Forced to by his government
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
DarthOne
☦️
(X) doubt
mrttao
Well-known member
To be clear.
He is saying macron did not WANT to limit illegal migrants. he was forced by the growing amount of conservative senator equivalent in France who are pressuring him. as well as the threat of immanent loss
macron was way worse a few years ago. but has been slowly starting to capitulate slightly to conservatives.
That's how it always goes though.
Give a bit of concessions, then take a mile when nobody is looking, proclaiming the altered state to be the status quo, rinse and repeat.
"Okay we'll reduce immigration by 30%!"
>Next year
"Immigration is up 200%! Aren't we such a diverse and equitable nation?"
>Next year
"Fineeee we'll lower it by 20%, is that better?"
mrttao
Well-known member
Yea. in total coincidence they also give that little ground just before an election.
It happens every time! I still laugh at how 'remove student debt' turned into 'yeah nah lmao, maybe if you reelect us!' in America.
So how long until the next french revoltion and what will we get next? A military junta another republic? A kingdom? No body knows.
My take is that there'll be another Hitler/Mussolini/Ghadafi dictator, who'll fix the problems and bring new ones.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
There won't be one. Revolutions are a Bourgeoisie thing.
What we'll see is a rise in Conservative politics in France, likely preceded by the Establishment trying to pander to both the Islamists and French nationalists at the same time and pleasing neither.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Man your sampling size for revolution is enitrely too small there have been a host of very successful conservative revolutions through out history.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
An oxymoron.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Not at all. Revolution means "turning". It doesn't even have to be violent, and it certainly isn't bound to an ideology. "The rapid overturning of the governing regime and its replacement by a new regime" is a fairly decent approximation of a definition for this concept.
Suppose a nation is governed by progressive atheists with globalist and cosmopolitan preferences, redistributionist economic goals, inflationary monetary policies, and anti-natalist and pro-immigration demographic ideas. Suppose they are (violently or otherwise) thrown out by angry citizens who institute wholly new governance-- of, by and for conservative Christians with nationalist and protectionist preferences, non-redistributionist economic goals, sound currency policies, and pro-natalist and anti-immigration demographic ideas.
That's (1) a revolution and (2) conservative.
It's also (3) the kind of event we're currently hurtling towards, entirely due to the mismanagement of society by the current governing cadre.
I suspect your error is simple: you've accepted the framing of the current governing cadre, that "revolutionary" means "progressive", because the revolutionaries they hold up as heroes were progressives. That's a deliberate tactic to make their enemies suspicious of the very idea of revolution. Which they want you to be, because they're in charge now, so any future revolution is against them. So, congratulations: you are currently thinking exactly as they want you to think. To change that, you'll have to become rather more... revolutionary.
Last edited:
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
No need, I'm suspicious of it anyway. Revolutionaries are dangerous people.
If your ansestors were not dangerous people you would not be here.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
No, this isn't SB. Don't try those absurd arguments. Simple fact is, revolutionaries tend to be crazy people who want to burn down the world in the delusional belief that they can make a better one. Since even a chimp can destroy things but it takes great effort and ingenuity to make them, they are almost always wrong.
And the only reason there's an "almost" there is because some revolutionaries, like the Founding Fathers, have the common sense to restrain themselves and not damage the present institutions. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Its not an abserd arugment, the people that refused to fight to defend their families and their communities died.
You are directly decended from the people who fought and killed to protect what was theres we all are. Some times you need to be dangerous.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
And once again, this isn't SB and you should avoid making false equivalences to try and "win". We are talking about revolutionaries being dangerous.