From ... in Alternative News — May 10, 2017

Marine Le Pen or Emmanuel Macron? The French Presidential Election: Nationalism, The Elite, & More

There is a massive shift in global consciousness going on right now, and it’s being reflected in the global political landscape.From the U.S.

. presidential election to Brexit, it’s clear that people want change, and they’re willing to use their voting power to try to achieve it. However, can any real change actually be accomplished with the current political systems in place? The latest country we’re seeing this shift in consciousness take place in is France.

There are technically eleven people gunning to be elected as France’s President in 2017, all of whom have expectedly opposing views. However, even the left and the right share some surprising similarities, which makes sense given the transformations these parties have endured in France and all over the world.

The left wing is becoming more right and the right wing is becoming more left; the political system is reforming right in front of our eyes. France has two candidates who are perceivably leading the race: an anti-establishment, far right, outspoken candidate, Marine Le Pen, and a centrist, progressive, globalist candidate who has ties to the big banks, Emmanuel Macron. France’s election is starting to sound dangerously similar to the U.S. presidential election we just witnessed. Though the main issues on the table seem to be national sovereignty and immigration, France’s political system affects all of us as a collective! Traditionally, the National Front (FN) party has been seen as relatively extremist, but Marine Le Pen is starting to change that. Yes, the media is still referring to her as “far right,” but she’s changed the dialect. She has some perceivably extreme views like committing to suspend all immigration while new rules are drafted if she gets into office and stating that France had no responsibility for the Paris round-up of 13,000 Jews deported in WW2; however, her speech has softened since running for office, making the far right slightly more “socially acceptable.” Le Pen has also made some anti-establishment comments, making her seem even more similar to U.S. President Donald Trump. Like Le Pen, Trump has many conservative views, but he strangely provided a breath of fresh air for those looking to vote anti-cabal. Of course, that doesn’t mean anything these people say is morally “correct” or even honest, but it certainly provides people with the option for change they so desperately crave. Le Pen even recognizes her similarities to Trump, as she explained in an interview. “He [Donald Trump] made possible what had previously been presented as impossible,” Le Pen told Andrew Marr of the BBC in an interview cited by the Independent. “So it’s really the victory of the people against the elites.” “If I can draw a parallel with France, then yes, I wish that in France also the people upend the table, around which the elites are dividing up what should go to the French people.” Le Pen spoke to ITV at the opening of her presidential campaign headquarters, saying, “The forces at work in these various elections are ideas, forces which could bring about my election as the president of France next May.” Those forces refer to the shift against “unchecked globalization, destructive ultra-liberalism, the elimination of nation states, the disappearance of borders.” I’m not saying that she’s actually anti-establishment, but she has clearly made some anti-elite comments, just as Trump did during his election campaign. However, who knows if these politicians are actually against the elite or if they’re a part of it themselves. As I’m sure you know, politicians have an uncanny ability to spin words and will often lie to get votes. On the other side of the spectrum, the other top contender is Emmanuel Macron, who exited Parti Socialiste (PS) to create his own movement, En Marche, which translates to On The Move. Macron is a strong supporter of the EU, NATO, and the UN, all of which relate to a globalist agenda. Macron has traditional progressive views, such as exiting gas and transitioning to entirely renewable energy, but his socialist policies don’t cross over into the business community. His stance on the economy and proposed changes, like significantly cutting corporate taxes, has raised opposition from the left, which is why he’s considered a “centrist” or redefining the left. A US State Department document, which was apparently prepared for Hillary Clinton in 2012, referred to Macron as “a banker in mergers and acquisitions at Rothschild in Paris,” stating that he used to work at the general inspection of finances and “could also become the top civil servant at the Finance Ministry.” His ties to the elite bankers certainly draw an interesting parallel between him and Hillary Clinton. She held very close ties to the Rothschild’s, the elite banking family that profits off war, terror, separatism, and government leniency toward corporations. Macron’s supporters are also mostly very young and progressive, a trend we saw with Clinton. His supporters probably think he provides a refreshing change from the staunch left side of the political spectrum. His views are still fairly left, with the exception of some points swinging more toward the right. To me, this reflects a shift we’re seeing across the global political landscape: a merging of the left and the right wings. In many countries, especially in the U.S., the left and the right wings are still controlled by “the same bird,” so to speak, or the corporations and the elite, but they’ve still traditionally always taken a firm divide.

The media often portrays a strong sense of duality between the left and right wings. Society in general perpetuates the division between the left and the right: We define ourselves as “left” or “right” wing voters and start to identify with a certain side. Politics has painted this tug of war picture for many years, but for the first time this polarizing view is starting to shift.

The global elite have slowly been planting seeds in the left wing, like billionaire George Soros, who helped create the Black Lives Movement in the U.S. in order to capitalize on separatism and fear.

The left, which used to be defined by more progressive views and staunch equality, has slowly shifted toward imperialism and globalization.

The left has slowly become more supportive of military force and “soft” power, allowing the big banks and the elite to gain more control over societies.

They’ve convinced society that it’s socially acceptable to literally fight for equality, increasing violence and separatism. This seems a little backwards: How could society be tricked into thinking that war can be justified in the name of “equality” and “anti-racism”? Well, when you think about previous false flag terrorist attacks like 9/11 or even what’s going on in Syria, it starts to make more sense.

The U.S. launched missiles at Syria after an alleged chemical attack in an effort to “stop violence,” when in reality those missiles just resulted in more death and destruction. We’re observing a huge transition in the French political spectrum, as the left and the right are starting to merge. In some cases, you even have the far right candidates and the far left candidates preaching the same thing. For example, the “far left” candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and the “far right” candidate, Marine Le Pen, both support leaving the euro, both want to either exit the EU or negotiate with them to improve treaty terms for France, both support social policies to benefit workers and low income individuals, both want to improve relations with Russia, and both have discussed leaving NATO. Perhaps their greatest similarity is that they both have been categorized as “sovereignists.” The primary difference between these two candidates is their stance on immigration. On one end of the spectrum, you have Le Pen, who views immigration as being “not an opportunity for France, it’s a tragedy for France,” whereas Mélenchon apparently has a more welcoming approach toward immigration and refugees. Of course, this is a very delicate issue in Europe right now, as we’ve seen some countries seriously struggle as a result of opening their doors to refugees. Though I strongly support equal rights and oneness, given the current state of the world, it’s clear that immigration policies are needed (though they shouldn’t be too strict, either). When it all comes down to it, national sovereignty is going to play an integral role in the upcoming French election. Many people feel that France has lost its national sovereignty to the European Union, which is understandable.

The EU has tried to implement some questionable trade deals like the TTIP and has strong ties to the financial elite. It’s no wonder people like Macron support the EU and that some people are questioning the EU’s overall antics (read more about the EU in our CE Brexit article here). Nationalism and patriarchy don’t have to be “bad things,” either. In the past, they’ve been tainted with an air of separatism. That’s because historically people have used patriarchy to defend their support for war and foreign invasion, which is where the problem with patriarchy lies. However, there’s a big difference between appreciation for your culture and identification with it. It’s perfectly fine to appreciate and be grateful for the country you were born in or the country you live in and recognize how that has served you. It’s a completely different thing when you start to identify with that country. Yes, you may be French, but more importantly, you’re a human being.

