Macron at a crossroads with rising riots and protests over gasoline and nuclear

1 minute ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

True. 

But why were these labor laws enacted? 

Never underestimate the profound stupidity of really dumb people. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

39 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The irony is that a workforce that adopts a flexible attitude generally expands and ends up with higher wages and benefits, as that plant with labor flexibility will continue to innovate, generate good gross margins, and capture market share, as well as introduce new products.  Politicians, including (sadly) quite a few labor union leaders, just don't understand this. 

Yep. 

Now have a look at Marine Le Pens campaign program and then Macrons. Macron wanted to create a flexible labour market based on the Scandinavian model. Marine Le Pen said everything was the immigrants fault. Macron won and are trying to make reforms. Guess what : it ain't pretty, but there's a chance France can come out stronger. Change is scary. That's why people kick back... it doesn't mean it is not the rigth thing though. 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I must say that that is a refreshing stance.  Not exactly typical!

No, not typical among Americans - which is sad given that we had a whole revolution about it.  And a constitution.  

I've found, however, that it's common among veterans who saw actual combat.  It took me a while to get savvy, but once I did, my father pointed out that my grandfather (Korean War, also infantry) expressed similar sentiments.  I also recall an older coworker who quoted his father (Korean War, also infantry) as saying, "Guns would make excellent paperweights if men had the good sense to put them down."  There's something about immersion in death & violence that breeds critical thinking.  

That said, I think we can derive a practical lesson from the differences between combat veterans and the average citizen: most human beings are lazy, amiable creatures perfectly content with the state of things - or at least insufficiently bothered to take action.  Society lovingly sticks their heads in the ground, and they're grateful for the comfort provided.  It takes a LOT to pull their heads back up.  Often, the only thing that can do the trick is serious trauma.  If average people start taking action, something is very wrong. 

Those living the ground truth are our sentinels.  Above all else, we should trust their experience.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Interested.  How is the "quick search" added?  What is the setup to make it an option?

 

9 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

@mthebold was talking about being in ANY browser and being able to do a quick search in the Duck.  I'm normally using Chrome and would like to do a quick alternative-search-engine search from within Chrome.  

Once upon a time, you could add "quick searches" by right clicking in any search bar and choosing the appropriate option.  That seems to have disappeared in Chrome.  

The current method seems to be adding keywords in your settings.  Go to: 

- Chrome
- Settings
- Manage Search Engines

From there, you can edit individual search engines, including adding keywords: 

image.thumb.png.9be9048f07feff28e7b89d85d3c1feff.png

Once you've added a keyword, you just type the keyword in the address bar followed by "<space>".

Here, I've typed the keyword "a":

image.png.459363e2684eabec56e3b74c92e15b05.png

When I follow "a" with a "<space>", Google knows I'm trying to search Amazon: 

image.png.d0f010370b7bcb3d24fa021bf599cc5c.png

I can then type in whatever I want and press "<Enter>".  For example, suppose I wanted to join the party in France: 

image.png.715b6e6ef479ec78c81d5110960cdbdc.png

image.thumb.png.090eae308cfb65ce03dc0a372f5eadd1.png

 

Of course, if things go south, we'll have to assume the position for our socialist overlords.  May I recommend:  

image.png.34dcbedf1f51467df9c04f18b948fad3.png

image.thumb.png.2c95df54ca0d2d84ef7dc1c80a9bd39a.png

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

ROTFLMAO!  You and I could get along.  🤝👍🖖🖖

Oh, and thanks for the instructions.  I set it up and did my first search.  Worked a charm!  Thanks.

image.png.90b81edf54fb6b5239fe507a351fe313.png

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in America, for reasons beyond even Joe the Plumber, Bloomberg reports:

Gun Sales Fell in November

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

ROTFLMAO!  You and I could get along.  🤝👍🖖🖖

Oh, and thanks for the instructions.  I set it up and did my first search.  Worked a charm!  Thanks.

image.png.90b81edf54fb6b5239fe507a351fe313.png

You see, everything's related, or relative:

The thread is about riots in France.

I wanted to use DuckDuckGo for limited searches.

My first limited search turned up the photo above.

The Mona Lisa was painted by italian Leonardo da Vinci, but was sold to France and is in the Louvre Museum now.

