy. We are all allowed the benefit of the doubt to prove trustworthiness and earn it. How hard you have to work at it is going to vary, depending on who you are and the current situation in society.


Politicians and the political/economic establishment, in my view, haven't done that. In fact, I was once naive enough to believe that some politicians could be trusted. But I got older and wiser. They are among the actual scumbags who, if were held to the same standards as the rest of us, would be sitting in prison. It's been that way every since the first caveman started politicking among the tribe to support him when he bashes the current chieftain in the head, and takes power. And I am cynical enough to believe it will always be this way.


Politics is a game where the stakes is your future. And the players don't have your best interests or the public's at heart. They are out to win the prize for themselves. It's up to us to watch our own backs, defend our nation and it's future, and take a stand, even if it's not popular among the suckers who still buy into the BS spun by the Establishment.

 jasper76 wrote:
Maybe the Spanish are cool with every thing because they take siestas.

We revolt at the beginning of the crisis. We had the change at our hands when the 15-M movement took place and last for weeks... but then from that movement two Political parties emerged to "solve" the unrest in the people (Podemos, leftist populist, and Ciudadanos, a Political party without principles, only maintaining the status quo, but they sell itself as "center-economical liberal") so basically two new faces to absorb the unrest both from the right and from the left, and here are we now.

With a government that need 2 elections to form government, with political parties that can't do nothing more than just dance to Bruselas flute and steal public money, and 18,4% of Unemployment, with a 55% of young unemployment. (And don't let that number trick you, we have more than a 18,4% of people unemployed, they just stop registring themselves in the social welfare)

But all of this is, sadly, offtopic


PD: The siestas are a thing from the south! We don't take siestas in other parts of the country! (Ok, maybe somedays if you eat to much...or if you sleep bad... or... ok, many people take a nap after the midday... but they are very healty! I'm sure... )

This double election system is interesting, I doubt Trump would have been elected had this system been in place in the US. Even those Democrats that despised Hillary would probably have come out in force at the second round of voting once they saw how close the difference was (depending on their State).

I suppose it's a decent alternative to compulsory voting.

I sort of like it as well. And it would allow third parties to have a change too.

 jasper76 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Some of those simple solutions happen to be pretty damn racist, but lots of other simple solutions like blaming the finance and 'establishment politics' aren't racist but are just as popular.

I think people who look for simple solutions/explanations to complex problems end up prone to such. No one but God can judge anyone by their head space, and when presented with the distinction between "actual racist/xenophobe/bigot" and "person who says lots of racist/xenophbic/bigoted gak" I just fail to see why I should care to notice that a distinction might exist. It's such a paper thin difference, and practically they lead to racist/xenophobic/bigoted gak happening whether the person saying it earnestly believes it or not.

It's the kind of detail that matters in an autobiography, not an election.

True but if people feel like no ones litioning, nothing being done they tend to go with the irrational solutions over the more sensible voices at times.

Interesting point. I just looked up the French unemployment rate, and it's at 9.6%. Relative to the US, UK, and Germany, this is abysmal...more than double. So just on the economy alone, I can see why affected people are inclined to abandon the existing institutions, even if the alternatives are problematic. If these institutions were effective, it's likely Le Pen would not have gained whatever level of support that she has, because why rebel against a system that is working?

It's also no wonder that anti-immigration politics would gain support when there is not enough work to go around for the people who are already citizens.

When there's not ernough work for own citizens. Yeah. Taking in refugees, workers from outside country while in a normal economy with low unemployment is fine. At 9.6% that's not gonna go down well. Also youth unemployment can be higher and you got young people who want work. But can,t. They want change... They want a chance. If someone offers they may take it.
Its creating conditions for the outsiders to look like attractive ideas.

While Le Pen is not nice. And her parties statements at times offensive. She has a very real, very powerful well of support she drawing from that could be larger than meets the eye.

UK is at least half and people still struggle to fond work yet alone a near 1-10 ..