French presidential primaries

[Baltenstein]

Veteran centrist candidate, François Bayrou, is offering Macron an electoral alliance:

Heavyweight centrist François Bayrou, the perennial “third man” of French politics, has surprised supporters by saying he will not stand for president but instead offer an alliance with Emmanuel Macron.

Bayrou said the country was at “extreme risk” and needed what he described as an “exceptional response”.

After weeks of suspense, the 65-year-old president of the Democratic Movement (MoDem) party and veteran of three previous leadership elections had been expected to announce he would join the presidential race.

Instead, he said he would not stand but offered to join forces with Macron, 39, the former Socialist economy minister who is standing on a centrist ticket.

The announcement on Wednesday, described as an unprecedented move, took French political pundits and rival candidates by surprise. Many see it as a major potential boost for Macron, whose campaign had appeared to stall.

Polls suggest the bulk, though not all, of Bayrou’s support – thought to be worth 5-6% of the vote in a race that may come down to two or three percentage points – will transfer to Macron, increasing his chances of advancing to the second round runoff ahead of his scandal-hit centre-right rival, François Fillon.

“I have two paths, to stand myself or to look for an unusual solution. I have decided to offer Emmanuel Macron an alliance,” Bayrou told a press conference.

“Perhaps it’s a sacrifice for me, but I feel there are times one has to rise to the seriousness of the situation and consider how to get out of it. It’s not a time for me to think of myself, but of my country.”

Faced with the far-right Front National candidate Marine Le Pen – currently leading polls for the first round vote – who he described as the “threat and major danger for our country and Europe”, and Fillon, who has been hit by allegations over jobs given to his wife and children, Bayrou said the French were “disorientated and despairing”.

“Never in the 50 years past has the democracy in France known such a situation,” Bayrou said, adding that French politics was riddled with “practices that would not be expected anywhere else”. The presidential campaign rocked by scandals had left him “stupefied” and “made a mockery of France”, he added.

“To the right, affairs have been uncovered that reveal not just the existence of privileges and tendencies but the tacit and almost unanimous acceptance of them.

“For a long time it’s been repeated that ‘everyone does it’. But I can stand here and say it is not true and it is defamatory for the vast majority of elected representatives.”

Bayrou said one of his conditions for an alliance with Macron, whom he described as “brilliant”, would be a major clean-up of France’s political life.

“French people feel politicians’ words count for nothing. They have no confidence in the words and promises they hear ... we have to convince the French our actions can match our words. It’s a good time to do it even if it is a sacrifice,” he said.

Bayrou, who was an education minister in a centre-right government in the 1990s, said he had spoken to Macron a week ago and insisted it should be an alliance and not a subjugation of the “French centrist movement”.

“Perhaps this can be the foundation of a new approach in French politics,” he added.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ith-macron

[Geilinor]

Major gaffe concerning the French colonization of Algeria that happened recently.

He called our enlightenment of the natives a "crime against humanity". Unsurprisingly, many responded him to fuck off rather than say shit about things he know nothing about.

"Enlightenment of the natives". It sounds like you're the one saying shit.

[Geilinor]

Why has Macron been suffering in the polls recently?

Because he has been caught contradicting himself - like one day saying that French colonisation had positive aspects, and the next day saying it was a crime against humanity.

He said that some aspects of colonialism were a crime against humanity.

[Aelex]

"Enlightenment of the natives". It sounds like you're the one saying shit.

>Literally explained two posts under it that it was a joke for those unable to grasp it immediately
>"H-h-huh, y-you're the one saying shit here!"
Fucking please. I mean, I know ad hominem are easy but try a little harder at least.

(Colonization do was really was positive on every level, tho. :^) )

[Geilinor]

"Enlightenment of the natives". It sounds like you're the one saying shit.

>Literally explained two posts under it that it was a joke for those unable to grasp it immediately
>"H-h-huh, y-you're the one saying shit here!"
Fucking please. I mean, I know ad hominem are easy but try a little harder at least.

(Colonization do was really was positive on every level, tho. :^) )

Got it, it was a joke.

[Aelex]

He said that some aspects of colonialism were a crime against humanity.

