Politics and elections in France

[George S.]

Its about time that france
Did.

[Amphipolis]

Greece is an example of a country that emphasized national identity at the expense of economics.

Really? When and how did we do that?

Speaking of Greeks: the Greek left-wing communists that Macedonians partnered with in the Greek Civil War were essentially fighting against fascists who have generally been called right-wingers, or conservatives.

They communists also fought against the centre-anti-royalist parties. Before that (during the occupation), they had exterminated anarchists and trotskyists and also fought against right-wing resistance groups.

I do know that most Macedonians would be very skeptical and cautious about a Greek political party taking the same stances that this French political party is taking on certain matters.

I can't see why.

[Philosopher]

You don't seem like you understand.There's more to far-right ideology than just genocide."Measures to protect their identity"? Seriously?

Say what? What in the world are you saying?

You have a serious problem Dragan. Your intolerance of different political expressions is frankly scary.

After your conclusion that far-right is in fact far-left and that holocaust didn't happen,I won't even dare to ask you how you reached this fantastic conclusion.
Nevermind,I seriosly don't want to know.

I never wrote the holocaust never happened.

It is not a fantastic conclusion. It is grounded in fact.

Instead of dismissing the idea, why not do objective research on it?

You don't like Wikipedia? OK,fair enough.Try these links:

I understand. I asked for an original document from Hitler or the Nazi regime and you decided to point me to links that analyze the final solution—the very thing I specifically did not want.

I will ask again. Cite me an original document proving the final solution was the extermination of Jews.

Who's trying to dismantle French culture and everything French?Are you even listening to yourself?
I'm sorry,I thought this was the 21st century where all people should be treated equally and all the stereotypes and wrongdoings from our brutal past are exactly that – past?

What in the world are you talking about? 21st century? So if a sovereign state via a fair and free election adopts a platform to protect its identity is racist, bigoted, and genocidal? Oh, Dragan, you are so enlightened.

You talk like a real Nazi by the way,if one of us is a fascist it's definitely you.

You are the socialist (like Hitler) and you cannot tolerate political expressions of the “far-right”. I, on the other hand, do not post absurd topics on how the socialists have taken power in France (under Hollande) or any other country because I recognize the right of the people to elect whoever they want. And I'm a Nazi?

You have serious problems.

Macedonia and France are as different as fire and water,it's simply beyond comparison.Of course when you decide to move to a different country you follow their laws,ways and culture.You can't live in another country without learning the country's language and integrate in that society.This is not anything new.Le Pen and the National Front are only presenting foreigners as such in order to gain political points.Just like Hitler blamed the jews (among others) for the crisis of the 1920's in Germany to gain support.It's the oldest trick in the book.

Wow. You really are naive or just dishonest. In ethnic enclaves it is not uncommon for people to never learn the native language, or adopt native culture, but maintain their own language and traditions. I know plenty of such enclaves, and France has huge amounts of them from North Africa, Turkey, and the Middle East. Not too mention those Roma...

But again, I am asking for your thoughts. If Macedonia is overrun with Albanians and those Albanians have no interest in the name “Macedonia” or speaking “Macedonian”, and instead secede from Macedonia, what would you do?

You are so enlightened and all, so I'm most curious to read your thoughts.

Tell me how a "ban on automatic immigration rights to join a spouse or family member residing legally in France" will not affect Macedonians with relatives/partners in France?Or how a "reduction in legal immigration to France from the current 200,000 a year to 10,000" will not affect a Macedonian's chances of migrating to France?Or how "Priority to be given to French citizens over foreigners for jobs and for social housing" will not affect Macedonians seeking jobs and places to stay in France?Or how "Family benefits, including child support, to be only available to French families (or where at least one parent is French)" will not affect Macedonians living or intend to live in France?
And please,enlighten me how "Giving police greater power to tap phones and Internet communications" is not breaking essential rights of privacy of an individual,whether he/she be French or not?

Dragan, the Front National's platform is about protecting France from immigrants. It is not about pleasing immigrants, which includes Macedonians. Stop with this absurdity—do you even hear what you are saying? You want a foreign country to adopt policies to economically favor immigrants. This decision is up to the people of France. No one cares—and I of all people—cares what some ethnic Macedonian thinks on what policies France should adopt.

