Le Pen "lost in France"

[badger2]

Le Pen's economic policies are pure socialism. Le Pen's only "right-wing" policy is on immigration.

Le Pen is simply a socialist.

.

Your problem is to evoke right wing policies linked to socialism as being Le Penesque. One must further do the work of discerning the differences between democratic socialism vs other types of socialism (ex., national).

 

[badger2]

French reporter returning from Ukraine says Americans are in charge of the war:

2022 Ap 11 French Reported Returning from Ukraine Says Americans "In Charge" of the War

French Reporter Returning From Ukraine Says Americans Are 'In Charge' of The War

Americans are directly 'in charge' of the war in Ukraine, according to Le Figaro senior international correspondent Georges Malbrunot

www.informationliberation.com

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Lots of support for Le Pen from the putin apologists on this board.

 

[badger2]

Lots of support for Le Pen from the putin apologists on this board.

At least badger found the origin of the swastika in Ukraine and TT did not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am aware that we have been fortunate in not as yet having a sizeable far right party. It has been growing in England but up until now, being proud of not being part of that in the 40's has been sufficient for it not to become mainstream.

Corbyn supported Brexit firstly or did he ..... he had supported it at the last vote going with Tony Benn and particularly on the issue of democracy. I heard he did change his view when Yanis Varoufakis of Diem 25 had a chat with him and he was led to believe he had something to offer and that workers rights in the UK were likely to suffer enormously if we came out.. He supported Brexit after the vote because that was what people had voted for.

The thing about Arabs, Blacks and in the UK even East Europeans is the same as France. I can only go by what I know. I know that the person I mentioned genuinely did not think Le Pen was far right. I believe there has been a massive increase in the far right and they are affiliated to Le Pen.....and what I am reading and hearing right now says it could go either way....but I am not talking about the same thing as you. I do not see the problem as people moving to the far right. I see the problem as people rejecting their political systems. France has totally rejected both its old Left and its old Right wing parties. They are as good as gone. What they are left with is Macron who the left and more were wearing yellow vests and marching against or they have le Pen who is coming over as the most socialist.

The main problem is the rejection of the political system and in that England and Wales did vote for Brexit and at the very same time they did at least for a time become much more far right. 9I have not been able to keep up with this for some time) I am arguing this happened because the normal political system has been rejected. Scotland also has rejected the old political system but with them, they moved towards Independence and the far right have never as yet had any foothold here. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. France and the UK in this way have the same issue and France has it worse than England. It may well happen that they vote in LePen particularly because they like her economic policies.

I don't think the far right, at least the white version of it, hasn't been growing. Under Griffin the party took off because, like Le Pen, he was able to convince some rather ignorant people, that his party wasn't racist. The problem with the BNP was that they simply couldn't do the job they were elected to do, like Burnley, and so people stopped voting for them, and then the knuckle draggers in the party decided to kick Griffin out because he tried to stop them being overtly racist.

Corbyn is an ideological man. His ideology is first and everything fits over that. He was opposed to Brexit because of his ideology. He opposes the international order of things, like the US controlling everything. Ironic really because it pushes the US closer to the USA.... But then like I said, ideology clouds Corbyn's mind. Lots in Labour are like this.

Yes, people reject the political systems, to an extent. In the US the main two parties have massive control over the political system and people who have tried to reject the mainstream parties have, ironically (word of the day) tried to use the mainstream party to do it, like the Tea Party.

In the UK it's pure FPTP which has made it really difficult for smaller parties (UKIP got the same 12.6% of the vote in 2015 as the AfD got in Germany in 2017, yet UKIP got one seat and the AfD got 90 seats because the systems said so). In France they have AV type of vote, you vote once and then see who has finished first and second then vote again for one of two, like in the Presidential vote and the Assembly.

It allows more freedom of voting. It's not that people are overtly going against traditional parties, it's that the system allows them to do it, as opposed to the UK and US.

Thing is it probably doesn't matter that much. The politicians are still the same. Imagine in the UK if they had this type of vote then maybe there'd be more parties, a New Labour type party, centre left, a Corbyn socialist type left party, a Green party, a centre right, traditional right, further right.

In Germany with PR this is what you get. You don't need to win 50% of the seats any more, you win what you win and you can still have a say. So people's ideologies become the basis for their party rather than "winning" being the main goal.

In France the system allows for a bit of both. It allows people more of a say, allows them the chance to vote positively, for who they want. Then it gives the more popular parties more seats than they really should have. For example in 2017 the presidential majority got 32.33% of the votes in the first round, 49.11% of the votes in the second round but 60.66% of the seats.... as if that's democracy.

So, it's easier for the traditional parties to die out, but easy for some parties to end up with more seats than they should.

 

[alexa]

I don't think the far right, at least the white version of it, hasn't been growing. Under Griffin the party took off because, like Le Pen, he was able to convince some rather ignorant people, that his party wasn't racist. The problem with the BNP was that they simply couldn't do the job they were elected to do, like Burnley, and so people stopped voting for them, and then the knuckle draggers in the party decided to kick Griffin out because he tried to stop them being overtly racist.

Corbyn is an ideological man. His ideology is first and everything fits over that. He was opposed to Brexit because of his ideology. He opposes the international order of things, like the US controlling everything. Ironic really because it pushes the US closer to the USA.... But then like I said, ideology clouds Corbyn's mind. Lots in Labour are like this.