« La colonisation fait partie de l’histoire française, poursuit-il. C’est un crime, c’est un crime contre l’humanité, c’est une vraie barbarie. Et ça fait partie de ce passé que nous devons regarder en face, en présentant nos excuses à l’égard de celles et ceux envers lesquels nous avons commis ces gestes. »
"Colonisation is part of the French history. It's a crime, a crime against humanity, a truly barbaric act. And it is part of this past we should face up to by presenting our excuses to those against who we committed those acts."

Yeah. No. He didn't say that "some aspect" of colonialism were a crime against humanity. He said that colonialism was not only a regular crime, not only a crime against humanity but a "[sic] truly barbaric act".

He deserves every bit of the hate he get for spouting such bullshit.

[Sanctissima]

He said that some aspects of colonialism were a crime against humanity.

« La colonisation fait partie de l’histoire française, poursuit-il. C’est un crime, c’est un crime contre l’humanité, c’est une vraie barbarie. Et ça fait partie de ce passé que nous devons regarder en face, en présentant nos excuses à l’égard de celles et ceux envers lesquels nous avons commis ces gestes. »
"Colonisation is part of the French history. It's a crime, a crime against humanity, a truly barbaric act. And it is part of this past we should face up to by presenting our excuses to those against who we committed those acts."

Yeah. No. He didn't say that "some aspect" of colonialism were a crime against humanity. He said that colonialism was not only a regular crime, not only a crime against humanity but a "[sic] truly barbaric act".

He deserves every bit of the hate he get for spouting such bullshit.

You can fault him for backtracking and pandering, but he isn't wrong. Maybe barbaric isn't the appropriate term, but the entire point of colonialism was to take resources, nothing more and nothing less. There was nothing glorious or enlightened about it.

[Aelex]

You can fault him for backtracking and pandering, but he isn't wrong. Maybe barbaric isn't the appropriate term, but the entire point of colonialism was to take resources, nothing more and nothing less. There was nothing glorious or enlightened about it.

And yet when you compare, just after the decolonisation, Algeria who had enjoyed more than a century of French governance to the rest of the Islamic world who didn't, you can see that thanks to said governance it was in a drastically better position; there is simply no way around the fact that colonisation was an over-all completely positive thing.
And bullshit. Sure there were materialistic reasons to it but saying that only them existed is utterly false. There is no reason to be overly cynical about the fact that people in Europe do cared about educating other people they saw as uncivilised out of humanitarian desire.

[Sanctissima]

You can fault him for backtracking and pandering, but he isn't wrong. Maybe barbaric isn't the appropriate term, but the entire point of colonialism was to take resources, nothing more and nothing less. There was nothing glorious or enlightened about it.

And yet when you compare, just after the decolonisation, Algeria who had enjoyed more than a century of French governance to the rest of the Islamic world who didn't, you can see that thanks to said governance it was in a drastically better position; there is simply no way around the fact that colonisation was an over-all completely positive thing.
And bullshit. Sure there were materialistic reasons to it but saying that only them existed is utterly false. There is no reason to be overly cynical about the fact that people in Europe do cared about educating other people they saw as uncivilised out of humanitarian desire.

White Man's Burden? Really?

That's a tad bit of an outdated view on colonization.

Regardless, the primary purpose was always resources. Colonialism was a natural extension of mercantilism, and the basic premise of mercantilism was to hoard as much shit (ideally gold and silver) as humanly possible. In the case of Algeria, infrastructural developments were primarily for French inhabitants, that is to say the Pieds-Noirs. The reason post-colonization Algeria looked so good on paper was because all of the Pied Noirs' property was seized after the majority of them left with the French. The infrastructure was there, yes, but it wasn't intended for the Algerians.

Now, admittedly, things like railroads and oil wells proved to be beneficial to the Algerians, but they were built for resource extraction. Any benefit they had for the Algerians was always an after-thought.

[The Althing Confederacy]

Vive Le Pen !
Vive la République !

That's totally contradictory. Le Pen is opposite to all what the French Republicanism ideal stands for ("Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité"), and the political current she is the heir of has always, historically, been opposed to the Republic. And btw it's only in FN that you can find actual royalists in France.

First off a republic is a representational government (usually democratic) without a monarchy.
Second I have checked; there is no royalist movement even within the FN (French Nationalism) to restore a monarchy that has been dead since Napoleonic times.

[Kilobugya]

And yet when you compare, just after the decolonisation, Algeria who had enjoyed more than a century of French governance to the rest of the Islamic world who didn't, you can see that thanks to said governance it was in a drastically better position; there is simply no way around the fact that colonisation was an over-all completely positive thing.

No, it was not. When the French left Algeria, not only it was devastated by a very barbaric (yes, I use that word too, just look systematically the French army used torture) war, but also with a complete lack of educated population. When the French left Algeria, there was like 10 doctors in the whole country. Same for engineers, scientists, lawyers, ... the French just didn't educate the local population to "high skills" jobs, they wanted to keep them under permanent domination of the French elites, so they could continue forever to exploit natural resources and workforce.

Algeria, after winning the independence war, had to beg Cuba for doctors, and Cuba, despite just a couple of years of its own Revolution and still having so many problems to tackle home, sent them help. Tiny island Cuba rescuing Algeria from the mess the French left there.

[Kilobugya]

First off a republic is a representational government (usually democratic) without a monarchy.

That might be the _english_ meaning of "republic", but "Vive la République", in French, refers to a very specific conception of the republican ideal "french republicanism", to a rich and complicated history ("Vive la République !" was first heard massively in 1792, not a coincidence), and directly refers to Human Rights and to the "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" motto. It directly refers to the ideal behind the First Republic, the Constitution of Year I, which explicitly states "Every person aged 21 or more, born and living in France, or born in a foreign country and living in France since a year and live there from his work [...] is entitled to all the rights of a French Citizen", a conception of citizenship (which is the core of what a republic is) which is totally antithetic to the one of Le Pen.

Second I have checked; there is no royalist movement even within the FN (French Nationalism) to restore a monarchy that has been dead since Napoleonic times.

I guess you didn't see pro-FN rallies, where like a third of the people have neo-nazis signs and a third of the people have fleur-de-lis and other royalists insignia. As for royalist movement, it was still very strong until the 19th century, one century after Napoleon. Sure nowadays it's very tiny, but among the few who do support monarchy, many are active supporters of the FN.

[Aelex]

No, it was not. When the French left Algeria, not only it was devastated by a very barbaric (yes, I use that word too, just look systematically the French army used torture) war, but also with a complete lack of educated population. When the French left Algeria, there was like 10 doctors in the whole country. Same for engineers, scientists, lawyers, ... the French just didn't educate the local population to "high skills" jobs, they wanted to keep them under permanent domination of the French elites, so they could continue forever to exploit natural resources and workforce.

Algeria, after winning the independence war, had to beg Cuba for doctors, and Cuba, despite just a couple of years of its own Revolution and still having so many problems to tackle home, sent them help. Tiny island Cuba rescuing Algeria from the mess the French left there.

Yes it was. You seems rather eager to use hyperboles but that just makes you sound out of touch with reality. Algeria was neither devastated nor l'armée barbaric. Sure, there were acts of torture but they were on both side and most of them were used to extract informations. As for Education, just compare the numbers of Algeria to the ones of Maroc or Tunisia. You will see a drastic difference that only existed thanks to a long-standing French effort to help the locals.
And fucking please, do you know the real reason why there were so little "high skill job" people after the French left? It's not because we refused to educate people there, it's because as soon as we left the Algerians at best expelled or at worst killed everyone who was remotely associated with France which included most of the educated people there.
Blaming us because they were stupid enough to go full Zimbabwe is beyond retarded.

I mean, I understand entirely why you're so eager to blame colonisation from your ivory tower because it gives you a sentiment of moral superiority but people like me who had family in the colonies know better than to let a biased morality cover what an astoundingly positive event for everyone involved.

[Baltenstein]

As for Education, just compare the numbers of Algeria to the ones of Maroc or Tunisia. You will see a drastic difference that only existed thanks to a long-standing French effort to help the locals.

Pardon me, but weren't those French-governed as well?

[Aelex]

That might be the _english_ meaning of "republic", but "Vive la République", in French, refers to a very specific conception of the republican ideal "french republicanism", to a rich and complicated history ("Vive la République !" was first heard massively in 1792, not a coincidence), and directly refers to Human Rights and to the "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" motto. It directly refers to the ideal behind the First Republic, the Constitution of Year I, which explicitly states "Every person aged 21 or more, born and living in France, or born in a foreign country and living in France since a year and live there from his work [...] is entitled to all the rights of a French Citizen", a conception of citizenship (which is the core of what a republic is) which is totally antithetic to the one of Le Pen.

Bullshit. There were two faces to the République, one Libérale and one Nationaliste, and you're presenting the first as if it was the only one that existed when most people were supporting (and are still supporting) the latter rather than the former.
By trying to exclude so much Le Pen from an history and position she can legitimately claim herself to be part of, you're the one who end up betraying the ideals of the République.

[Aelex]

As for Education, just compare the numbers of Algeria to the ones of Maroc or Tunisia. You will see a drastic difference that only existed thanks to a long-standing French effort to help the locals.

Pardon me, but weren't those French-governed as well?

Not for nearly as long. Algeria enjoyed more than a century and a half of French governance when the other did a little less than fifty years.

[Kilobugya]

You seems rather eager to use hyperboles but that just makes you sound out of touch with reality.

Hyperboles ? And if there is one who seems out of touch with reality, it's you... but that's not how an argument can be held with serenity, accusing the other to be "out of touch with reality".

Sure, there were acts of torture but they were on both side and most of them were used to extract informations.

Acts of tortures are barbaric, and they were not occasional but systematic. And being "used to extract informations" don't make it any less barbaric. Same was murdering unarmed civilian protesters, from Setif massacres to October 17th massacre to Charone massacre (to so many more).

As for Education, just compare the numbers of Algeria to the ones of Maroc or Tunisia. You will see a drastic difference that only existed thanks to a long-standing French effort to help the locals.

Actually, Tunisia is very well educated. Also, remember Algeria, unlike Maroc or Tunisia, has oil, that changes everything.

It's not because we refused to educate people there, it's because as soon as we left the Algerians at best expelled or at worst killed everyone who was remotely associated with France which included most of the educated people there.

And I am the one out of touch with reality... Algerian expelled those who collaborated with the occupying power, which while I don't approve of, is very well understandable, but even among them very few had high education. The whole policy was that the high skill jobs (ie, doctors and engineers) where French colonists, with very, very natives trained in those fields, so Algeria would forever remains dependent.

I mean, I understand entirely why you're so eager to blame colonisation from your ivory tower because it gives you a sentiment of moral superiority but people like me who had family in the colonies know better than to let a biased morality cover what an astoundingly positive event for everyone involved.

Arguments ad hominem and pretending you're necessarily more right than I am just because of who your ancestry was is a logical fallacy. It doesn't bring anything into the conversation, apart showing than you lack real arguments to have to resort to such fallacies. But even if you really want to go to that level, you'll still be wrong, because most people with ancestors from former colonies are actually among those most severely criticizing the colonization.

As for "moral superiority" how is there any "moral superiority" in saying "yes, my country fucked up badly in the past" ? Perhaps from the fact that I'm ideological heir of those who actually opposed the colonization, but I don't need that for any "moral superiority", being member of the "Parti des Fulsillés" would be enough if that's what I'm after. But it's not - recognizing mistakes done in the past is the best way to avoid repeating them, and acknowledging past crimes is the first towards actually helping with current situation. That's what I care about.

[Kilobugya]

There were two faces to the République, one Libérale and one Nationaliste

That's revisionism. French Republicanism is historically both "liberal" and "nationalist" at once, the two merged in a way totally antagonistic to Le Pen's views. The French Republic was born by the people living in France, with no regard for skin color or religion, standing together for national sovereignty against the invasion by the League of Kings and the betrayal of Louis XVI. It was born out of the ideal that people who live in country should be equal, free, and govern themselves. That's "nationaliste" in the sense that it refuses foreign powers messing up with our national affairs, and that it considers "the people living in France" as a an autonomous entity. But it is totally antithetic to the 20st century "nationalism", the one of Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and Pétain, the one that is built on rejection and hostility towards other, on ethnical or racialist notions.

If there was any split, historically, during the French Revolution it's more becoming Jacobin and Girondin (centralists and decentralists), or between the bourgeois (wanting pure liberalism, like in USA) and the sans-culottes (wanting to mix liberalism with social measures and some amount of state control over the economy). But it never had anything to do with "Nationaliste" vs "Libérale".

French Republicanism is deeply entangled, since its birth and during all the struggles it endured (during the Revolution of 1789-1794, the failed revolution of 1832, the Revolution of 1848, Paris' Commune, Resistance against Pétain) with "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité". If you deny that motto, if you do the exact opposite of it (which Le Pen does), you can't claim French Republicanism, you can't say "Vive la République !" without desacrating the memory of all those who died for it in history.

[Isles of Metanoia]

Marine Le Pen for the win! Long live the French Right!

[Aelex]

Hyperboles ? And if there is one who seems out of touch with reality, it's you... but that's not how an argument can be held with serenity, accusing the other to be "out of touch with reality".

"Nuuuuuuhuuuuuuuuh, I'm rubber you're glue whatever you say bounce on me and sticks on you!"

Acts of tortures are barbaric, and they were not occasional but systematic. And being "used to extract informations" don't make it any less barbaric. Same was murdering unarmed civilian protesters, from Setif massacres to October 17th massacre to Charone massacre (to so many more).

They were very much occasional. I think you might be mingling l'armée Française with the F.L.N here, which was the one who committed countless slaughters from the Massacre of Melouza to the one of the 5 of July and actually made it's official policy than to target civilians "to instille terror and fear in the heart of its opponents".

And I am the one out of touch with reality... Algerian expelled those who collaborated with the occupying power, which while I don't approve of, is very well understandable, but even among them very few had high education. The whole policy was that the high skill jobs (ie, doctors and engineers) where French colonists, with very, very natives trained in those fields, so Algeria would forever remains dependent.

Yeah. No. Algeria shot itself in the foot and chose to blame the French rather than to admit it. Once more, blaming us because they went full Zimbabwe is utterly stupid.

Arguments ad hominem and pretending you're necessarily more right than I am just because of who your ancestry was is a logical fallacy. It doesn't bring anything into the conversation, apart showing than you lack real arguments to have to resort to such fallacies. But even if you really want to go to that level, you'll still be wrong, because most people with ancestors from former colonies are actually among those most severely criticizing the colonization.

Oh, no ad hominem there. I'm merely trying to empathize with where you're coming from and understand how you can be so willingly wrong.
And can't tell about Muslims lower class but Christians and Jews as well as Muslims middle to higher class almost unanimously regret the departure of the French because it meant the end of their Freedom and the return of persecutions for the firsts and cultural and economic regression for the seconds.
It's for those exact reasons so many (including my own grand-father) followed France when She left. Because they knew the times of prosperity and freedom in their own countries were over.

As for "moral superiority" how is there any "moral superiority" in saying "yes, my country fucked up badly in the past" ? Perhaps from the fact that I'm ideological heir of those who actually opposed the colonization, but I don't need that for any "moral superiority", being member of the "Parti des Fulsillés" would be enough if that's what I'm after. But it's not - recognizing mistakes done in the past is the best way to avoid repeating them, and acknowledging past crimes is the first towards actually helping with current situation. That's what I care about.

There is moral superiority in trying to claim that your country "fucked up badly" for sympathy points when it did a positive thing for everyone involved.
And I understand better your love of hyperbole now, after all, if you're proudly part of the party that managed to claim having 250% more victims in its ranks (75 000) than there were actual fusillés of all political affiliation (approximately 30 000), and actually flaunt that nickname, it seems rather clear that facts aren't your first preoccupation.

But I think that's were our opinions diverge. Your consider helping native population to develop while profiting from it too in the process a crime while I consider it to be a down-to-eath charity. I guess our points of view are simply irreconcilable.

[Aelex]

That's revisionism. French Republicanism is historically both "liberal" and "nationalist" at once, the two merged in a way totally antagonistic to Le Pen's views. The French Republic was born by the people living in France, with no regard for skin color or religion, standing together for national sovereignty against the invasion by the League of Kings and the betrayal of Louis XVI. It was born out of the ideal that people who live in country should be equal, free, and govern themselves. That's "nationaliste" in the sense that it refuses foreign powers messing up with our national affairs, and that it considers "the people living in France" as a an autonomous entity. But it is totally antithetic to the 20st century "nationalism", the one of Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and Pétain, the one that is built on rejection and hostility towards other, on ethnical or racialist notions.

If there was any split, historically, during the French Revolution it's more becoming Jacobin and Girondin (centralists and decentralists), or between the bourgeois (wanting pure liberalism, like in USA) and the sans-culottes (wanting to mix liberalism with social measures and some amount of state control over the economy). But it never had anything to do with "Nationaliste" vs "Libérale".

French Republicanism is deeply entangled, since its birth and during all the struggles it endured (during the Revolution of 1789-1794, the failed revolution of 1832, the Revolution of 1848, Paris' Commune, Resistance against Pétain) with "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité". If you deny that motto, if you do the exact opposite of it (which Le Pen does), you can't claim French Republicanism, you can't say "Vive la République !" without desacrating the memory of all those who died for it in history.

" French Republicanism is historically both "liberal" and "nationalist" at once" Wow, and I'm the one revisionist here.
That's entirely wrong. There were two very distinct currents at the time, one liberal and one nationalist who indeed cooperated but were still, in the end, drastically opposed ideologically speaking. What you're trying to do here is to negate entirely the existence of the second current while ascribing to its supporters the vision liberals had of Nationalism which, and I'm not sure I really need to precise it, is utterly foolish and historically inaccurate.

And now, sure, our Nationalism was antithetic to the 20th century one but only insofar as it was built on cultural rather than ethnical notions. People weren't considered Français just because they lived on French soil but because they actively assimilated to the French culture, abandoning their regional customs and languages and accepting the French one instead. Trying to tie Multiculturalism and a defense of unrestricted immigration as being something "core to the republic" as you seems to be trying to do is wrong on so many level I'm not even sure what to respond.

And no one is denying that motto. What people are denying is the liberal interpretation you're reading it with.
And honestly, beware of making such judgement of valor, because I could make the very same argument as you do by replacing our motto with the Marseillaise and that would makes people who're internationalist like you as "heretical" and "unworthy" of claming French Republicanism as Le Pen is, in your eyes.

[Kilobugya]

There is moral superiority in trying to claim that your country "fucked up badly" for sympathy points when it did a positive thing for everyone involved.
And I understand better your love of hyperbole now, after all, if you're proudly part of the party that managed to claim having 250% more victims in its ranks (75 000) than there were actual fusillés of all political affiliation (approximately 30 000), and actually flaunt that nickname, it seems rather clear that facts aren't your first preoccupation.

Sure there was some inflating of numbers, but not nearly as much as you claim - 30 000 is the number of people executed by the nazis, but if you add those killed in combat (around 5 000-20 000) and those killed in deportation (around 30 000 too), the total number of victims among the Resistance is very close to the 75 000 mark, and while not all of them were members of the PCF and affiliated movements (CGT, FTP, FTP-MOI), a large chunk of them were (up to 80%, depending on sources). So while the figure was slightly inflated (for PR purpose, but also because the numbers weren't really known at that time, and they are still being debated), the order of magnitude is right. So no "hyperbole", but only slight exaggeration.

But I think that's were our opinions diverge. Your consider helping native population to develop while profiting from it too in the process a crime while I consider it to be a down-to-eath charity. I guess our points of view are simply irreconcilable.

No, were our points of view are irreconcilable is first when you claim "helping native population to develop", which is not what colonization did, it did quite the opposite, it _prevented_ native population from developing, ensuring they staid under colonial domination, and creating the conditions for long-lasting chaos. But then yes, even if it _did_ help them as a side effect, exploiting people and plundering their resources, even if the scraps you give them help them is no "charity" but a crime.

[Kilobugya]

And now, sure, our Nationalism was antithetic to the 20th century one

And Le Pen is the heir of the 20th century one.

but only insofar as it was built on cultural rather than ethnical notions. People weren't considered Français just because they lived on French soil

Wrong, I even quoted you the Constitution de l'An 1, the Constitution of the First Republic, which explicitly said the exact opposite.

Trying to tie Multiculturalism and a defense of unrestricted immigration as being something "core to the republic" as you seems to be trying to do is wrong on so many level I'm not even sure what to respond. 

This has nothing to do with "multiculturalism", "multiculturalism" is mostly an anglosaxon thing which has nothing to with French Republicanism. French Republicanism is universalist, not multicultaralist. The Republic is one and undivisible, it's not made of "cultures", it's made of citizens, and what skin color, religion or ethnical origin the "citizens" is completely irrelevant.

And it doesn't have to do with "unrestricted immigration" either, you can want to close the borders and yet be within French Republicanism (even if a bit outside mainstream current), where you break with French Republicanism is when you break the equality of those who do live in France. Sarkozy and Fillon wanting to close borders stay within the bounds (even if barely). But when you starting with bullshit like "préférence nationale", and giving more rights to some people living in France than to others, there you break the fundamental principles of French Republicanism.

And no one is denying that motto. What people are denying is the liberal interpretation you're reading it with.

Le Pen is doing (more exactly wanting to do) the exact _opposite_ of the THREE parts of the motto, not just of one. There is absolutely nothing in what she preaches for about "Égalité", nohing about "Liberté", nothing about "Fraternité", but just the exact opposite everywhere.

And honestly, beware of making such judgement of valor, because I could make the very same argument as you do by replacing our motto with the Marseillaise and that would makes people who're internationalist like you as "heretical" and "unworthy" of claming French Republicanism as Le Pen is, in your eyes.

That would be a complete, total misunderstanding of the philosophical and historical basis of everything that makes French Republicanism. Trump-level "alternative truth".

[Dameth]

Algeria who had enjoyed more than a century of French governance to the rest of the Islamic world who didn't, you can see that thanks to said governance it was in a drastically better position;

Maybe I can point to the elephant in the room here? Saying aspects of colonialism are positive is approximatively the same thing as to say Hitler did good things. He developped the industry of his country, expended german borders and got his country out of the recession ? Sure some aspects of a shit idea can be positive, it remains a shit idea.

And while I'm a bit annoyed by having our national politics reduced to the level where slogans are more important that programs, saying shit like that then feigning not to understand why it gets people uneasy is a bit retarded aswell. Everyone has to win when the level of discourses stop being dragged to the bottom.

Since we are on the topic of colonization, I truely believe that people who can't defend themselves can disapear. Really, I won't shed a tear. But on Algeria specifically, I am one of the descendants of a soldier who did that stupid war in which we had nothing to gain and I wish not to inflict on future french generations what was inflicted on my grandfather.
We can make war when we have something to win, Algeria doesnt worth a single french life.

I mean if some venture capitalists want to colonize that shithole, sure, go for it. On your own name, with your own mercenaries. Don't use the forces that are meant to defend our country to secure your private gains, especially at a time where these forces were draftees who asked for none of it.

[Theodorex]

Overall this guy's articles are very good about this topic

https://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/02/a-critique-of-yanis-varoufakis-democracy-in-europe-movement-diem25/

Progressive integrationists usually respond to this by stating that a supranational democracy needs to go in hand with the creation of a ‘post-national or supranational electorate’. For the great majority of ordinary European citizens, though, linguistic barriers and cultural differences impair the opportunity for political participation at a supranational level. This became apparent in the debate over the Spitzenkandidat system, used for the first time in the 2014 European elections to select the Commission president. Following the elections, many argued that Juncker’s appointment was democratically legitimated by the fact that he was the candidate of the parliamentary group with the largest number of MEPs. Habermas and other prominent intellectuals wrote in support of Juncker’s appointment suggesting that European citizens have the right to choose who leads the European Commission and that the election results showed that Juncker was ‘the people’s choice’. From a purely formal standpoint, they were right. But most of those who voted for the national parties that are members of EPP did not even know what EPP was or who Juncker was. This episode shows that there is a very real risk of EU-level democracy resulting in a form of supranational ‘depoliticised democracy’. How do progressive integrationists propose to overcome these obstacles?