Your problem is that you do not like the fact that the French public should have the right to limit immigrants and citizenship. You want France to adopt a universalist socialist platform. Too bad Dragan. Who France allows into its country and becomes citizen is up to the French public, not foreigners. Learn to live with it.

Stop with this absurd entitlement mindset.

Moreover, I never said the police powers were good for France. I wrote such powers have nothing to do with the present conversation, that they are harmful, and they would harm all French people—not just immigrants.

[vicsinad]

Really? When and how did we do that?

You've seen the evidence on this forum about what Greece has done in the name of creating, and maintaining, a Greek national identity, and how it suppressed so-called "foreign" identities during that quest (Macedonian, Vlah, Albanian, etc.)...instead of focusing on an economic agenda that made sense, thus leading to the current state of Greece's laughable economy and terrible record on the rights of all its citizens, especially regarding ethnic Macedonians.

[vicsinad]

No one cares—and I of all people—cares what some ethnic Macedonian thinks on what policies France should adopt.

Huh. Apparently you do care what a certain ethnic Macedonian (Dragan) thinks about what policies France should adopt (based on your responses in this thread).

[Vangelovski]

You've seen the evidence on this forum about what Greece has done in the name of creating, and maintaining, a Greek national identity, and how it suppressed so-called "foreign" identities during that quest (Macedonian, Vlah, Albanian, etc.)...instead of focusing on an economic agenda that made sense, thus leading to the current state of Greece's laughable economy and terrible record on the rights of all its citizens, especially regarding ethnic Macedonians.

When I saw Apmphipolis' statement, it was just a WTF moment for me. I thought of responding, but the comment was so far beyond ridiculous, I felt it did not warrant a response and could in fact harm my cognitive abilities if I did respond.

[Philosopher]

Huh. Apparently you do care what a certain ethnic Macedonian (Dragan) thinks about what policies France should adopt (based on your responses in this thread).

Huh? I entered this discussion to point out that the article cited by Dragan was mistaken in that the author does not understand the difference between left-wing and right-wing politics and to point out that the public policy of France was up to the people of France.

[vicsinad]

Huh? I entered this discussion to point out that the article cited by Dragan was mistaken in that the author does not understand the difference between left-wing and right-wing politics and to point out that the public policy of France was up to the people of France.

Just some humor.

[Risto the Great]

Really? When and how did we do that?

I agree with you.
It didn't do that at all.
In fact, it created a national identity in the region to improve Greece's economics. Without the resources of Northern Greece, original Greece was a pile of unproductive rocks and olives.

But Greece does have an unhealthy fascination with playing with itself in terms of identity.

[vicsinad]

When I saw Apmphipolis' statement, it was just a WTF moment for me. I thought of responding, but the comment was so far beyond ridiculous, I felt it did not warrant a response and could in fact harm my cognitive abilities if I did respond.

Haha I admit, it made me re-read what I wrote a few times just in case I wrote that Greece had sacrificed its national identity for its economy.

[vicsinad]

I agree with you.
It didn't do that at all.
In fact, it created a national identity in the region to improve Greece's economics. Without the resources of Northern Greece, original Greece was a pile of unproductive rocks and olives.

But Greece does have an unhealthy fascination with playing with itself in terms of identity.

An excellent perspective.

[Vangelovski]

Like Vangelovski said,

Originally Posted by Vangelovski View Post
If they choose totalitarianism, then I think they will learn very quickly how wrong they were.

While I think totalitarianism is wrong, I'm not here to choose for them. I would, however, feel for freedom-loving Frenchmen that opposed totalitarianism from the outset and had it forced onto them by the majority.

Given that the thread has moved onto a debate about terminology and political concepts/ideologies, I thought I'd add to the conversation. As a tertiary-trained political scientist (with various sub-specialisations, including political philosophy) I have to say that I twinge when I hear people talk about left/centre/right political divisions and then append 'radical, extreme etc' to them. These labels really have no meaning to begin with and then people assign whatever meaning they like to them, making them even more meaningless. They are terms used by the media and laymen (no offence to anyone) to get a general point across about the political leanings of various groups in a very broad sense - and usually journalists get it very wrong.