Yes, people reject the political systems, to an extent. In the US the main two parties have massive control over the political system and people who have tried to reject the mainstream parties have, ironically (word of the day) tried to use the mainstream party to do it, like the Tea Party.

In the UK it's pure FPTP which has made it really difficult for smaller parties (UKIP got the same 12.6% of the vote in 2015 as the AfD got in Germany in 2017, yet UKIP got one seat and the AfD got 90 seats because the systems said so). In France they have AV type of vote, you vote once and then see who has finished first and second then vote again for one of two, like in the Presidential vote and the Assembly.

It allows more freedom of voting. It's not that people are overtly going against traditional parties, it's that the system allows them to do it, as opposed to the UK and US.

Thing is it probably doesn't matter that much. The politicians are still the same. Imagine in the UK if they had this type of vote then maybe there'd be more parties, a New Labour type party, centre left, a Corbyn socialist type left party, a Green party, a centre right, traditional right, further right.

In Germany with PR this is what you get. You don't need to win 50% of the seats any more, you win what you win and you can still have a say. So people's ideologies become the basis for their party rather than "winning" being the main goal.

In France the system allows for a bit of both. It allows people more of a say, allows them the chance to vote positively, for who they want. Then it gives the more popular parties more seats than they really should have. For example in 2017 the presidential majority got 32.33% of the votes in the first round, 49.11% of the votes in the second round but 60.66% of the seats.... as if that's democracy.

So, it's easier for the traditional parties to die out, but easy for some parties to end up with more seats than they should.

BNP in UK was killed years ago. Many of them moved over to Farage's groups. Griffin was in trouble for trying to go by British law which was against BNP desires. It is an old dead machine taken over by those pretending to not be that way.

You believe ideology clouds people's minds. What do you believe people should work by? The problem is that people reject the political systems - for good reason. They only work for the few and more and more so. Saving the planet could change this. However what we have is a repeat of the situation we had in the 1940's. Capitalism is not working - that one usually means war, total world war so that capitalism has a clean board and can start again. This time it carries the kick of the end of the world. The situation allows for Governments and Corporations to work together like in the 30's and that leads to fascism and is known to work towards fascism. This has been going on now since Thatcher Regan changed the situation and allowed Monopolies in again. Something which those who experienced WW2 would not allow. The people are right not to trust the political system. Macron brings more of the old and then in France there is only Le Pen and Melenchon and here again you have the usual at this time. The left which would work for the people and fascism, ethnic nationalism, usually misogyny, hatred of LGBT, and especially strong hatred of the left. Corbyn was the UK version of the genuine left. Everyone else ganged up against him. All the political parties - that includes his own. The one thing they could not take was a genuinely left politician running a Party. It appears this time it is a battle between the bankers and the hedge funders. Both of them know society is on a steeply downward turn. The difference is that the Hedge Funders do not give a care for the people. They are happy for a 'race to the bottom'. The bankers however hold onto some belief in equal rights and so on but they are really talking in mid air. We look set for total destruction. The only thing which just might save us is the need for change due to the climate emergency.

 

[NoNukes]

Europa is going to die, more as 95% of modern Europeans are brainwashed morons

Says a brainwashed American moron. Life in Europe is far superior to life in the US.

 

[frigidweirdo]

BNP in UK was killed years ago. Many of them moved over to Farage's groups. Griffin was in trouble for trying to go by British law which was against BNP desires. It is an old dead machine taken over by those pretending to not be that way.

You believe ideology clouds people's minds. What do you believe people should work by? The problem is that people reject the political systems - for good reason. They only work for the few and more and more so. Saving the planet could change this. However what we have is a repeat of the situation we had in the 1940's. Capitalism is not working - that one usually means war, total world war so that capitalism has a clean board and can start again. This time it carries the kick of the end of the world. The situation allows for Governments and Corporations to work together like in the 30's and that leads to fascism and is known to work towards fascism. This has been going on now since Thatcher Regan changed the situation and allowed Monopolies in again. Something which those who experienced WW2 would not allow. The people are right not to trust the political system. Macron brings more of the old and then in France there is only Le Pen and Melenchon and here again you have the usual at this time. The left which would work for the people and fascism, ethnic nationalism, usually misogyny, hatred of LGBT, and especially strong hatred of the left. Corbyn was the UK version of the genuine left. Everyone else ganged up against him. All the political parties - that includes his own. The one thing they could not take was a genuinely left politician running a Party. It appears this time it is a battle between the bankers and the hedge funders. Both of them know society is on a steeply downward turn. The difference is that the Hedge Funders do not give a care for the people. They are happy for a 'race to the bottom'. The bankers however hold onto some belief in equal rights and so on but they are really talking in mid air. We look set for total destruction. The only thing which just might save us is the need for change due to the climate emergency.

Yes, ideology clouds people's minds.

Let's look at Corbyn.

He was leader of the Labour Party. And yet he would come out in support of the Palestinians. Which led the Jews of the UK to attack him for being anti-Jewish which helped to destroy him as Labour leader. Why did he need to even talk about Palestine? Nothing to do with being Labour leader. His ideology got in the way of his goals.

People should look at things and see how they really function. I once got into an argument with a Labour member who was telling me how great Stalin was. Er.... what? Rather than seeing the positive and negatives of Stalin, no, Stalin was just great. Franco, rather than seeing the positives and negatives, was bad. Simple because one was right wing and the other left wing.

