I am French too and this sounds greatly exaggerated. Either you don't really know about the situation in Hungary or you have a very twisted view of what's happening in France (maybe induced by the medias). You should take a step back.

"Security" laws extending the powers of the police and creating new ways to criminalize protest have been passed at a constant rhythm over the years since Sarkozy's time. After the state of urgency of 2015, part of the dispositions where simply put into law permanently.

Police has been increasingly violent during protests, bringing back old forbidden tactics and squads formerly dissolved for their violence (voltigeurs).

While there has been no dissolution of leftist movement and no political violence from the left since "action directe" in the 80's, there have been multiple ones (or attempts) in recent times, like the one from yesterday of an ecological movement.

Anti-terrorist laws are used to detain ecologists or protesters indefinitely, like in the case of the "8th november" affair from this topic, which has seen a person kept in solitary (hence, tortured) for 16 months without even being convicted.

What could go wrong?

But sure, keep ignoring these threats and keep bashing Macron instead, because he didn’t fold to unions! And he looks like a nerd! I hate him! I’ve been told to hate him!

You are attacking the wrong target. You are missing the big picture.

This is rich comming from someone putting Melenchon, basically an old school socialist (in the werstern Europe sense), in the same bag as Le Pen and Zemmour who are as far-right as it gets in Europe.

I agree that the situation is not very readable, but at least let's try to have a point of view consistent with the political history of the last few decades.

Melenchon is very left-wing, started as a Trostkist and is good friend Venezuela's Maduro, against the capitalist system, etc. So if you think Le Pen is extreme on one side then Melenchon has to be equally extreme on the other side.

So did more than half of the socialist party elit (elephant du PS), even freaking Cambadelis, are you suggesting he’s far left to ?

> against the capitalist system

Well yes, almost by definition of being on the left I would argue.

> So if you think Le Pen is extreme on one side then Melenchon has to be equally extreme on the other side.

No, this is a false equivalence. I mean the far-left as a political position does exist in France, but it is not represented by Melenchon who is still largely a socialist, although the actual socialist party has significantly shifted rightward in the 10's so there is a perception issue there.

Another point is that you do not explain why Le Pen is more extremist than those guys.

In February 2022, Zemour, MLP and Mélenchon were all supporting Putin, his stance against the "evil US", saying that Putin would never invade Ukraine, that it was all US propaganda being spoon-fed to Europe. Then the invasion happened. Then they blamed the invasion on US, of course, and questioned the reports of war crimes, and justified Russia aggression by saying it was defending against "NATO aggression". But then, when Russia started to loose, they became "pacifists", saying NATO was prolonging the war by helping Ukraine...

If they were Russian assets, they wouldn't behave much differently...

Same smell on both sides of the political spectrum. Who would have thought? Crazy, right? Like, imagine if far-right Hitler made a secret pact with the communist Soviet Union. Sounds familiar?

Please, friend, instead of attacking the man you should attack the argument. Give us the why to all of these assertions. What is the bigger picture? What actually could go wrong? Argue with facts please. Let's not turn this into a flame war

Here's a copy paste of my other comments, I hope it gives some elements of answer:

1. Just google Melenchon and Bolivarian alliance. Melenchon dreams of making France be part of an alliance with Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, to name a few, with Iran and Russia as observer members. Sounds like he loves "democracy". He also had some crazy outbursts, screaming things like, "I AM THE REPUBLIC", on camera, that would have ended any other politician career. But he gets a pass, somehow.

2. In February 2022, Zemour, MLP and Mélenchon were all supporting Putin, his stance against the "evil US", saying that Putin would never invade Ukraine, that it was all US propaganda being spoon-fed to Europe. Then the invasion happened. Then they blamed the invasion on US, of course, and questioned the reports of war crimes, and justified Russia aggression by saying it was defending against "NATO aggression". But then, when Russia started to loose, they became "pacifists", saying NATO was prolonging the war by helping Ukraine...

If they were Russian assets, they wouldn't behave much differently...

Same smell on both sides of the political spectrum. Who would have thought? Crazy, right? Like, imagine if far-right Hitler made a secret pact with the communist Soviet Union. Sounds familiar?

But a new constitution with more democracy is still one of the center piece of his political agenda, and the political agenda of his party. That is not the case of any other major party I think. And there is no reason to believe his party would not act at least partially on it if elected.

He's been mocked big time for his "support" of Venezuela or his outbursts... But Macron and many other French political figures faced bigger scandal without having their career ended ! Why such a focus on Melenchon ?

How is it not obvious to everyone? It's obvious to me that would this guy be president, his already very authoritarian tendencies would only get worse. How comes his political agenda is relevant?

He rules his political party as a Great Leader while having no democratic relevance, as he got rejected at all past elections. Not to mention his ridiculous PR stunt when he was boasting about being the next prime minister. He is so full of shit, I'm astonished he still is listened to. He can't get to govern from elections, so he fantasizes about bypassing all that with a good'ol Socialist Revolution™.

So I think there are LOTS of reasons to believe his party (so basically himself) would not act as promised if elected. I think he would quickly identify countless enemies of the People. I think disagreeing with him would make anyone an enemy of the People. Today, it's already quite courageous for any journalist to disagree with him in front of him. The guy has serious anger management issues, and usually addresses such journalists with threats and accusations. Seeing how he behaves on camera, I can only imagine how it is to disagree with him privately.

Now, not saying Macron is perfect by any means, but I'd be curious to hear about these bigger scandals that didn't end his career.

Melenchon is not alone, he is with a party with many different people, deagreing on some subject, but tending to agree on a new "more democratic" constitution. Furthermore he would need to ally with other parties, like the Green, who have a strong democracy and pro-democracy tradition.

Furthermore Melanchon himself will probably "retire", does your argument still stand when he goes, or is this FRance Insoumise that scares you ?

So, let's start with "Why do I have such focus on Melanchon?"

That one is just dishonest. Let me remind you of your own answer that started this focus on Mélenchon:

"Not sure what Melenchon is doing in its list as one of it core element of its political platform is to have a new constitution with less power to the president, more counter powers, more power "to the people""

I'm just answering your question and staying on topic... But you try to turn this around as me being a maniac. Just like Mélenchon, you aren't really interested in an honest debate, are you?

You also reach to the disappointing "All politicians are the same to me" argument when the guy you defend is exposed as the imposture he is.

As to your deep surprise about the "revolution" part, I think you might not know about Mélenchon true ideas and background. Here's a talk he gave in 2012, in Venezuela when Chavez won his 5th term: https://www.facebook.com/StopCaSuffit/videos/extrait-dun-dis...

Here's a small part of it: "Qu'est ce qu'on fait, camarades, ça c'est un cas concret de révolution. La révolution, c'est pas un sujet de, heu... C'est un sujet concret! C'est une stratégie qu'il faut mener comme nous meme nous en avons une en France. Et après, il faut, non seulement conquérire le pouvoir mais également l'exercer de manière révolutionnaire!"

In English this would be something like "What are we doing, comrades? This is a concrete case of revolution. Revolution is not just a topic, uh... It's a concrete matter! It's a strategy that needs to be pursued, just like we have our own in France. And afterwards, not only do we need to conquer power but also exercise it in a revolutionary manner!"

That's appealing to me. You can see what I assume is Chavez supporters in the background. Chavez was en-route to his 5th term, closer and closer to achieving President-For-Live. That seems to speak a lot to Mélenchon.

Now, you say that he's not alone, and that other people in his party disagree on some subject, but that they agree on a new "more democratic" constitution. Yeah. Sure. These people define "democracy" in their own vague and populist way. "power to the people" is a overused catch phrase that's usually not precisely defined. It very quickly turns into the various parody of socialist democracies that are just dictatorships disguised as "People Democracy". You know that, right? Do I even have to explain all of that? When you here "People" too much in a politician mouth, you know he's just a conman.

You are acting like an apologist of what clearly is a dishonest megalomaniac with serious anger management issues, using the word "democracy" and "people" to justify anything without ever defining it.

Finally, it doesn't matter if I'm scared by this "FRance Insoumise", as a matter of fact he built this party around his big personality, and made it a nest of populists, opportunists and generally confused people, but nevertheless revolted, angry, chaotic and proud of it. I'm yet to hear anything honest, relevant, or interesting from them. It's just accusations, threats, whataboutism, bad faith and obstruction of debate. They are not "Insoumis", they are angry bigots, ready to be completely "soumis" to their Great Leader in exchange of some revenge against "the wealthy", capitalism, and some vague notion of a conspiracy of "the west" / US / Europe. I guess they are bored of their normal lives, they fantasize of being oppressed to justify their hunger for chaos / revolution / violence but it's really boredom from highly privileged people that think they are slaves, somehow.

It's easy being a communist in a free country. Try being free in a communist country.

Now, I'm not focusing on Mélenchon, you just happened to ask specifically about him. I'd be happy to discuss other disgusting politicians, such as, as I mentioned, Le Pen, or Zemour. There are other bad actors, of course, but these 3 are the most known and the most dangerous. Macron has done/said several thing I don't like (removing ISF taxes, his backward views on cannabis, his recent licking of Elon's ass), but he's not in the same ballpark. I persist: anyone pointing him as THE threat to democracy is completely missing the big picture.

The starting point of this exchange is me saying that I can see Le Pen or Zemmour as a potentiel threat to the current French democracy, but not Melenchon.

Le Pen is from a political party that has a long history of wanting less counter power (ending the "republic of the judge" for example") and more "authority'. And in places where her party got power, there're been some issues with NGOs or political opponent.

Zemmour clearly said that he wants less counter power, and want to care less about human rights for example.

A big part of the conservative right (they need them to get the power) agree with them on those topic. They can have the support of some influential billionaires and medias.

Melenchon and his party clearly said for several years that he wants more democracy with a concrete proposal... In his party there are a strong minority that don't want a less authoritative French state (some used to like Chevenement..) but they are a minority, and they don't want a more authoritative state. None of his allies (he needs them to access and keep power) want a more authoritative state, and some allies want a more democratic state. There is no know authoritative leftist billionaire of influential media.

A general idea of the vote of police and military https://twitter.com/Cluster_17/status/1544352151467528196?la... (to be taken with some distance, it is a poll from cluster 17)

Note that Melenchon was proposing to hire 10,000 more policemen

1-

To me " permanent outrage, inflammatory discourse, obstruction of debates, conflictualization of everything, exacerbating existing social tensions" or using "vague" undefined word or using "overused catch phrase" can definitely apply to Macron, Darmanin, Ciotti, Valls, Rousseau, Wauquiez... and many others. All mainstream political party. Most of mainstream politicians doing good in the medias in 2023. And I guess we can also say they are "dishonest megalomaniac", and many have as "serious anger management issues".

All mainstream political parties (except perhaps the Greens) have had serious internal democracy problems (including falsifying votes in PS, UMP, LR).

This is bad. This does not give faith in politicians. But it seems that for you this represent a danger for democracy when it comes to Melanchon, but not when it comes to centrists or politician from the right.

- 2- About the revolution.

You said he is "defining democracy around concepts like "the revolution" ; that is absolutely not the case, especially not in the video you sent.

As I said in a previous comment, I find problematic his defense of Chavez or Castro. And this support is of course a little scary when it comes to democracy into the adversity. But Melenchon program being so different (nothing really radical in his platform - especially compared to Cuba or Venezuelan situation), in a country with much more counter power than Cuba or Venezuela, with a political plateform with a more democracy as center piece, and allies strongly against anything more authoritative in the current state... Well, that is not cool, but I don't see a real risk here

- 3 - New democracy and being vague

Most politician are often "vague". This includes la France Insoumise. Still tehy tend to produce a lot of written stuff explaining their positions for the last presidential election for exemple. Including testing their economical scenario with the Banque de France model, or detail plan about army... Here is one thing about the new constitution https://lafranceinsoumise.fr/2023/05/02/passer-a-la-6e-repub...

- 4. La France Insoumise

Your view of la France Insoumise can explain why you fear for democracy... But how did you came to this conclusion ??? That is surprising. I would not be able to say this about any political party in France. Do you know their are business owner, startupers, economists, rich people... supporting La France Insoumise ? I really think you don't know them enough. Know your enemy ;)

- 5- Communism Melenchon is not communist and his polical plateform is not communist, why this quote ?

I'm sorry but if you can't at least admit this, there's nothing we can gain from this conversation.

2- Did you watch the video? It's clear that his idea of governing is "conquer[ing] power but also exercise it in a revolutionary manner!". If he's not talking about his understanding of democracy, then I don't know what he's talking about. In any case he's explicitly supporting using "revolution" and "conflictualization of everything" to "conquer power" and "exercise it in a revolutionary manner". If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

3- I'm sorry but I won't bother read stuff from LFI, they so often fail to be relevant, throwing nice-sounding ideas around, they don't care if they work, everything sounds so easy, "pay people more", "more money to education", "more money to health care", "lower retirement age", "more democracy", "more power to the people". All of that we can't have because of [some target group]. [some target group] are conspiring against "the people". Can't you see it's just a "nice" and empty ideology? It has a name: demagogy and populism.

4- I'm not surprised some powerful people support a demagogue. While it'll be bad for most people, opportunists can really profit from such a regime.

5- This quote is just there to remind you that LFI have it very easy, they point at "authoritarian" Macron, while they burn mannequins of him, threaten to behead him like Louis XVI, put his head on footballs, etc. They can do all that borderline stuff with no consequences. They just support these massive hate campaigns. Which is maybe ok? Because it's free-speech? I don't know, it sounds like hate speech to me. But in any case they have it soooooo easy, compared to any country with actual authoritarian leaders. It's easy being InSoUmIs in a free country. They are just highly privileged people, pretending to be oppressed and revolting against an imaginary "dictatorship". Can't you see that? It's so obvious to me.

Let me add a 6th point. The way Mélenchon blames Ukraine, apologizes Putin, his completely ridiculous stance just before the war started, saying that Russia would never invade and that it was all a big plot from US/NATO as always... He was soooooo wrong on that one, it's just embarrassing. He's wrong on so many things, but he just angrily moves forward, finding new enemies to denounce, new polemics to surf on, never acknowledging his spectacularly failed predictions. I simply can't understand for the life of me how can educated and honest people fall for such an obvious fraud.

And there are discourses and there are actions... Even journalists of le Figaro (right, with far right journalists and guests) had to publicly protest several times against Macron and his police because of stuff linked to democracy.

2. Your initial post where mentioning defining democracy around the term of revolution. This is not the case. Note that most violent revolution were to bring more democracy (even if does not end well all the times) and he seems to use the word in a very broad sense, including winning election. I did say this point is in a way scary, but gave you detailed explanation why in this context it is not that scary at all. You did not answered to any of those points.

3. I you don't read their detailed stuff, how do you know it is "a "nice" and empty ideology" ?

4. Why you call him a demagogue (even without reading any detailed stuff) ? and on what base you you say it will be bad for most people ?

More importantly as we were talking about democracy, how do you see Melenchon managing to reduce democracy, while his political plateform is more democracy, his party and people voting for him want more democracy, while his allies he need does not want less democracy, while there are important safeguard in France, while counter powers does not want less democracy, while army, police, companies and press does not like him and would oppose any move toward more autoritarism ???

5 - Your answer is off-topic... Still answering it :

Protesters did a lot of things, not LFI (except for ONE elected representative saying something one time)...

The discourse of LFI is the recent protest the not centered around the lack of democracy but about retirement, and more broadly about work and money.

No LFI leader compared the French situation with Russia ! But indeed some pointed that democracy moved back a bit... And indeed even journalist from Figaro had to mobilize several times against Macron for stuff link to democracy... And I am sometimes afraid to go protest (and I do respect the law) having been attacked several times by the police... And the recent twist to prevent the parliament to vote a law is lawful but is seen as going against "democracy" by a majority of French people.

6 - Here again a new off topic subject... You are grossly caricaturing his position, but what is the link with democracy in France ??? (note that only USA predicted that Russia will attack)

7- If you are around Lille, let's have a drink if you want :-)

2- Hmmm. More often than not, "revolutions" have put merciless dictators into power instead of actually liberating anyone. A revolution in a free country usually is bad news. A country where you can freely parade with drawings of the beheaded president is not a country that needs a revolution to me.

3- There are way too many red flags, I won't waste my time reading their stuff. I know I'll just roll my eyes at each one of their "y'a-qu'à-faut-qu'on" claims. Sorry but you don't need to taste a cake when it smells like shit 10 meters away.

Do you read Zemour's books? No, you don't need to, if you have any critical thinking and heard him about 3 times, you know he's a fraud, a liar, a populist surfing on racism, hatred, fear, and national pride. And probably backed by the Kremlin.

4- I call him a demagogue because, again, he just makes random promises, like double the minimal salary / universal salary / prevent old people from voting (what???), without knowing how it would actually work, and he doesn't care anyway, he just targets some left-leaning audience, say whatever he thinks they would like to hear, and blame everything on Macron. He appeals to the lowest instincts. Envy, pride, hatred. What he says is worthless, he's not playing the game, he bullshits his way through everything. And when confronted, he doesn't have arguments, he just counter-attacks, it's a smoke-screen, because he's a fraud. Macron might be somewhat pretentious/pedant, but when confronted he's not afraid of staying on topic, he has a point, and consistent argument. You might disagree with him, I do on several topics, but he usually knows what he's talking about and don't need to use diversions/accusations/obstruction like Melenchon or MLP.

And then, if elected, maybe he would fail at turning France into the "Bolivarian dream", but why would you support him in the first place??

5- I'm sorry but the discourse of LFI recently was not particularly centered around one topic, it was centered around getting outraged with anything, given it comes from Macron, and Hijacking any "fait divers" to blame it on him. Some guy got almost hit by a car because he wasn't paying attention? Of course he wasn't paying attention because he was so upset with all the things Macron has done to The French People, damned Macron! He did so much harm, we need to put him in jail! Sounds ridiculous? It is, but I've heard such comments from LFI supporters. Those were completely brainwashed :(

Now, you say that people noticed democracy moved back a bit, so we need to attack the "extreme centrists" (I've heard this as well) and push to elect an angry dictatorship-loving guy? Are you serious??

Also, not sure what the recent "twist" was, but I'm sorry, it's meaningless to me. Again, either it's lawful, either it's not. I find this constant questioning of our constitution and rules very concerning. It's not attacked because of the rules themselves, it's attacked when it allows the current government to... govern. It's not fair. Did you notice that the constitution and rules are not attacked when it allows the opposition to do obstruction with dozens of motions de censures, with thousands of sloppy change-requests to proposed laws, etc. I think it's sad that the current opposition act like they aren't interested in honest debates. Yet, you don't hear Macron attack the rules.

6- Why is it off topic?? I thought the topic was "why is mélenchon in the same list as zemour and MLP". All of them were admiring the "stance" of Putin against NATO "aggression", bashing the US for "disinformation" about an imminent invasion. Sure, other actors mispredicted, even zelensky, but then, there's being wrong, and there's being wrong about something you were loudly using to prove your whole ideology and world view is THE correct one and everyone else are dumb and evil supporters of some western conspiracy which raison d'être is to destroy our Kremlin friends and enslave the world into CaPiTaLiSm. Of course I'm caricaturing, but I don't think I'm caricaturing that much. I can't find the tweet anymore, but it was the usual outraged, bold, harshest possible tone. Maybe for once he could have shown a little bit of humility when proven spectacularly wrong? Of course not, when proven wrong, he just doubles down. It's who he is, that's what he does.

Now if the topic is just democracy, then, I think his support of invaders and totalitarian war criminals is still completely on topic.

7- Sure, I'm sure this debate would be much more constructive in person :) I still appreciate the way you deescalated the conversation. I admit I loose my temper way too fast, and that's bad. I would be a terrible politician. Or... would I? ;-)

We both agree that word and discourse are important. But I think going deeper than what you heard on mainstream media is important to have a clearer picture. I think that concrete situation (eg. who are in their parties, who are their allies, what is the power dynamics...) is important. And I think that what people do is often more important than what people says. My argumentation was mostly based on this ; and I felt that your answers were mostly based on some "words" you heard on some medias, and often your "feeling" about it.

We both hate and fight against Zemmour. But while I did not read entire books of him, I am reading media not aligned with my conviction for years, I spent many hours reading and listening Zemmour, Zemmour supporters, and people putting work to describe Zemmour situation. I talked with far right people. I am not hating them and find them dangerous just because this smell shit from a distance, I have argument. I know they are not some crazy incoherent dudes. I know them enough to be able to easily be the devil advocate if I wanted.

When it come to LFI or Melanchon, you are just saying things so distorted, showing that you really don't know them. They wanted to increase the minimal salary by 15% (what a revolution), you think they want to double the minimal salary... We can argue about their program, but some serious economists backed it. You really have a grotesque view of LFI and their program (note that like any party, there are many different people in LFI). And I personally don't really like them (but voted for them once). I don't have a grotesque view of Zemmour I think.

Our last source of disagreement is I guess Democracy. Your definition of democracy seems to be "what is lawful under the 5th French Republic" ; even when it is against the vast majority of what French people want, even when it is against what 100% of the elected union want, against the elected parliament, and even Le Figaro journalists (and most other journalist) have to mobilized themselves several times because of the threats against freedom of the press. Personally I want more democracy.

2/3rds of AfD supporters claim to be doing it as a protest vote. And that they don't support the AfD. Just like with brexit.

There's still time for an alternative before all of Europe goes in with fascism again.

That is somewhat funny/punny, since that is (as you're probably aware) literally in AfD's name: Alternative for Germany (Deutschland).

And how did that "protest vote" go for the UK?

> There's still time for an alternative before all of Europe goes in with fascism again.

AfD => fascism. Argumentum ad Hitlerum basically. Does Germany really need more migration? More identity kamikaze? More publicly financed propaganda (ARD, ZDF, DW, plenty "N"GOs)? More provocation towards Russia for no god damn reason? More climate hysteria (and the unevitable destruction of enviroment for it)?

Which party would you choose instead? They all stand for the same thing with different velocity except ... yeah, exactly.

I think arguing about the accuracy of labels like "nazi" or "fascist" is a bit beside the point. You and I both know the people calling the AfD fascist or nazi won't suddenly like it better if you can convince them they don't meet the exact definition of fascism or are identical to the historical National Socialist Democratic Workers Party. It's clearly more about a vibe, but that is also true for the AfD's own political ideology (and yours, apparently, if you think "identity kamikaze" is 1) a thing that is happening and 2) something to be seriously concerned about). Incidentally the NSDAP also had different factions including Strasserites, who imagined a more proletarian-led economy and people who thought having homosexuals like Röhm around was acceptable, at least for utilitarian purposes. Incidentally, most of those were murdered by the rest once the NSDAP actually got into power. Such is the reward for being progressive in the far-right.

Yeah, there are a lot of allegations. Just recently his home was invaded by police for alleged cannabis possession (of his son). Kinda looks like he is a dissident, doesn't it?

Tell me: How is Björn Höcke a Nazi/fascist/right-extremist?

Btw, the Wiki article even features the bad "Bernd" joke in it. Wiki as a source ... lol

> I think arguing about the accuracy of labels like "nazi" or "fascist" is a bit beside the point.

It's exactly the point. If you want to say right-wing you should say just that. If you want to slander or dismiss a party, you compare them to fascists in some way.

> Incidentally the NSDAP also had different factions including [...]

And there it is and quite long even. It's guilt by association in a really obscure way.

Not sure if you're aware of the word "Schuldkult" (roughly translated to "cultic guilt"). I know, I know - a naughty word, but it so perfectly describes some Germans in which their whole identity circles around the guilt of Nazi Germany. They try to get away from it as far as they can. Every aspect of Germany is automatically tainted for these individuals. That's not a foundation for a working identity (at least not a German one). It's only destruction.

> It's clearly more about a vibe [...]

Yeah, it's more a feeling than actual fact.

Whats wrong with mentioning the fact "Bernd" is being used as his name? That's just a fact, isn't it?

You don't vote for proto fascists as a protest vote. Especially not when you're German.

There is a large undercurrent of reactionary hateful views in German politics that usually hides behind the fig leaf of "conservatism" but has become more visible thanks to parties like CSU openly copying AfD talking points and "liberal" media being unequipped to handle them in any other way than giving them a platform and hoping that the "marketplace of ideas" saves the day. Of course as we now know from experience, "rational debate" is impotent in a "post-truth" environment.

It's a widespread misconception that Germany got rid of all the Nazis and Nazi ideology during the so-called "Denazification" (Entnazifizierung).

While there were formal reviews of the innumerable former NSDAP members to determine their ideology and behavior under Nazi rule, only the most blatant offenders faced any consequences and it was demonstrably easy to "cheat" (i.e. we now know based on a better understanding of historical records that some people were able to hide very incriminating evidence of their involvement in e.g. forced labor and Jewish persecution) and any undesirable rulings could be appealed to offer another opportunity to "correct the record" so to say. As a consequence, many Nazis saw no real consequences and even ended up in the same positions of power because their job experience made them the most qualified (and "innocent until proven guilty", right?).

Additionally, many former NSDAP members went on to continue working in politics. Of the parties still relevant today, the conservative CDU/CSU received the lions share of them, in addition to those formerly associated with the likewise Christian "center party" which while ostensibly "politically moderate" was one of the driving forces in the rise of the NSDAP and the passing of the Enabling Act dissolving the democracy.

In East Germany, likewise many former NSDAP members ended up in the equivalent of the CDU/CSU (known as CDU in East Germany at the time and CDUD or Ost-CDU in West Germany), the NDPD and the LDPD (the East Germany equivalents of the market liberal West German FDP, the NDPD explicitly being created to target "unimpacted" ex-NSDAP members and siphon off conservative voters who would otherwise have supported the CDU or LPDP), all of which continued to exist as an executive organ[1] of the ruling unity party until 1989.

It's also worth pointing out the East Germany was even less rigurous in its "Denazification" (Stalin ended the program in 1948 insisting that it was time to stop distinguishing between ex-NSDAP and non-NSDAP and instead focus on growing democracy) and the SED was uniquely ill-equipped to deal with neo-Nazis when they arose, previously already having viewed "unimpacted" NSDAP members as politically confused rather than genuinely dangerous. For some it was literally impossible to imagine neo-Nazis could exist in East Germany because they saw the rise of the Nazis as a response to capitalism and East Germany was supposed to be non-capitalist[2]. For this reason, East Germany was however (like the USSR) quite successful at fighting other leftist currents, which were seen as misguided or even "capitalist" (as the only valid form of anti-capitalism was clearly that practiced by the government and opposing it therefore must be capitalist).

So in essence Germany has never weaned itself off fascism, really. While Germany has become generally more progressive compared to the 1930s, in some ways it is also still less progressive than it was during the Weimar era. A lot of leftist politics also died even before the suppression under the Nazis, the suppression under the SED or the suppression under the Cold War era anti-communist West Germany: while many know about the in-fighting between the SPD and the USPD after WW1, culminating in a massacre at the hands of monarchist paramilitaries, there were also numerous other leftist mass deaths such as the two(!) socialist republics in Bavaria, which eventually also fell victim to the monarchists.

In other words, it shouldn't be surprising that we still have monarchist terrorist groups (Reichsbürger) treated with more bewilderment than horror, whereas the closest we have to leftist activism is moderates gluing themselves to public roads to demand incremental climate protection legislation, and two so-called leftist parties that hate each others guts and one of which has almost fully embraced neoliberalism (the SPD implemented the neoliberal reforms of weakening labor protections, social welfare and medical care some 20 years ago).

The AfD is a protest vote in as much as Trump is a protest vote. They're not something you usually bring up in polite conversation but they have easy answers and push all the right (wing) faux-populist buttons.

[1]: Point of pedantry: East Germany quickly established a system with a single ruling party, the SED or "socialist unity party". However the CDU, NDPD and LDPD continued to exist as "block parties" and began increasingly aligning themselves with the ruling SED. The "block parties" were infamously nepotistic and provided a relatively easy path to political power and privileges compared to the dominant SED.

[2]: Point of pedantry: East Germany was not "communist" although it was at times framed as "Stalinist". East Germany instead eventually used the label "real existing socialism" (along with some other Eastern block countries) which was intended to frame anyone left of the ruling party as "utopian" and unserious. This "it's already as good as it gets" position is distinct from other so-called "communist" countries which often used the term aspirationally, claiming they would eventually achieve the communist ideal after reaching a tipping point (allowing the state to "wither away"). Both are distinct from anarcho-communists who would argue that if you try to build a state to achieve communism, "real existing socialism" really is the best you can hope for because states don't wither away voluntarily and you can only grow communism from the ground up (cf. prefigurativism).

Also, while I don't like the people in the AfD, they are still mostly the former right wing of the CDU/CSU, which is not comparable to Orban. CDU/CSU can blame itself for mismanagement.

I think you're sugarcoating the statement. Any type of authoritarianism is bad, would you mind elaborating why AfD would be worse than what Orban or Duda or even Erdogan are doing to their countries?

The US barely survived as a democracy under Trump. It was literally a matter of Pence refusing to play along and the secret service refusing to put Trump on the Capitol so he could take charge of the rioters.

The US has far more protections than France with a much weaker president. Yet, it had a coup attempt that barely failed.

It's not unlikely that democracy in France will not survive LePen.

what??

>>It was literally a matter of Pence refusing to play along and the secret service refusing to put Trump on the Capitol

Things that never happened for 1000 Alex....

Even if Pence has "played along" the outcome would have been the same, this narrative that the US was on the "razor's edge of democratic collapse" is insanity.

>>with a much weaker president.

The current problem has come about because for the last several decades (almost 100 years), and with an accelerated pace we have consolidated more and more power into the federal government at large, and the office of president via the creation of a massive administrative "4th" branch of government that should be unconstitutional on its face.

The problem is not who or what office has the power. The problem is power itself...

The only rational way to curb the corrupting influence of power is to limit it, and distribute it as far and wide as possible

Any concentration of power is bad

Multiple failed, weak democracies that were subsequently replaced by dictatorships, several in France, would beg to differ.

It's a balance between centralization (stability) and decentralization (individualism).

Too much of either is corrosive.

All my friends in Classics, familiar with stories about how ancient coups worked, were terrified. You really think that if Pence had refused to certify the vote, and had instead "certified" some alternate set of electors, and Trump and all his faction had claimed uniform victory, that somehow the army & police and everyone else would have stood against it? At best we'd've had a civil war.

The best part of that January was that a coup and/or civil war did not happen. The US got on with business. It could have went bad, but it did not do so.

Strong disagree: a half-assed, incompetently executed, failed bank robbery is still classed as and prosecuted as "bank robbery", there is no separate legal category for "attempted bank robbery".

It's the same with a failed coup. "the coup failed pathetically" is categorically different from "a coup did not happen".

citation needed. Even the EPA's own page provides the actual agency "keeping track" of them:

https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-submarines-and-aircraft-...

(hint: it's the DOD and Navy, right at the top of "where to learn more")

Repeating "China is so bad" into a microphone a thousand times turns out isn't actual leadership.

The trump derangement syndrome is one of the least undemocratic things I've seen in US politics.

The whole Jan 6 narrative is also quite ridiculous. Akin to the FBI manufactured terror plots to continue having funding.

I still remember people protesting the election the next day after trump won and claiming he'd put minorities in concentration camps.

All we ended up with was hysterics by the opposition party, tweets, surprisingly less war than usual (but still increase in spending in defense and not really draining any swamp) and some diplomacy and little more. But hey, since "literally Hitler #23 (aka repub president) was in power we had to pretend he was a Russian spy for years and that the election was stolen/hacked.

The insane partisan bias displayed my most tech giants percolates so strongly that people have lost the ability of nuance. It's either the whole package or nothing (and this goes for red or blue, the biggest US false dichotomy).

It's fair to assume Putin would try to influence the elections in trump's favor as he would have been beneficial for him.

The Ukraine invasion would have been much easier if trump had been relelected, finished pulling out of nato and kept the more isolationist policy that was in effect during trump.

IMO trump was also doing a lot of damage to the US and it's position on the world stage which is also beneficial for Putin.

It wouldn't have occured because NATO and the US wouldn't have been escalating it the way they did post and pre Trump.

I know this is not the right narrative (TM) but for anyone who remembers wars are not about good Vs evil but geopolitics, they'll realize the interests at play.

But hey, Iraq has WMDs and Vietnam... Er... Something.

Not sure what you meant but I would say that it is not likely that democracy in France will survive LePen.

She's just like her dad (or even worse) but much more savvy about the packaging.

What I don't appreciate at all is our share of idiots that think that blocking the country is a proper way of protesting (see "gilets jaunes"). That is not democratic, when a minority imposes their will to the silent majority.

Nothing personal, I'm talking about the interests of all the voters who freely elected the current president and parliament.

If you are not happy, it's our duty as a society to provide you a way to express your point. But the right to express your point does not involve the violence to get our attention. Most people just want to go on with their daily life, and putting obstacles to them will not gather any sympathy around you.

Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the Gilets Jaunes, the way this government use the police on the protest can be questioning for a democracy. Even the journalist of the right Figaro newspaper journalists protest several time against police brutality against journalists.

Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the recent strikes (supported by 100% of the democratically elected trade unions), the fact that the government twist the constitution to avoid a democratic vote of the democratically elected parliament on the legislative text is "puzzling"

Those in favour went from 70 to 50% over the course of 5 months, opposition tripled, strong support went from 50% to 20%.

And while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed, like Citizens' initiative referendum, or the Solidarity tax on wealth

Imagine how successful they could have been if they had behaved as civilised people from the beginning! I personally like some of those ideas, but I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable.

1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron then mostly ignored it. 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them. 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.

If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression, you also disqualify our famous revolution, the feminist protests that earned women the right to vote, the union strikes that earned us many worker rights, etc.

> I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable

Ah, that explains it. You only see violence in protesters who break windows, not in governments who enact laws on their people. Am I correct in assuming that you're ok with making people work 20 hours/week for the RSA as well?

A government trying to manage a country has a ton of compromises to make every day; I do not expect to be happy with every one of their choices, but I think the current government is doing OK.

On the other side, I fail to see how breaking a window can solve the problem of the protester.

> If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression

I'm afraid you confuse protest with violence. The ability to protest is fundamental for a democracy to stay a democracy, but protest must not imply violence and, especially, expressing your point does not make it automatically right.

When even journalists from le Figaro (right wing newspaper) have to protest brutality against journalists.... the violence is only coming from the protester ?

The reality is: talking about CO2 emissions is talking about economy. That is the main job of the government.

> 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them.

Macron did not ignore them. 49.3 means: "I'm ready to go on this point; are you ready, too?". And, by the way, you do remember that Macron was elected, too, do you?

> 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.

So what? This is democracy! If you can't, or don't want to, found your political movement, then you have to choose among the available candidates. Do you think Macron's program matched exactly my desires?

The revolution, the feminism and the union strikes were expressions of people who were oppressed and on the receiving side of violence. Gilets Jaunes was none of this.

- peaceful protest or "convention citoyenne" are not and should not be efficient

- We don't care what the vast majority of people want, and we don't care about the parliament.

- The only thing we should care is what think the President. The one who got the support of barely 20% of the French population on the first round, and them got elected on the second round because people voted against the far right... In a "presidential Monarchy"

What a nice conception of "democracy"

In France the only way firefighter got heard the last few times, after month of peaceful protestation, is by doing violent protest, including throwing heavy thing on the policeman. Then the government accepted to negociate with them. If you don't use violence in France, in many case you don't get heard at all.

Gilets Jaunes, aslo because of their violence did manage to get the government to made some concession.

Millions of French people (more than Gilets Jaunes at their peak) marched several times peacefully against the recent Pension Law, supported by all the trade union democratically elected, supported by more than 70% of the population and more than 90% of the workers. Nothing happen. No concession. Not even a vote in the parliament.

For sure sometimes violence is efficient, sometimes violence in counter-productive. Justifiable ? that is something else...

The only polls that matter are elections. Apart from elections, people have the right to avoid any poll without risking any policy change.

2) Democracy is not just voting every 5 year for a president and a parliament

And to be clear, I'm not saying pure polling driven policy is the solution, but saying politician should outright ignore them because not legally binding is a very weird stance.

What can anyone do about a president that abuses its power ? This is a basic democratic issue and I am pessimistic because a lot of people like you just don't seem to get it, so we won't address that and when it is going to be too late it will be too late.

You might like or trust the current government but what about the next one ?

France is big enough. Having to avoid a few square kilometres around the president will leave you plenty of space to organize your protest.

And that's why the public space must be made available for protesters, it's part of the life of a sane democracy. Public space and free press are sufficient if you have a point that matters to other people.

But if you feel the need to hijack another event in order to get people's attention, maybe you don't have a valid point to start with?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

as an aussie looking on, i sympathize with the yellow vesters. the west has been captured by american tech and frankly that kind of imperialism was last seen by the Brits.

it's nothing personal against america, but we are not you. copy/pasting american tech and lifestyle into other countries isn't a clear cut 'win'.

the silent french majority is sleepwalking into another flood of american computing revolution(s) when quantum compting kicks off. better get your native french on side before you lose out on jobs and economy again.

After all, they broke the law and since it's the law then clearly the government had full legitimacy... right?

Next, you should be defending the "Code Noir" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir That was also the law at some point and only affecting a minitority of the population. The suffering of anyone in society shouldn't interrupt your daily life as any act of revolt is illegal and therefore illegitimate.

Are you even French? "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" unless it inconveniences my day-to-day.

There is more to democracy than a vote every 5 years.

Consent of the governed: "Government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised."

The founders of the United States believed that the government of Great Britain should rest on the principle that government depended on the consent of the governed and that any government not based on that consent could be justifiably overthrown and replaced.

Pretty sure revolutionary France abides by the same principles.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I know that that particular reply of mine doesn't help your particular case, but it was sickening to see how much of the supposed French people's liberties and citizens rights were broken back then and how most of the French intelligentsia was just cheering the government from the side.

Actually, they came too late for the Gilets Jaunes!

> it was sickening to see how much of the supposed French people's liberties and citizens rights were broken back then

I agree with you, a bunch of idiots holding a whole country hostage was not at all what one would expect in a sane democracy.

If you want to call "authoritarianism" the basic rule of law (as in: do not block traffic, do not prevent shops from opening, do not prevent public offices from offering their services...) you are welcome.

By the way, a pet peeve of mine, having always voted for the centre-left, I never appreciated how authoritarianism is generally considered an expression of the extreme right, while history shows that dictatorship was the evil of both extremes.

> You don't seem to care about people their freedom

I do care about the freedom of all people, and that is why I detest when protesters use violence (which is wrong) in order to gather attention for their point (which may be right).

> minority who have the balls to standup against a small elite who have all power.

I respect your opinion, even if I don't share it.

Here we have "fiery but peaceful protests" but in France it is a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law?

I don't agree. France is as wonderful as it is because revolution was successfully completed long ago.

We are the rooster that sings with it's feet deep in shite. It's gonna get ugly when it hits the fan.

1- Don't you think this is quite political? Like what is your benefit from saying this out of context? If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing? (I'm not even saying that's the case I'm just saying you don't seem to take that possibility into account at all)

2- From my observations French people -constently- complain about this. So I wouldn't say they didn't care about it. You're doing it right now.

If banning encryption and helping police stop terrorism saved x thousand lives do you blah blah blah blah

Do programmers hang out here? The aversion to reasoning from first principle is palpable.

If patriot act helped US intelligence agencies prevent the next 9/11, do you still think it was a bad thing?

We’re discussing politics.

> Like what is your benefit from saying this out of context?

What does that even mean? Are you insinuating they’re being paid to say that? How do we know you’re not paid to counter them?

> If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing?

The problem is you and no one else could prove now or then that giving up my human rights would save lives. Because its all pointless lip service to take power away from the people under the guise of “protection”. Just like with encryption, personal weapons, and everything else that governments don’t want us to have.

> I'm just saying you don't seem to take that possibility into account at all

And I’m saying you haven’t taken into account that you’re an Authoritarian apologist.

I'm convinced that whatever president they elect, they'll complain just as much.

No matter who was in charge of France there was going to be a giant spike in debt during at the very least covid, and now dealing with this Ukraine mess.

[0] I greatly prefer net Debt-to-GDP, which is a closer approximation to a country's actual balance sheet, as a measure, but it isn't frequently reported and most people tend not to care.

Macrons pushing of retirement law change against both public and parliament is definitely not democratic.

he increased the pension age because people are getting older and the state will not be able to afford it? wow what a crazy dictator

And thats without mentionning the use of abuse of administration prohibitions towards anti-racist associations and environmental groups.

unless we are talking about handling a national crisis, or avoiding a US-style shutdown, then avoiding a vote may be legitimate under specific circumstances.

but I doubt pension reforms fall under national emergencies

Are you just repeating a common cliche while not knowing much about the situation?

So yes, unilaterally deciding to raise the retirement age, which doesn't actually fix anything, without having a vote, without listening to the protests, is neither mild nor democratic.

I can't claim to be an expert in French politics, but harmful government should not be allowed to be stable.

The other bunch happened because they were precariously unstable governments.

https://youtu.be/5Sf6hdnSqS4

I used to laugh at the absurdities of the Trump government thinking it would never happen here and alas, it did. And it was even worse than most could have ever imagined.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't like the previous government and already dislike the current one's direction, but when you take one person that truly doesn't give a f**, they can ruin a country in ways you didn't even know existed.

But I don't really see a way out though. Most politicians here (probably everywhere if we're honest) are corrupt so you always choose between the lesser of many evils. The obvious solution is to actually use our collective power to rebel and really enact change - something ironically we say the French are good at - but it simply never happens. Looking at the French protests against the rise of retirement age gave me hope. But then you look at the outcome and it's always the same: we lose.

I honestly think the system has won. Capitalism successfully made everyone (myself included) just comfortable enough to not really take action. We are the proverbial frogs in boiling water and slowly but surely normalizing this insane world we live in today giving away all our hard-fought rights to our capitalist overlords.

We get upset and yell at the void, Twitter, HN, blog posts and don't actually DO anything. I truly hate myself for that. Meanwhile those that actually do something, have their efforts stifled away by governments with ease.

Perhaps I am a bit too pessimistic about this, but from where I stand, there's no way out.

I know how you feel!

I'm from the UK. Corbyn's Labour seemed to me to be a glimmer of hope; but he was pushed out by the MSM and a cabal of his own party's rightist officials, and replaced by a man who immediately on getting the leadership, repudiated all his manifesto promises.

So I no longer have anyone to vote for, and I favour revolution.

I somehow hope this time it can end less violently, but with how much (a lot of french) people hate macron, you never know...

The larger problem is, that it is spreading to other countries and EU itself (just think of how many times EU tried to stop/backdoor/outlaw encryption). Add a new upcoming crisis, recession in germany and the long-term problems brought with eu expansion, and things are about to get even worse.

If you care about democracy, you have much more relevant menace in France. People are screaming about Macron for some reason. Because they were told he is a DiCtAtOr!! Because he didn’t fold to unions. Apparently unions are to be obeyed otherwise you are a dictator? While obeying to elected government is dictatorship? It’s a nice inversion.

The true authoritarian menace in France comes from the far right and far left. Melenchon is in love with authoritarian leaders (see bolivarian alliance), he can’t help screaming at people that disagree with him. His political career should have been ended by just a few of his outbursts. But he gets a pass for some reason. And don’t get me started on the far right, screaming that we are in a dictatorship while admiring Putin…

Of course you can criticize Macron, he’s far from perfect, but if you care about democracy, focusing on him being THE issue is outright ridiculous. We have far more serious threats. You are completely missing the big picture. And people being told to fight Macron instead of the extremes is a serious threat. I can’t believe I have to explain that.

French 5th republic is sometimes nicknamed "presidential monarchy"... Electing the parliament quite at the same time as the president did reinforced the power of the president. The rise of the far right basically made that the one in the best position against far right at the first round of presidential election (with less than 20% of French people voting for him) be sure of being a Presidential Monarch for 5 years. (Notes that the leftist like Melanchon support a new constitution with more democracy, more counter power, less power for the president...)

Note also that in France people working do democratically vote for unions (even if you are not unionized), and quite 100% of those votes went to union that are strongly against las Pension Law. According to polls more than 90% of the workers were against this law. And Macron could not pass this law in the elected parliament, and had to twist the constitution to pass it... This can be seen as problematic for many.

When it come to protest, a lot of NGO and international bodies criticized the way France handle it. Many people are afraid to prostest in France now. Even the journalist of the righ wing newspaper le Figaro protest several time against police brutality against journalist in protest. NOte that France is the only country in EUrope to use many kind of weapon against protestors, weapon that can kill .

When it comes to journalists. Aside of being target by police during the protest, we've seen also a growing Judicial pressure against them. And now the government is talking about law where they could be spied...

"Because" of terrorism we've seen different law reducing the privacy of people... and many exceptional law that are hijacked to target people who are political opponent but not terrorist (like a police raid without judge OK against peaceful ecologists, or using antiterrorist law to forbid some peacefull protest)

Even the normal law are "twisted" is a problematic way. Like arresting random protesters and keeping them for the night. Or arresting the leader of a group for a fake reason and then searshing his phone flat computer for intel...

FOr sure France is not a dictature, but things are not good and are not going in a good way

I don't care if "quite 100%" of unionized people are in unions that were against the pension law, it doesn't tell anything reliable about their support. They mainly followed what the union told them. Same with polls, I don't care what they say as they are easily oriented, interpreted, ignored or promoted depending on opaque support from influential actors.

If only there was a reliable way for people to express their support and have some influence on who gets to rule... Hmmm, like votes and elections, maybe?Maybe we could call that democracy. We would equip it with super-rules, aka a constitution, that would define "democracy" with actual laws. Using the laws from the constitution isn't "twisting it". The ones doing some twisting are those who provoke massive outrage about something perfectly constitutional. There was a vote ultimately (actually several votes), called motion de censure, and the deputies against the reform couldn't form a majority. And I don't care it was only missing 9 votes, all the rules were followed. If you don't consider the rules should be the decider, then rules are meaningless. Then why bother with a constitution?

It's nice trying to think about how the constitution could define democracy differently that in the current one, but if you think that polls and unions should be part of the definition, it just doesn't make sense. The 5th republic was a response to the political instabilities that plagued France in the wake of the 2nd war, probably not helping France get a consistent stance against Nazi Germany. I don't see why it's attacked today, apart from some opportunistic reasons from actors with questionable and vague alternatives.

You are bundling many weak points together to make up for an actual strong one. "Many people are afraid to protest in France now.". Really? That's somewhat funny because according to unions, millions of people recently protested in France, for weeks. Are you sure you're not confusing with Russia? Protesting in France is not going anywhere, and outside of some twitter disinformation campaigns, people are more afraid of bad and violent actors mixing with the protesters, breaking and burning stuff, provoking police, than the police itself. Of course police is also guilty, their response can be completely inappropriate. But even then, is that because Macron is president? Do you think he personally orders the police to be violent? Why? I don't think he has anything to gain from increased police violence, as it's used against him by his political opponents. Attempts at forming a police brigade specialized against violent actors is possibly counter-productive. But what are you supposed to do when hundreds of people determined to burn something down for whatever political reasons are exercising power from violence and intimidation? And completely free from consequences? Are a few hundreds of radicalized people going to dictate what is allowed in a whole country? I don't know what the response should be, but it can't be giving up or blaming police every time.

Finally, I'm not sure where you heard about pressure against journalists from Macron, spying laws against them, or "terrorist" laws, but I'd be curious to know.

There are different election in France, including professional election, where you basically vote for a union that will represent you while you are not necessarily unionized.

Note that in 1789 our system would not be called a democracy, but a representative system. Note that Russia our Turkey have regular elections and a nice constitution. Of course I am not comparing France with those 2 countries, but it shows that election and a constitution elone are not enough, and that is the only thing you are mentioning.

France is not Russia of course, but I am often afraid in protest(being several time attacked by the police while peacefully demonstrating), and some of my friends did not joined me at some protest because of fear of the police. And we've seen negative change on how police handle protest under our last president (Hollande), but even more under Macron's rules. Germany, birthplace of Black Bloc, use less dangerous weapon and very different technique (based on deescalation).

About pressure against journalists, for sure we are not in Russia ! but there are regular alarming things... Twitter feed from Societe des journalistes or societe des Redacteur of mainstream newspaper can be a good source of information. Here just 3 random bits: https://www.telerama.fr/debats-reportages/l-espionnage-des-j... https://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2023/05/10/m... https://rsf.org/fr/petition-les-citoyens-ont-le-droit-de-man...

France has been for the past sixty years and remains an extremely technocratic country. Counter-powers are still everywhere in the administration. The judiciary system is fully independent and works well. The balance between the parliament and the executive is extremely in favour of the president (which is still elected every five years during free elections) but counter-powers exist. They can’t be used by the opposition because despite spending all their time crying wolf and explaining this is the end of the world, they remain a minority and have nothing to propose anyway.

The issue in France remains the same it has always been. The population is old, largely apathetic and would much rather be on the dole than produce anything of value. Meanwhile the unions are extremely unrepresentative of the population as a whole and remain stuck in the Trotskyist heydays of the past.

There's enough food and energy if we so choose but no; artificial crisis from coughs to barbarian hordes on the horizon mean you must be poorer and work harder.

We could all just actually wake up and realise they are lying they are always lying. They dare not tell the truth for you'd realise how much they lie when truth would shine so bright.

I have yet to met a protester who can explain to me how burning cars and picketing is going to magically move down the median age of the population which is slowly but surely drifting towards 50. Considering most French also don’t want to rely on immigration (not that the country is attractive anyway), I guess they are either planning to force people to make kids at gunpoint or are strongly in denial.

Don’t hesitate to explain who is this mysterious "they" who are apparently responsible of everything wrong in the country.

I've existed here long enough to see those that claw themselves to the top, and they are nearly all without fail a combination of psychopaths and narcissists and they will conspire to increase their power and self obsession. I'm very sure you've bumped into them at some point in your life.

The problem is that most of the people are weak and passive and they can not compete against this "they", the majority don't have the will to do it individually and our collective will is either captured by the "they" or kept divided.

The case reported in this article started when French people who went to fight in Syria among Kurdish militants came back to France and were put under surveillance.

Even if the prosecution is using unconvincing evidence, which I don't know, this is hardly a sign of impending doom.

> [...] l’utilisation de messageries chiffrées grand public, sont instrumentalisées comme autant de « preuves » d’une soi-disant « clandestinité » qui ne peut s’expliquer que par l’existence d’un projet terroriste.

Sure, using encryption must mean I have terroistic ambitions... they say public officials lack creativity, but... but at least the government got convicted for their attempts at prosecution. Means the justice system is still functioning.