Ideologies like Fascism, Nazism and Socialism have many sub-variations (Socialism probably the most) and can be hazy around the edges. There are naturally some specific differences between them, but at their core, they are very similar to each other. In all three, the state is central to political, social and economic organisation (even though the purpose of the state may differ). The nation (again, differently defined by each) is nonetheless assumed to be an amorphous mass without divisions and united in its purpose (except for the traitors, reactionaries etc) - which ultimately is to serve the state (and in practice, its leaders).

Individualism is of little to no consequence and individual human rights are considered a disease that rots away the collectivist organisation of society and ultimately the state. This means, those with opposing views on something that the official ideology has settled (usually everything under these systems) automatically become enemies of the people and by extension enemies of the state. Dissension is not tolerated. The individual is simply one "cell" of an "organic" whole and the state seeks to control every aspect of the individual in service of the "ultimate good" - the state.

[Tomche Makedonche]

...I have to say that I twinge when I hear people talk about left/centre/right political divisions and then append 'radical, extreme etc' to them. These labels really have no meaning to begin with and then people assign whatever meaning they like to them, making them even more meaningless. They are terms used by the media and laymen (no offence to anyone) to get a general point across about the political leanings of various groups in a very broad sense - and usually journalists get it very wrong.

I share the same view, and I feel that such labels are being ever more promoted these days, particularly by hate groups who seek to justify their poisonous ideologies as naturally occupying a legitimate space within a rational and oversimplified political spectrum.

[DraganOfStip]

Say what? What in the world are you saying?

I've been asking myself the very same question about your statements all along.

You have a serious problem Dragan. Your intolerance of different political expressions is frankly scary.

Historical events go in favor of my repulsiveness towards fascism.
If you're not a nazi like you say,you have nothing to worry about.

I never wrote the holocaust never happened.

It is not a fantastic conclusion. It is grounded in fact.

Instead of dismissing the idea, why not do objective research on it?

No thanks,I'm not very into conspiracy theories.

I understand. I asked for an original document from Hitler or the Nazi regime and you decided to point me to links that analyze the final solution—the very thing I specifically did not want.
I will ask again. Cite me an original document proving the final solution was the extermination of Jews.

Check out the Nuremberg trials and look into the evidence of the prosecution.There was this one event called the Wannsee Conference where the fate of the jews was finally sealed and which led to the extermination of 6 million jews not counting all the other "inadequate" and "non-Arian" groups.There is only one copy of papers from that conference (each for every person who attended,the other 29 were destroyed by the owners to cover all up) and it was used as evidence against the nazi regime during the subsequent Nuremberg trials.Look it up,it's not me who needs evidence,it's you.

What in the world are you talking about? 21st century? So if a sovereign state via a fair and free election adopts a platform to protect its identity is racist, bigoted, and genocidal? Oh, Dragan, you are so enlightened.

Spare me the sarcasm.
Every platform that puts one kind of people (in this case the ethnic French) above the others or favors them at the cost of the others is discriminatory,racist,bigoted or call it anyway you like.It's simply wrong.

You are the socialist (like Hitler) and you cannot tolerate political expressions of the “far-right”. I, on the other hand, do not post absurd topics on how the socialists have taken power in France (under Hollande) or any other country because I recognize the right of the people to elect whoever they want. And I'm a Nazi?
You have serious problems.

If one of us is like Hitler,it's definitely not me.
No one's making you to post anything.You don't have to.You decided to participate in this thread,no one made you do it.
And yes,by defending far-right ideology you become one by default.

Wow. You really are naive or just dishonest. In ethnic enclaves it is not uncommon for people to never learn the native language, or adopt native culture, but maintain their own language and traditions. I know plenty of such enclaves, and France has huge amounts of them from North Africa, Turkey, and the Middle East. Not too mention those Roma...

