Franse politiek #3 Macron aan de leiding in uitgelekte exit poll.

Mooi dat Macron voorstaat.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:19 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
lfop heeft het als volgt:

[ afbeelding ]

Opvallend hoe dichtbij die rechtse fraudeur nog is gekomen...

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:24 schreef bijstandboy het volgende:

[..]

Rimpelsteeltje, het is maar waar je voor valt

Klaarblijkelijk valt hij voor de teloorgang van vrouwen én Frankrijk.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:26 schreef Patrice_Consigny het volgende:

[..]

Baudet zou willen dat hij zo'n cv had. Baudet is een poser, dit is de echte elite.

Lakei van de echte elite, hoogstens.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:17 schreef Elfletterig het volgende:

[..]

Sinds de huidige situatie in Frankrijk het uitgangspunt is?

Zelfs dan...? Heel anders is het toch niet dan PS onder Mitterrand?

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:30 schreef Kaas- het volgende:
Wat heerlijk dat de as van de EU dadelijk bestaat uit Macron en Schulz of Merkel. Kan niet beter.

Brrrr

The last time the Rothschilds put a puppet into the presidential office, it was to overthrow the great President Charles De Gaulle (pictured), who had become anti-imperialist. At the time, all the American CharlesDeGaulleLügenpresse told us was that he kicked NATO out of France. In reality, De Gaulle’s offenses were far greater. Few Americans knew that he used the prestige of his office to oppose the US wars in Southeast Asia. His speech in Phnom Penh, Cambodia (Sept. 1, 1966) is breathtaking in its deep and eloquent denunciation of the American Empire. A French transcript of that speech is at http://www.charles-de-gau(...)r-septembre-1966.php The most important offense is that De Gaulle, as a French patriot, was not interested in a European Union where France would lose her sovereignty, and De Gaulle had managed to Make France Great Again with a strong economy based on industrial competitiveness. The cherry on the top was his remark that “Some people even feared that the Jews, until then scattered about, but who were still what they had always been, that is an elite people, sure of themselves and domineering, would, once assembled again on the land of their ancient greatness, turn into a burning and conquering ambition.” (press conference, Nov. 27, 1967 – in the wake of the 1967 War). The elites decided De Gaulle had to go.

The chosen tool was Georges Pompidou (pictured). Like Macron, Pompidou was a relative nobody, but he was a former Director-General of Banque Rothschild. Behind-the-scenes support was vital for Pompidou to Pompidoustage an insider revolt against Charles De Gaulle. Once Pompidou became president, he gave La Banque de France over to private bankers in early 1973. Dissidents scathingly call the legislation «la Loi Pompidou, Giscard, Rothschild». Destroying the Bank Of France was a huge treason. From 1936-1973, the sovereign French government ran its Bank of France to serve the public. The government borrowed money for public works at little or no interest. Bank policies were designed to grow the economy. Public Banking. It was the key to creating “The Glorious Thirty”, the 30 years of postwar economic growth and prosperity (1945-1975). Stripping France of its national bank killed off that prosperity in a few short years.

So Pompidou stands as a great warning. When a Rothschild pawn is running for high office, the people should be very concerned about what comes next. Unfortunately, the French Lügenpresse swept all that under the rug and turned De Gaulle into first a bogeyman, and later a remote icon of history. The only people who bring to light how this is relevant today, and how France needs another De Gaulle, are the French dissidents which I discuss below.

The French business press has mentioned that Macron was a Director of Banque Rothschild, but this is not much discussed. Only the dissidents give it the prominence it deserves.

The French public know two big bad things about Macron: Alstom and the Macron Law which attacks labor. The third, the Rothschild connection lies hidden in plain view.

Because the Macron Law affects all working people in France, the polemics around it have attracted widespread attention. It allows top-down changes to labor contracts with the consent of whichever trade union represents 50% of the workers. It abolished the restrictions on Sunday work, an important item and a serious blow to family life - a strategic goal of anti-humanist liberals, since strong families are a basic protection against predatory capitalism. It ends the 35 hour work week and allows companies to demand 46 hours work for up to 12 weeks a year. This law is another attack on the working class, with the propaganda that it will increase employment.

Macron wrote this law, but in an endless string of frauds, the French media call it la Loi El Khomri even though El Khomri, the Labor Minister, didn't help write it and seems to have opposed it. (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myriam_El_Khomri) Macron says long and loud that he would have gone much further in this law if political realities hadn't restrained him.

The Alstom matter is more serious, really.

Macron's role in the sell-off of Alstom is very strategic damage. It de-industrializes France.

With his portfolio in the "Socialist" government, Macron should have worked to prevent the sell-off of Alstom to GE. This stands as a second clear warning that Rothschild puppets can inflict serious damage.

Alstom was one of France's few remaining high-tech dynamos, a key to French prosperity in the 21st Century. Nuclear reactors, high speed trains, electricity transmission, etc. GE has a similar set of industries, so the American giant offered to buy the nuclear power and electrical transmission part of Alstom for ¤12.35 billion, but not the train business. That was a paltry sum for businesses with an annual turnover of over ¤14 billion. Any businessman would understand GE's initial offer as a fire sale price - but Alstom was not in distress. Even worse, after all the flim-flam such as a US Department Of "Justice" fine ($970 million) for bribing Indonesian officials, French share-holders ended up with less than ¤3.7 billion. French people made a public outcry and an effort to prevent losing this jewel, but to no avail. Macron should have prevented this catastrophe, and he did nothing because he's a neoliberal with masters to please and - amazing at is seems - his French masters serve American masters. The American website, Counterpunch, ran a detailed story on Alstom two months ago, although it failed to highlight the role of Macron as the most responsible "Socialist" minster.

In the last two years, the oligarchic press, the French Lügenpresse, has been trying to turn the nobody Macron into a major candidate, creating a big PR campaign. The French website Le Vent Se Leve (The Wind Rises) has a good short exposé at http://lvsl.fr/medias-ont-fabrique-candidat-macron "How The Media Fabricated Macron The Candidate". The exposé notes that more articles were published about Macron than all three of the other "Socialist" candidates combined, a peer group that included Hamonthe "Socialist" presidential candidate. Polling data from before this campaign started, in late 2014, shows only 6% of the public considered Macron as a serious candidate. The way the glossy press portrayed him, you'd think the 1970's pop star, Johnny Halliday, was being created all over again. Minus the good mood music and the Ford Mustang driving-on-the-beach commercial, however.

hollandeIn April 2016, Macron started a political movement,"En Marche", and it was clear he was preparing for a presidential run and he was soliciting campaign money. When he resigned on Aug. 30, President Hollande (pictured) called him "a methodical traitor" so the bridge to the "Socialist" Party was truly burned. What's curious, so odd and artificial, is that Macron waited until November 16 to announce his run for the presidency. That delay indicates Macron has run a stealth campaign.

Macron's ties to Rothschild are in the French media if you know to search it out, but the ties don't get the prominence and the analysis that it should. The Lügenpresse describes Macron as an "independent centrist." He is "independent" of everything - except the oligarchs. "Centrist"? Really ? No, this label is as meaningless in France as anywhere. There's only one polite label for Macron; he is a neoliberal. That means fundamentalist capitalism where, without exaggeration, nothing matters except the accumulation of capital.

Alain Soral, the Dissident Who Must Be Silenced

The critical importance of the French dissidents is that they make the connection between Macron and Rothschild, as well as Pompidou to Rothschild. The dissidents are the only people in France who describe 1968 as a Color Revolution created by hidden networks, and the dissidents also lead the way in describing De Gaulle as a great patriot, when the mass media tries to paint him as an authoritarian nut, just some obscure old general. A lot hinges on how people evaluate "1968". It was sold, then and now, as being spontaneous, anti-authoritarian, romantic, etc. It was a great sales job and only the dissidents unravel the marketing of "May, 1968".

The dissidents are a major force in France. Their main power is word of mouth. They are sprinkled throughout France, at most income levels and ethnicities, so they can bend the ear of non-political French citizens. I estimate there are about 250,000 dissidents, and obviously Alain Soral one of the most prominent. The main dissident web site is egaliteetreconciliation.fr/ and it averages 144,000 unique visitors a day. Almost none of this is in English. This is French nationalism at work, and one of their goals is preservation of French culture and French language.

If ever the French oligarchs needed to suppress the dissidents, it's now. The arguments of the dissidents are strong, but their biggest obstacle has been the passivity of the French people. Passivity is ending in France as it is elsewhere. So the elite decided it was time to call in the police.

The French police have been trying to arrest Alain Soral (pictured) since Thursday, Feb. 2. The police haven't stated why they want to arrest him, but the leaders of the "Socialist" government have said in just so many words that they want to permanently silence Soral and Dieudonné. To quote Valls, the recently departed prime minister, "Death! ... Uh, I mean social death!" So yeah, the oligarchs want the dissidents silenced for the duration of the elections.

Soral and fellow dissidents have been on the receiving end of a concerted campaign of intimidation with arrests and trumped-up civil suits. This has been going on for a decade and it's a case of attempted murder social death by a thousand cuts. It drains the dissidents of money and energy.

Unlike the US, France does not have free speech. Some topics can't be discussed openly without fear of arrest. Comments which can be interpreted as racist, as "hate speech", or as "supporting terrorism", or merely as revisions of details from the official history of the Holocaust, or simply annoying a few well-connected Jews, are all prosecutable under French law. In the US, back in the old days when free speech was not all that free, we had gray zones for artistic license, for humor, and for speaking when reporters were not present. France never developed these gray zones because they had free speech from 1881 until the new laws of 1972 and 1990 slowly crept up on them.

DieudonneOne example can give you an idea how this works. Dieudonné (pictured), an Afro-French humorist fills large halls at all his performances, at 50 euros a ticket. He's extremely talented, insightful, and his humor is gentle and fierce. This is all too dangerous and subversive. For a Facebook posting, he was sentenced to 200 days in jail or a 30,000 euro fine, reduced on appeal to 2 months or 10,000 euros. After the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, he posted, «Je me sens Charlie Coulibaly.» "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly." It was a hybrid name. Charlie for Charlie-Hebdo, the humor magazine where the victims had worked. Like Dieudonné , they had been humorists, and Dieudonné understood that not everyone likes funny men. Coulibaly, supposedly one of the terrorists, was AfroFrench. Well, Dieudonné is Afro-French, too. Dieudonné said he was trying to do the Christian thing and to lovingly reconcile these two opposites which he said he also finds within himself. He told the court that he "condemned the terrorist attack, holding back nothing, and without any ambiguity." The upshot is that in France, the government decides what's funny.

[ Bericht 29% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 23-04-2017 20:34:23 ]

"Pro-EU". Eerder "pro huidige gevestigde orde". Veel kandidaten met uitzondering van Le Pen willen andere samenwerkingsverbanden of een andere EU, maar zijn helemaal niet anti-Europa of zo. Dat zie je nu ook met Syriza.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:19 schreef Kaas- het volgende:

[..]

De Franse Pechtold.

Zou het ook zo'n wegkijker zijn ja? De vergelijking met Pechtold gaat sowieso niet op. Pechtold is al jarenlang de lijsttrekker van een partij die al 51 jaar bestaat. Deze Macron is pas recent uit de PS gestapt om zijn eigen beweging te beginnen. Als je 'm al met een D66'er wilt vergelijken, is het Van Mierlo.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:22 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Ja, maar ik zou wel ter harte willen nemen wat Elfletterig zegt. Het is zeker niet het einde van het nationaalpopulisme; Wilders 2e geworden, Oostenrijk nipt verloren, Frankrijk moet nog blijken en is ze door naar de 2e ronde, Duitsland moet nog blijken, maar lijken ze 3e te worden... buiten dat zitten de Russen alsnog die agenda te pushen net als onze oranje vriend aan de overkant van de oceaan.

En voor de goede orde: ik zeg dat niet met plezier en ben geen aanhanger van het nationaalpopulisme. Ik vind het draagvlak voor extremisme in de politiek zorgwekkend. En het is goed om je te bedenken dat mensen echt niet zomaar stemmen op Le Pen of die communist. Daar schuilt veel maatschappelijke onvrede achter.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:35 schreef Kaas- het volgende:

[..]

Ik maak de vergelijking niet vanwege de persoon Pechtold, maar vanwege de politieke ideologie van Macron. Dat is gewoon een D66'er. Ben helemaal in m'n nopjes met deze uitslag.

Dezelfde elitefiguren ook.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:35 schreef Elfletterig het volgende:

[..]

En voor de goede orde: ik zeg dat niet met plezier en ben geen aanhanger van het nationaalpopulisme. Ik vind het draagvlak voor extremisme in de politiek zorgwekkend. En het is goed om je te bedenken dat mensen echt niet zomaar stemmen op Le Pen of die communist. Daar schuilt veel maatschappelijke onvrede achter.

"Die communist", kom op man. Alleen al als je even een Wikipedia-definitie pakt matcht het al niet met Mélenchon.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:36 schreef Kaas- het volgende:

[..]

Hurrdurr elituh

Beetje beneath you Robin.

Normaal zeg ik dat ook niet. Maar bij hem ligt het er wel heel erg bovenop. Zelfs regelrecht uit de bankenwereld.

Iemand die voor Rothschild heeft gewerkt verdient geen kans. Er is teveel reden voor wantrouwen.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:38 schreef Kaas- het volgende:

[..]

Je moet mensen niet zomaar afschrijven Robin.

Kijk, het kan natuurlijk ook iemand zijn uit de bankenwereld die zag hoe fout het allemaal was en daarom heel de sector op de schop wil hebben. Een soort klokkenluider.

Maar als je dan zo'n super status quo geluid vertegenwoordigd dan knelt dat wel vind ik.

quote:

Op zondag 23 april 2017 20:40 schreef Patrice_Consigny het volgende:

[..]

Ik drink hun wijn, ben ik nu nog wel te vertrouwen.

Dat ligt eraan hoeveel wijn je hebt gedronken lijkt me.