Capitalism isn't working (depending on your view of "working" I guess), but humans are humans. Humans are selfish, they want stuff, some want power, people want easy lives. We have the easiest lives ever in the history of mankind with capitalism. Some people fall by the wayside, it's inevitable for this to happen in capitalism.

In a Socialist society people might have a home and they might get certain things (I mean, people can get this stuff in the UK) but if people don't have the desire to work hard, then productivity drops and there's less stuff to go around in the first place. (until the robots take over, at least)

Corbyn was "the true left" or whatever you want to call him. He was a Socialist. Socialism could work, but Corbyn couldn't even run the Labour Party properly, he didn't get elected as PM, let alone run the UK. People have certain fears of Socialism where productivity is in the hands of the state. And rightly so.

British Rail. I mean, not good. The British government trying to run a railway service and it simple wasn't very good. And I mean that in terms of people who used British Rail.

New data shows passenger numbers on UK's trains plummet to 1872 levels

Just 388 million journeys were made in the last 12 months to the end of March as the coronavirus pandemic saw demand for travel collapse - compared to the 1.7billion passenger trips made in 2019-20.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Here's a chart showing that by 1982 passenger numbers were low, and then you see the rise as private rail companies too over.

The British car industry (what British car industry?) was helped to its grave by subsidizing the industry to be inefficient. And when the subsidies were taken away, most companies died.

That's not me saying Socialism could work. But it couldn't work in the UK right now. Corbyn didn't seem to have a plan to make it work and make it function at the top of its potential. He just sees things as "this is fair, let's do that" like Hugo Chavez did. Didn't work.

And yes, people "ganged up on him", I mean, that's politics. He couldn't work within those constraints or try and get rid of those constraints. He didn't have the answer to sway those people who simply do not want Socialism.

 

[alexa]

Yes, ideology clouds people's minds.

Let's look at Corbyn.

He was leader of the Labour Party. And yet he would come out in support of the Palestinians. Which led the Jews of the UK to attack him for being anti-Jewish which helped to destroy him as Labour leader. Why did he need to even talk about Palestine? Nothing to do with being Labour leader. His ideology got in the way of his goals.

People should look at things and see how they really function. I once got into an argument with a Labour member who was telling me how great Stalin was. Er.... what? Rather than seeing the positive and negatives of Stalin, no, Stalin was just great. Franco, rather than seeing the positives and negatives, was bad. Simple because one was right wing and the other left wing.

Capitalism isn't working (depending on your view of "working" I guess), but humans are humans. Humans are selfish, they want stuff, some want power, people want easy lives. We have the easiest lives ever in the history of mankind with capitalism. Some people fall by the wayside, it's inevitable for this to happen in capitalism.

In a Socialist society people might have a home and they might get certain things (I mean, people can get this stuff in the UK) but if people don't have the desire to work hard, then productivity drops and there's less stuff to go around in the first place. (until the robots take over, at least)

Corbyn was "the true left" or whatever you want to call him. He was a Socialist. Socialism could work, but Corbyn couldn't even run the Labour Party properly, he didn't get elected as PM, let alone run the UK. People have certain fears of Socialism where productivity is in the hands of the state. And rightly so.

British Rail. I mean, not good. The British government trying to run a railway service and it simple wasn't very good. And I mean that in terms of people who used British Rail.

New data shows passenger numbers on UK's trains plummet to 1872 levels

Just 388 million journeys were made in the last 12 months to the end of March as the coronavirus pandemic saw demand for travel collapse - compared to the 1.7billion passenger trips made in 2019-20.

www.dailymail.co.uk

View attachment 629942

Here's a chart showing that by 1982 passenger numbers were low, and then you see the rise as private rail companies too over.

The British car industry (what British car industry?) was helped to its grave by subsidizing the industry to be inefficient. And when the subsidies were taken away, most companies died.

That's not me saying Socialism could work. But it couldn't work in the UK right now. Corbyn didn't seem to have a plan to make it work and make it function at the top of its potential. He just sees things as "this is fair, let's do that" like Hugo Chavez did. Didn't work.

And yes, people "ganged up on him", I mean, that's politics. He couldn't work within those constraints or try and get rid of those constraints. He didn't have the answer to sway those people who simply do not want Socialism.

You ever heard of people having values? No one ever said Corbyn was a good leader. Now there you would be better following Starmer who is not a good leader either but an acceptable one because he knows what he has to say and changes his mind and says it. Frankly the worse I have ever seen. Supporting the Palestinians is a value thing. Do you believe in colonisation and Apartheid, then support the actions of Israel. If you believe all human beings deserve the same rights, fight for the Palestinians. It is just about values and pretty much everything you do or say has a value attached. What I have recently been finding interesting is that Russia offers just about the same line as Israel for its actions. The West hammers Russia for them but does not say a word against israel. Seriously either Putin wrote the Israeli score or Bennet handed it to Putin when he first visited.

I am sorry you believe that humans must be selfish. It almost certainly is true that altruism makes one feel the best about oneself. Should we be saying altruism is the most selfish? I have heard that argued. You must remember that we had a far more fair society in the 60's and 70's. If it could be done then, why now now. If it isn't done now we will not survive. Does your selfishism not respond to wanting to save the life of your children? We are supposedly a democratic society but we did not bring democracy to the workplace.

