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

46 minutes ago, mthebold said:

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.  

I would not exactly say that I am some fan of unrestricted migrations.  So far, the evidence is that they have been a disaster for the West. 

Getting past that, while I do not have the breadth of travel to the 3rd world that you have, I consider even neighboring Mexico to be a "no-go" zone.  With the extreme level of violence, useless policemen or worse, and everyone packing a concealed pistol, Mexico is no longer a place that I would even dare set foot in.  I hear that you arrive at the airport in Mexico City, hire a cab (to avoid walking or the bus) and the driver takes you out to a deserted industrial area, where his chums wait to rob and beat you, strop off your clothes, and leave you there - or maybe even kill you just for sport.   Nice place. 

My guess is that Mexico is probably civilized compared to others.  I would shudder to attempt to walk around in Nigeria or Pakistan, for example.  Hey, that's just me.  Cheers.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Macron and France, how's that whole "Weath Re-distribution Program" of the "Carbon Tax" under the name of "Environmental Policy" working out for you?  Saving the world yet?

 

endenhofer.png

● "Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War."

● "There is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

● "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Argentinians have the perfect sense of situational humor: A yellow-vest was the reception committee for Macron.....

Argentinia Macron.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Real Significance of the French Tax Revolt

The gilets jaunes (Yellow Jacket) anti-tax riots in France escalated over the past weekend, again citing the impact of higher taxes on fossil fuels –and high levels of taxation in general – on everyday life. French citizens, already subject to the highest taxes in the OECD, are being crushed by both new and systematically increasing taxes, and have taken to the streets by the hundreds of thousands in a “citizen’s revolution”. 

... Levying taxes on individuals to combat climate change – or for the accomplishment of any social betterment project – is unfailingly undertaken in the name of the sanctity of life. Yet if life is an invaluable state and condition, so too is that of the right of personal property. A life absent the ability to enjoy the products of our toil by utilizing them directly or voluntarily exchanging them with that of others is a life circumscribed, and thus a life forcibly, purposely denigrated in quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I would not exactly say that I am some fan of unrestricted migrations.  So far, the evidence is that they have been a disaster for the West. 

Getting past that, while I do not have the breadth of travel to the 3rd world that you have, I consider even neighboring Mexico to be a "no-go" zone.  With the extreme level of violence, useless policemen or worse, and everyone packing a concealed pistol, Mexico is no longer a place that I would even dare set foot in.  I hear that you arrive at the airport in Mexico City, hire a cab (to avoid walking or the bus) and the driver takes you out to a deserted industrial area, where his chums wait to rob and beat you, strop off your clothes, and leave you there - or maybe even kill you just for sport.   Nice place. 

My guess is that Mexico is probably civilized compared to others.  I would shudder to attempt to walk around in Nigeria or Pakistan, for example.  Hey, that's just me.  Cheers.

That sounds about right to me.  Add human trafficking, rape, and other abuse of women/children to that list.  It's rather instructive to watch "men" (I'd call them animals and treat them as such, but that's not politically correct) use children as pawns in battle.  This kind of depravity is normal in 3rd world countries; it's why they're 3rd world countries.  

That being the case, what level of alarm do you think is warranted here?  At what point do we vehemently insist that this threat be taken seriously?  To what lengths do we go to ensure that voters do, in fact, understand the consequences of importing these cultures?  My observation is that the average Western voter doesn't know, isn't listening, and requires more drastic measures to get the point across.  What are your thoughts?  

Edited by mthebold
Typo.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Hey Macron and France, how's that whole "Weath Re-distribution Program" of the "Carbon Tax" under the name of "Environmental Policy" working out for you?  Saving the world yet?

 

endenhofer.png

● "Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War."

● "There is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

● "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

I'm still struggling to understand what they gain from this.  How does destabilizing advanced nations benefit anyone? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mthebold said:

I'm still struggling to understand what they gain from this.  How does destabilizing advanced nations benefit anyone? 

