Never thought I'd say this, but Vive La Révolution
(www.rt.com)
Comments (39)
sorted by:
Their smug sense of superiority and bad attitude has always rubbed me the wrong way, but if they're going to keep being at the forefront of this push-back, I'd say the smugness, at least this time, is well-earned.
I'd say it's just healthy nationalism. I also think that refusing to learn English insulates countries better from some of the poison coming out of the Anglo-Saxon sphere.
Sometimes I wish every noun in English was gendered like in French, even if it doesn't make sense half the time. It makes it a lot harder to pull the gendered pronouns nonsense.
I'd love to see some French bitch pull off 'no, I am THEY'?
Really? So you're elles. So you're a woman. REEEEEEEEEEE!
Ironically German would be easier because the point of focus is [mostly?] before the noun. Then again they've tried pulling gendered langauge shit over the German language as well as sperging out over the fact 'German' has "man" in it.
Der/Die/Das for example. Obvious phonetic differences and no silent letters like in languages based heavily off Latin or Greek, like the Greek word for 'comb' with it's silent 'c' cteno or the more obvious ones like wing/ptera.
Also the numbering system for German is extremely simple and modular., except for eleven and twelve because fuck those numbers in every language it seems for having zero consistency.
As an example:
Five is funf.
Ten is
Billy Zanezehn, and becomes the -zig prefix for the later 10s.One Hundred is hundret.
And 'and' is und.
So 55 becomes 'funfundfunfzig'. Literaly 5and5(10s).
555 becomes 'funfhundretfunfundfunfzig'. The same as the above but with 5(100s) at the start therefore 5(100s)5and5(10s) which does differ slightly in order compared to the English which is "five hundred and fifty-five" placing the 'and' immediately after the hundreds but that's due to how '55' works in German as mentioned above.
The teens are all number10, dreizehn [3ten], vierzehn [4ten], etc showing how the different prefix affects the word. 'zhen' for 10 itself, as a prefix it means the teens, as the -zig prefix it's multiples of 10.
It's a very simple/straightforward language if hilariously emotive at times when things like "Ich leibe dich" and other pleasantries can be said in such ways it sounds like a threat of lyric from a Rammstein song but then I repeat myself there because translating Rammstein songs leads to exactly that kind of hilarity.
I've always German sounds like they're cussing you out...
I swear, a German could ask me the time of day, and I wouldn't know whether they were pissed off or threatening to kill me, lmao.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcxvQI88JRY
I mean, they're clearly exaggerating for effect, but basically, lol
Based Frenchman.
Honestly French smug is still preferable to California or New York smug.
That's because it has some justification, as opposed to none whatsoever...
Fuck I had a reply to this and closed the tab.
Is very much deserved.
France has one of the best military histories in the world which is the result of Europe repeatedly beating the shit out of each other like siblings do. The one they get remembered for is when the Nazis were roflstomping literally everyone on mainland Europe not on their side during WW2.
These 2 points are both the deserved reason for their 'smug sense of superiority'/nationalism as Tony mentions, as well as how a single event seems to be the focus for some despite everything else France has done.
Like help the founding USA exist.
France being France did 2 main things during the WoI. 1. They did their usual of "beat up the English" which meant hindering the founding USA's opponents. 2. They directly helped supply the founding USA because their opponents were the English.
France is rightly called America's oldest ally for good reason and yet the modern blogosphere is too retarded to remember most of these things at times like how during the last few decades when France did something the USA didn't like the petty response was to rename "French fries" to "Freedom fries".
For something that was invented in Belgium.
Fair enough. My own view of the French may be someone slanted because I'm Canadian, and French Canadian behaviour, as well as their interactions with Anglophone Canada, are shaped by petty grievance culture and characterised by an unearned sense of entitlement, incessant demands for special treatment and poisonous rhetoric, all of which has served to undermine the integrity of Canadian society on a fundamental and Constitutional level.
Also I don't like the food.
The behavior of French Canadians may not be as it is because they are French, but rather because they are a minority who believe their language and culture is threatened.
You are correct about the food though.
I think some of the crapping on the french comes from a cultural tradition, since America is culturally British in a lot of ways, little though we like to admit it, and one of those ways is a sort of cultural pasttime of hating the French.
Some of it is due to behavior that happened during the intervening +/- 200 years since the Revolutionary War, like America forgiving French debts in the middle of a major crisis, only for Americans to be spat on and swindled in the streets of Paris. Not to mention the open contempt a lot of French seem to have for Americans.
And to be honest, the French make it almost as easy as New Jersey to make fun of them sometimes...
I remember hearing global surveys of tourists a decade ago that French people were rated the least polite among all nationalities.
Causing the Vietnam war.
Personally I always liked the French because of the propensity for topless beaches.
This is very interesting, because the union in question (CGT) is actually a Marxist union.