Not all immigrants live in enclaves man.Grow up.Most of them fully integrate in the country they live in.Look at all the Macedonians around the world.Australia,USA,Canada,Germany...They all speak the official language of the country and do not live in a ghetto.
By the way,the enclaves consisting of people from North Africa are made by people from the ex French colonies in North Africa which were ruled by France for hundreds of years.So I seriously doubt that French is an unknown language to them.

But again, I am asking for your thoughts. If Macedonia is overrun with Albanians and those Albanians have no interest in the name “Macedonia” or speaking “Macedonian”, and instead secede from Macedonia, what would you do?
You are so enlightened and all, so I'm most curious to read your thoughts.

Are you suggesting that France is being overrun by immigrants who have no interest in the name "France" and speaking French and come there with the intent to secede?
That's exactly the kind of paranoia far-right parties are spreading to gain political points.Old school stuff.Somewhere in the lake of fire,Goebels is proud.

Dragan, the Front National's platform is about protecting France from immigrants. It is not about pleasing immigrants, which includes Macedonians. Stop with this absurdity—do you even hear what you are saying? You want a foreign country to adopt policies to economically favor immigrants.

No one said anything about favoring immigrants,what on earth?
Whoever is in power needs to provide EQUAL support and rights for all of it's citizens.Whether they are French,Arab,North African,Macedonian,protestant,catholic,orthodox,mu slim,hebrew,white,black,gay,straight...Divisions are a thing of the past.France is a country to all of it's citizens,just like any other.Favoring one group of it's citizens at the cost of the rest is simply wrong,whether you agree or not.

Moreover, I never said the police powers were good for France. I wrote such powers have nothing to do with the present conversation, that they are harmful, and they would harm all French people—not just immigrants.

Did I deny that?Tapping phones and tracking your internet activities is a violation of a person's right to privacy,French or not.It's a characteristic of a totalitarian regime.Would you like your government to have the authority to spy on you 24/7?This is not a matter of immigrants or French people,it's included in a party program of a political party that you seem to like and justify.

[Philosopher]

While I think totalitarianism is wrong, I'm not here to choose for them. I would, however, feel for freedom-loving Frenchmen that opposed totalitarianism from the outset and had it forced onto them by the majority.

Given that the thread has moved onto a debate about terminology and political concepts/ideologies, I thought I'd add to the conversation. As a tertiary-trained political scientist (with various sub-specialisations, including political philosophy) I have to say that I twinge when I hear people talk about left/centre/right political divisions and then append 'radical, extreme etc' to them. These labels really have no meaning to begin with and then people assign whatever meaning they like to them, making them even more meaningless. They are terms used by the media and laymen (no offence to anyone) to get a general point across about the political leanings of various groups in a very broad sense - and usually journalists get it very wrong.

Ideologies like Fascism, Nazism and Socialism have many sub-variations (Socialism probably the most) and can be hazy around the edges. There are naturally some specific differences between them, but at their core, they are very similar to each other. In all three, the state is central to political, social and economic organisation (even though the purpose of the state may differ). The nation (again, differently defined by each) is nonetheless assumed to be an amorphous mass without divisions and united in its purpose (except for the traitors, reactionaries etc) - which ultimately is to serve the state (and in practice, its leaders).

Individualism is of little to no consequence and individual human rights are considered a disease that rots away the collectivist organisation of society and ultimately the state. This means, those with opposing views on something that the official ideology has settled (usually everything under these systems) automatically become enemies of the people and by extension enemies of the state. Dissension is not tolerated. The individual is simply one "cell" of an "organic" whole and the state seeks to control every aspect of the individual in service of the "ultimate good" - the state.

Very well reasoned and very well put Vangelovski. Very astute analysis.

I would only add a few things, however. Within each of these ideologies is the strong notion of entitlement.

People who advocate or live in anyone of these ideologies (national socialism, fascism, communism) all believe they are entitled to government largess.

Second, the phrase "national socialism" is preferable to Nazism because Nazism is not a correct political term.

Third, there is a strong and very hostile voice of intolerance and political correctness, often coupled with social justice themes and forceful (government coercion) of equality.