Corbyn has a Jewish electorate. The Labour Party itself were the first to bring up this Criticism of Israel is antisemitism racket. It then became a right wing Jewish thing too. Obviously ordinary Jewish people hearing about this and not knowing anything about it became scared. I hear left wing Jews are all being thrown out of the Labour Party for being 'antisemetic'. I read they are not 'real Jews;. I am sorry if you are a Labour member that you did not support your leader and help the party get into government. Why not just vote Tory. It is simpler. I have no interest in turning this into a Corbyn Israeli thread.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

At least badger found the origin of the swastika in Ukraine and TT did not.

Good for you.Le Pen is still going to lose despite your grubby antics.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You ever heard of people having values? No one ever said Corbyn was a good leader. Now there you would be better following Starmer who is not a good leader either but an acceptable one because he knows what he has to say and changes his mind and says it. Frankly the worse I have ever seen. Supporting the Palestinians is a value thing. Do you believe in colonisation and Apartheid, then support the actions of Israel. If you believe all human beings deserve the same rights, fight for the Palestinians. It is just about values and pretty much everything you do or say has a value attached. What I have recently been finding interesting is that Russia offers just about the same line as Israel for its actions. The West hammers Russia for them but does not say a word against israel. Seriously either Putin wrote the Israeli score or Bennet handed it to Putin when he first visited.

I am sorry you believe that humans must be selfish. It almost certainly is true that altruism makes one feel the best about oneself. Should we be saying altruism is the most selfish? I have heard that argued. You must remember that we had a far more fair society in the 60's and 70's. If it could be done then, why now now. If it isn't done now we will not survive. Does your selfishism not respond to wanting to save the life of your children? We are supposedly a democratic society but we did not bring democracy to the workplace.

Corbyn has a Jewish electorate. The Labour Party itself were the first to bring up this Criticism of Israel is antisemitism racket. It then became a right wing Jewish thing too. Obviously ordinary Jewish people hearing about this and not knowing anything about it became scared. I hear left wing Jews are all being thrown out of the Labour Party for being 'antisemetic'. I read they are not 'real Jews;. I am sorry if you are a Labour member that you did not support your leader and help the party get into government. Why not just vote Tory. It is simpler. I have no interest in turning this into a Corbyn Israeli thread.

Having values is one thing. Having ideology is something else. Ideology will swipe aside values at the drop of a hat to make sure the ideology fits.

How can you support Palestine against Israel and keep your values?

Both sides (usually the right wing of both sides) are as bad as each other. The Arabs literally call for the death of Israel and would wipe out Jews without a thought. Where are the values there?

The 60s and 70s were "fairer" because people had less. Not because people were better. You get two homeless people without a bag to shit in between then, they're going to be comparatively "fair". Doesn't mean people aren't better off in general nowadays, even the poor ones.

I understand what the whole "anti-Semitism" thing was, it was clearly aided by the Israeli embassy in London. However that Corbyn simply couldn't deal with it, always said the wrong thing, let his ideology get in the way of what needed to be done. One of the reasons Boris is so "successful" (in an evil way) is that he understands people. He knows most people don't care about facts, statistics and the like. He gets down to their basic level and realizes he can get away with a hell of a lot. Corbyn tried to be self righteous and even failed at that.

 

[alexa]

i

Having values is one thing. Having ideology is something else. Ideology will swipe aside values at the drop of a hat to make sure the ideology fits.

How can you support Palestine against Israel and keep your values?

Both sides (usually the right wing of both sides) are as bad as each other. The Arabs literally call for the death of Israel and would wipe out Jews without a thought. Where are the values there?

The 60s and 70s were "fairer" because people had less. Not because people were better. You get two homeless people without a bag to shit in between then, they're going to be comparatively "fair". Doesn't mean people aren't better off in general nowadays, even the poor ones.

I understand what the whole "anti-Semitism" thing was, it was clearly aided by the Israeli embassy in London. However that Corbyn simply couldn't deal with it, always said the wrong thing, let his ideology get in the way of what needed to be done. One of the reasons Boris is so "successful" (in an evil way) is that he understands people. He knows most people don't care about facts, statistics and the like. He gets down to their basic level and realizes he can get away with a hell of a lot. Corbyn tried to be self righteous and even failed at that.

Corbyn has always come over to me as a man of principles as a man of values. In other words whether you like his position or not a man of integrity something which we used to expect of Politicians when I was young but you would have a hard time finding now. I agree he dealt poorly with the accusations that the party was antisemetic. Research in reality showed that it had become less antisemetic since he became leader. He seemed not to want to hurt Jewish feelings and did not realise sometimes you just have to say no. Other people have suggested he was just so hurt that he was being accused of being antisemitic/racist, possibly the thing which had worked hardest against in his life.....on that you are right. He made a right good mess of that and handed it to the hard right on a plate.

It isn't a case of supporting Palestinians against Israel as in everything and even the Palestinians are not wanting that. That may be what Israel says it is but that really is not what anyone I have ever heard of believes in. It is simply about the Palestinians having rights very similar to what is going on in Ukraine is about the Ukrainians having rights. Israel currently is a hard right country. It gets on with Hungary even though Hungary a few years ago put up a monument to the man who arranged for Hungary's Jews to go to the Gas Chambers. Not all Jews support what Israel does. Jews like every other group of people have different viewpoints. In fact left wing viewpoints which Israel cannot stand are far closer to traditional Jewish thinking than the hard right views they currently espouse. Your thing about arabs wanting the death of Israel. Probably just talk. They do get into liking to thump their chests. Anthony Lerman an Jew and expert in antisemitism did some research on arab antisemitism. He found it to be very much about the unfairness of Israel and very little about Jewish ethnicity. An example of this when the 2 state solution first came up and people believed a satisfactory outcome was going to come, their antisemitsm almost disappeared. You are also right about the Israeli Embassy helping sending in one of its members who had previously worked on stopping basically criticism of Israel getting the job of director of the refound Labour Jewish Movement which was set up decades ago and had gone out of use decades ago.

