Peanuts_En_Liberté

"Libéralisme bien dosé, humour salé… comme mes peanuts."

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@vbenard Great thread.
Excellent analysis, lucid and straightforward. I share most of your diagnosis.
Here are a few additional thoughts:
When a population is homogeneous, the neighbor is seen as a fellow citizen: someone like oneself. Justice can be more flexible, and the welfare state becomes viable because people are willing to “put money in the pot” for those who resemble them culturally and historically. This is the foundation of the traditional French social contract.
The left, by contrast, has deliberately brought in populations that were outside this historical social contract. Being revolutionary by nature, it seeks to make a clean break with the past in order to integrate these newcomers. Hence its obsessive desire to erase French identity (denigrated as “racist,” “colonial,” or “white”). The goal is to replace one people with another that is more electorally docile.
The center (PS, LR, Macron and the Macronists, who mostly come from the PS and LR) is the party of elite status quo. They defend the old system that created them: economic openness + societal progressivism + continuous immigration. They oppose the left (too radical) and the far right (too identitarian), because both challenge their dominant position.
It is true that the French far right is not economically liberal. It gathers the declassed of the system: workers, employees, and small retirees who are used to a strong, protective state (a kind of “light communism” logic). Paradoxically, it has also become the party of a portion of active workers who are exasperated by uncontrolled immigration, insecurity, and unfair competition. The identitarian divide has overtaken the traditional left/right economic divide.
History is clear: when a nation-state shifts from homogeneous to heavily heterogeneous, the liberal parliamentary regime eventually cracks. It gives way to a more authoritarian form of government. The welfare state collapses because people refuse to pay for “others” they no longer recognize as their own.
This is why the current statist program of the RN will likely evolve. As seen in Latin America: first security and order (Bukele in El Salvador), then, once stability is restored, greater economic liberalism (Milei in Argentina). The priority must be restoring state authority before shrinking its size.
The French institutional system (the 5th Republic designed for a strong leader) is no longer suited to this deep fracture. Hence the permanent political crisis since the 2024 dissolution. Parliament will have to take back control, even if it risks being chaotic.
We are indeed entering a sequence that recalls 1870-1871: defeat (this time moral and cultural), national fracture, rise of the extremes, and a possible return of street violence (especially around the 2027 second round).

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@VaubanPro2 C'est rigolo que pour le collègue de gauche, y a pas de centre.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@Historionome Comme par hasard

[Pierre Sautarel @FrDesouche]

Ça alors, c’est déjà le « gentil » Hugues que l’on retrouve avec ses amis islamo-gauchistes dans une vidéo où il reconnaît participer au harcèlement d’enseignants à Bondy en mode Samuel Paty.
Vous prenez votre public pour des cons @BFMTV @apollineWakeUp

https://t.co/R85O3jz7y0

[Bouli ☃️ @bouliboulibouli]

7 ans que Macron enfume tout le monde en racontant que la France est le pays le plus attractif d'Europe pour les investissements étrangers, et aucun journaliste ne soulève la supercherie.

[Dindon Fiscal @LeDindonFiscal]

J’ai trouvé un chiffre hallucinant : 300 000 personnes faisant partie des 20 % français les plus riches vivent en HLM. 📈

Dont 200 000 à Paris 🤡

Pour une famille dans un T4 de 85 m² à Paris, le loyer moyen est de 2 900 € par mois.

En HLM, le même appartement est loué 1 300 € 🤡

Soit 1 600 € économisés chaque mois, 19 200 € par an et 768 000 € sur 40 ans.

Pour rappel, ce sont les revenus d’entrée qui comptent pour un HLM : si vous devenez millionnaire ensuite, vous y avez toujours droit.

L’injustice, c’est que ceux ayant la « chance » d’obtenir ces HLM aisés peuvent capitaliser la différence avec cet argent placé sur 40 ans.

Ils deviennent millionnaires sur le dos de la solidarité nationale. Vous trouvez ça normal ? 🤡

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@vbenard Great thread.
Excellent analysis, lucid and straightforward. I share most of your diagnosis.
Here are a few additional thoughts:
When a population is homogeneous, the neighbor is seen as a fellow citizen: someone like oneself. Justice can be more flexible, and the welfare state becomes viable because people are willing to “put money in the pot” for those who resemble them culturally and historically. This is the foundation of the traditional French social contract.
The left, by contrast, has deliberately brought in populations that were outside this historical social contract. Being revolutionary by nature, it seeks to make a clean break with the past in order to integrate these newcomers. Hence its obsessive desire to erase French identity (denigrated as “racist,” “colonial,” or “white”). The goal is to replace one people with another that is more electorally docile.
The center (PS, LR, Macron and the Macronists, who mostly come from the PS and LR) is the party of elite status quo. They defend the old system that created them: economic openness + societal progressivism + continuous immigration. They oppose the left (too radical) and the far right (too identitarian), because both challenge their dominant position.
It is true that the French far right is not economically liberal. It gathers the declassed of the system: workers, employees, and small retirees who are used to a strong, protective state (a kind of “light communism” logic). Paradoxically, it has also become the party of a portion of active workers who are exasperated by uncontrolled immigration, insecurity, and unfair competition. The identitarian divide has overtaken the traditional left/right economic divide.
History is clear: when a nation-state shifts from homogeneous to heavily heterogeneous, the liberal parliamentary regime eventually cracks. It gives way to a more authoritarian form of government. The welfare state collapses because people refuse to pay for “others” they no longer recognize as their own.
This is why the current statist program of the RN will likely evolve. As seen in Latin America: first security and order (Bukele in El Salvador), then, once stability is restored, greater economic liberalism (Milei in Argentina). The priority must be restoring state authority before shrinking its size.
The French institutional system (the 5th Republic designed for a strong leader) is no longer suited to this deep fracture. Hence the permanent political crisis since the 2024 dissolution. Parliament will have to take back control, even if it risks being chaotic.
We are indeed entering a sequence that recalls 1870-1871: defeat (this time moral and cultural), national fracture, rise of the extremes, and a possible return of street violence (especially around the 2027 second round).

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@vbenard Great thread.
Excellent analysis, lucid and straightforward. I share most of your diagnosis.
Here are a few additional thoughts:
When a population is homogeneous, the neighbor is seen as a fellow citizen: someone like oneself. Justice can be more flexible, and the welfare state becomes viable because people are willing to “put money in the pot” for those who resemble them culturally and historically. This is the foundation of the traditional French social contract.
The left, by contrast, has deliberately brought in populations that were outside this historical social contract. Being revolutionary by nature, it seeks to make a clean break with the past in order to integrate these newcomers. Hence its obsessive desire to erase French identity (denigrated as “racist,” “colonial,” or “white”). The goal is to replace one people with another that is more electorally docile.
The center (PS, LR, Macron and the Macronists, who mostly come from the PS and LR) is the party of elite status quo. They defend the old system that created them: economic openness + societal progressivism + continuous immigration. They oppose the left (too radical) and the far right (too identitarian), because both challenge their dominant position.
It is true that the French far right is not economically liberal. It gathers the declassed of the system: workers, employees, and small retirees who are used to a strong, protective state (a kind of “light communism” logic). Paradoxically, it has also become the party of a portion of active workers who are exasperated by uncontrolled immigration, insecurity, and unfair competition. The identitarian divide has overtaken the traditional left/right economic divide.
History is clear: when a nation-state shifts from homogeneous to heavily heterogeneous, the liberal parliamentary regime eventually cracks. It gives way to a more authoritarian form of government. The welfare state collapses because people refuse to pay for “others” they no longer recognize as their own.
This is why the current statist program of the RN will likely evolve. As seen in Latin America: first security and order (Bukele in El Salvador), then, once stability is restored, greater economic liberalism (Milei in Argentina). The priority must be restoring state authority before shrinking its size.
The French institutional system (the 5th Republic designed for a strong leader) is no longer suited to this deep fracture. Hence the permanent political crisis since the 2024 dissolution. Parliament will have to take back control, even if it risks being chaotic.
We are indeed entering a sequence that recalls 1870-1871: defeat (this time moral and cultural), national fracture, rise of the extremes, and a possible return of street violence (especially around the 2027 second round).

