|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
I don't know enough about political situations in either country, but honestly, "environment that validates the far right's worldview" is not something that is grounded in reality, the right-wing worldview is that all immigrants who are not white and christian are unwelcome and the enemy, I'm not sure which exact party would you be able to put in that is going to reverse this view, which is, of course, grounded in xenophobia and hate.
Also, it all largely depends on your definition of right, arguably, the right is currently in power in Germany. Germany was able to avoid having the far-right in power since WW2, at the risk of repeating myself, saying that a "non far right party" that somehow fixes every economical anxiety that is mostly behind these feelings, plus reverses years of brainwashing is not something that is realistic, and putting the blame on this functional non-existing party is just counter productive.
In the case of France, I have a bad feeling that given their fiscal situation if leftists get a president and a majority they might drive France off of a fiscal cliff, after which a real far-right might come in and turn the country into a nightmare similar to current USA.
That might be me buying fear mongering and bullshit, it's not like real leftists got a chance to rule a country the size of France in decades, but it's something that worries me nonetheless.
|
On March 17 2026 00:19 Jankisa wrote:
I don't know enough about political situations in either country, but honestly, "environment that validates the far right's worldview" is not something that is grounded in reality, the right-wing worldview is that all immigrants who are not white and christian are unwelcome and the enemy, I'm not sure which exact party would you be able to put in that is going to reverse this view, which is, of course, grounded in xenophobia and hate.
Also, it all largely depends on your definition of right, arguably, the right is currently in power in Germany. Germany was able to avoid having the far-right in power since WW2, at the risk of repeating myself, saying that a "non far right party" that somehow fixes every economical anxiety that is mostly behind these feelings, plus reverses years of brainwashing is not something that is realistic, and putting the blame on this functional non-existing party is just counter productive.
In the case of France, I have a bad feeling that given their fiscal situation if leftists get a president and a majority they might drive France off of a fiscal cliff, after which a real far-right might come in and turn the country into a nightmare similar to current USA.
That might be me buying fear mongering and bullshit, it's not like real leftists got a chance to rule a country the size of France in decades, but it's something that worries me nonetheless.
The main anti-immigrant drive in France is anti-muslim, and the Macron opposition to the far right in France is very anti-muslim as well. This goes from ""thinkers"" like Enthoven or Fourest to strategies (my favourite examples: the minister of Education of the Macron government, a few years ago, talked positively about islamoleftism, a conspiracy theory in which the left is allied with islamists in order to overthrow France, or in this recent round of elections it has been argued many times that the far left party is antisemitic for electoral purposes, they want the votes from the muslims, and you know, those evil muslims, how do you get their vote, you just have to hate Jews like they do). It is very very accepted in France that hating muslims is the correct position to have, so eventually voters are going to wonder why they keep voting for the party that doesn't want to do anything about it. Several of his ministers, like Retailleau, when talking about islam you couldn't differentiate them from far right people.
Last year (or two years ago? God) Macron called snap elections, what he wanted was to get a far right prime minister. Didn't work out for him, the left got more votes than the far right. So he simply ignored the results of the election and kept a macronist prime minister, even though his party came third. He needed support from the far right in order for his guy to get in rather than the left guy, don't worry he got it.
On top of this you also have a process of normalization of the RN, which billionnaires like Bolloré are mostly responsible for but Macron's party is doing its part as well. For the elections yesterday, Aurore Bergé (from Macron's government) called the most leftist party "the anti-France" (which is a Vichy government formulation) and put support behind the idea of tactical voting with the far right in order to stop the left from getting elected when that was possible. The left is described as "outside the Republican field" while the Rassemblement national is not.
So, yes, it is absolutely grounded in reality that a lot of work is done to create an environment that validates the far right's worldview. When it wasn't done, such as in Germany since WW2 as you point out, but also in most other countries, the far right simply couldn't win, because its ideas are bankrupt, its thinkers stupid, and its goals reprehensible. You need to elevate them in order for them to be a threat, and they are elevated mainly because people who have a lot of power feel that they would rather have them in opposition than they would have leftists who question the societal order.
