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:

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:

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.

And again, if anyone claims that people of whatever minority ethnic group in France are “not French”, remember that the quickest way to shut them up is to show them this picture:

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

103 Responses to French election 2017

  1. John Johnson says:

    Yes, studies such as those are quite stupid indeed. One major reason why people buy the explanations is due to what we call the “paganist” view on this page:

    Basically, hippies think cavemen lived together in peace and ying-yang harmony without the need of bureaucracies and complex division of labor. While this is true, the differences in gender roles were much more pronounced in paleolithic societies than in neolithic societies. Anyone who has watched a documentary about contemporary people who still live in hunter gatherer groups with stone age technology knows there is a strong division between male and female labor, as well as social traditions regarding the genders… (Or they can just watch the Flintstones where the big strong 1950s cavemen ‘bring home the bacon’ for their dainty housewives). And of course, it is no secret from archaeological studies that paleolithic groups had higher sexual dimorphism than agriculturalist groups.

    There is no type of sexual inequality more powerful and difficult to destroy than the kind which can be found written into the DNA and bones of individuals. Culture can change in an instant, but the genetic legacy of sexual differentiation which arose in hunter-gatherer societies has been around for over 50,000 years, and is very much alive today.

    The second biggest reason why people would believe such an article is because their mindset has become poisoned by the communist worldview. In a nutshell, there was no bourgeoisie or dirty capitalist CEOs in caveman times, but with the Neolithic era came civilization, and with civilization came Emperors and a political chain of command, as well as a more complex division of labor allowing specializations and differing amounts of prestige based on different specializations or skill levels within those specializations (which would far surpass any inequality of this sort in bands of hunter-gatherers), etc. So I guess to communist-influenced feminists, the caveman’s Natural Order patriarchy where men rule by brute strength alone (and where strict gender roles basically mean all women are born into their own ‘labor union’–and where some tribes have been able to rule by matriarchy) is utopic in comparison to a more complex civilized society where it is possible for ‘patriarchy’ to become more deeply entrenched in laws and more complex social traditions, and therefore more difficult to overthrow than in a band of hunters.

    Obviously, we are against the parasitic ‘middleman class’ which can exist in a complex economy, and deeply disturbed by institutionalized sexism and ignobility. However, it was only due to an agricultural lifestyle that humans began to be genetically liberated from hunter-gatherer gender roles…

  2. John Johnson says:

    *”While this is true”

    To clarify, I only meant the latter part about bureaucracies, not that caveman life was peaceful and harmonious.

  3. Gallery Guy says:

    @John Johnson

    One individual who commented on the article said that the establishment of agriculture lead to the establishment of misogyny, which I found absurd…

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>