There shouldn’t be any hierarchy when it comes to nationalism, and sometimes when people begin to identify with their nationality, separatism grows. A serious issue for the countries within the European Union (EU) is that whatever politicians promise in their electoral platforms may not come into fruition because of the EU. Some people, like candidate François Asselineau, claim that there’s no way to actually improve the EU from the inside, as any proposed changes would require unanimity between the member states, who often disagree on key problems. This is why many candidates are proposing withdrawing from the EU, just as the United Kingdom is doing now. This would allow France to actually make its own decision and implement true national sovereignty and democracy. It could be argued that the merging of the left and the right in France is because of the EU, and that without it there could be a more distinguishable left and right (though I believe it is more so due to the elite’s agenda, but the EU probably plays a role). Another issue is that many people only vote to ensure that one candidate doesn’t win; for example, many people may have voted for Trump to ensure Clinton didn’t win. This happens all of the time; even I’m guilty of it over here in Canada. I once voted in order to keep Stephen Harper out of office, despite the fact that I didn’t wholeheartedly support any of the other candidates. It’s called “strategic voting,” and it’s more of a problem than it is an actual strategy. In this case, people may vote for Macron to keep Le Pen out of office, or vice versa. If we’re just voting for whatever candidate we dislike the least, how is that truly reflecting our wants and needs as a society? Shouldn’t we be voting for the people we love and actually want deciding the future of the countries we live in? Unfortunately, politics is largely about the image that the media paints of the politicians and their status quos, making this more difficult to achieve. We’ve seen how much the media convolutes elections by twisting information, falsifying polls, and expressing biases toward candidates, particularly during the last U.S. election. Globalist media is already getting involved in France’s presidential election, with some outlets even preparing to place the blame of electing a “sovereignist” candidate on Russian President Vladimir Putin. As previously mentioned, some of the “sovereignist” candidates want to restore relations with Russia, and news outlets have been quick to jump on this, claiming that Putin allegedly supports only those candidates. For example, on April 20, the EU Observer published an article titled “Russia-linked fake news floods French social media,” which addressed articles that were allegedly influenced by Russia and supported only the “sovereignist” candidates. However, the EU Observer’s article could be argued as being just as politically biased as the articles in question. You could draw comparisons here to the U.S. election, as Western mainstream media blamed Russian hackers and alternative media sites for Trump’s victory.

There were countless accusations of fake news sites spreading misinformation about Hillary Clinton and even the CIA claimed Russia hacked into the system, causing Clinton to lose. It’s ironic that alternative media was blamed for taking an independent stance and actually reporting on Clinton’s wrongdoings, instead of covering them up like many mainstream media outlets did. In reality, news stations that report using a political bias hold far more influence over the elections than independent journalists. Public opinion in the West is already preparing for protests against whoever the winner will be of this year’s French election. This may also influence people’s votes; for example, people may not vote for Le Pen in fear of the future protests against her, or any other candidate for that matter. If we’re already anticipating significant protests, doesn’t that mean that whoever’s voted in clearly doesn’t reflect a true democratic election? The issue isn’t even necessarily with the candidates, it’s with the entire system, which includes us as a collective. It was never about Trump versus Clinton, just like it’s not about Macron versus. Le Pen. This is the type of mindset that keeps us in the system, forcing us to go in circles and further perpetuating the “warship authority” mentality. We can’t simply blame authority for not handing us ideal presidential candidates, because the system is designed to serve authority and the elite, not the people. However, in some way, all of these candidates are a reflection of us, whether you like the candidates or not.

The same can be said for the U.S. presidential election. America got the President it “deserved,” because when you act like slaves searching for a single leader to follow, you get a master like Trump in return. This can be applied to many countries that follow this “democratic system,” including France. It wants us to polarize our beliefs and choose one opposing side of the spectrum, and then help the side we choose destroy the other side. Regardless of whom you choose, you are rendering yourself powerless because you are gifting your power to others. This system certainly served an important purpose a long time ago, and many people considered their right to vote empowering at that time; however, that has shifted over the years, largely due to the elite’s involvement. Democracy gives you the illusion of freedom and “human rights,” because only without an overarching, elite-serving government could you truly have these things. Even if your involvement is simply a product of indoctrination and adhering to social norms, if you’re voting within the system, then you’re enabling the system. As long as you support the “religion” of government, this system will continually be perpetuated. .

Read the full article at the original website

References:

Search Results

Bookmarks

Marine Le Pen or Emmanuel Macron? The French Presidential Election: Nationalism, The Elite, & More

Search Results

Bookmarks

Subscribe to The Article Feed