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@DelegueLata La raison : Moyenne d'âge des téléspéctateurs de France TV plus de 65 ans.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@AureaLibe Il était temps que Bruxelles s'attaque aux Boomers.😁

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@pmartinet1 Contrairement à ce qu'on a dit la décision de Retailleau de quitter le gouvernement à été sa meilleure même si cela ne changera pas grand chose au résultat du premier tour.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@pmartinet1 Contrairement à ce qu'on a dit la décision de Retailleau de quitter le gouvernement à été sa meilleure même si cela ne changera pas grand chose au résultat du premier tour.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@pmartinet1 2027 sera terrible. Quelque soit le résultat du 2nd tour

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@ElsaCausse @pmartinet1 Victoire du RN ou Mélenchon perdant au 2nd tour.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

Je suis d'accord avec vous.
Voter pour Mélenchon est, selon moi, la meilleure façon de tourner la page de la Ve République héritée de De Gaulle. L'Assemblée nationale et le Sénat engageront une réforme visant à réduire considérablement les pouvoirs de la fonction présidentielle et à renforcer le rôle du Parlement. Nous aurions un scénario comparable à celui d'Allende au Chili. En plus, la réaction négative des marchés financiers remettra en cause le capitalisme de connivence qui s'est développé sous l'influence d'un État omnipotent et interventionniste.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

Je suis d'accord avec vous.
Voter pour Mélenchon est, selon moi, la meilleure façon de tourner la page de la Ve République héritée de De Gaulle. L'Assemblée nationale et le Sénat engageront une réforme visant à réduire considérablement les pouvoirs de la fonction présidentielle et à renforcer le rôle du Parlement. Nous aurions un scénario comparable à celui d'Allende au Chili. En plus, la réaction négative des marchés financiers remettra en cause le capitalisme de connivence qui s'est développé sous l'influence d'un État omnipotent et interventionniste.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@VaubanPro2 Donc tu es entrain de dire que si les élécteurs n'étaient pas des joueurs d'échec, Bardella serait pratiquement élu au premier tour.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

Être de gauche ne renvoie pas à une idéologie fixe.
Historiquement, la gauche s’est définie par la volonté d’intégrer au contrat social les groupes considérés comme exclus à une époque donnée.
Au XIXe siècle, cela concernait la bourgeoisie face à l’ordre monarchique et aristocratique donc la gauche était libérale.
Au XXe siècle, le mouvement ouvrier et les questions sociales ont pris le dessus, avec l’influence du marxisme et du socialisme. Le libéralisme est devenue de droite
Aujourd’hui, la gauche se concentre sur les questions identitaires, postcoloniales, migratoires car les exclus sont les immigrés récentents majoritairement non UE.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

Être de gauche ne renvoie pas à une idéologie fixe.
Historiquement, la gauche s’est définie par la volonté d’intégrer au contrat social les groupes considérés comme exclus à une époque donnée.
Au XIXe siècle, cela concernait la bourgeoisie face à l’ordre monarchique et aristocratique donc la gauche était libérale.
Au XXe siècle, le mouvement ouvrier et les questions sociales ont pris le dessus, avec l’influence du marxisme et du socialisme. Le libéralisme est devenue de droite
Aujourd’hui, la gauche se concentre sur les questions identitaires, postcoloniales, migratoires car les exclus sont les immigrés récentents majoritairement non UE.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@TiboLarto @AkonoPierre3 @clement_mci C'est mal connaître l'ancien régime qui est prêt à toutes les compromissions pour se maintenir.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@AkonoPierre3 @clement_mci L'important, c'est les législatives. Que ce soit Mélenchon ou Bardella, le Sénat et l'AN s'allieront pour réduire le pouvoir du président au minimum. Et c'est très bien comme cela.

[Peanuts_En_Liberté @LibertePeanuts]

@Historionome Il y a ceci aussi: