France's Macron Plans Compulsory Military Service "For Social Cohesion"

Authored by Frank Sellers via The Duran,

Perhaps he should crack open a history book...

French President Emmanuel Macron is floating the idea of reintroducing compulsory military service. The plan intends on introducing youths to military life and service from the age of 16 for both girls and boys. The unpopular programme is expected to cost the French government nearly $2 billion.

The BBC reports:

The French government has introduced a plan to bring back national service for all 16-year-olds.

It was an idea put forward by Emmanuel Macron in his presidential campaign, to promote a sense of civic duty and national unity among French youth.

But some remain unconvinced of the benefits.

The new national service will cover all 16-year-olds, girls as well as boys, and will be divided into two distinct phases.

National service in two parts

The first phase is a mandatory one-month placement with a focus on civic culture, which the government says will “enable young people to create new relationships and develop their role in society”.

Voluntary teaching and working with charities are among the options being looked at, alongside traditional military preparation with the police, fire service or army.

The second phase is a voluntary placement of at least three months and up to a year, in which young people will be encouraged to serve “in an area linked to defence and security” – but again, they could opt to carry out volunteer work linked to heritage, the environment or social care.

A watered-down plan

It’s not quite the programme Mr Macron initially had in mind.

When he first floated the idea, during the 2017 race for the presidency, it was a sort of military service in miniature, with all French citizens forced to have a “direct experience of military life” for a minimum of one month between the ages of 18 and 21.

That’s now been softened and broadened into what’s being called a Universal National Service – partly because of concerns that it would cost too much and overburden the country’s armed forces.

Even now, the programme is estimated to cost €1.6bn (£1.4bn; $1.8bn) a year to run, with €1.75bn of investment up front.

What is Macron’s aim?

The goal of this new-style national service, the government says, is to encourage young French citizens to take part in the life of the nation, and promote social cohesion.

Consultations will now begin, with a view to rolling out the programme from early next year.

But there is still a lot of detail to be hammered out, not least the legal basis.

A working group, set up to look into the scheme, has warned that the French constitution bans the state from forcing an entire section of the population to spend time away from home, except in the case of national defence.

Is the idea popular?

Even before it was announced, 14 youth organisations objected to the “inconsistencies” in the plan, unhappy with the idea of being forced to take part in a project. “Choosing a commitment is just as important as the commitment itself, if not more so,” they argued, calling for young people to be able to exercise freedom of choice.

More broadly, about 60% of the population are in favour, according to a YouGov poll carried out in March, although the number dips to just below half when younger people are asked for their views.

Mr Macron is the first French president not to have done military service; it was scrapped for the new intake in 1996, when Mr Macron was 18.

Before that, all young French men were expected to serve for the best part of a year in the armed forces. When the old post-war draft ended, in 1997, there was a collective sigh of relief. Amid the nostalgia, many people here recognised that it had become a social exercise rather than a military one.

Twenty years later, it’s that social cohesion President Macron now wants to recapture.

France has increasingly become a multicultural nations with increasing social divides. Macron hopes to provide some sort of social glue to foment social cohesion in the Western European nation with compulsory military service. His neoliberal ideology of a multicultural nation state, however, is little more than a cheap attempt to square a circle.

Culture is an organic phenomenon that requires a certain degree of homogeneity, which is something that the West has been on a crusade to utterly destroy. Empires have managed to rule over various lands with differing cultures by respecting them, instead of forcing them all to fit the same mold, but Macron thinks he can do what no nation or empire in history has managed to accomplish, to erode social identities without offering a replacement, and hoping to preserve social cohesion. Perhaps he should crack open a history book.

Tags

Comments

Kafir Goyim DownWithYogaPants Fri, 06/29/2018 - 11:59 Permalink

 but again, they could opt to carry out volunteer work linked to heritage, the environment or social care.

What is this "heritage" thing?  I know that French politicians no longer give a fuck about French or European heritage, except for their active desire to destroy it.  Is he referring to muslim or jewish heritage, or do the kids, perhaps, just get to support any "heritage" they feel like (as long as it's definitely NOT French)?

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

Luc X. Ifer topspinslicer Fri, 06/29/2018 - 12:39 Permalink

Actually Macron's idea is great - if the service would last at least 1 year and the recruits would have to complete a tour on the muslim/islamic territories. This would be a good filter to spot the behind recovery radicalized brain washed muslim youngsters. To be honest, I think this is the only true workable strategy. Glad to see a rational solution discussed vs a lunatic leftist ideological bunch of crap based on pathological guilt and altruism porn.

In reply to by topspinslicer

TBT or not TBT bigkahuna Fri, 06/29/2018 - 13:21 Permalink

France has a very long history of using military service as a way of France-ifying its formerly very disparate and ancient regional ethnicities into one .   In the 20th century the Education Nationale, or "le Mammouth" as the French themselves may disparage it, took on that role starting from the youngest age all the way through post doc .   It worked, except for the 2nd and later generations of children of Muslim mostly Arab immigrants who arrived initially from former French Algeria and neighboring countries . French central planners had built "new cities" for them in the socialist style of Le Corbusier way out at the end of commuter train rides from their precious city centers.   Those kids hate France and the French .  All satellite dishes point to Arab satellites    The streets are controlled by thugs for whom there is no rule against dealing drugs, raping or prostituting infidels .   There's a fatwa for that.  The police and emergency services only to go the thousands of no go zones in force, and under duress to do so .  These are zones "lost to the Republic" . 

In reply to by bigkahuna

GeezerGeek Mustahattu Fri, 06/29/2018 - 15:31 Permalink

Train up some Muslim-only (and male-only) brigades and send them to re-establish French Indochina. Perhaps they can hold onto it this time, and if the attempt fails, too bad. Just don't volunteer for the USA to bail them out this time.

As for the Muslim ladies, put them in with the indigenous guys and gals. Let them share living quarters, etc. No religious exemptions whatsoever. They need to learn what it's like to live veil-free.

In reply to by Mustahattu

DaiRR GeezerGeek Fri, 06/29/2018 - 17:31 Permalink

What a great opportunity to give Muslim teenagers a shot at a green-on-green slaughter at the rifle range.  They'll look forward to that for years until they're 18 and can spend a month in military training.

France is home to 7 million Muslims and the Muslim population among France's prison inmates is currently 70%.  The government no longer controls the banlieus, the high-density, predominantly Muslim ghettos that encircle most French cities and where the police seldom patrol.

France has a Muslim population of 10-15 percent. By 2050 this is projected to grow to between 30-40 percent of the entire population.

Sucks to be France.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

In reply to by GeezerGeek

Faeriedust DaiRR Fri, 06/29/2018 - 19:26 Permalink

By 2050, the French "Civil War" between the Muslims and the remaining French/Christians will begin, if not before.  That is, I know the country is going to be a war zone full of radioactive no-go areas sometime between 2060-2070.  And I signed up to rejoin the Crusade for that war a while back.  I can't get to it until roughly 2039, so extrapolating, your projection sounds about right.  I'm just hoping the French don't screw things up before Papa gets into the country (he's nine years old in Prague right now and intends to go to the Sorbonne to study European languages.  Of course, he's probably Jewish, but Mama will fix that.  She is ALWAYS Christian.  Very.).

Papa would Not Approve of mandatory military service, but this doesn't really sound very military.  Antoinette and I are perfectly content with short bursts of community service; after all, I used to be a monk.  And anyway, I signed up for the Crusade.  As a military surgeon.  I want to go home!  I understand now that the original Crusades were idiotic and useless, but there's no sin in defending your own country against invaders.  The Muslims had that right when we invaded Syria, now and then; but Moors don't belong in la belle France.   

In reply to by DaiRR

Teja Theosebes Goodfellow Fri, 06/29/2018 - 12:26 Permalink

Macron knows exactly what he is doing - he has understood quite early that Trump and his minions are trying to split the European Union. Trump seems to follow the ZH thinking of "Evil EU".

BREAKING NEWS: Guardian reporting right now that Trump tried to break France out of Europe:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/29/quit-eu-bilateral-trad…

Which only shows the Great Dealmaker is rather dumb, not at all understanding what Macron and his movement stand for!

 

I guess there will be compulsive service in other European countries coming soon. We cannot trust our "Allies" any more, neither Turkey nor the US.

In reply to by Theosebes Goodfellow

Slaytheist Teja Fri, 06/29/2018 - 15:50 Permalink

Moodys split the EU, when the complicitly stamped that junk with a few A's.  It why there were no jail sentences.

 

Subprime in the US was weaponized, with knowledge and forethought.  Start you own new currency to dodge the death of the fiat?  Nope.  Price oil in Euro will you lol.  Nope. 

In reply to by Teja

techpriest DownWithYogaPants Fri, 06/29/2018 - 12:12 Permalink

The answer to that question is explained, exhaustively, in the book "Twilight of Authority" by Nisbett. True social cohesion comes out of the family, the congregation, the community, and the university. But when these break down, an artificial society of militarist values (namely, top-down command of everything) moves in to fill the gaps. However, that is a late-phase move, and what follows next is a dark age in which the family, congregation, and community begin to re-form with whoever survives.

Socialism is not "progress." Its a throwback to the 200s AD.

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

Faeriedust techpriest Fri, 06/29/2018 - 19:51 Permalink

What exactly is "Progress"?  I rather liked the 200s AD. Life in the Empire was comfortable if you stayed out of politics.  The Severans were reasonably competent rulers, unlike some I've had to deal with. "Militarist values" weren't terribly widespread yet; that came more after Diocletian and of course Constantine.  As for Dark Ages, ordinary people were often a great deal better off after the Empire bit the dust than during its supposed glory.  Civilizations exist to extract wealth from the "lesser" people and siphon it up to the rulers.  Small kings and many kingdoms are weak kings who have to treat their people with respect instead of abusing them.  During the sub-Roman era in Britain, a king often curried and fed his own horse, and when he tromped in out of the mud, he apologized to the housekeeper for the mess.  At least, a king who kept his head on his shoulders for very long, did.

In reply to by techpriest

TheGardener flapdoodle Fri, 06/29/2018 - 18:17 Permalink

or to kill off the remaining force recruited defeated Prussians once more ? Napoleon marched on Moscow with barely fed to walk forced recruits from conquered Prussia.

Next time Russia will feature volunteer Freecorps from all over Europe to march all over their own freaking invaded  place seemingly defeated by muslimoids.

 

In reply to by flapdoodle

Buckaroo Banzai flapdoodle Fri, 06/29/2018 - 17:31 Permalink

Wrong. Yes, the NSDAP economy was in such a shambles in 1933 that it had to be forcibly reorganized from the top down after the parasitic Jewish influence was excised, but that process only took a few years, and was extremely successful--so successful that even the contemporary western Jewish media had a difficult time refuting that fact. Unfortunately only a few years after that major economic triumph, the German economy was put on a wartime footing, in a very similar way to what the so-called "capitalist" US and British economies did between 1939 and 1945. Wartime economies are ALL centrally-planned economies.

The fact that the NSDAP had "socialist" in the party's name was simply a marketing/branding decision. In the early 20th century, "Socialism" was considered the trendy new theory of governance, and Hitler simply adopted the word to appeal to the 18-39 year old working-man demographic. It was a smart move because it worked. Hitler of course articulated a different definition of "socialism"--any country whose leadership was properly aligned to its people, and worked on their behalf, was "socialist" in the sense that the authorities' number-one concern was the people's well-being. It didn't have anything to do with what we understand as socialist economics.

In reply to by flapdoodle

Victor von Doom Buckaroo Banzai Fri, 06/29/2018 - 22:39 Permalink

Not wrong. The National Socialists were in fact Socialists - due to central planning, and an ever increasing command economy and no - it was not "by accident", but by design.

For those that don't know, Nationalism is itself a Left Wing ideology - not Right wing at all, as it is inclusive of all members of a given nation, not just supportive of those with a high enough social standing. It's just not as Left Wing as Marxism, ie International Socialism.

You will note the following countries: China, Vietnam, North Korea, previous USSR etc - all of which call themselves either Socialists or Peoples Democratic Republics etc. Yet every one of these is/was big on Nationalism.

The NSDAP was Socialist - and employed all of the common Socialist strategies.

People today are confused because of the sick, degenerate form of Western Left Wing politics today. So confused they think what was used to be thought of as Left Wing Radical Ideologies as Right Wing!

What a weird, fucked up world we live in.

In reply to by Buckaroo Banzai

TheGardener Benito_Camela Fri, 06/29/2018 - 18:32 Permalink

So you are coming out in defence for them socialists only half or three quarters as bad ?

what part of nationalist socialist did you not understand ? Ever considered jumping down for real that abyss of your socialist "history book" ?  Guess what , what is starring back at you is just your own self hate and your self acclaimed evil biting your socialist envy lingering tail.

 

In reply to by Benito_Camela