I would say the 60's and 70's were better because the parties were paid for by the voters and therefore answered their voters. Most people had some political awareness and pretty much everyone's standard of living was getting better.

I mentioned Corbyn because we are now at the time when politics is flipping and there will again be the question of where we land. A genuine left which would be democratic socialism or the hard right probably dressed as someone else. Could even be labour and the Tories agreeing to it. The way in which they got rid of Corbyn and Starmer despite his promises also getting rid of the left in labour I think we can be quite sure in the UK it is going to be the hard right who win. (social democracy was our political position in the 60's and 70's)

 

[frigidweirdo]

i

Corbyn has always come over to me as a man of principles as a man of values. In other words whether you like his position or not a man of integrity something which we used to expect of Politicians when I was young but you would have a hard time finding now. I agree he dealt poorly with the accusations that the party was antisemetic. Research in reality showed that it had become less antisemetic since he became leader. He seemed not to want to hurt Jewish feelings and did not realise sometimes you just have to say no. Other people have suggested he was just so hurt that he was being accused of being antisemitic/racist, possibly the thing which had worked hardest against in his life.....on that you are right. He made a right good mess of that and handed it to the hard right on a plate.

It isn't a case of supporting Palestinians against Israel as in everything and even the Palestinians are not wanting that. That may be what Israel says it is but that really is not what anyone I have ever heard of believes in. It is simply about the Palestinians having rights very similar to what is going on in Ukraine is about the Ukrainians having rights. Israel currently is a hard right country. It gets on with Hungary even though Hungary a few years ago put up a monument to the man who arranged for Hungary's Jews to go to the Gas Chambers. Not all Jews support what Israel does. Jews like every other group of people have different viewpoints. In fact left wing viewpoints which Israel cannot stand are far closer to traditional Jewish thinking than the hard right views they currently espouse. Your thing about arabs wanting the death of Israel. Probably just talk. They do get into liking to thump their chests. Anthony Lerman an Jew and expert in antisemitism did some research on arab antisemitism. He found it to be very much about the unfairness of Israel and very little about Jewish ethnicity. An example of this when the 2 state solution first came up and people believed a satisfactory outcome was going to come, their antisemitsm almost disappeared. You are also right about the Israeli Embassy helping sending in one of its members who had previously worked on stopping basically criticism of Israel getting the job of director of the refound Labour Jewish Movement which was set up decades ago and had gone out of use decades ago.

I would say the 60's and 70's were better because the parties were paid for by the voters and therefore answered their voters. Most people had some political awareness and pretty much everyone's standard of living was getting better.

I mentioned Corbyn because we are now at the time when politics is flipping and there will again be the question of where we land. A genuine left which would be democratic socialism or the hard right probably dressed as someone else. Could even be labour and the Tories agreeing to it. The way in which they got rid of Corbyn and Starmer despite his promises also getting rid of the left in labour I think we can be quite sure in the UK it is going to be the hard right who win. (social democracy was our political position in the 60's and 70's)

Of course he comes across as a man of "principles" and "values". Because he probably thinks this is what makes him the politician he is.

That doesn't mean that this doesn't cloud his judgement, doesn't mean he won't stick to his "principles" no matter how wrong they are, either in terms of being correct and in terms of being the right thing at the right time.

The question of Israel is, why is Israel a hard right country? Because the hard right in Israel are no nonsense, they deal with the reality of the problem that all their neighbors would go out and kill all the Jews if they got the chance. We're seen it enough times.

We know the Palestinians, and other Arab countries, are willing to keep 5 million people in refugee camps in order to make a political statement. Yes, Israel kicked these people out, but there's a whole swathe of Muslim and Arab lands they could go to. But no, they keep them in the camps so they can get news. I mean, what?

Let's see how Corbyn reacts to these camps.

Corbyn receives award for supporting Palestinians amid Labour debate on BDS

Palestinian Forum in Britain awards former Labour leader its highest honour, weeks after Keir Starmer said party would not support BDS movement

www.middleeasteye.net

""The Palestinian people have suffered like no other in that they have been under occupation for many decades, and many are living in refugee camps ever since 1948 in different countries around the region, but particularly in Lebanon," said Corbyn. "

Why are they suffering? Occupation? As far as I can tell the Jews were willing to live side by side with the Muslims. The Muslims were the ones who turned away from the Jews. Either way, back to Corbyn.

"Jeremy Corbyn decries US funding cut for Palestinian refugees"

Wait, he wants the camps to KEEP GOING? I mean, what?

I'd say in the 1960s and 1970s politicians didn't listen to the people much at all. With FPTP and with the media totally controlled by the government, how much listening went on? Yes, the Labour Party was all about improving the conditions of the working people, and for a long time they had success with that. But when you have a rising middle class and when Labour is living in the 1920s, trying to solve the problems that existed before....

Look at Tony Blair. He put education, healthcare and things people actually care about at the top of his platform. People voted for that, because that's what people want.

I know Labour people who are like "we must listen to the people", they go out and talk to a few people and they're like "we've listened to the people, they want exactly what I was saying before". It's ridiculous. It's living in a fantasy world.

People are better off than ever before, and Labour are talking like people need Socialism because..... because.... well because there are some lazy bastards who want free money, free housing etc.

The real issues are about affordable housing based on people being productive, getting people to be productive, getting education to lead to productive people, a welfare system that works for productive people.

Instead they aim their politics at a direction MOST PEOPLE (the important part here), don't want.

Labour don't even go in for Proportional Representation. Take a look at the last election, the Lib Dems and Labour got like 1,000 votes less than the Tories, but combined they didn't get anywhere near the seats. But Labour's worried about losing their place near the top, their chance (however slim) to get into 10 Downing Street. Ever heard Corbyn talk about PR?

Corbyn's opposition to proportional representation and a progressive alliance is truly baffling | Evolve Politics

Until everyone on the left agrees to work together, it really doesn’t matter who leads and who follows, we'll still fall divided.

evolvepolitics.com

"Corbyn’s opposition to proportional representation and a progressive alliance is truly baffling"

I mean, when Corbyn is spelled "T-W-A-T" you know he's a problem.

Politics is flipping, but not in the UK. With FPTP, like in the US, it keeps the status quo much easier. Like the comparison between 90 seat AfD in Germany and 1 seat UKIP in the UK. With the same percentage of the votes.

 

[Toro]

i

Corbyn has always come over to me as a man of principles as a man of values. In other words whether you like his position or not a man of integrity something which we used to expect of Politicians when I was young but you would have a hard time finding now. I agree he dealt poorly with the accusations that the party was antisemetic. Research in reality showed that it had become less antisemetic since he became leader. He seemed not to want to hurt Jewish feelings and did not realise sometimes you just have to say no. Other people have suggested he was just so hurt that he was being accused of being antisemitic/racist, possibly the thing which had worked hardest against in his life.....on that you are right. He made a right good mess of that and handed it to the hard right on a plate.

It isn't a case of supporting Palestinians against Israel as in everything and even the Palestinians are not wanting that. That may be what Israel says it is but that really is not what anyone I have ever heard of believes in. It is simply about the Palestinians having rights very similar to what is going on in Ukraine is about the Ukrainians having rights. Israel currently is a hard right country. It gets on with Hungary even though Hungary a few years ago put up a monument to the man who arranged for Hungary's Jews to go to the Gas Chambers. Not all Jews support what Israel does. Jews like every other group of people have different viewpoints. In fact left wing viewpoints which Israel cannot stand are far closer to traditional Jewish thinking than the hard right views they currently espouse. Your thing about arabs wanting the death of Israel. Probably just talk. They do get into liking to thump their chests. Anthony Lerman an Jew and expert in antisemitism did some research on arab antisemitism. He found it to be very much about the unfairness of Israel and very little about Jewish ethnicity. An example of this when the 2 state solution first came up and people believed a satisfactory outcome was going to come, their antisemitsm almost disappeared. You are also right about the Israeli Embassy helping sending in one of its members who had previously worked on stopping basically criticism of Israel getting the job of director of the refound Labour Jewish Movement which was set up decades ago and had gone out of use decades ago.

I would say the 60's and 70's were better because the parties were paid for by the voters and therefore answered their voters. Most people had some political awareness and pretty much everyone's standard of living was getting better.

I mentioned Corbyn because we are now at the time when politics is flipping and there will again be the question of where we land. A genuine left which would be democratic socialism or the hard right probably dressed as someone else. Could even be labour and the Tories agreeing to it. The way in which they got rid of Corbyn and Starmer despite his promises also getting rid of the left in labour I think we can be quite sure in the UK it is going to be the hard right who win. (social democracy was our political position in the 60's and 70's)

Corbin is a d-bag

Everything else tl;dr

 

[alexa]

Le Pen is closing the vote. At the moment Macron 52.5% Le Pen 47.5%. What I find even more surprising is that 40% of Macron's vote is apparently the over 70's. So this is what people are calling France's Brexit or Trump time. I remember after the last election people were saying if Macron did not manage to get the French people to feel their government was working for them, it would be Le Pen this time and it appears Le Pen has done very well getting the Young People's votes. The young people who do not see her as Far Right.

 

[Dalia]

Don't worry, 'the winner' will be the one who is being supported by NWO and presstitutes

Baron, the merdias in France are all ready doing everything for the no good Macaroni to win sadly we will be stuck with the soft Macaroni we are all cooked in advance.
People here are pretty piss off with Macaroni now with will get the sauce on top of it a other 5 years of this asshole.

 

[Dalia]

There are 9 days left before the election and here in France it is not like in England or in the USA many parties will make the call to block MLP and the French as sheep will all go to the slaughterhouse.
Even though Macaroni is stinky ( Let them come and get me) and he offers to have 45 years of contributions for retirement.

 

[alexa]

was surprised just watching a program at how big Macron's lead is now. He apparently has 56% of those who have decided and Le Pen only 44%. I think they were talking about Islam today!

 

[alexa]

Of course he comes across as a man of "principles" and "values". Because he probably thinks this is what makes him the politician he is.

That doesn't mean that this doesn't cloud his judgement, doesn't mean he won't stick to his "principles" no matter how wrong they are, either in terms of being correct and in terms of being the right thing at the right time.

I have got a feeling you are either quite young or never got into the kind of thinking which was going on. Prior to 9/11 we lived in a very different world. Whereas now, people are fine calling other people 'evil', I do not think I had heard either a politician or anyone else use this word about another human being until 9/11. That was Bush followed by Blair.