My suggestion is ... Question the Official Narrative.  And then keep asking questions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mthebold said:

I'm still struggling to understand what they gain from this.  How does destabilizing advanced nations benefit anyone? 

I really think that you have misunderstood the message the UN / IPCC / Otmar wanted to send. Probably because @Tom Kirkman (maybe intentionally) oversimplifies. I believe that the message Otmar wanted to send is that we need to be honest about what the implications of these policies. You are OK to disagree. No problem. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours 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

Any time, good sir.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I really think that you have misunderstood the message the UN / IPCC / Otmar wanted to send. Probably because @Tom Kirkman (maybe intentionally) oversimplifies. I believe that the message Otmar wanted to send is that we need to be honest about what the implications of these policies. You are OK to disagree. No problem. 

Are you saying that Otmar was pointing out what was happening, but not necessarily agreeing with it?  

What's your take on "the implications of these policies"?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2018 at 11:05 PM, Dan Warnick said:

Here is an interesting, seemingly fairly thorough analysis of what is and what is not going on in Paris:

ANALYSIS: The savage violence in Paris was not a protest, it was an insurrection

I'll leave it to those closer to comment and/or reflect.

The way the writer describes it......this is very serious as it clearly has undertones of a wider, broader and deeper generic resentment against the government as a whole. This also depicts situations in mamy other countries....only that it is under control...seething under the surface..

 

Inequality has once again become very sensitive issue (it always was)....EU needs more "Glue" (to borrow from Amy Chua's Day of Empire).

 

Cc: @Tom Kirkman, @Dan Warnick

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Are you saying that Otmar was pointing out what was happening, but not necessarily agreeing with it?  

What's your take on "the implications of these policies"?  

I think that Otmar is pro carbon tax. However, I think he is honest about what carbon tax is. It is punishing (at the time) OPEC countries and countries that consume a lot of fossil fuels. i.e re-distributing wealth on a global scale. Agree or disagree. THe man derserves credit for being honest. 

Personally, I am pro oil & gas and therefore not pro a carbon tax. I think any energy transition needs to be left to the market. However, I am pro a strong UN that could enforce things like no child labour, anti-pollution (for example IOCs could do a lot to limit pollution in Africa. I know for a fact.). NB! I really do not want to get into any superior culture discussion etc. I just felt that an honest politician needs credit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else feeling a bit of schadenfreude at the election of Macron? The entire Western political establishment and media, the Deep State if you will, did everything they could to elect him and it worked. He was the anti-Trump who was going to rescue the world from Trumpism and the fascist LePen. The reality is he's the latest interchangeable puppet put forth by the 1% to do their bidding.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think that Otmar is pro carbon tax. However, I think he is honest about what carbon tax is. It is punishing (at the time) OPEC countries and countries that consume a lot of fossil fuels. i.e re-distributing wealth on a global scale. Agree or disagree. The man deserves credit for being honest. 

Honesty is always refreshing.  I strongly dislike the UN, carbon taxes, and attempts to redistribute wealth - but I can always have a civil discussion with an honest man.  

49 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Personally, I am pro oil & gas and therefore not pro a carbon tax. I think any energy transition needs to be left to the market. However, I am pro a strong UN that could enforce things like no child labour, anti-pollution (for example IOCs could do a lot to limit pollution in Africa. I know for a fact.). NB! I really do not want to get into any superior culture discussion etc. I just felt that an honest politician needs credit. 

Eliminating child labor, pollution, and other evils is always a good thing.  I have my doubts about the UN as a vehicle for accomplishing that though, centralized power being prone to corruption.  What alternatives did you consider before landing on the UN as the optimal solution? 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

NB! I really do not want to get into any superior culture discussion etc. I just felt that an honest politician needs credit. 

In general, I dislike discussing which culture/idea/whatever is "superior" as that tends to anger people.  Why bother when I can get ahead minding my own business.  Other people's stupidity is less competition for me. 

I make a single exception to this rule: existential threats.  When something is so overwhelmingly terrible that it will destroy civilization, I speak my mind.  Thus, I will repeat my words of caution: the people of Northern Europe are experiencing Islamic culture for the first time, and they're ignoring a millennium of history in the mere hope that this time will be different.  Islam is nothing like the culture you grew up in, and it will not assimilate.  For everyone's sake, please set aside noble intentions and warm feelings long enough to take an honest look at history.  The future of your family is at stake.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

Eliminating child labor, pollution, and other evils is always a good thing.  I have my doubts about the UN as a vehicle for accomplishing that though, centralized power being prone to corruption.  What alternatives did you consider before landing on the UN as the optimal solution? 

True. Corruption will likely always exist. Such is life. The UN is a lot less corrupt than the local alternatives. I am very pragmatic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

I make a single exception to this rule: existential threats.  When something is so overwhelmingly terrible that it will destroy civilization, I speak my mind.  Thus, I will repeat my words of caution: the people of Northern Europe are experiencing Islamic culture for the first time, and they're ignoring a millennium of history in the mere hope that this time will be different.  Islam is nothing like the culture you grew up in, and it will not assimilate.  For everyone's sake, please set aside noble intentions and warm feelings long enough to take an honest look at history.  The future of your family is at stake.  

Obviously not a student of history - Moors were in Europe for around 700 years until towards the end of the 15th century.

Conflating religious fanaticism into global doom is a tad far fetched.  On an average day of the week you could not tell which of my friends were Muslim and which were not.  Moreover, the Muslims I know probably have a greater hatred for those radicalised in thought, because the spotlight now placed on them by the media and those too ignorant to learn the facts subjects them to unwanted attention, bigotry and, sadly, hate crime.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Osama said:

The way the writer describes it......this is very serious as it clearly has undertones of a wider, broader and deeper generic resentment against the government as a whole. This also depicts situations in mamy other countries....only that it is under control...seething under the surface..

 

Inequality has once again become very sensitive issue (it always was)....EU needs more "Glue" (to borrow from Amy Chua's Day of Empire).

People seem to be waking up a bit...

 

461a09e8ccea75f5e5af0096c70576cf1e2184a1804242647c42ecc2a28165ed.jpg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

People seem to be waking up a bit...

 

If the climate never changed it would be called "weather"... which we wake up to each day 😎.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red said:

Obviously not a student of history - Moors were in Europe for around 700 years until towards the end of the 15th century.

Conflating religious fanaticism into global doom is a tad far fetched.  On an average day of the week you could not tell which of my friends were Muslim and which were not.  Moreover, the Muslims I know probably have a greater hatred for those radicalised in thought, because the spotlight now placed on them by the media and those too ignorant to learn the facts subjects them to unwanted attention, bigotry and, sadly, hate crime.

 

MTB was clear and correct in stating Northern Europe, for the most part, is experiencing Islam on a large scale for the first time.

Yes, the Moors have been in Europe, for a long time especially the Iberian peninsula through to Spain.   I believe this fits into MBT’s exception for discussing one culture or religion over the other as it pertains to an existential threat.  Conquest.  Clash of Civilizations.

It is good that your Muslim friends are peaceful and despise radicalized Muslims.  The problem is there still to this day is no non-radicalized main-stream Muslim leader with credibility and name recognition publicly denouncing radicalized Islam.  If we are to believe that non-radicalized Muslims are the silent majority then a meaningful way forward for them would be to openly, strongly and regularly denounce the radicalized in their midst.

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

True. Corruption will likely always exist. Such is life. The UN is a lot less corrupt than the local alternatives. I am very pragmatic. 

I think that requires more explanation.  Can you explain what these local alternatives are and why you think the UN is less corrupt than them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Red said:

Obviously not a student of history - Moors were in Europe for around 700 years until towards the end of the 15th century.

Conflating religious fanaticism into global doom is a tad far fetched.  On an average day of the week you could not tell which of my friends were Muslim and which were not.  Moreover, the Muslims I know probably have a greater hatred for those radicalised in thought, because the spotlight now placed on them by the media and those too ignorant to learn the facts subjects them to unwanted attention, bigotry and, sadly, hate crime.

 

 

39 minutes ago, TXPower said:

MTB was clear and correct in stating Northern Europe, for the most part, is experiencing Islam on a large scale for the first time.

Yes, the Moors have been in Europe, for a long time especially the Iberian peninsula through to Spain.   I believe this fits into MBT’s exception for discussing one culture or religion over the other as it pertains to an existential threat.  Conquest.  Clash of Civilizations.

It is good that your Muslim friends are peaceful and despise radicalized Muslims.  The problem is there still to this day is no non-radicalized main-stream Muslim leader with credibility and name recognition publicly denouncing radicalized Islam.  If we are to believe that non-radicalized Muslims are the silent majority then a meaningful way forward for them would be to openly, strongly and regularly denounce the radicalized in their midst.

 

I would add to that:

1) Islam obtained much of its territory & influence - including the Iberian peninsula - via conquest.  In fact, conquest was its SOP until Europe repeatedly defeated Islamic invaders.  It was only Europe's clear military superiority that stalled the conquest motif.  Notice I say "stalled"; Islamic leaders still attempt conquest where they believe they'll succeed. 
2) Non-Muslim populations in Muslim-majority countries have always been oppressed, causing them to slowly disappear.  E.g. the Christian communities of North Africa and the Middle East that existed pre-Islam.  This oppression & slow disappearance is the norm for any country with a Muslim majority.
3) Islam makes it clear that its people are to multiply and conquer the world, which is why they have the highest birth rate of any group.  This is not a problem in itself, but it creates a long-term, existential threat when added to Islam's tendency to oppress non-Islamic groups.  
4) Even today, Islamic leaders use conquest to achieve their goals where they believe they can.  Most of the terrorist groups we fought in Iraq were foreigners motivated & funded by religion.  Some of them were funded by Islamic states, such as Iran. 
5) This is a religion with a clear history of violating human rights.  Even today, we see Islamic countries murdering homosexuals and treating women like property.  This is incompatible with Western values; I will not voluntarily subject my community to these unacceptable behaviors. 
6) In nearly every case where Islamic populations grow, they come into conflict with the locals.  If it was just once or twice, I would brush it off as the locals being intolerant.  It's not an anomaly though; it's nearly every time - and the consistent element in these conflicts is Islam.  

So sure, there exists a minority of Muslims who are good, peaceful people - but that's the exception rather than the norm.  We have over 1400 years detailing the effects of Islam, and the data is not flattering.  I don't care what they do in their own countries, but I will not willingly subject my community to violent, oppressive behaviors.  My opinion is that the majority of Islam should reform itself before it's allowed to spread to Western nations.  

A final thought: if Muslims don't want fanaticism to be the face of their religion, they either need to fight to reclaim their religion or, as Christian Protestants did, rename themselves to create a distinction.  That tells people they're dealing with a different set of beliefs, which they'll be happy to learn about.  If the distinction isn't made, however, it's reasonable to apply the previous 1400 years of history. 

Edited by mthebold
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, TXPower said:

MTB was clear and correct in stating Northern Europe, for the most part, is experiencing Islam on a large scale for the first time.

Not exactly what he said, and did not fit in well given the thread is about France.  Anyway, Sweden's first mosque of the modern era was built in 1963 and Denmark's first mosque was built in Copenhagen in 1967.  Luckily nobody noticed them for over 50 years 🤥 because some of their culture might have rubbed off...

And then you said, "If we are to believe that non-radicalized Muslims are the silent majority then a meaningful way forward for them would be to openly, strongly and regularly denounce the radicalized in their midst."  Really?  I am not sure how many times they need to do that here to make people like you happy, but you are welcome to think that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites