It baffles me that the right actually has to convince leftists not to vote for Macron, never mind the means used.
Macron is a Rotschild banker, personally responsible for anti-employee law changes [1]. He advanced as an international investment banker in a very suspicious, rocket trajectory straight to the top ... while making deals with government-owned banks [2][3].
Now I'm not saying he HAS to be dirty ... but ... euhm ... yeah actually I am. Unless someone can explain to me how to career like that fairly.
[3] (they de-emphasize this, so let me quote from the FT article: "On the Atos deal, Mr Macron “had a fairly junior role at the time — he would be asked to redo the financial models on Excel, the basics,” recalled an adviser. But a few days after the deal was announced, Mr Macron was made a partner. A few months later, he stunned colleagues and rivals by winning a role in Nestlé’s purchase of Pfizer’s infant food operations.")
I don't understand why Le Pen is being called "right" or "ultra right." Even a cursory review of her policy proposals -- specifically economic policy shows her closer to Melanchon than the free market "right" orientation of Fillon's proposals.
She's national socialist more than anything -- ultra right socially, ultra left economically. I consider myself "on the right" -- but Le Pen is the worst of both worlds; the totalitarian racist zeal of Hitler with the industrial protectionism fervor of the worst socialist. By the way, when I say socialist, I don't mean the Democratic Socialism common in Europe -- I am referring to the statist socialism of the Soviet era.
"Right wing" isn't an exclusively economic designation, and hardline nationalism, suspicion of foreigners and progressives and determination to preserve the status quo (or restore a possibly imaginary status quo ante) have been the defining characteristics of right wing thought since it originated in Revolution-era France reflecting where the parties loyal to the monarch and the aristocracy sat (Front Nationale even has a tenuous ancestral link to 19th century political movements to restore the monarchy).
If anything, the free market "right" is the anomaly; classical liberal economics ended up being designated as "right wing" because it built an ideological case against any meddling with status quo wealth distributions rather than because the original "right" and many conservative movements since haven't been as strongly protectionist as anything on the Left.
Bingo. These days one have to add a social/economic classification to the traditional left/right split.
Many of the "leftist" parties that rose in Europe after WW2 may well be see as on the rightish side in terms of economics. This if one read right as being about preserving the status quo.
Similarly when one hear about economic liberalization it can't be read in similar terms as being socially liberal (leftist). Because being liberal economically means turning a blind eye towards abuses of workers and environment in the chase of that almighty profit.
All in all politics have become a massive game of words, and their definition.
You're absolutely right in your analysis : she is ultra right socially, hence why everyone call her ultra right, but she leans left economically.
France's way of describing politicians is more focused on the social perspective than the economical one (otherwise, Macron would be on the right I think)
Right, she is a Gaullist, her ideology is French self-sufficiency above all else, just as de Gaulle's was. It's pure knee-jerk to equate nationalism with the far right, when it is actually orthogonal to the left-right axis.
Exactly. By the way, national socialism is exactly what lepen is doing : backing defense of the weak ones on nationalist views. I've had many discussions with people lately who were arguing that yes, it's nationalism, but it's also leading the social fight (I'm french). Each time, they were mind blown when I replied : "Yep, and that's called national-socialism". For some reason, they don't see the similarities by themselves. I guess we failed to explain clearly what nazism was, and now people think it's only about racism and don't detect it when it raises again.
That's the french political spectrum, it's historical. To be honest very few people know what she would actually do if she got elected, even amongst her militants. She's a populist first and foremost.
Many new accounts, there appears to be some brigading going on. I'm surprised actually, I doubt brigading hacker news is going to have a lot of weight in the outcome of the french election...
Staying away from the political side of things, it's impressive how many people are willing to spread obvious disinfo if it serves their agenda. I'm sure many of these alt-righters realize that those documents are most likely fakes but it doesn't matter, whatever hurts the opposing party.
Look at the Cayman document leak from yesterday, one of the laziest montages I've seen lately. Didn't stop it from being plastered everywhere on "alt-right" websites with big VERIFIED tags.
It's just the strategy of drowning actual information in a sea of lies so that nobody bothers to look for it. The worst thing is that an actual leak about Macron's tax evasion could be released now and I probably wouldn't believe it. It's just all noise.
> I'm surprised actually, I doubt brigading hacker news is going to have a lot of weight in the outcome of the french election...
It's about all they have left :)
There's a law in France saying that media can't discuss campaign anymore two days from election, the idea being that debate time is over and it's now time for each citizen to take a step back from the heat of the campaign and calmly decide what they think is the best for the country (this is obviously something that doesn't work as well now we have internet). So far right activists only have foreign discussion threads as a mean to spread.
The campaign is over so the leak will have no influence on the results. Macron has mathematically won already. But if he fails during his presidency, the far right will ultimately get the job. The truth is Macron is the candidate of the status quo, his party likely won't have the majority in the french house so he will have to compromise with both the "socialists" and the conservatives, he won't achieve much for 5 years.
Isn't that the intention of these far-right wackos? The "official" campaign is over, so they can attempt to influence the results without worrying about the Macron campaign being able to deny the rumors?
Twitter needs to decisively put a stop to these bot armies. It can't be that difficult to detect them through ML. The bot armies are not only responsible for propagating outright lies, they also frequently target people for online harassment. I've heard from many people that were almost unable to use Twitter due to information/message overload once they were targeted. Twitter seems to not only allow the harassment, but requires users to wade through the post spam. I would imagine at some point the usefulness of having a Twitter account approaches zero for many of these people that have been targeted.
>It can't be that difficult to detect them through ML.
Show us the code.
>far-right wackos
It's also a mistake to put Le Pen in the same box as the likes of Trump. For one, she's a highly educated, and secondly, the far right in France has a rather long history of being the only party to say anything substantive on the topic of immigration and security. (It's worth noting that the immigration situation in France is very different from the US). I'm not a huge fan of Le Pen, but dismissing her as a "wacko" is exactly why she has maintained a growing electorate; each time media in France has tried to label her as a nutcase, they've essentially refused to address the very real concerns that motivate her electorate.
> the far right in France has a rather long history of being the only party to say anything substantive on the topic of immigration and security.
That is the sad part about European politics. The (champagne) Left is so enamored by the notion of EU as a peace project, that they can't see that they are undermining their very voting base (the working class) in the process.
This has left the doors wide open for the far Right to wrap their xenophobia in terminology that claims they worry about workers rights and livelihood, when they really want to see every last "foreigner" (anyone with enough skin color or other feature that makes him stand out from across the street) tossed over the border (at best).
>they really want to see every last "foreigner" (anyone with enough skin color or other feature that makes him stand out from across the street) tossed over the border (at best).
Frankly I was with you up until this point. I think this attitude is essentially the same as the one you're condemning, albeit on the topic of immigration rather than the EU project.
To use your turn of phrase, the (champagne) Left is so enamored by the notion of the "friendly foreigner" and "global society" that they can't see that they are undermining their very voting base in the process. More specifically, said Left is unable to engage in a serious discussion about border security and immigration without accusing everybody of racism.
This has left the doors wide open for the far Right to monopolize the conversation on immigration. The net effect is that anyone who cares about security and identity politics has only one party to turn to.
I mean no disrespect, but this attitude is a large part of what got us here. Wanting to reduce immigration and harden border security is not equivalent to xenophobia.
I'm not talking about Le Pen. I'm talking about the army of far-right wackos on Twitter that openly spout nazi memes and unleash bot armies on anyone who disagrees with them.
Le Pen is probably a far right wacko as well, but I don't know enough about her to form an opinion.
Twitter is the easier one - the data is mostly open.
Facebook is much harder and a much bigger influence. More Americans get their news from Facebook than Twitter, and all the Facebook data is inside a walled garden.
We're soon as a society going to need to deal with disinformation and political targeting on Facebook and Twitter. And the role of that disinformation in our politics. And when I saw "our" I mean US, UK, France and most of their allies.
To reinforce your point about the status quo, it's been said in French media that this election is ultimately about globalization vs an alternative to globalization.
Macron is the globalization candidate. Le Pen is something else.
The issue I'm raising is that a very significant portion of the French populace is "euro-skeptic". Recall that a few years ago, the French voted "no" to the EU constitution (by referendum), and were subsequently overruled by the government.
Many French are still very pissed about this.
Are you suggesting we not give them a democratic voice because Putin is also against the EU? That would be a very stupid move in a country whose national sport is going on strike.
Are you suggesting the hack was coordinated by Russia? I'm not sure what this changes.
Most of the french political landscape isn't anti-russian to begin with. Hollande stance on Russia was an exception. As for whether the Russians did it or not, there is absolutely no proof of it.
The hack of it's indeed a hack came at the worst possible time for propaganda as French media recievws a 48 hours gag order prior to the polls closing.
US senators have said Russia has targeted the French election via disinformation and hacking. I linked some articles above. Or Google "Senator Warner Russian hacking France election"
Warner is the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence committee.
Exactly why are you suggesting that US senators are a credible source of information in this matter?
US senators have also said that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrian population. In both cases, credible information has never been put forward to the public.
This is the media simplifying a complicated narrative into something more simple and... well, global. le pen isn't just "something else," she's a strain of nationalism that leads to people committing genocide in the name of country.. and ignoring history when it tells us this.
Alt-right? How did a term made up on 4chan get so popular and taken seriously (/pol where I saw this term used for the first time). It really has no meaning at all only to find a opposite alternative to (the also misused term) regressive-left. Before last year people did not even identify as such. People that now do identify as such do not even seem legit and behave like actors (the same feeling I have with people like Alex Jones).
Now even people I would call moderate / left-leaning are now called alt-right (a term they do not use for themselves).
IMO younger 4channers (18-23 set) that I have met in person strongly identify this way.
It's odd cause 10 years ago 4chan trolled in the exact different direction. Would love to read a book about political reckonings that come from this tiny dark corner of the net.
But as far as I now the timeline is as follows (cannot find the 4chan threads anymore, so no proof this time):
- Aug/Sep 2016 (or a short while before that): People made up thr term "alt-right" to be used as the opposite of "regressive-left". People there did not call themselves that.
- Oct 2016: 4chan was mostly busy with all the Wikileaks stuff and I did not see the term used that much.
- Oct (end)/Nov 2016: Some people (not even on 4chan started to call many things that are pro-Trump or "tried to be" objective (non Trump or Hillary) alt-right.
The general message that started to come up at that time: "The alt-right are spreading fake news".
- Dec 2016/Jan 2017: People suddenly started to identify themselves with alt-right.
alt right is from waaaaaay longer ago than September. It's all an out growth of "gamer gate" nonsense. Milo and Cernovich were both "gamer gaters." Bannon ran gaming message boards before Breitbart, where he met Milo. He figured out how to use messaging like his to target these people for less savory purposes.
I know the whole movement that got Trump elected started from this but at that time it was as far as I know not called alt-right (because I remember the thread on 4chan were they actually made it up).
Yes, the division between groups (pro/anti) created while gamergate was going on were about the same. On one side people calling for social justice on the other side the people that in a way are against social justice + the ones that did not want to choose a side.
At the beginning gamergate was just about ethics in journalism (mostly in gaming).
From what I saw, "alt-right" had existed for a whole in blogs and webzines, but it really became popular during the Republican primaries.
The Trump and (early on) Carson supporters needed a term to distinguish themselves from the established Republican base, consisting largely of neocons and evangelicals, with their rather different ideological concerns. "Alt-right" offered the vaguely young/edgy and sans-culottesque character they needed.
Gamergate was never about ethics in journalism(games reviews being journalism is a whole other thing, but, cmon). It was about being mad because you were undersexed and lonely, and someone offering you a way to channel that desperation into misogyny and a false feeling of control* and community*.
Yes I agree. It did not take long before it started getting into a fight not being about game journalism anymore but about more diversity in games, misogyny, racism etc.
Russian influence has come in too -- the right laid the groundwork by polarizing people to make money (Limbaugh, Bannon). But Russia now influences them.
Example: Cernovich works with Fairbanks who is employed by Russian propaganda site Sputnik.
I believe the cultural swing of 4chan and related social groups started with Gamergate. They began to see themselves as the enemies of the "SJW" movement, which is closely aligned with the Democrats in the US.
US Senate has said those groups are being targeted by Russian disinformation. Certainly US polarized environment laid the groundwork, but the alt right is now being manipulated by foreign entities.
Same with Farage in the UK - he's worked with Russia.
If you translate them to commands for a FPS (e.g. Quake), one would be strafing in one direction and the other is firing continuously while spinning in a circle. Both seem apt.
As a side note, I'm always surprised when I see the word "alt-right". When did that happen? I still use the word "fascists", although I understand it can be too strong a word for many, but those can use "far right".
Because alt-right carries carries more information and is more accurate.
Even though "alt-right" is less precisely defined, it is in many cases more accurate a term than "facist" or "far right".
To me, alt-right is a combination of anti-establishment Republicans, fascists, libertarians, internet trolls (& governmental operatives trying to influence foreign elections).
To me the grassroots part of alt-right is more a reaction than ideology; something born out of the financial crisis and its' aftermath.
If you want to view them purely as fascists, that's your prerogative, but using THAT word would be less accurate and would lose a lot of nuance.
> To me the grassroots part of alt-right is more a reaction than ideology; something born out of the financial crisis and its' aftermath.
Indeed, there seems to be something of historical importance, here.
Although, I think there _is_ something that acts as an ideological bound rather than being just a group of "anti" people. In France, there's historically always been two right wings, even without considering the far right : the liberals (mainly interested about economics and free market) and the conservatives (mainly interested about authority).
Could it be a distinction that exists all over the world, the liberals were dominant and they're losing ground? By the way, we call here the authority focused ones "bonapartists" (this is not seen as pejorative or insulting, although slightly disturbing).
disaffected young men lacking strong in-person relationships doomed to a life of desperation due to lack of opportunity united online in praise of cartoon frogs and white supremacist fascism.
Yes, voiceless minority groups can be more easily targeted and taken advantage of. I read just yesterday about Somali immigrants being turned anti-vax in a matter of years due to outside influence, this is no different.
I love your description because each word designates both problems and solutions. History books will go further and further: "WWI was triggered by an assassination in Sarajevo", "WWII was born in the black Thursday", and the next events "find their source in the solitude of some men with a computer, and we couldn't solve that. Solitude kills, after all.". Assuming the next event is related to alt-rights, of course.
It's a specific subculture of them. Making fine delineations between far-righters, white nationalists and neo-Nazis is usually meaningless because functionally they're much of a muchness - but the alt-right is a particular strain of them that can be distinguished somewhat.
- Post goes out of its way not to deny authenticity of the leak.
- Post can be traced to the Atlantic Council [1].
[1] The Atlantic Council (AC) is a core ingredient for US soft power [2]
projection on other countries. Example members of AC leadership:
Chuck Hagel, Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke,
General Eric K. Shinseki, Anne-Marie Slaughter,
General Brent Scowcroft,
Jon Huntsman. Cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council
one thing Wikileaks does is give credibility to their leaks basically by putting their stamp on it that it's all authentic. This dump happened quickly and with no organization oversight - impossible for now to know which is real and which is fake. I was told 4chan put in some obviously fake bank documents, but that the emails seem real. It's something that willl play out for months now.
Agreed. Wikileaks has a sterling record regarding the authenticity of their own leaks.
Given that the Atlantic Council is for all practical purposes an arm of the US government, and it's "Digital Forensic Research Lab" is extremely well-funded and well-connected, it is noteworthy that they go out of their way not to deny the authenticity on the leak.
Just like the silent majority spoke and elected Trump, the same will happen to Le Pen. Also, I highly doubt it was the alt-right doing 'hacking', it's more plausible for it to be a determined patriot trying to stop corruption. My 2cents.
Of course, more mainstream media BS. When someone hacks one of their precious "candidates" who loves "freedom", "liberty", and "rights" it's ALWAYS Russia or they frame Assange as a Russian spy. My god I hope the world governments burn. This trash system can't persist anymore.
The thing that I don't understand about this "mainstream media BS" critique is this:
You say that the media is biased in its reporting, beholden to special interests, and doesn't abide by journalistic standards. Given that, the reasonable solution would be to create a media outlet that makes a conscious effort to be less biased, more open about its ties to any industry or other backer, and more stringent about its journalism.
When I go to Breitbart (or any other alt-right news site), I don't see any of that. I see a new breed of media outlets that are even more blatantly biased, even more covert about who's paying them, with no semblance of journalistic integrity.
It's like the alt-right looks at a problem and says: "They are doing X, and we oppose that. We must start outdoing them in X!"
By the way, that approach is typical of organizations that strive simultaneously for both ideological purity and brutal pragmatism. The Bolsheviks did essentially the same. "We hate the Czar's secret police. [One year later...] We need a stronger secret police than anyone else." (Maybe the overlap in methods is no coincidence. Steve Bannon reportedly said he is a Leninist who wants to destroy the state.)
> You say that the media is biased in its reporting, beholden to special interests, and doesn't abide by journalistic standards. Given that, the reasonable solution would be to create a media outlet that makes a conscious effort to be less biased, more open about its ties to any industry or other backer, and more stringent about its journalism.
Not the person you're replying to, and aside from the issue of alt-right news sites (which I know is the main thing you're talking about), lets not forget that (aside from government-run media) the media is a business, and has to do things that are financially viable. They can't just do whatever they'd ideally like to do.
So who do you think is behind it and/or why do you think it couldn't be related to Russia? (I have no knowledge about this situation, I'm just asking you to back up your claims).
Let's hope the french are smarter than the americans. But anyway what's the deal with this in the mainstream french media ? Are they reporting this stuff ? Making a fuss over it ?
What I saw about it (Macron's leak) is media saying it is probably authentic and an attack from Russia, but nothing about the actual content of the leaks.
However, since it is just after a botched attempt to make believe that Macron has a bank account in the Bahamas, which was widely exposed as bs from 4chan, I don't think it will have much of an impact here.
The article says that while many documents appear to be authentic, some look suspicious. At any rate after the american campain and Macron knowing full well he would be a target I really doubt he would've made such a stupid mistake. We'll see I guess.
In general as far as I can tell very few people believe those leaks are genuine, whether in mainstream news media or social networks. I doubt they'll have any significant effect on the results on sunday.
No, only TV and radio. Internet and newspaper can say what they want. A lot of misunderstanding (or downright lies) about french laws and politics in this thread, take everything with a grain of salt.
It's worth pointing out the electorate rejected Trump at even greater rate then they rejected Clinton. Indeed, Clinton did win a plurality of the popular vote. It is only because of the antiquated electoral college that we have Trump in the White House.
Well - it is a global fight against the globalists :-P
I don't have any opinions on French politics other than it is an entertaining spectacle to watch. And I think it is already given that Macron wins as le Pen is still to harsh to swallow.
I don't know if it is true; but if it is then it is kind of amazing just how fast services we all take for granted can be censored (github and internet archives).
He did a very clumsy thing and it set a very bad precedent but it was clearly meant as a joke (like word filters on 4chan, that bastion of free speech for the alt-right).
And in general I think one should be very wary of using any kind of social media as a primary source for anything. Forging documents is trivial and this "offshore account" narrative makes very little sense to begin with. The first "proof" yesterday, the cayman island document, was a very obvious fake.
In general the people doing that don't seem to understand very well how french politics work. I really doubt they'll have any effect on the outcome sunday, their reach is very small. Just look at what was supposed to be the french version of "The Donald": https://www.reddit.com/r/Le_Pen/. I defy you to find french people in there. Bon Courage.
The point is that they're not always crazy and they've also uncovered quite a bit of actual conspiracy. Both in the ninjas edits by spec and the reddit scoring manipulation to suppress that subreddit.
Yes it's a private website and both are within their rights, but you can't claim to be promoting free speech and expression and then edit the speech of others or rig the system so it doesn't appear in front of others per the rules of the game. The worst part of it is doing it without any indication that an edit was made.
Macron is a Rotschild banker, personally responsible for anti-employee law changes [1]. He advanced as an international investment banker in a very suspicious, rocket trajectory straight to the top ... while making deals with government-owned banks [2][3].
Now I'm not saying he HAS to be dirty ... but ... euhm ... yeah actually I am. Unless someone can explain to me how to career like that fairly.
[1] https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2015/03/09/5-things-about-the-...
[2] https://www.ft.com/content/9bd62502-12cf-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6...
[3] (they de-emphasize this, so let me quote from the FT article: "On the Atos deal, Mr Macron “had a fairly junior role at the time — he would be asked to redo the financial models on Excel, the basics,” recalled an adviser. But a few days after the deal was announced, Mr Macron was made a partner. A few months later, he stunned colleagues and rivals by winning a role in Nestlé’s purchase of Pfizer’s infant food operations.")