Culture amongst the rioting is on fire, and may be all the rage this season.

The Mona Lisa (/ˌmnə ˈlsə/; Italian: Monna Lisa [ˈmɔnna ˈliːza] or La Gioconda [la dʒoˈkonda], French: La Joconde [la ʒɔkɔ̃d]) is a half-length portrait painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci that has been described as "the best known, the most visited, the most written about, the most sung about, the most parodied work of art in the world".[1] The Mona Lisa is also one of the most valuable paintings in the world. It holds the Guinness World Record for the highest known insurance valuation in history at $100 million in 1962,[2] which is worth nearly $800 million in 2017.[3]

The painting is thought to be a portrait of Lisa Gherardini, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo, and is in oil on a white Lombardy poplar panel. It had been believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506; however, Leonardo may have continued working on it as late as 1517. Recent academic work suggests that it would not have been started before 1513.[4][5][6][7] It was acquired by King Francis I of France and is now the property of the French Republic, on permanent display at the Louvre Museum in Paris since 1797.[8]

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2018 at 7:38 PM, Jan van Eck said:

1.   The USA currently has a net reproduction rate  ("the fecundity rate") well be low re-population levels.  If there were zero immigrants, the US population would continue to shrink. Now, you can argue that the USA population "should" be lower, even much lower, but that is another policy debate for another time.  The immediate effect of a lowered fecundity rate is the Japanese Problem, where there are insufficient young people to continue the society as it was previously structured, and most ominously, a greying of the society with a huge overhand of persons who are quite elderly and place a large burden upon society for heathcare and financial support. 

I think this deserves more attention. 

It's often pointed out to me that Western & Westernized nations are not reproducing.  That fact is usually followed by the implication - if not the explicit statement - that immigrants are necessary.  I disagree with this analysis for two reasons: 
1)  No one has addressed why Westerners aren't reproducing
2)  That certain cultures willingly have kids they cannot afford suggests they lack the foresight & discipline to maintain a technologically advanced society.  Allowing a disciplined culture to be subsumed by the undisciplined has never and will never end well.  

First, why aren't Westerner's reproducing?  In America, society has bifurcated into two groups.  The first are working professionals & wealthy people who lack either the time, the inclination, or the fertility to reproduce.  Globalization built a culture of fierce competition wherein two incomes are required to stay ahead, and mothers who stay at home find themselves socially isolated.  Life outside work, restaurants, and bars has died.  Those who finally give up on career often find they're not as fertile in their early 30's as they were in their early 20's.  They may not even get the 1-2 kids they wanted.

The second group are the blue collar workers, both in the cities and rural communities.  Rural populations, in particular, have historically fed city populations.  Rural communities also tend to be far more family oriented.  Globalization has decimated job opportunities for these people, leaving them unable to support a family.  The predictable result has been less marriage, smaller families, broken homes, and troubled children - all of which leads to "not enough young, competent employees".  

So yes, it's true Western countries aren't reproducing.  However, this appears to be by design.  It would be easy to enact policies to restore the economy & these communities to their former selves, but that's not what the politicians want.  They want immigrants. 

That brings us to the immigrant populations, who apparently procreate even under terrible circumstances.  This shows a concerning lack of discipline and foresight.  Consider that Central & South America had centuries of head start on the United States along with plenty of natural resources, an enviable climate, and access to world markets - yet they didn't become wealthy like the United States.  Now that they've overpopulated their own land, they've decided to do the same thing in the US.  Why, exactly, do we expect the same people with the same culture and access to the same resources to produce a different result?  More importantly: why are we willing to bet the future of or families on the mere hope that this time will be different?  Wouldn't it make more sense to run our experiments in the failed countries and leave our own, successful cultures alone?  

I can see how politicians benefit from these immigrants: they're perpetually poor, distraught, and compliant - easily controlled by oligarchs.  Cultures defined by discipline & foresight, on the other hand, are an enormous pain to rule.  They don't do as they're told, they find the flaws in centralized plans, they demand to be treated with respect, and - worst of all - they demand decent wages.  It makes sense, then, that the globalist oligarchs would want to replace US & European citizens with immigrants. 

