Lordre: France

Showing posts with label France. Show all posts

Unpopular, undemocratic leaders inspired by Macron

For Tony Blair to see hope in an unpopular centrist’s minoritarian grip on power tells us all we need to know about him and his ilk.

French president Emmanuel Macron is in power again, despite being unpopular, which hardly is a testament to the legitimacy of an advanced democracy.

Rule of the unpopular

Tony Blair evidently sees such figures as the ideal politicians of the future, which is unsurprising when we consider Blair is loathed by the British people. It is possible that finding inspiration in another minoritarian’s grip on managing a public that hates him is just a way for Tony Blair to cope with his own ruin.

Those who are participating in Tony Blair’s “Future of Britain” conference in June stand out as a veritable menagerie of snakes moved mainly by a hatred of the majority of people and an inability to identify with them, who are persistent about ruling them nonetheless. There are Labour defectors who fled their own constituents and party colleagues to the Liberal Democrats, evidently repeatedly frustrated at democratic results like Jeremy Corbyn's former Labour leadership and Brexit, and desperate to undo them.

Contempt for the people

To such people, the idea of minoritarian movements that primarily focus on their contempt for the people and placing their own snobbish authority on a pedestal is greatly appealing, which is why they turn to Emmanuel Macron for inspiration. Macron's ignorance of mass protests and ability to withstand deep unpopularity to be re-elected (mainly just by having a divided and diverse opposition) represents the ideal model regime to these people – one that can be devoid of democratic legitimacy but still use the language of democracy.

'Anti-populism' has increasingly become just a movement of misanthropes, for whom the biggest challenge of the day is their own nation's will and their need to suppress it.

Despite the UK presenting itself as the leading defender of Europe, Britain’s armoured vehicle production and repair is going to increasingly take place in Germany, as is shown by British interest in the “Eurotank” project as the means to get a new Main Battle Tank.

However impressive the Eurotank will be, interdependence with the continent we are meant to defend could be a major weakness. We already rely on the Germans to upgrade our panzers at their workshops, somehow managing to brag about it in the process.

We also aim to replace our Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) with Franco-German wheeled designs, rather than choosing to continue the history of unique and iconic British armoured vehicle designs. Bear in mind that the French and Germans were historic enemies of Britain, at different eras, and the current state of affairs is tantamount to British troops dressing in enemy uniforms.

Europe is no haven

From a historically savvy perspective, Britain growing reliant on German help with armoured vehicles is similar to defeat and demilitarisation at German hands, since no wise British leadership would ever have allowed the Germans or French to seize British military production capabilities and take them to their countries. Especially in a place as historically volatile as Europe, which is already undergoing significant disruption due to the Ukrainian conflict and could face an increasingly violent and destabilised future, which is historically normal for the Continent.

Europe, and Germany particularly, also have a strong historical tendency to instability and conflict that goes all the way back to the Thirty Years' War and perhaps earlier. European integration has been a fact for so little time that to think it is permanent is premature and immature. The advantage of Great Britain has always been its isolation from the contagion of European conflict, by the sea.

Even assuming the UK never returns to an era of tension with the Germans or French, it is still a fact that having our military production and repair facilities be in Germany potentially magnifies security and strategic problems, from espionage to the possibility of Germany itself being simply misgoverned and overrun with conflicts or political intrigue in the future. If things get bad in Europe, they could unnecessarily imperil British national security if we are reliant on sites there for defence production and repair.

UK arms production and repair capability being located in a non-nuclear country such as Germany is also problematic because it creates the possibility that our war production could be wiped out, without being protected by our nuclear deterrent. NATO does not necessarily protect Germany from all conflict scenarios, including nuclear ones, with the reliability that the British nuclear deterrent has.

The hollowness of Brexit

Britain’s disinterest in being an independent arms producer, and increased interest in partnering with the French and Germans instead, makes Brexit less significant, nay meaningless, in terms of turning the country into an independent strategic player. Moreover, it reveals that those in business and government who decide our priorities are merely resentful about the departure from the EU and want to do everything to offset any impact on our trajectory as a country.

British government and corporate elites have no real thought for national security. They don’t see our island as anything more than a shabby council estate that is to be left behind, to pursue their interests via the United States and the European Union or via supranational organisations like NATO. This may suit them, but it does not suit future generations who will emerge in a country that has no brand, no pride, and no security, being little more than a dump for foreign powers.

The second round of the French presidential election is due on 24 April, and the imperilled identity of the country is the one indisputable thing that a majority of French seem to agree on.

Both rival candidates, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen, are controversial, especially when it comes to their relations with French Muslims. Who is perhaps worse is not entirely clear.

Two demagogues?

Marine Le Pen compared Muslims praying in the streets, with the German occupation of the country. Emmanuel Macron stigmatises Muslims and cracks down on those who raise their voices in opposition to this. In addition, who can forget his steadfast defence of offensive drawings of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed?

Worst of all for French Muslims could be Macron's goal to rewrite Islam to be more liberal and appropriate to his vision of France. He also made an effort to close the French Council of the Muslim Faith, dissatisfied with it and with any perceived foreign influence, including simply the international communion that exists between believers across the world.

Unfortunately, France should simply be considered hostile to Islam. Between the two presidential candidates, Macron might be the more insidious, trying to actively distort Islam and interfere in the freedom of conscience.

Le Pen, despite probably having a more negative reputation with Muslims (similar to Trump), is just old-fashioned rather than insidious. She would not likely try to interfere in and pervert other people's faith, even if her policies would be more directly confrontational with France’s Muslim community, with such absurd measures as fines for wearing headscarves. It is also noticeable that Macron is a zealous Israel-supporter, going as far as to label Israel critics as enemies of the Republic, a bizarre attack that strikes directly at the consciences of Muslims more than Le Pen has done.

Civilisation anxiety justified?

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, France will struggle to reconcile the consequences of its imperialism and its attempts to maintain a culturally uniform nation-state. This could eventually result in separatism and violence in decades to come.

France’s differences from Britain are that Britain is not a secular state, and Britain accepted its overseas people as distinct cultures, with little interest in assimilation, as there is no Britishness to assimilate into (all aspects of our identity, from food to flags and even the Union itself, are the cumulative imperial booty acquired by Norman conquerors, so there is no core Britishness to be anxious about, like the core Frenchness).

On 21 March, French President Emmanuel Macron was reported to have absurdly claimed that opposing Israel is treasonous, referring to "anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism" as "enemies of the Republic", according to France 24.

Macron's statement is unfortunate for him, if anyone of a reasonable mind is to read it, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, despite how stupid and evil it is, racism (and the specific variants of it, such as anti-Semitism) is absolutely not any form of treason. Racism is more likely to be a trait of people with staunch national loyalty than those who would become traitors, so even the seemingly good part of Macron's statement is factually incorrect. If you doubt me, consider whether virtually every national hero in French history is likely to have shared modern sensibilities that allow us to reject racism. Saying racists are enemies of France would be a drunken and illogical remark.

What country is Macron loyal to?

The especially bad part of Macron's reported statement is his own expression of intolerance toward the criticism of Israel (anti-Zionism). Here, he accidentally fails to expose any traitorous behaviour other than his own. Demanding some form of allegiance to a foreign government by condemning all criticism of it would make Macron himself the enemy of the Republic.

Even impolite, more objectionable criticisms of Israel, statements that Israel is an enemy and must be bombed, and so forth, would not be incompatible with being loyal to France. Those statements may be incredible irresponsible, and they could even be criminal, but being loyal to France is solely defined by one's relationship to France and not to other countries supported by Emmanuel Macron.

America forcing loyalty to Israel

What Macron was trying to do, and what other French politicians are likely trying to do, is something that has also been done in the United States and has been advocated in Germany by some lawmakers. In the United States, people are forced by law in some states and government bodies to pledge their allegiance to Israel. US Conservative politicians see supporting Israel at all costs as essential to America, and their blind fervour drives them to extreme hostility towards Muslims.

Muslims are unable to accept Al-Quds as the capital of a hostile country that undermines their rights, and their religion would require them to be anti-Zionist. Trying to criminalise belief and brand millions of Muslims as internal enemies is not only unjustified but may put the people doing this on the same moral footing as anti-Semites, specifically the 1930s anti-Semites who created the Nuremberg Laws.

The word decolonisation is often thrown around by highbrow people. As if without realising that actual decolonisation (as in, dismantling the actual colonies) is far from complete, it is applied instead to things as innocuous as language.

The Western lifestyle, including the phone you may be using right now, is still dependent on exploiting colonised nations and preventing their development. Right now.

Child labour is still rampant in many parts of the world. Countries are still prey to exploitative Western multinational corporations that extract their rich mineral resources, returning very little to the people of the land. Despite this being a familiar trope in movies such as Avatar, it is very much a reality and those who tout their progressive leanings when they take power are doing nothing about it.

Hyper-aggressions of global exploitation

Western governments place sanctions on uncompetitive countries - a clear exercise of the vestiges of their colonial might when it comes to trade. Far from doing anything about this racism, self-styled liberals and prominent proponents of inclusivity who reach positions of power in government become complicit in the oppression.

While racial "micro-aggressions" are complained about in Western workplaces, the racial hyper-aggressions of those who exploit the African continent are what make those privileged workplaces possible at all. To strip countries of their mineral wealth is to steal from under the feet of colonised peoples, inflicting grave hardships upon them for the sake of our own comfort.

Ongoing struggles

Let us focus on the French, since they are probably the most blatant of the Europeans in their neocolonialism and seek to aggressively assimilate those who belong to other cultures.

In the Pacific overseas collectivity of New Caledonia, the French viciously hold the whole territory against the wishes of the indigenous Kanak people, as the local colonial French population serves to counter their repeated referendums for national independence. The desire to be a recognised sovereign nation was expressed by the Kanaks in a 2020 referendum, followed by another marred referendum in 2021 that was boycotted by many of them. France keeps the territory so its companies can rob the abundant nickel available there, ten percent of the world's total, with the mineral having electronic and military applications that serve to bolster France's retained imperial military might.

America is equally at fault. Elon Musk covets the nickel in New Caledonia for the production of electric cars. The same Elon Musk who openly expressed smug approval of the American-backed coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so as to reach the country's rich lithium deposits. Like nickel, lithium is key to the batteries that make electric cars viable. Such interference at the expense of colonised people suggests a pattern of behaviour that could end up washing Western environmentalists eventually in neocolonial bloodshed.

In Mali, the the French showed an eagerness to maintain a military presence ostensibly to fight against terrorism, and later issued harsh criticisms of the government, but many suspect their real motives lie in their desire to control its rich uranium. A country where that is certainly the case is Niger, where, despite continued poverty, the country's uranium is shipped to France.

The UK's neocolonialism is not quite so blatant, as the UK is invested in the United States as a successor to the British Empire and consequently tends to just interfere wherever the United States interferes and join it as its lackey. While it is rarely talked about in any formal sense, this is understood to include secretly undermining certain fellow Commonwealth countries where the US has an interest in destabilisation and disorder, and this includes Pakistan.

Unequal exchange

As well as plundering lands of the resources that are the God-given property of the colonised people, the economic core located in Western countries and societies prospers at the expense of poorer nations through unequal exchange. Expensive products are created in the economic core in Western countries and societies, whereas the mineral resources that go into them are merely extracted in the impoverished periphery or Global South.

The maintenance of the economic core at the expense of the economic periphery is the very reason we have the lifestyle we maintain, so there is no incentive to change it. And it is directly the result of colonialism, which turned these nations in Africa into mere mines and sources of raw materials that often offer little of any competitive nature compared with the finished products created in the West. The resulting trade, in which undeveloped countries merely produce coffee beans, fruit or raw materials and ship them off to the West, while the developed core is able to sell cars and electronic goods, is unfair and perpetually sustains the place of one side as exploited while the other is the exploiter.

Western leaders are unable to extend condemnation of racism or colonialism to include the injustice on the international and economic levels today, because the very prominence and strategic military advantage that allows them to exercise dominance over other states is derived from it. Even as they speak of aiding other nations selflessly from their podiums, they are nothing without this vestige of racist exploitation and slavery.

If we are to be opposed to racism, this cannot be separated from supporting all those who resist Western government and corporate theft of other countries' resources. It cannot be separated from resistance to the warmongers and interventionists, who have the same moral character as racists.

The prevailing reactionary and liberal camps within the Western liberal democratic model of state are equally incapable of accepting Muslims, and the best display of this failure is in France.

The French decision to close the French Council of the Muslim Faith because of perceived undue foreign influence reflects a desire to create an alternative Islam acceptable to Western liberals. What Western countries want is a local sedated, liberal-friendly Islam that is okay with cartoons of Islam's Prophet and supportive of Western wars on Muslims.

Macron's Islam

What Western countries would prefer to see is a completely reinvented Islam with an edited and redacted holy book, to support their interests and only attack China and Russia at the behest of Western diplomats. This is consistent with prevailing political sentiments in the West, which emphasise eliminating unacceptable views by cancelling them and are not interested, in the slightest, in how dear such views are to people from other civilisations.

We are seeing what will culminate in the complete failure to construct a multiconfessional state along liberal lines in the West, even as the West's population declines and migrants from other cultures become essential to economic performance. The requirement that it must be okay to offend culture and faith will never be able to coexist with being welcoming to people from other cultures, no matter what desperate policies are pursued by countries like France.

Countries that want to rectify other cultures when offended by them, yet at the same time wanting freedom for themselves to offend such cultures, are pursuing a doomed model. There is no example of any multiconfessional state in history that was both defiantly liberal and accommodated very different religious communities successfully.

Multiculturalism can work, but not with liberalism

Multiculturalism can succeed, but must be done within strict constraints that preserve the autonomy of the cultures concerned and treat them with the utmost respect. France's desire to assimilate and make sure that every cultural change comes at the expense of other cultures rather than France's is a mistake, when France was the colonial power and France made the decision to govern members of other cultures. That comes at a cost, and France must pay it by allowing its own character to change as a result.

Neo-colonial France's arrogant domestic policy against Muslims is matched by its arrogant foreign policy against Mali, demanding this country adhere to its political values and model, although the real goal is to exploit the country's gold and uranium. However, cancelling Islam and declaring cultural superiority won't help France escape the consequences of its own decision to become a multicultural empire.

As with the exit from the European Union, could Britain exit other major international organisations, in particular NATO?

Exiting NATO is considered unacceptable within British politics, and even the ex-leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn seems to have been pressured to abandon that stance before he had any chance at becoming Prime Minister, which ultimately failed anyway. Most Brits support the Alliance.

The exit process

Discussion about a country leaving NATO has mostly focused on Turkey lately, due to its policy clashes with multiple member states including Greece, France and even the US. It is noted that while the organisation has everything in place for letting countries in, there is no process for expulsion.

The process for exiting NATO voluntarily by a member state seems simple enough. It requires diplomatic correspondence with the United States, followed by a one year transition period. If the UK wanted to leave, it is an easy process.

It should be noted that the organisation's founding document (Article XIII) treats the Alliance as temporary, suggesting a 20-year duration, placing no importance in maintaining it. The Alliance, however, is now maintained by a fandom of unilateralists who see it as a marvellous superhero organisation battling against evil, evidently disappointed with the United Nations, the constraints of international law, or any grasp of reality.

The Leave Movement

The virtues of NATO for security were cited by Leave campaigners during the campaign for Brexit, as a reason the EU wasn't needed for keeping the country safe. Considering this, they aren't likely to take on the cause of exiting NATO now that they are done with the EU. In fact, Leave campaigners claimed they were helping NATO by undermining the EU, seen as a rival institution in European defence.

The Eurosceptic movement was originally not taken very seriously by opponents in the UK, but support grew, and it drew very prominent politicians who were able to attract even more interest in it. Those who want to exit NATO are not taken seriously now, but someone similar to Nigel Farage might hypothetically be able to pull it off. We know of Farage's alignment with Donald Trump, who is a sceptic of NATO, but Farage himself is a certainly a NATO fan.

However, the question remains: why exit NATO? There were numerous complaints about the EU negatively affecting people in Britain, that could be spun into a narrative of the country being subverted and undermined by a foreign yoke. This helped to stimulate Brexit. However, there is no such tale be told about NATO. We maintain a nuclear arsenal as a country and are a major military player and ally of the US. Simply exiting NATO would not affect those stances or make us less of a target for a hypothetical aggressor, and in fact may make us more vulnerable, because NATO membership could be helping to deter some forms of attack.

No point

The main thing to consider about another Brexit, this time from NATO, is that there is no point. There are significant perks of membership, no consequences or expulsion process for failing to meet one's commitments, and less spending on defence is necessary when compared to being an independent military power.

A country should remain within NATO even if it regards the alliance with scorn and has no intentions of coming to anyone's aid. Everything is on offer that could encourage you to stay, even if you don't want to.

The core of NATO

In the case of Britain, no political conversation needs to be had about NATO. The very nucleus of NATO is the coalition, or Special Relationship, of our country with America. That's really how NATO started.

One could withdraw from NATO as a snub to Atlanticists and pro-American warmongers within British politics, but why? They would not be going anywhere. Their lifelong cradling and nursing of Americans and love of their culture would not be forgotten by these idolaters, if they simply walk out of the NATO door. If anything, we would see even more aggressive stances taken in support of American foreign policy, and without a formal framework to create some restraint, by those who worship the Americans.

The only way to break it

The British-American alliance exists independently of NATO and is reinforced by extensive cooperation between both countries' armed forces. In addition, the cultural and linguistic connection is essential to the Special Relationship. The foreign policy thought and practice of the two countries are entirely intertwined and inseparable, with British diplomats and jurists more devoted to justifying American actions than their own.

To break these things would be a multigenerational process, but it could be inevitable. An increasing and potentially politically decisive Muslim minority in Britain is likely to favour disengagement from aggressive American foreign policy, considering the catastrophe it brought their fellow Muslims.

Absent the long way described above, there are only two ways the British-American coalition could be eliminated quickly: (1) a major historic dispute or incident making the British realise the Americans are traitorous, offensive and unworthy as allies and resulting in numerous condemnations being uttered by British politicians, and (2) the final depreciation and end of the British Armed Forces (possibly aided by Scottish independence or further breakup of the UK) at which point the Americans themselves no longer call on us to aid them or find us to be worthy allies.

How to be an anti-NATO Brit

NATO is inessential and possibly results in a confused course, steering British military power away from the country's national interests and into unnecessary conflicts started by Americans. It diminishes Britain's interest in the welfare of the Commonwealth of Nations, where we have actual moral debts, cultural ties, and civilisational commitments. There are valid reasons to abandon the Atlanticist obsession.

As valid as the above criticism of NATO may be, it is never a good idea to just swim against the tide of popular opinion, no matter how dull or foolish such opinion may seem. One must instead only give lacklustre support to NATO, and show a lack of enthusiasm towards it.

The best role one can take as an opponent of what NATO represents in the UK, whether simply trying to convince people or seeking political office, would be to mention NATO as a good and stable thing when talking of foreign policy. Mentioning continued NATO commitments is an effective way of throwing a bone to the Atlanticists without actually doing anything.

Membership of NATO can be cited when trying to cut defence spending, as well, since we can point to collective defence and the many buffer states between us and any adversary. One might consider asking the Americans to reform NATO. We could request to reduce the 2% of GDP required to go to defence, asking instead to spend 1% due our lack of proximity to an adversary, and see how the US deals with that. Or we could just reduce spending anyway, since the organisation has no expulsion process or sanctions mechanism to punish the UK with. The UK has no adjacent adversary and is surrounded by allies or neutral parties, making internal policing far more important than force projection abroad.

France has reportedly altered its national flag, swapping out the lighter shade of blue for a darker one. It no longer matches the blue of the European Union's flag.

It may be that the change of blue, returning to the colours of the French Revolution that were carried by the French in the Napoleonic Wars and both world wars, does not signify anything. It was probably made on the request of high-ranking military officers who preferred the old colours.

An attempt to win over conservatives and nationalists?

Although the French government has downplayed the change, a Twitter poll by Euronews showed an overwhelming preference for the darker colour as of today, suggesting it is a welcome move.

There is speculation that the change is a subtle expression of resentment towards the EU, but this is unlikely. The current French administration has made no move away from the European Union, and staunchly supports it.

We can guess that older French people would prefer the darker blue they knew in their youth, while the younger may be more familiar with the lighter shade. Given that French President Emmanuel Macron's biggest political competitors are conservatives, the move could have been calculated to provoke a debate that will win Macron some affection from French nationalists who would otherwise vote for his rivals.

Nothing at all?

Based on the official news reports, there is nothing much to say. The change of blues occurred in July last year and went unnoticed. The significance of what happened has probably been exaggerated.

Ultimately, there may be no meaning behind the change other than an adherence to the wishes of those officials who frequently are present at the Élysée Palace. It may not ultimately even apply anywhere other than that one site.

Pages