Water is wet
Most unions are concerned with improving labor conditions and getting the leadership money and power. But CGT is an actually proper Marxist union.
Unions are by nature and design corrupt and cronyist institutions. Any improvements they secure for labor are incidental at best. In Europe, they would never have gotten off the ground to gain the social and political power they have had it not been for financial support from the USSR and other Communist states. In the North America, they would never have gotten off the ground if it hadn't been for the mob.
Unions are by nature criminal.orgianizations whose main goal is to enrich their own leadership at the expense of their members. Just like a communist state. All unions are structurally communist, even if not necessarily ideologically Marxist.
Correct. All institutions are. It's the Iron Law of Oligarchy. That said, unions balance the enormity of corporate power, which is why I do support unions. The greatest threat to liberty is not corrupt institutions, as they all are, but institutions that have power and are not checked and balanced.
Unions were already huge before the USSR. E.g. the labour movement in Germany. Regardless, if this were true, they did not benefit the USSR.
Again, this is a universal among organizations, that does not mean that they should not exist (though some, like teacher's unions, definitely should not). But I look to labour conditions in the US and I am quite happy that we have had unions, even if it depresses the labour market and wages to some extent.
I am not sure their current contribution is as good as it has historically been.
True enough, and as you say, Corporations run the same way. Where I think we differ is that I don't believe they were ever intended to be anything else. Labor unions were originally established by political idealogues in order to co-opt the grievances of the working class, however legitimate. Any benefit they have provided the working class has been incidental, because that was never their intended purpose: their purpose was to act as political pressure groups and quasi-clandestine fund-raisers for Marxist efforts to subvert and undermine the integrity of Western societies.
Unions got their start in the 19th century, before the Russian revolution, it's true. However, unions as a well-funded political force and especially their revolving-door relationship with mainstream political parties, did not really take off until the 1920s and 30s. The fact that they were actively funded and supported by the USSR during and after this time is well-documented.
Actively supporting corrupt military dictators in Latin America doesn't benefit the US, but they keep doing it.
Public sector unions are the inevitable final form of the labour union: the co-option of working class political action by the pampered ideologues of the managerial class, to the point where the majority of the working class in the West are no longer unionized, but the bloated mass of social-climbing hangers on, clinging to the teat of the globalist elite, are the chief beneficiaries of labour unions. Which is further proof that they have only ever existed by the leave of corrupt elites.
I think this is largely accurate, but even those unions who were originally intended to be something else would eventually become bastions of corruption and cryonism.
You have to benefit them sufficiently to want to be members of your organization. It's obviously not the primary aim, but this is quite important or the power-holders would find themselves with a declining organization. However, not incidental.
I don't think it's true to say that in the beginning, they had the support of corrupt elites, but now since they benefit other corrupt members of the corrupt elites, they certainly do.
Is there any shibboleth of Marxism that u/AntonioOfVenice won't make apologetics for?
Here we have a useful learning opportunity for anyone new to this board.
There is a crime in Western Civilization that is commonly known as racketeering. It's when you attempt, via coercion, force, corruption or fraud to force a business to use ONLY your product for their business. Take the carpentry industry for example. If you were to force a carpenter to ignore all other suppliers except you as a source for the wood he needs for his business, you are a criminal who is engaging in racketeering.
This is illegal in every single respect in the United States, except for one. Labor.
You're entitled to your simping for giant corporations. I hope they see this bro. You're not entitled to your made up nonsense. As for unions, actual orthodox Marxists complained that trade unions were more interested in bettering conditions for their workers than in their great revolution. A pattern repeated many times.
Stick to fervently daydreaming about a race war. At least that makes you just immoral and not wrong.
And look, all he can do in defense of the mafias of our time is bleat "but muh corporations".
And here we are with "no true Marxist" now. You're just a fountain of fallacies.
Imagine being such a worthless sucker that corporations fire you from your job for your opinions, and then while living under a bridge while having no livelihood, you shout: "IT... IT'S UNIONS THAT ARE BAD!!!!!!! CORPORATIONS GOOD!"
Keep licking that corporate boot.
You really are stupid, Mr. "Coup De Ta". "Trade unionism" as they called it, was hated and feared by Marxists. Of course, if you had ever read anything in your life, except the newsletter of your local Ku Klux Klan, you'd have known both that and how to spell "coup d'etat".
"Sure I keep getting made a fool of in public, but you made a spelling error! Ha HA!"
Most unions are into woke shit too. Unions aren't our ally.
Union members are our allies.
One of the better ways to redpill a normie right now: have you seen these crazy protests in France?
Damn that's the third or fourth thing I've seen about the French and their fight against mandatory vaccines. Good on them, take the globalists down!
Pretty much just do what the national anthem says and take the tyranny down. Which, by the way, the French national anthem is the most badass in the world. It's brutal, none of that queen saving or love and unity bullshit.
And just like the yellow vests, these protests aren't being reported in the media around the world.