Reading Current Events

In case you haven't heard about the current French elections, a certain (not quite unknown) monsieur Le Pen has got a shockingly high share of votes. Le Pen is an extreme-right-wing politician, as some say even too 'right' for France's 'right'most party, Front National, which he split with some time ago.
Now one might argue that the French people just wanted to teach the other candidates a lesson, that they're as shocked as the rest of the world, and that Le Pen will have no chance in the following, final elections.
But then again, that's how some people explain why Austria's brown blue FPÖ got enough votes to practically form the current Austrian government as they like(d). And believe me, last week's reports about ~120 Nazis running around in Vienna declaring "Sieg Heil!" (while the police was busy arresting a couple o' dozens left-wing counterdemonstrants) did not worry my Austrian co-worker alone.
And the fact remains that a not too small part of the French people voted for what some supposedly call a 'Nazi in disguise'.

Now that almost every book on history gives evidence that history tends to repeat itself, does this mean there will be a 4th Reich sometime? How long will it take mankind to forget the suffering the Nazis caused? Will 60 years be enough? How far will the Nazis go this time, will 'cleaning' their own countries be enough (as they will happily tell you), or will attacking 'them' be considered the best defense?
You know, it wasn't just the Germans back then. They could've never conquered so many countries without extensive help from inside the attacked country (see Eric Quisling or the Vichy Government). The Germans are just the easiest to blame, but I bet a 100 bucks that there's not one single 'civilized' country without some serious Nazi stories in their history.

I'm worried. I know that I'm probably just imagining things, but I'm still worried.

Just had to get rid of this. Have a nice day! :-)

Note: I don't mean to offend anybody with this stamement(s) of mine. As a matter of fact I happen to like all of the countries mentioned above (the country as well as most of the people there), and I'm the first to admit that my very own country has their share of dark (or brown) pages in history. So please don't mistake me for a moralizer or something.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Apr 22, 2002.

I'm really "amused" by the consequences after these elections... After Haider got some percantage in the elections the whole world was afraid of a new Axis Vienna - Munich ;) and Austria marching through whole Europe... The chairman of the Jews in Austria even said, Jews should leave the country...
But what's now in France? Which is the reaction of the EU? Nothing
I think the behaviourof the EU towards Austria was really ridiculous

And on the other hand: Which foreign goverment has the right to complain of the results of democratic elections of an other country? The elections (in France and Austria) were both constitutional, so there is NO contrariety.

Sorry, had to say that... don't want to offend somebody ;)

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

I wonder why ultra right people are allowed to run for presidency. Wouldn't an ultra right party be banned?

A democracy must have ways to defend itself against people trying to abuse the rules. I'm trying not to be a hyprocrist: If people vote right-wing, they should get right-wing. Right-wing doesn't immediately mean completely anti-democratic (see France, US). However there's a difference between a right alignment and anti-democratic parties and persons, one of which Le Pen obviously is. There are some boundaries that have to be set.

Don't tell me that people should be able to vote anything, including being taken over by a small group of dictator & friends.

Although much of this comes down to the statement that people don't always know what's good for them, democracy is not about complete freedom of choice. The rule goes: You can choose whatever you feel like, unless your decision robs you of future choice.

Don't tell me "who are we to say" because exactly you are enjoying the countless freedoms of democracy every waking minute and don't even think about it. Look at your history books. Democracy might not be perfect, but is the best system of government we've come up with in 3000 years.

- Jaz

ps. Under some dictatorships people might lead happy, and somewhat free lives. But this is anything but a stable condition if your freedom and wellfare is no right, but based on the goodwill of a few persons.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

I don't know how often we've discussed this theme....

There are some boundaries that have to be set.

Aren't these boundaries set in the constitution of each state?
And if a party (it doesn't matter wheather this party is left or right winged) gets any votes in election this would mean that the party is constitutional (or it would have already been forbidden)... So when the party is constitutional, why scream out if this party gets to power?
The whole discussion can take place on two levels.

1. the abstract level by using the conception of democracy and so on
2. the real life level by consideration of the laws, the constitution and bureaucracy...

Of course discussing the "1st level" is more interesting, but don't forget the 2nd which is more important ;)

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

Okay, you're probably gonna hate me for that.

The killing of Jews (and other non-Arian minorities) in the 3rd Reich was made legal by a constitutional government.

The Afghan laws stating that women are private property of their men and don't have any rights at all were constitutional.

The American laws about slavery and such were constitutional.

"Constitutional" doesn't always mean "it's okay", especially not when the government fails to enforce the Constitution for its own advantage. Where do you draw the line between good and bad? It's aubjective (and I don't want to question your right to have your very own opinion), but at "Sieg Heil" my limit of tolerance for 'free speech' has been reached.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

Why should i hate you for it? It's your oppinion and mine too

But i've to say that the killing of the Jews never was really legal in the third reich cause the Weimarer Verfassung was from 1933 to 1945 still the constitution of germany
But these are small points that don't play any role in THIS discussion: you're right that all your examples are unethical although they can't be solved by law (cause the problems/doings /behavours are/were constitutional). But these constitutions never are arisen from the law of nations, which is the codex of every modern state.
If a party / a group of people are AGAINST this law of nations, the state schould do whatever it might do to fight this group but should never handle contrary to the LoN... But a state may not forbid partys cause they MIGHT handle against this law (=> In dubio pro reo)
So a party that is on an election list )espescially if the party already exists since decades)can't be against the constitution...
(You should always remind that LoN and several modern constitutions are the same in the most important points).

I know what you want to say and i know where the problems are but laws are here to be sticked to... and in a constitutional state EVERYONE has to follow these laws

Hope that now you don't hate me :P

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

So a party that is on an election list )espescially if the party already exists since decades)can't be against the constitution...

What I said was that the France system has failed by allowing Le Pen to get onto the election list in the first place.

But a state may not forbid partys cause they MIGHT handle against this law (=> In dubio pro reo)

Don't mix up things here: We are not talking about punishing a party for things they might do as if they had done them already. We are talking about preventing a party or individual from gaining power they are likely to abuse, judging from comments they/he made in the past.

We're not taking them in front of a tribunal for war criminals or something. This ain't Minority Report.

It's the same as in civil law: If I publicly threaten to kill you, measures will be taken (like ordering me to see a psychologist, or forbidding me to get too close to you under pending punishments). I would not be punished for actually murdering you, but the system isn't so stupid as to wait until the damage is done.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Ofcourse I don't hate you.

Must... not... kill... Alekseji...!!

;-)

No, actually I understand your point of view, and even agree with you.
But that's not the point.
What worries me is not that Le Pen (or any other extremist, for that matter) might violate current laws; what worries me is the possibility that one day he may change the laws.
Le Pen (to stick to one example) basically wants to 'free' France of any foreigners and other unwanted people ('unwanted' according to his own radical definition), and as a president he and his lackeys could do so by changing the laws accordingly.
This would make their decision(s) valid until the next government undoes the changes, which would be difficult, and maybe it won't even happen. Resistance tends to decrease over the years, i.e. people have more than 3 years to get used to the new situation, and until then it's probably grown so unimportant that the new president candidates won't even use it as a campaign pledge.

Just my .02.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

Meine zwei Rappen:
I don't know much about politics and history but I think
-these right winged parties are maybe hiding their real intentions behind words that pretend good things and advantages for the people.
-I don't believe that their will be a 4th Reich although someone said: There always have to be the reign of a single person, then the democracy, then monarchy again, it would always change because peole always search for something new.
-People are easy to influence. Mass is always winning. The individuum can't do anything against the forces of the mass. They're always stronger when they once got the power and are able to oppress you. But Hitler was special. He had extremely effective techniques and ways to draw the people. I don't think there will be a second Hitler because we're much older now and most people learned. Today the tendency is going to the individuum. There won't be a single person that will be able to hold the might for himself. There are always people who are against it/him because they want to be more mighty then him...

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Alright then, finally here's my statement. I was thinking about replying for a while, cause IMHO somehow this topic (discussing it) got a similar state as permanently unresolvable problem like discussing the Win/Linux thing.

I'll now try to have a look at it from a kinda different view, not blaming any people or individuals in particular but rather trying to sort of take a step back and look at the whole picture.

Jaz, you maybe right, democracy is the best government since writing history books. But what exactly does "the best" mean? Values, especially cultural values, are always dependent of the time they are looked at. Of course today we see slavery for example as crime against humanity, imagine a darkage citizen watching our ways of relationships with just living together, having sex and stuff. I agree sure we learned something over the centuries and yes, maybe some of the acquisitions are even worth to keep, but we're far away from being perfect, not even entitled to be proud of what we have. This counts for governments as well as for other cultural values.

Democracy is just one kind of government that may be laughed about in 200 years like we do today laughing about monarchy for example. Of course I am, we all are, the product of the time we're living in, our education reflects the cultural development of a society, but still its a mere accident I was born in the heart of europe and not in some slums in Burkina Faso. And so all my thinking, all my values are just given to me, maybe even forced into me by the environment I've grown up in. Would I be a different human being if I was born and raised in an african slum? Of course! I wouldnt give a damn for democracy or any kind of government cause I was busy the whole day long getting me something to eat somehow.

What does Democracy mean then? It's giving me the right to live my life like I want to, decide for my own, do and leave the things I think to be right or wrong, in short: individuality. And how far does this individuality go? What happens if a take a parashoot and jump from the TV tower? What happens if I drive against a one-way-road? I know there have to rules for people living together, but these are just two totally innocent examples. I can think of thoudands of others way more concerning. The individuality I actually have is the choice of a green or blue shirt in the morning, a yellow or white car, a black or red Kanzler. I have to go to work to make my living, to pay my bills or I'll end up under some bridge, where I still have the free choice which bridge I choose as my new home! How many people actually managed to live their dreams and how many keep being grinded down in their work/sleep restrictions for 60 years and just die without ever having been given the true chance of a real choice?? Money rules, not my so called free will.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not exactly an Anti-democrate, but I find it more than dangerous to just lay back and point fingers somewhere else. Its always easy to blame someone who's making more mistakes than I do, not only easy but satisfying as well, cause it helps me finally feel better, and so makes me overlook and forget my own mistakes.
I'm sorry to say, but IMHO politics has got a lot to do with education and intelligence. Look at the elections in (was it?) Saxony last Sunday. Eight years ago we had a score 40% Blacks, 20% Reds, 4 years ago 20% Blacks 40% Reds, and this time 40% Blacks, 20% Reds with a percantage of people participating of just 50%. What does that say about the intelligence of the voter? How stable is this democracy? I dare to say that we as Germans are still as vulnerable to any charismatic extremist as we, yes maybe all people, ever have been, let it be right or left winged, doesn't matter at all, provided he/she's a charismatic guy moving the masses. In this case we are not too much more developed than old Romans: give us "Carnem et Circenses" and we follow everyone like a flock of lambs to the slaughter.

I dont have any hope for democracy as a permanent government, because
a) it doesn't work and is just a big lie
b) we'll through it away as soon there is an alternative

I just hope, I'll understand the ways early enough and got the balls to act then.

No rulz rulz!!

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de