Electing a far leftist is the only electoral way out of that spiral, as it has the potential of resetting the Overton window. It may absolutely fail, you are correct; but the other alternative simply cannot succeed, so it's not like we have a bunch to lose.
|
I guess that my, layman thinking of why this might be so is that we (the West), on average have lives and living standards too good to consider leftist ideas and ideologies.
To much of the population has been convinced that they are the privileged class and any redistribution of wealth would take money from them (USA being the best example of this rhetoric working) for a Western country to ever elect real leftists, until, of course, the circle of centrists and right wingers exchanging power is complete and the country is at war, destitute or on the verge of re-instituting serfdom.
I don't have much hope for the left world wide for these reasons, plus, the fact that the main things most people associate with leftists now are things like pronouns or extreme views like open borders is very problematic, then you throw in the purity tests, leftist parties being supportive of Russia because of USSR legacy or American anti imperialism, hell, in some cases straight up praising terrorism and being extremely anti-Semitic, it's a problem.
Of course, right-wingers do all of that and much more, their "remigration" shit is just as extreme as open borders, but the Overton window is so far to the right that is being pushed as "new normal".
The right has done an amazing job, with the tools put in it's hands by techbro oligarchy to convince the world that everything is horrible and immigrants and LGBTQ people are to blame, and I'm not sure how this will be reversed, I do sure hope so that it happens within my lifetime and I'm afraid that if it doesn't it kind of means we either destroyed ourselves in WW3 or we'll be living in a Cyberpunk future.
|
I don't have much hope either, I'm just laying out the path that would be needed in order to change the momentum. My guess is instead of doing any of this we'll just keep fielding candidates that are tied to status quo centrist politics and who will invest all of their energy into making sure that as few of their own voters as possible are enthusiastic about them, and then when they lose we'll whine that our candidate was not as evil as the other candidate as if that was an important metric.
|
Presumably Netanyahu is still alive. If he somehow isn't/hasn't been, how on earth would we recover from the lapse of trust in nearly everything that would cause?
The more I think about it, the more something feels broken beyond repair regardless.
|
I might (once again) be too dumb to understand what you are saying, so, at the risk of sounding stupid: Are you suggesting that he was dead but was resurrected?
|
On March 19 2026 02:17 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
Presumably Netanyahu is still alive. If he somehow isn't/hasn't been, how on earth would we recover from the lapse of trust in nearly everything that would cause?
The more I think about it, the more something feels broken beyond repair regardless. I might (once again) be too dumb to understand what you are saying, so, at the risk of sounding stupid: Are you suggesting that he was dead but was resurrected?
lmao no. I'm saying that a lot of people are convinced he's dead/in a coma and that the proof of life/trolling videos are AI. I'm pretty sure I rationally have to believe that they are not AI and that he is alive and well. I'm saying that if it turned out Israel was manipulating the world about Netanyahu, I don't know how we could recover from the lapse of trust in basically everything including our own eyes.
Moreover, that the more that I think about it, the more that I feel like something critical to the function of society has been broken beyond repair regardless.
|
Northern Ireland26986 Posts
I imagine we’d be fine, the world has been tolerant enough about Israel bombing and shooting children after all.
Depending on how widespread such beliefs are (I just cursorily Googled and yes, rather a lot of hits in this domain), I do think they’re a pretty awful harbinger of future political life though, globally.
‘X is dead’
‘Here’s some reasonably compelling evidence that they aren’t’
‘Oh but that’s just AI’
Argh, I know I’m in for a lot of personal pain moving forwards
|
I mean, to me, these rumors seemed pretty silly because Iran simply does not have the capabilities to take Nethyanahu out, I certainty wouldn't mourn his death but I think you need to be pretty down a conspiracy pipeline or have extreme motivated reasoning in order to believe it.
So far, the worse transgressions when it comes to using AI in warfare was the propaganda videos that were clearly disseminated by USA and Israel showing crowds of people celebrating the death of Ali Khamenei and arrest of Maduro, of course, to someone looking at them with skeptical eyes it's very obvious that it's AI, but in my very limited interactions with Americans I already had a guy reference these videos as part of the reasoning why he supports Trump's campaigns in these states.
|
On March 19 2026 03:15 Jankisa wrote:
I mean, to me, these rumors seemed pretty silly because Iran simply does not have the capabilities to take Nethyanahu out, I certainty wouldn't mourn his death but I think you need to be pretty down a conspiracy pipeline or have extreme motivated reasoning in order to believe it.
Beyond that, I feel like Israel would be business as usual without Netanyahu, he's not of critical importance to some kind of mythos to go through the trouble of keep him digitally alive.
Even in proper dictatorships with a strong cult of personality, it only takes a day or two for a lieutenant to feel confident enough in their makeshift power consolidation and for the death of the dear leader to be announced.
|
On March 19 2026 03:15 Jankisa wrote:
I mean, to me, these rumors seemed pretty silly because Iran simply does not have the capabilities to take Nethyanahu out, I certainty wouldn't mourn his death but I think you need to be pretty down a conspiracy pipeline or have extreme motivated reasoning in order to believe it.
nah, in a 1st world country a 76 year old man has ~3% chance of not making it to his 77th birthday. why does his possible death have to be related to Iran? He could just be dead. The guy is over 76 years old.... every night there is a small chance he won't awaken.
The Iranian supreme leader was 86. Why does his death necessarily have to be a dramatic assassination strike powered by elite CIA counter intelligence spying? He could've easily been weeks away from death and just laid himself out there hoping to get martyred. He might have even told the USA where he would be. It is the Iranian version of medically assisted death. There is more than a 10% chance an 86 year old man does not see his 87th birthday.
Other than Queen Elizabeth ...people do not live forever.
On March 19 2026 04:20 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 03:15 Jankisa wrote:
I mean, to me, these rumors seemed pretty silly because Iran simply does not have the capabilities to take Nethyanahu out, I certainty wouldn't mourn his death but I think you need to be pretty down a conspiracy pipeline or have extreme motivated reasoning in order to believe it. Beyond that, I feel like Israel would be business as usual without Netanyahu, he's not of critical importance to some kind of mythos to go through the trouble of keep him digitally alive. Even in proper dictatorships with a strong cult of personality, it only takes a day or two for a lieutenant to feel confident enough in their makeshift power consolidation and for the death of the dear leader to be announced.
nah, if the guy running both Israel and the USA is dead it changes things. 
Israel is very fractured.
|
Israel has became a militaristic nation, similar to Russia, most people who disagreed with the ways things are going left the country, the extreme settlers have more children then secular folks and especially since October 7th people are extremely propagandized.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israelis-unite-political-divides-support-justified-war-iran
Something like 80 % of Israeli Jews support the attacks. 50 % of them said they would have supported them even if Americans successfully negotiated with Iran.
While the world scoffed at the "we launched a per-emptive strike on Iran" bullshit it's something that is widely accepted in Israel. They, to me, from outside looking in became a nation that thinks that all political problems around them can and should be solved by violence, and they are acting according to that.
That is of course enabled by "unlimited partnership" with USA, after October 7th Biden showed them that there is no step too far that they can do that will stop Americans from having their backs. Trump came in and put that into overdrive.
This is incredibly dangerous, and in that context, yeah, Nethyanahu dying doesn't do much, as the next person will also be very pro war and anti any sort of Palestinian solution.
|
It is unfortunately a fairly standard thing that develops every time a project is mainly colonial in spirit. You can see very similar things in New Caledonia or back in the day in Algeria. You get people who live there or who are hit with the propaganda from there, and what always happens is that they'll develop a range of positions on every political topic that is entirely normal and expected from a human society, except on the specific topic of the people they are taking land from, and on this specific topic alone you'll get just an absurd amount of little Hitlers. And then entire worldviews are built around this, which creates a very unhealthy basis for a society. There isn't a fix for it unfortunately I don't think, you would have to deprogram people individually, person after person, and nobody has time for that. The Pieds-Noirs were sent home in France 60 years ago and 60 years later the region of France where they remigrated to in majority has the most anti-arab racism and is historically a good region for the far right; zero shot that this is a coincidence.
|
Northern Ireland26986 Posts
On March 19 2026 22:34 Jankisa wrote:Israel has became a militaristic nation, similar to Russia, most people who disagreed with the ways things are going left the country, the extreme settlers have more children then secular folks and especially since October 7th people are extremely propagandized. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israelis-unite-political-divides-support-justified-war-iranSomething like 80 % of Israeli Jews support the attacks. 50 % of them said they would have supported them even if Americans successfully negotiated with Iran. While the world scoffed at the "we launched a per-emptive strike on Iran" bullshit it's something that is widely accepted in Israel. They, to me, from outside looking in became a nation that thinks that all political problems around them can and should be solved by violence, and they are acting according to that. That is of course enabled by "unlimited partnership" with USA, after October 7th Biden showed them that there is no step too far that they can do that will stop Americans from having their backs. Trump came in and put that into overdrive. This is incredibly dangerous, and in that context, yeah, Nethyanahu dying doesn't do much, as the next person will also be very pro war and anti any sort of Palestinian solution.
In fairness I’d almost treat them like separate issues.
I find it difficult to object to much in Israel’s Iran attitudes, whereas the opposite is true re Palestine.
|
I, on the other hand, find it very easy to object to it because their plan for Iran is the same as their plan for Palestine. Make it a failed state, make sure the people there are poor, disorganized and destitute because that's the only way that Israel can "feel safe".
That is fucking insane. In that context, Americans who under Trump treat almost every previous ally as hostile would be justified in nuking the whole Europe because "EU is a project to undermine USA" , so, in order for them not to feel threatened the most logical solution is to attack first, right?
I might be completely off here, I'm in no way shape or form an expert, but from everything I read Iran was on a path to become a "normal" regional power, of course, there is rhetoric for the hardliner base at home, but if you look at actions, they seemingly wanted to normalize relations with the west and become a more normal regional power.
During the same period, Nethyanahu did everything in his power to undermine this, going behind Obama's back to do a speech in Congress shitting all over him, being extremely critical at all attempts to actually achieve normalization between the west and Iran.
A rational country led by rational people would understand that reaching a negotiated stalemate and having controls over a nuclear program with live camera feeds and regular inspections is a much more realistic way to keep a country from nuking you then trying to bomb a country of 90 million people into submission.
|
United States44056 Posts
On March 20 2026 03:39 Jankisa wrote:
A rational country led by rational people would understand that reaching a negotiated stalemate and having controls over a nuclear program with live camera feeds and regular inspections is a much more realistic way to keep a country from nuking you then trying to bomb a country of 90 million people into submission.
You're missing a thing here that makes it even more absurd.
The nuke was never for Israel. The Iranian regime has never needed a nuke to be safe against the Israeli armed forces. They don't share a border and they have a credible deterrent against Israeli airstrikes in the form of rocket spam from proxies. The Iranian regime has never shown any interest in mutual annihilation with Israel. It is hostile to Israel as part of the Islamic religious purity competition in which hostility to Israel gives them street cred vs Saudi Arabia but not only have they not shown any intention of wiping Israel out with a preemptive nuclear strike, the former Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even publicly declared that nuclear weapons are haram under Islamic law.
The Iranian nuclear project started serious work when Bush branded them as part of his Axis of Evil and declared that the Bush doctrine would be regime change in those countries. It is the US, not Israel, that Iran felt that they needed a deterrent against. Israel can't invade and destroy the Iranian regime, the United States can, and said it would, and was already invading and occupying Iraq on their west, and was already invading and occupying Afghanistan on their east.
They started work on a nuclear weapon because Bush told them that if they didn't get a nuclear weapon he was going to invade them. Saddam complied with disarmament and inspections and Saddam was hanged. North Korea refused to comply and pursued a nuke above all else, and they survived.
That's why the deal made so much sense as a policy.
Iran really didn't want to actually get a nuke, getting a nuke meant going full pariah state like NK, it meant economic ruin. China, Russia, the EU, and the US were all on board with hitting Iran with devastating sanctions if it kept going towards a nuke. Sanctions get more powerful as the network effect increases, the fewer marketplaces you have left to you the more they hurt, and Obama got everyone in on the deal.
The world didn't want Iran to get a nuke and so the enforcement regime was rigorous and the participants agreed to immediate reinstatement of sanctions if there was a breach. America's rivals and enemies were still invested in the idea of a maintaining their nuclear privilege and wanted to work with America on this. This creates a far greater threat to Iran than US sanctions alone would.
And when the US agreed not to invade Iran if Iran complied then the entire need for a nuke evaporated. They only ever wanted one so that they could use it in self defence against an overwhelming American invasion.
It was a pure win win win where there was never actually any underlying conflict of interests. Iran didn't want a nuke, America didn't want Iran to have a nuke, America's enemies also didn't want to Iran to have a nuke. Iran only tried to get one because America told it that they'd invade it unless it did.
Anyway, you have an escalatory deterrence triangle. Iran feels it needs a nuke to defend against America. Israel says that it Iran getting a nuke would be a breach of non proliferation and destabilize the region (without even a hint of shame) and if it does that then they'll set America on it, America says that Israel told them to attack Iran, Iran says that if America is going to attack it then they need a nuke. Nobody actually wants the damn nuke.
|
|
|
On March 19 2026 22:34 Jankisa wrote:Israel has became a militaristic nation, similar to Russia, most people who disagreed with the ways things are going left the country, the extreme settlers have more children then secular folks and especially since October 7th people are extremely propagandized. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israelis-unite-political-divides-support-justified-war-iranSomething like 80 % of Israeli Jews support the attacks. 50 % of them said they would have supported them even if Americans successfully negotiated with Iran. While the world scoffed at the "we launched a per-emptive strike on Iran" bullshit it's something that is widely accepted in Israel. They, to me, from outside looking in became a nation that thinks that all political problems around them can and should be solved by violence, and they are acting according to that. That is of course enabled by "unlimited partnership" with USA, after October 7th Biden showed them that there is no step too far that they can do that will stop Americans from having their backs. Trump came in and put that into overdrive. This is incredibly dangerous, and in that context, yeah, Nethyanahu dying doesn't do much, as the next person will also be very pro war and anti any sort of Palestinian solution. Iran did in fact train and arm multiple terrorist organizations that committed violence against Jews inside and outside of Israel for decades. They've been chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel," longer than most of this forum has been alive.
So you have to be a great idiot to look at 80% support or 50% support 3 weeks in and think that's proof of militarism. The enemy that has declared itself your enemy and has done so for generations is going to, surprise surprise, reap some populist fervor when it gets the first sustained airstrikes of a war. If or when the participating armies don't announce and achieve objectives, lead to sustained economic harms, and everyone goes home with nothing lasting achieved, then you look for the percentage who respond passionately that the war should continue. That's your proof, debatably. Not when the enemy that loudly announces every week for your entire life that it wants you dead gets airstrikes for ~3 weeks. You'd have to think Israelis are particularly subhuman to truly believe that.
|
Yeah, and to add, one of the craziest things in the world is the fact that Israel very clearly has a nuke, is breaking all kinds of international agreements due to that, doesn't allow any inspections or even acknowledges that they have it and suffers no consequences from that.
Actually, they did allow inspections but they had to be conducted by USA and had to be announced in advance. So, you know, they absolutely wanted and have quite a few nukes.
And I don't blame them for it, in that neighborhood, it makes absolute sense, but doesn't mean that what they are doing now is any less hypocritical.
|
Northern Ireland26986 Posts
On March 20 2026 03:39 Jankisa wrote:
I, on the other hand, find it very easy to object to it because their plan for Iran is the same as their plan for Palestine. Make it a failed state, make sure the people there are poor, disorganized and destitute because that's the only way that Israel can "feel safe".
That is fucking insane. In that context, Americans who under Trump treat almost every previous ally as hostile would be justified in nuking the whole Europe because "EU is a project to undermine USA" , so, in order for them not to feel threatened the most logical solution is to attack first, right?
I might be completely off here, I'm in no way shape or form an expert, but from everything I read Iran was on a path to become a "normal" regional power, of course, there is rhetoric for the hardliner base at home, but if you look at actions, they seemingly wanted to normalize relations with the west and become a more normal regional power.
During the same period, Nethyanahu did everything in his power to undermine this, going behind Obama's back to do a speech in Congress shitting all over him, being extremely critical at all attempts to actually achieve normalization between the west and Iran.
A rational country led by rational people would understand that reaching a negotiated stalemate and having controls over a nuclear program with live camera feeds and regular inspections is a much more realistic way to keep a country from nuking you then trying to bomb a country of 90 million people into submission.
Aye I mean I agree with this as well to be fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