This won't work out well though.  Throughout history, every ruling class that used a poor, ignorant class to do their work was eventually destroyed.  Even the mighty Spartans were overthrown by their more numerous slaves.  In the modern era, we may not see outright revolution - but we will see the complex technology we rely on fall apart.  You cannot - I repeat myself, CANNOT - maintain complex technology - much less innovate - with poor people who lack foresight & discipline.  The wealth, stability, and security we enjoy does not happen by accident; it requires constant, conscious effort on the part of intelligent, disciplined, morally upstanding individuals.  Without those individuals, you end up with a failed state.  

E.g. every major US city that's seen influxes of undisciplined cultures has watched entire neighborhoods fall into ruin.  The region of Detroit between downtown and 8-mile is a war zone because the people living there destroyed the businesses during riots.  Zero discipline or foresight.  Likewise, Zimbabwe kicked out the white farmers and quickly fell into starvation.  The world forced South Africa to end apartheid, and the nation is now on the verge of being a failed state (not to mention all the rape & murder).  The Middle East warred constantly long before Europeans arrived, and it would continue to do so were Europeans absent.  The only reason they're in the modern era - and then only barely, given their record of human rights - is because Western nations graciously pay for oil.  It's the culture that causes a nation to be what it is.  If the elites supplant disciplined cultures with a variety of failed cultures, they'll find civilization collapsing around them.  

Of course, the elites will argue that it is they who are moving civilization forward.  Leftists in the US make that argument as well.  I would invite you to consider San Francisco's problem with homelessness, poverty, and even people shitting in the streets before believing the globalist system is stable.  Or consider why people are fleeing California for more conservative states.  If anything, liberal/globalist ideas have been massively disruptive & expensive.  The globalists are running a grand experiment, they're betting the future of civilization on it, and things are not going well.  

There's really only one option for maintaining a civilization: reward discipline and punish irresponsibility such that those who produce can afford to procreate.  As it happens, capitalism does an excellent job of that.  Socialist systems, on the other hand, have failed every time.  That includes Europe when you consider that their culture is being subsumed by immigrants of progressively lower quality.  

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

And in America, for reasons beyond even Joe the Plumber, Bloomberg reports:

Gun Sales Fell in November

Reason:  nobody has any money.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Reason:  nobody has any money.

But Trump is making America great again, the economy is booming... what gives?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Reason:  nobody has any money.

 I have money. 

"Dick’s Sportings Goods sales continued to decline last quarter in the wake of their new restrictions on gun purchases.

Dick’s sales fell 3.9 percent from August to November, due largely to poor performance in their technology and hunting departments, company executives explained in a conference call with analysts on Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported. Sales have declined for the last five consecutive quarters.

Following the mass shooting in Parkland, Fla. in February, Dick’s announced it would no longer sell assault-style weapons and would stop selling guns and ammunition to customers under the age of 21, prompting backlash and legal challenges from gun rights activists. Walmart made similar policy changes but its executives say they have not experienced the same slow-down in sales."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Reason:  nobody has any money.

Alternative hypotheses, tongue-in-cheek (but not really.  Let's be honest: this is 'Murica😞

1)  Americans have doomsday prepped so many times even we can't justify more of it.  Seriously, we own millions of assault rifles - and that's just the documented ones.  Everyone I know with an inclination towards self defense has more weapons available than friends/family to wield them.  At this point, I think Sgm. Plumley had the right idea.  
2)  Bored of rifles and inspired by the Global War on Terror, Americans have begun stockpiling explosive devices.  
3)  Sales didn't dip, but the sales aren't occurring through tracked channels.  E.g. the AR-15 is legally defined as the finished lower receiver.  Aside from that one component, every other part may be purchased as easily as toilet paper.  A citizen who knows where to look can also purchase unfinished lower receivers (w/o serial number, that being unnecessary for an inert lump of aluminum), which may be finished with minimal tools & effort.  This can even be done legally, depending on where you live (future Supreme Court rulings permitting).  Alternatively, you could just print or machine your own.  
4)  Following the military's example, citizens have switched from purchasing new firearms to upgrading the tens of millions of existing firearms.  There's some incredible new tech available, although the standard solutions are more likely.  
5)  We're just practicing more.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

But Trump is making America great again, the economy is booming... what gives?

Could be all the new guns are under the Christmas trees!  That's actually a big thing in many parts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Alternative hypotheses, tongue-in-cheek (but not really.  Let's be honest: this is 'Murica😞

1)  Americans have doomsday prepped so many times even we can't justify more of it.  Seriously, we own millions of assault rifles - and that's just the documented ones.  Everyone I know with an inclination towards self defense has more weapons available than friends/family to wield them.  At this point, I think Sgm. Plumley had the right idea.  
2)  Bored of rifles and inspired by the Global War on Terror, Americans have begun stockpiling explosive devices.  
3)  Sales didn't dip, but the sales aren't occurring through tracked channels.  E.g. the AR-15 is legally defined as the finished lower receiver.  Aside from that one component, every other part may be purchased as easily as toilet paper.  A citizen who knows where to look can also purchase unfinished lower receivers (w/o serial number, that being unnecessary for an inert lump of aluminum), which may be finished with minimal tools & effort.  This can even be done legally, depending on where you live (future Supreme Court rulings permitting).  Alternatively, you could just print or machine your own.  
4)  Following the military's example, citizens have switched from purchasing new firearms to upgrading the tens of millions of existing firearms.  There's some incredible new tech available, although the standard solutions are more likely.  
5)  We're just practicing more.  

1) Indeed. Prepped--been there, done that. 

3) :)

5) Impressive!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to posit that the deals on Black Friday (not specific to gun deals) are becoming less and less impressive. So while that weekend traditionally brought retailers back in the black, it may fail to give all retailers that final push over the edge anymore as people become disillusioned. Anecdotally, Black Friday deals used to be killer. Now, not so much. 

One could also make the argument that we have SOOOO much money now that we don't need to camp out in a tent on Thanksgiving to save a few bucks. No way Jose! I'll pay full price and enjoy my Turkey.

Murca. Ain't it great.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

As I've said before, I think the opposition between big metropolis (core cities) benefiting from globalization  and peripheral cities hurted by globalization is essential to understand the current "Yellow Vests" protests in France. Ilurion disagreed with me  and said that globalization was hurting big cities as much as small and medium cities. So I promised him to add some references to explain on what my assumptions were based.

The following text is  an excerpt of a recent review essay from Robert Mark Silberman (Buffalo University) titled "Rethinking shrinking cities : peripheral dual cities have arrived" and published in the "Journal of Urban Affairs"

 

"Globalization has transformed a select group of core cities into an integrated network of knowledge and financial centers. This network is composed of large megacites across the globe like Tokyo, New York, London, and Paris. During the last quarter of a century, these cities have experienced an infusion of capital and economic growth. The ascent of these cities has also been accompanied by the concentration of wealth and growing income inequality. In the shadow of global cities, there has been increased instability in cities on the periphery brought on by international investment and labor patterns characterized by increasingly footloose industries operating within the construct of multilateral free-trade policies The relationship between global cities and other urban places found on their periphery is structurally unequal. Unlike global cities, peripheral cities are at the base of a system of inequality and oppression. They are most vulnerable to the mobility of labor and capital and pitted against one another in the global economy. In contrast to global cities that form a network of command centers for the accumulation of knowledge and capital, peripheral cities are fragmented and dependent on the flow of outside resources for their survival.

 

Global cities have emerged as new command and control centers focused on generating wealth and extracting resources from peripheral cities. At the top of this system, global cities are well networked and integrated. At the bottom of the system, peripheral cities are pitted against each other in a fight to the bottom. In the short term, capital ebbs and flows into peripheral cities in order to sustain global city growth. Across cycles of investment, some individual peripheral cities prosper, whereas others do not. In the long run, peripheral cities are maintained in a relative state of stasis as a group, in order to perpetuate the global system of inequality that their oppression supports. Consequently, the growing concentration of wealth in a small number of global cities increases the ranks of peripheral cities. The omnipresent need for these cities to compete for investment from the core results in stunted development and eventual shrinkage as the global economy expands.

 

The material conditions in shrinking cities are qualitatively different from global cities. Although both exhibit spatial and social polarization, shrinking cities are chronically resource depleted, dependent, disenfranchised, and dispossessed from the networks that promote the stability of the broader global economy. In essence, shrinking cities are alienated from the global economy and subordinated by it. Their underdevelopment is a structural component of the broader global economy and it is expressed through spatial and social polarization. Being a shrinking city is more than being peripheral to and dependent on global cities for resources. It also entails the internalization of a colonized mindset where decision makers actively seek affirmation from above by internalizing the institutional norms and practices that form the core of the global economy. This is largely a subconscious process where local leaders rationalize their actions as pragmatic efforts to make the best out of a bad situation. By failing to recognize the contradiction between the material conditions in shrinking and global cities, the former become alienated from their own interests, which perpetuates their acquiescence to the global economy."

 

Link to the whole article http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/rms18.pdf

First may I say your command of English, for a non-native speaker, is amazing for you to read that. The essay is very verbose and never fails to use long words to make points when shorter ones would have made reading so much easier never the less a very interesting essay thank you for posting it.

I thought the essay was a bit too American focussed the further it went but I can see the points the author was making, namely that mega cities suck in everything and leave other cities, shrinking cities, as colonies which in turn regenerate their cores for the benefit of the more affluent in an attempt to attract investment and business and operate on the trickle-down principle.  This fits in with all independence, populist, nationalist parties etc just now who are complaining of diminishing opportunities for people and these people are not being heard. It explains the rise in Scottish nationalists and their attempt at a separatist vote as they too recognise all the assets of Scotland are being sucked into machine that is London. If the author had been European I am sure he would have seen the bigger picture of one state sucking the life out of other states in a similar way and creating colonies feeding back to it as this is exactly the problem with the EU namely the superstate Germany sucks in everything into it’s maw and leaves other states as shrinking states just like the supercities do. This clearly explains the rise of populism in the EU. Paris does the same in a similar way to France and hence the rebellion of the yellow jackets is mainly from the rural areas where all they see is more taxes and less spending on infrastructure they need to develop.

The solution proposed by the author is that more autonomy and money should be given to the shrinking cities so they can work out their own ways to regenerate their cities to their benefit rather than to feed all to the more prosperous supercity which chimes with my view on another thread that Italy should be allowed to run a larger deficit, or get debt restructuring, so that it can have greater autonomy in how it regenerates itself.

The essay fits in with what I see and puts a structure to it and a solution that I had already suspected but now to see it set out so clinically is refreshing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Illurion said:

The migrant / crime rate  (RAPES, MURDERS, BURGLARY, TERRORISM)  in Germany appears to be much larger than in France,  and the German Government,  like the French Government,  is in full denial of the situation.

...

The French Government has far more migrants per capita,  and those migrants are the cause of far more crime per capita than the native French population.    BUT THE MIGRANT CRIME RATE IN FRANCE IS FAR LESS THAN THE MIGRANT CRIME RATE IN GERMANY. ... 

Germany is different.   There are fewer Muslim migrants,  but they are FAR MORE VIOLENT.   To make matters worse,  not only is the German Government in total denial,  but the German Government is taking active measures AGAINST THEIR OWN NATIVE GERMAN POPULATION to help WHAT THE GERMAN PUBLIC IS MORE AND MORE SEEING AS "CRIMINAL MUSLIM MIGRANTS" TAKING AWAY MORE AND MORE OF NOT JUST THE "RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS" OF THE NATIVE GERMANS,  BUT THEIR PHYSICAL PROPERTY ALSO.  The German government has begun kicking people out of their homes in order to give those homes to migrants.   Germany is not the only EU country to begin doing so.    In Germany,  the "FINANCIAL COST" at this time is not the "tipping point" that will cause revolution,  it is the "LOSS OF RIGHTS BY THE NATIVE GERMANS" that is the cause.

The greater violence in Germany is what gives me hope for them.  Some of my ancestors are Prussian, others Frisian, and much of that culture is retained here in the US.  The Germanic tribes - which encompass more than Germany itself - tend to be a reasonable bunch until we're pushed too far.  Put simply, you show me a Germanic community, and I'll show you people who don't suffer fools.  We're already seeing evidence that the Germans have been pushed too far; I wouldn't be surprised if the next election begins to reverse immigration policy.  

I would also note that all this love, tolerance, and unfettered immigration was possible because nearly every advanced, Western nation signed on for it, but that's no longer the case.  The US, Britain, and Brazil have already turned Right.  Meanwhile, France, Germany, and Italy are on the verge of rejecting immigration, and Eastern Europe - Poland esp. - was never stupid enough to swallow it in the first place.  If a significant fraction of European women begin to feel uncomfortable, that will be the end of it.  For all the talk of patriarchy, Western women get what they want - and they value their safety above all else.  I don't think the wishful thinking will survive long. 

As an added bonus, this is the first time Northern European populations have experienced Middle Eastern dickery in a serious way.  With luck, they'll reach the conclusion every experienced nation reached before them: some ideologies are incompatible with Western Humanism and not to be tolerated.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Rodent said:

3) :)

 

^^ I detect the joy of a kid in a candy shop.  Right there with ya  :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

25 minutes ago, mthebold said:

  If a significant fraction of European women begin to feel uncomfortable, that will be the end of it.  For all the talk of patriarchy, Western women get what they want - and they value their safety above all else.  I don't think the wishful thinking will survive long. 

 

I rather suggest that a "significant fraction of European women" already feel very uncomfortable. 

I was on the streets of a mid-sized German city, walking out to dinner, and observed no Germans on the streets.  This is a city of half-million and it is deserted.  I have dinner in an empty restaurant.  I get back to the hotel and ask: "What are those knots of Middle-Eastern men doing standing around on the street corners?"  Reply:  "That is their job."  Turns out the males, all sullen, all rather unfriendly-looking, are selling drugs and sizing up pedestrians to see who they can go rob.  So you have an entire city so intimidated that the natives don't dare go out at night.   A bit "uncomfortable"?   Yup, sure is. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

 

I rather suggest that a "significant fraction of European women" already feel very uncomfortable. 

I was on the streets of a mid-sized German city, walking out to dinner, and observed no Germans on the streets.  This is a city of half-million and it is deserted.  I have dinner in an empty restaurant.  I get back to the hotel and ask: "What are those knots of Middle-Eastern men doing standing around on the street corners?"  Reply:  "That is their job."  Turns out the males, all sullen, all rather unfriendly-looking, are selling drugs and sizing up pedestrians to see who they can go rob.  So you have an entire city so intimidated that the natives don't dare go out at night.   A bit "uncomfortable"?   Yup, sure is. 

If only we could provide the same experience to upper-middle-class women in the US so they understand what they're voting for.  

I have figured out one tactic for this though: when the subject of immigration comes up, I explicitly tell women that, having warned them of the dangers and been ignored, I would not lift a finger to defend a liberal neighborhood.  Conservative area?  Sure.  They listened.  Liberal neighborhood?  Nope.  I'd walk right past and pretend I didn't see a thing.  They made their bed & can lie in it.  

And that elicits an emotional reaction.  Western women are accustomed to being an indispensable asset.  Boat is sinking?  Women and children first.  Dangerous job needs to be done?  Send the men.  Foreign threats?  Young men rush to the front lines lest they be seen as cowards.  For a brief moment, I'm able to lift that ironclad guarantee of security and let them feel reality: the things they ask for are costly - sometimes impossible - and male generosity only goes so far.  Hopefully that plants the seed of critical thought.  

On that note, I think Western men need to rethink the obligation they feel towards society and the privileged place they reserve for women.  In the modern era, women are not helpless damsels in need of protection; they're adults with full voting rights.  A man should only sacrifice & protect a woman if she provides something in return.  If we're going to have equality, then let's do it right.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

The governement is postponing the tax and not removing it.

But the fuel tax was just the spark starting the fire. This decision will not treat the real roots of the discontent.

 

fe5436b4c6ada9ae12964a88de4633918cf2dd31ccd600df59757a179233cf3b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, mthebold said:

If only we could provide the same experience to upper-middle-class women in the US so they understand what they're voting for.  

I have figured out one tactic for this though: when the subject of immigration comes up, I explicitly tell women that, having warned them of the dangers and been ignored, I would not lift a finger to defend a liberal neighborhood.  Conservative area?  Sure.  They listened.  Liberal neighborhood?  Nope.  I'd walk right past and pretend I didn't see a thing.  They made their bed & can lie in it.  

And that elicits an emotional reaction.  Western women are accustomed to being an indispensable asset.  Boat is sinking?  Women and children first.  Dangerous job needs to be done?  Send the men.  Foreign threats?  Young men rush to the front lines lest they be seen as cowards.  For a brief moment, I'm able to lift that ironclad guarantee of security and let them feel reality: the things they ask for are costly - sometimes impossible - and male generosity only goes so far.  Hopefully that plants the seed of critical thought.  

On that note, I think Western men need to rethink the obligation they feel towards society and the privileged place they reserve for women.  In the modern era, women are not helpless damsels in need of protection; they're adults with full voting rights.  A man should only sacrifice & protect a woman if she provides something in return.  If we're going to have equality, then let's do it right.  

OK, you got a lot off your chest on this thread.  I'm sure you feel better!

One thing I would ask is that possibly you could adopt different code words for the two competing groups, as you see them:  "liberal" and "Conservative."    In essence, you are equating "liberal" with Hillary Clinton and the Clintonite policies.  But you don't want to call them the Clintonites, you call them the Liberals.  I really don't think that is fair. 

I view myself as a Liberal, albeit as a Monarchist.  I disavow Clintonism and the Clintonites, who have brought rack and ruin everywhere and want to go to war with other families' bodies in order to advance the ideas of Clintonism on the world stage.  Liberals don't do that.  In terms of immigration, liberals are not advancing ideas of unfettered migration waves; rather, they see the building of decent societies around the globe as a reasonable, indeed prudent, goal.  The Clintonites - well, I'll let them speak for themselves. 

It is certainly true that the Clintonites have dominated, indeed suffocated, what before was a democratic Democratic Party.  It is now the Party of the Clintons, and that has been in part repudiated by the American voters and public  (only in part).  The Clintonites refuse to let go, which is in large part why you have these savage conflicts with Mr. Trump. 

See what you can do to come up with a better nomenclature.  Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

OK, you got a lot off your chest on this thread.  I'm sure you feel better!

One thing I would ask is that possibly you could adopt different code words for the two competing groups, as you see them:  "liberal" and "Conservative."    In essence, you are equating "liberal" with Hillary Clinton and the Clintonite policies.  But you don't want to call them the Clintonites, you call them the Liberals.  I really don't think that is fair. 

I view myself as a Liberal, albeit as a Monarchist.  I disavow Clintonism and the Clintonites, who have brought rack and ruin everywhere and want to go to war with other families' bodies in order to advance the ideas of Clintonism on the world stage.  Liberals don't do that.  In terms of immigration, liberals are not advancing ideas of unfettered migration waves; rather, they see the building of decent societies around the globe as a reasonable, indeed prudent, goal.  The Clintonites - well, I'll let them speak for themselves. 

 It is certainly true that the Clintonites have dominated, indeed suffocated, what before was a democratic Democratic Party.  It is now the Party of the Clintons, and that has been in part repudiated by the American voters and public  (only in part).  The Clintonites refuse to let go, which is in large part why you have these savage conflicts with Mr. Trump. 

See what you can do to come up with a better nomenclature.  Cheers.

"Clintonites" will do.  Doesn't matter much to me as long as you catch my meaning.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

OK, you got a lot off your chest on this thread.  I'm sure you feel better!

This is the male equivalent of women saying, "Who hurt you?" after you point out obvious, physiologically-driven human behaviors.

Westerners would take immigration more seriously if they'd seen the underbelly of 3rd world countries the way I have.  You've been told; it's not my problem any more.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

 

I rather suggest that a "significant fraction of European women" already feel very uncomfortable. 

I was on the streets of a mid-sized German city, walking out to dinner, and observed no Germans on the streets.  This is a city of half-million and it is deserted.  I have dinner in an empty restaurant.  I get back to the hotel and ask: "What are those knots of Middle-Eastern men doing standing around on the street corners?"  Reply:  "That is their job."  Turns out the males, all sullen, all rather unfriendly-looking, are selling drugs and sizing up pedestrians to see who they can go rob.  So you have an entire city so intimidated that the natives don't dare go out at night.   A bit "uncomfortable"?   Yup, sure is. 

For me it would be interesting to know which city you are talking about? I live in a german city(>1million) and couldn't comfirm what you are writing. Yes, you see more middle-eastern men... yes, they are definetely not all rocket scientists... yes, some had found out, that the law isn't that strict but you're observation is something I've never seen or heard about in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites