French election 2017

Six months ago, Trump was running against Clinton. Millions of Americans, despite disliking Trump, chose to abstain or to vote for a minor candidate because Clinton was considered to be “just as bad as Trump”, even though her campaign promises were nowhere near as scary. Today, as the Trump administration proves to be every bit as gruesome we had warned you it would be, everyone knows deep down that, whatever might have been the problems with a Clinton administration, it wouldn’t have even come close to comparing with the orange snuff horror porn that the entire world is now forced to wake up to every morning, all the while aware that JUST A LITTLE MORE AMERICAN VOTER VIGILANCE COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT. So I wonder: have the French learned a lesson from this as they go into the second round of their own election?

In the US, while the useful idiots were doing Pepe the Frog memes about Clinton being the Zionist pick and Trump somehow being the Zionists’ worst nightmare, we had been pointing out the rather obvious that, although Clinton doubtless would have been acceptable to the Zionist agenda, it was actually Trump who was by far the preferred Zionist candidate:

In France we see a similar pattern from the useful idiots. Macron is held to be the Zionist pick, while Le Pen is held to be somehow the Zionists’ worst nightmare. I don’t get it either:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/french-far-right-leader-marine-le-pen-affirms-support-of-israel-1.353180

https://wideawakegentile.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/the-le-pen-family-jesuits-jewish-boyfriends-and-mossad-daddies/

Apparently Le Pen is ’anti-Zionist’ because she promotes Islamophobia, and to the useful idiots these days, Islamophobia = ‘anti-Zionism’. Yes, they really think this. It must be all those Red Pills they swallow.

It is possible that the one-eyed creature is actually a Red Pill. (Thank you Miecz for the graphic.)

But how do we know that Le Pen is the actual Zionist pick? Because both Trump and Putin support her? Not to mention Wilders? Well, when we examine how the media has been herding the masses, it all becomes clear.

If we recall, election season began with Fillon bursting onto the scene and copying Le Pen’s Islamophobic, traditionalist rhetoric, and consequently being heavily promoted by the media as the front-runner. With both the far-right and the centre-right spouting such talking points, such ideas were psychopolitically mainstreamed. Once this was achieved, the media swiftly demolished Fillon with Penelopegate. Now all those who would not have been Islamophobes or traditionalists from listening to Le Pen alone, but who had been converted to these ideas via the apparently more moderate Fillon, have been left with no second round candidate but Le Pen to vote for.

Next, in the final stretch before the first round, the media suddenly hyped up Melenchon. What Melenchon has in common with Le Pen are anti-EU (and pro-Russia) views. Thus with the far-left as well as the far-right being anti-EU (and pro-Russia), being anti-EU (and pro-Russia) was psychopolitically standardized as the chief anti-establishment position. But the media knew all along that Melenchon had no real chance of getting to the second round given that Macron was absorbing most of the former PS voters. So with the first round over and Melenchon eliminated, which candidate alone remains for obsessive anti-establishment voters to vote for? Hmm……..

And let’s not forget the Champs-Elysees false flag shooting to make absolutely sure Le Pen would reach the second round…..

With these basic herding tricks that we should be familiar with by now, the media have conspired all the way to maximize the number of first-round Fillon/Melenchon voters who will vote Le Pen in the second round. All the while the same media have fooled the Red-Pilled useful idiots into believing that the media are behind Macron, just by throwing out a few useless fluff pieces about the history of the Macron-Trogneux couple (including deliberately unflattering photos of Trogneux to boot).

If the remainder French electorate have learned enough from the US election to not complacently repeat the American mistake of abstaining, it should still be enough to save France from Le Pen. But have they? We will have to see. (Even now as the media portray Macron as certain to win by a huge margin, all they are really doing is lulling would-be Macron voters to complacency and thus to not bother casting their votes on May 7th based on the assumption that others’ votes will comfortably suffice, while at the same time galvanizing every would-be Le Pen voter to vote in order to try for the long-shot result, thus once again boosting Le Pen’s chances by encouraging disparate turnout.)

As for Macron, there may not be much in his centrist platform that particularly appeals to us (he is no Corbyn; that’s for sure), but I would suggest that a presidential candidate prepared to take a hit to his own popularity during election season in order to pass ethical judgement on a historical event (when silence on the topic would have been safer) is worth at least a modicum of credit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/18/macron-loses-lead-remarks-colonial-algeria-gay-marriage-spark/

Emmanuel Macron, the centrist French presidential contender, struggled to get his campaign back on track on Saturday after losing his poll lead over controversial remarks on France’s colonial record and gay marriage.

… 

Mr Macron provoked outrage on the Right by describing colonial rule as a “crime against humanity” during a visit to Algeria, once the jewel in France’s imperial crown.

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to French election 2017

  1. Kasper says:

    Another Things Check this site

    “Hamas are not the only anti-Semitic organisation to have claimed a link between Jews and Communism. Nazi publication Der Stürmer frequently and hysterically attacked ‘Jewish Communism’ii. The anti-Semitic pamphlet The Jewish Bolshevism, produced by the WHITE Russians shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, purported to show how Jews had been the driving force behind the Revolutioniii.”

    http://www.marxist.com/from-bolshevism-to-bush.htm

  2. Numinous_Sun says:

    This article makes me laugh: http://www.marxist.com/from-bolshevism-to-bush.htm

    I ended up skimming over the rest of it after reading the first two paragraphs, so perhaps I missed it, but I don’t believe the author mentions the obvious fact that Marx himself was a Jew, as is the Rothschild international banking family that funded much of the Bolshevik revolution!

    That was enough for me to lose all respect for the authors point of view.

  3. Gallery Guy says:

    @NS

    Karl Marx was also in favor for restricted immigration, much like how Trump is today.

  4. Numinous_Sun says:

    @GG:

    Good point!

    Also, it doesn’t matter which form of Jewish economics a society chooses, whether it be Capitalism, Communism, Neoliberalism, etc., there is always one constant underlying theme:

    “Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.” – Deuteronomy 23:21 (20)

    The fact that the Jews tell you exactly what they’re about in their “religious” texts, and the fact that humanity still suffers Jewishness 2,000+ years later, doesn’t bode well for discussions on human intelligence, morals, or ethics. I think next time I get into a discussion with a “progressive” I might bring that fact up, and then ask: “where is all this progress you keep referring to?”.

    When you look at it like that you really start to see how pathetic this all is, at-least I do…

  5. Gallery Guy says:

    @anon

    Yes, I know, Karl Marx talked openly against excessive immigration when he wanted to chastise the “upper-class”. But he came with no real solution for the problems between the “classes”. So, he is like trump, even if they’re approach is different.

  6. Gallery Guy says:

    @NS

    Somebody I know is using the Tanakh to justify the acceptance of refugees into the USA. I don’t think this person understands that the Tanakh also said that it’s okay to charge foreigners interest while not charging your “brothers” interest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>