The British should do the same. Bring the country to a halt.
The British government has already done that.
1 Like
I personally don’t think she would be allowed to win. The current establishment have ways and means to decide who they will allow in, and who they will bar from the priviledge of being given any kind of power.
It’s a very powerful club and they won’t let just anybody in to mess with whatever it is they have going, especially when it involves making decisions on how to spend the enormous amount of tax revenue collected from its citizens every year.
I have no proof that this is the truth, but I have strong gut feelings about it currently being the way things are here in France, in the UK and in Canada. I just don’t believe that the current establishment will simply allow the common people decide who gets in and who doesn’t.
Always ready to change my mind if I see clear evidence to the contrary.
K
Go and see a doctor about these delusions.
4 Likes
Normally when someone propounds a theory like yours, he himself is expected to provide the evidence!
That is why conspiracy theories are so hard to debunk, because as the theorists well know, it is notoriously difficult to produce evidence to prove a negative. Eg unless you can prove that the Covid-19 originated from somewhere else, how can you prove that it did not originate in China?
In my experience watching, listening, reading and comparing any news I come across (from all political points of view), it starts to become obvious that every side is actively communicating half-truths, omitting certain details and outright lying, resulting in changing the entire perspective for the audience each outlet caters to.
I started realising this around 2016 and started to pay better attention to this particular method used by every news outlet and it became clear that each has an agenda to push, and they will always sensationalise (half-truths, detail omission, lying) and push all the things that will more likely please their target audiences.
Around the same time, I noticed and found it very interesting that the majority of people (80 to90%), at any point in the political spectrum, who believe absolutely everything that ‘their’ media feeds them on a daily basis, especially the things that are repeated over and over to them on a daily basis, without even considering that what they’re hearing is pure propaganda pushing that outlets’ agenda.
In time, I learned to never believe anything at face value that is communicated anymore. The only way to get closer to the truth (there is always a truth, no matter how hard or how long people try to hide it), is to take the time to source several different outlets and put the puzzle together piece by piece.
It’s clear to me that not very many people have the time or patience to fact-check their own news and rely on the news fact-checking itself - which is obviously a red flag, the result being having no choice but to believe what they’re told and then proceed to repeat it and to attack anyone who question or debate it. Our poiticians and the news media who support them know this very well, which is why they use it to their benefit.
The further back you step to see the big picture, the more you will see the manipulation comes from all sides and that it’s up to the individual to do their best to sort out something as close to the truth as possible, based on experience, critical thinking, reasoning and above all, intellectual honesty (no matter how bad or scary the conclusion may turn out to be).
I also understand that most people don’t want to be disappointed, or scared, or worried in life - so one of the defence mechanisms to that is to pick a news outlet and just go with it and defend it as truth at all costs, like their sanity depended on it.
It’s come down to which ‘narrative’ you choose to believe and who else agrees with you is kinda like your ‘family’. In reality, the ‘narrative’ is simply an agenda that each news outlet has been told to push by their owners. Whenever someone calls them out, there is no big headline-sized correction, it’s way down at the bottom in quite small print. Or the article is deleted entirely (which is why people started using the ‘wayback machine’ to snapshot news articles and compare them to the new versions.
As you can see, I’m personally very interested in all the aspects related to the above - I find it fascinating following news stories even weeks or months after they’ve stopped being broadcast on mainstream media. Then I watch how people deal with things that occurred in the past when new, updated information is released. In other words, I remember what was said before and can compare it to what is being said today. Once you’ve done that a few times, you can’t just accept anything as true anymore - you have to keep an eye on it and watch it evolve over time.
K
Thank you for your wise words, I never learnt to think critically at my provincial English university any more than I did at my German one or my French one, such is the secret agenda of these places, so thank goodness you’re here to put us right.
10 Likes
But, I’m sure you would not submit your case in so many words and wouldn’t need 9 paragraphs ? To do so.
1 Like
I’ve noticed that most people only think critically about anyone who wants to challenge the ‘widely accepted narrative’ these days. Makes for some boring times when nobody wants to think critically about anything else. I’m afraid that’s primarily what’s being taught in universities nowadays (how to be an activist and shout down your opponent without debate).
K
1 Like
I’m afraid this is true, but perhaps to be expected.
I don’t know about the right (though I imagine it’s the same), but with the left, there’s a sort of absorption of a mindset that is intolerant of dissent and suspicious of debate.
You may even encounter that here …
1 Like
Thing is, you want to debate/discuss extremes ie Trump and MLP which immediately puts the majority on the defensive. In Trump’s case you want us to listen to what he actually said rather than the mainstream media’s take on it but that in itself is pointless because he’s said so much crap over the last few years, he is a soundbite master who plays to his audience only and most of what he said he was going to do before he made it to the WH never happened.
The influence the media has on politics is one thing, and the way the media themselves are influences is another. However once votes are cast the democratic system functions. France is not some Trumpian fantasy land.
On the surface yes but to accept only the surface and become cynical about the whole showboat would be unwise.
If you look hard, and judge people by what they do rather than only by what they say, I think that you will find better perspective.
I’m afraid that your viewpoint on Trump will receive only flak here, so maybe best to speak less about him. 
2 Likes
Just a tiny quibble, this isn’t a sentence - it has a subject but no predicate.
2 Likes
That’s exactly why their tactics work so well - it’s caled self-censorship and that’s what is practised by all communist citizens in history. The ruling elite count on people to self-censor themselves out of fear. Once that’s accomplished, their ideology is protected from criticism and they maintain power without having to censor everything themselves. 
Once you see for yourself and accept the existence of the censorship and slander and attacks on free-speech, you can’t but realise that they’re doing that for a reason, which is to maintain power at any cost. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
K
All I want to debate/discuss are the issues, which is the importance of freedom of speech. When I see people and their politicians use censorship and slander against free speech, that’s the red flag I’m referring to that I hope people start to understand is a very bad idea for any free society. Bad ideas can only be defeated by better ideas (even if not perfect). If your opponent is stopping you from speaking freely (or scaring you into self-censorship and the censorship of others in your society), it’s normal to be suspicious as to why. If an idea is a good one, it should be able to withstand criticism and survive on its own merit and not require censorship to prevail.
K
Indeed…
Over the years, I’ve witnessed several French elections…
I’ve certainly seen how my neighbours react when it looks as if MLP is gaining too many votes.
The look of horror/sadness on so many voters’ faces is impossible to forget.
On the second round of voting, the folk rally together to ensure the MLP does NOT get sufficient votes… (obviously some have to change their voting tactics)
Of course, this is only in my locality… and not the same all across France… but I suggest that it is not sure that MLP would win today… merely something to consider.
1 Like
Do you see that in France? Where? By and large we (certainly I) agree with Voltaire.