We had gone through a psychological change. When my daughter then around 21 first heard of 9/11 she asked me 'what do they want'. I said I didn't know and she said 'well we are not going to be able to sort it out unless we find out what they want and see what we can do'. To a large extent she was talking about how people had been working with adversities. Yes, you would have Thatcher leaving the Hunger Strikers to die but the main understanding was that if you want to change something then you need to get to know the other, you need to treat them as a human being and then you needed to see if you could come to some sort of deal. Yes there was the right possibly more than I realised at the time but that was most certainly what I noticed - and noticed when it changed. Now, with all these little titbits about Corbyn. These are twists. These are taking things out of context and putting them into what sadly has been the new acceptance which is not just cold but one dimensional and does the opposite of how we were working before. It does not find out the reasons for why people are acting as they are. It calls whoever does not think the same way as yourself evil or a traitor and so on. When Corbyn was acting as he was we were anticipating a world with much less war. I remember Blair saying we were going to have to start looking for a different kind of soldier as they were unlikely to be involved in aggressive war and more likely to be peace keepers and so need different skills. I would say we were at a superior level of collective psychological awareness at that time.

The question of Israel is, why is Israel a hard right country? Because the hard right in Israel are no nonsense, they deal with the reality of the problem that all their neighbors would go out and kill all the Jews if they got the chance. We're seen it enough times.

We know the Palestinians, and other Arab countries, are willing to keep 5 million people in refugee camps in order to make a political statement. Yes, Israel kicked these people out, but there's a whole swathe of Muslim and Arab lands they could go to. But no, they keep them in the camps so they can get news. I mean, what?

Let's see how Corbyn reacts to these camps.

Corbyn receives award for supporting Palestinians amid Labour debate on BDS

Palestinian Forum in Britain awards former Labour leader its highest honour, weeks after Keir Starmer said party would not support BDS movement

www.middleeasteye.net

""The Palestinian people have suffered like no other in that they have been under occupation for many decades, and many are living in refugee camps ever since 1948 in different countries around the region, but particularly in Lebanon," said Corbyn. "

Why are they suffering? Occupation? As far as I can tell the Jews were willing to live side by side with the Muslims. The Muslims were the ones who turned away from the Jews. Either way, back to Corbyn.

I apologise for moving your bits around. I decided what I wrote before and this will need to do and was cutting and pasting and think things may have got out of order or even lost - not deliberate. What I am replying to is basically the bit that will be in normal quotes. OK


This is not an Israel/Palestine thread and so any response to that will be as limited as I can give, You seem to be giving some sort of well worn propaganda. It quite simply is not true. I think I am right in that Israel has started every war she has been in except for the first one. It may be told differently but that is how it is. If you even take Hamas. Every time Israel will have been provoking them before they respond. Usually killing many of them with air attacks., When Hamas responds Israel tells the world that Hamas has attacked her and so she must now attack the people of Gaza, again. They call it 'mowing the grass'.

I'd say they are hard right because they have people of that thinking and they have managed to hold the news. They create the psychological feeling in Israel and it is always on living in fear and when is the next war. They call their left Traitors. They call those who report military misdeeds traitors. In the 2014 war they were beating up people who were protesting and if they were Arab they were losing their jobs as well. They were on marches chanting 'Death to Arabs'. It is the mentality of the hard right and it gets worse and worse and, probably because they do not like being called traitor, most go along with it, They re write history and have learned if they do this eventually everyone starts believing it, This has been made easier because most of the people who were there when Israel was created are now dead. Prior to the 'two state solution' Israelis would see arabs a lot more. In the main they would be working around them and walking about the place. When you see people all the time and start talking to them they become human beings. You know what they are like and you do not want them harmed. The Palestinians lost that with the pretence that they were going to get their state. They ended up living behind a wall and barbed wire often without a job and a greatly decreased standard of living. Because the Israelis in general do not see them they forget they are human beings and just believe the propaganda. Funnily enough the thing that changed the situation of the Israelis and Palestinians the most was probably 9/11. Netanyhu is on tape saying it will be good for Israel and he was right. Israel was probably the only country which benefited from 9.11, Prior to 9/11 the UK Labour Party were blaming the US and Israel for not having got the 2 states going. They were saying that they were going to push the US so that it had words with Israel and the 2 states happened. Then came 9/11, Everything changed. Not least the UK found out why the US was not pushing for the two states. They were not pushing for it because the idea of the Palestinians having a State was more than a section of the US which itself is very far right could cope with. The Christian Zionists. Netanyhu has been in talks with a prominent group of them since. Now the Palestinians instead of being people who had been thrown off their lands and had now accepted that there was nothing they could do about that but wanted a viable congruous state on the 22% of their ancient land which they still had, they were equated with ISIS. The far right of Israel and of evangelical Christians have been working together since to try and get the situation the bible says is there so that they can go into Rapture. Most of the Jews will die at this time unless they quickly move to this form of Christianity. The Israeli leaders know this but believe they can avoid it,. In this day and age that is what is going on in this world. If was defo better when we openly looked at what was happening.

There is an Israel/Palestine forum if you want to discuss that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have got a feeling you are either quite young or never got into the kind of thinking which was going on. Prior to 9/11 we lived in a very different world. Whereas now, people are fine calling other people 'evil', I do not think I had heard either a politician or anyone else use this word about another human being until 9/11. That was Bush followed by Blair.

We had gone through a psychological change. When my daughter then around 21 first heard of 9/11 she asked me 'what do they want'. I said I didn't know and she said 'well we are not going to be able to sort it out unless we find out what they want and see what we can do'. To a large extent she was talking about how people had been working with adversities. Yes, you would have Thatcher leaving the Hunger Strikers to die but the main understanding was that if you want to change something then you need to get to know the other, you need to treat them as a human being and then you needed to see if you could come to some sort of deal. Yes there was the right possibly more than I realised at the time but that was most certainly what I noticed - and noticed when it changed. Now, with all these little titbits about Corbyn. These are twists. These are taking things out of context and putting them into what sadly has been the new acceptance which is not just cold but one dimensional and does the opposite of how we were working before. It does not find out the reasons for why people are acting as they are. It calls whoever does not think the same way as yourself evil or a traitor and so on. When Corbyn was acting as he was we were anticipating a world with much less war. I remember Blair saying we were going to have to start looking for a different kind of soldier as they were unlikely to be involved in aggressive war and more likely to be peace keepers and so need different skills. I would say we were at a superior level of collective psychological awareness at that time.



I apologise for moving your bits around. I decided what I wrote before and this will need to do and was cutting and pasting and think things may have got out of order or even lost - not deliberate. What I am replying to is basically the bit that will be in normal quotes. OK


This is not an Israel/Palestine thread and so any response to that will be as limited as I can give, You seem to be giving some sort of well worn propaganda. It quite simply is not true. I think I am right in that Israel has started every war she has been in except for the first one. It may be told differently but that is how it is. If you even take Hamas. Every time Israel will have been provoking them before they respond. Usually killing many of them with air attacks., When Hamas responds Israel tells the world that Hamas has attacked her and so she must now attack the people of Gaza, again. They call it 'mowing the grass'.

I'd say they are hard right because they have people of that thinking and they have managed to hold the news. They create the psychological feeling in Israel and it is always on living in fear and when is the next war. They call their left Traitors. They call those who report military misdeeds traitors. In the 2014 war they were beating up people who were protesting and if they were Arab they were losing their jobs as well. They were on marches chanting 'Death to Arabs'. It is the mentality of the hard right and it gets worse and worse and, probably because they do not like being called traitor, most go along with it, They re write history and have learned if they do this eventually everyone starts believing it, This has been made easier because most of the people who were there when Israel was created are now dead. Prior to the 'two state solution' Israelis would see arabs a lot more. In the main they would be working around them and walking about the place. When you see people all the time and start talking to them they become human beings. You know what they are like and you do not want them harmed. The Palestinians lost that with the pretence that they were going to get their state. They ended up living behind a wall and barbed wire often without a job and a greatly decreased standard of living. Because the Israelis in general do not see them they forget they are human beings and just believe the propaganda. Funnily enough the thing that changed the situation of the Israelis and Palestinians the most was probably 9/11. Netanyhu is on tape saying it will be good for Israel and he was right. Israel was probably the only country which benefited from 9.11, Prior to 9/11 the UK Labour Party were blaming the US and Israel for not having got the 2 states going. They were saying that they were going to push the US so that it had words with Israel and the 2 states happened. Then came 9/11, Everything changed. Not least the UK found out why the US was not pushing for the two states. They were not pushing for it because the idea of the Palestinians having a State was more than a section of the US which itself is very far right could cope with. The Christian Zionists. Netanyhu has been in talks with a prominent group of them since. Now the Palestinians instead of being people who had been thrown off their lands and had now accepted that there was nothing they could do about that but wanted a viable congruous state on the 22% of their ancient land which they still had, they were equated with ISIS. The far right of Israel and of evangelical Christians have been working together since to try and get the situation the bible says is there so that they can go into Rapture. Most of the Jews will die at this time unless they quickly move to this form of Christianity. The Israeli leaders know this but believe they can avoid it,. In this day and age that is what is going on in this world. If was defo better when we openly looked at what was happening.

There is an Israel/Palestine forum if you want to discuss that.

You can speculate on what you think I am, but I will not be entering discussions about me. I am not important.

Social media has changed things a lot. People have to manipulate harder. Before the internet all you needed to do was control the TV news. For the UK that wasn't so hard, BBC (govt controlled) ITV and Channel 4.

I'm not giving any propaganda at all. I don't like either side in the conflict. It's like two kids who've been naughty and each side is blaming each other. However I look at what exists, look at the History and see what's there.

I've also been to the Middle East and seen for myself the attitudes that exist there.

List of wars involving Israel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's a list of wars.

1948, Israel gets to be a country and within hours Egypt, Jordan and Syria invade.

1967 - six day war - Israel invaded Egypt.

1967-1970 - war of attrition - Egypt trying to get its territory back.

1973 - Yom Kippur War - Egypt and Syria attacked Israel

So, I believe you're wrong. And in reality stating who started what war ignores a lot of what is going on. For example Sharon started a lot of conflicts by provoking, but also Hamas did the same thing. Sometime provocation could happen 20 years before.

That the Arabs attacked within hours of the British pulling out is telling. And it shows Israel's mentality. They have a siege mentality because their Arab neighbors are exceedingly aggressive. If you hit a dog repeatedly, it might turn into an aggressive dog.

What we need to look at is what happened BEFORE Israel became a country, when Jews were leaving Europe (because the Europeans were killing Jews in pogroms) and arriving in Palestine, how were they treated? From what I can see there weren't too many problems at first, and then the Arab leaders (as opposed to the ordinary people) decided they hated the Jews and started an aggressive campaign against them.