Article

This France is broken. There won’t be another

Written by The Frontier Post

Elena Karaeva

The election of the French president, which will take place tomorrow, will go down in the history of the country – both because the name of the next head of state, if there is no surprise (it’s not worth cou-nting, but it makes sense), is already known, and because this vote may be the last in the state configuration to which everyone is accustomed both inside France and abroad.
Emmanuel Macron, who has another five-year plan at the Elysee Palace, sket-ched this very configurati-on, by the way, during the past debate with broad strokes.
The sketch turned out like this: as much as possible pan-European, as much as possible diverse, as much as possible global. Translated from Newspeak, the following is obtained: as little sovereignty as possible, even when it comes to problems of an internal nature, as little as possible the usual and natural norms of life, as little as possible and purely French. Least of all that makes a cohesive nation out of an amorphous society. Everything or almost everything must be tailored to the standards of the Procrustean lodge. If it protrudes or does not fit in size, we will cut it off, the loss is small.
The French society, with which the authorities have been treating for the past fi-ve years, without much ceremony, apparently, has alr-eady come to terms with th-is abolition of subjectivity.
The short objections of Macron’s opponent and rival Le Pen were not heard by those who intend to vote for the incumbent head of state in the second round. The leader of the “National Association” explicitly stated that, when making decisions of both general and private nature, she intends to be guided by the priorities of the national, and not the supranational order, and immediately received a rebuke from numerous NGOs.
And it does not matter that these NGOs and associations that monitor the observance of the rights of various minorities (from LGBT to illegal immigrants) exist mainly at the expense of state subventions, that is, the money of the majority, the money of taxpayers. And it does not matter that these finances sponsor the agenda, the life of the majority is gradually destroying. Any attempt to question the so-called values ??of fl-uidity of everything and ev-erything and green postul-ates will be stopped even b-efore possible opponents d-ecide to open their mouths.
It is characteristic that neither Macron nor Le Pen during the debates ever turned to the history of the country, nor to the values ??on which the foundation of the current state is based, just as they did not mention, albeit in passing, cultural, historical and religious traditions.
Even Le Pen, who seemed to position herself as a defender of French roots and the French crown, did not dare to utter the phrase “French exceptionalism”, realizing that such a politically incorrect statement could follow. The two politicians who made it to the second round ended up there largely due to the fact that they bit their tongues, if and when it came to really important matters.
Le Pen, knowing firsthand that the slightest step to the left or right – and you can find yourself, for example, with blocked bank accounts. Five years ago, her party had already gone through this. Someone, of course, believes that a kind of independent justice decided so. And someone, and not without reason, believes that this action is a way to convey advice to an overly talkative opponent to bite your tongue.
In the same last political five-year plan, one of the main contenders for the highest post was ruined by the press only because he did not follow closely who his wife worked for and who gave him suits. A few articles were enough for ex-Prime Minister François Fillon to fall first under an efficient investigation, and then under an equally efficient court. due to non-payment of taxes. And where is this Fillon today?
The current head of state, having put all media under strict control and saddled almost all information flows, can be calm – his relationship with the fiscal authorities (where, by the way, he began his professional career as a state financial inspector) is so tightly sealed that any leak of documented information excluded. And if evidence of an existing (but repaid under the pressure of circumstances) tax debt leaks out, it is only indirect. The press is not interested in these assumptions (of course, if this press wants to stay afloat).
Just as the media is not interested in other evidence – those that relate to bonus payments at a time when the current president work-ed as a managing partner in the Rothschild bank. The well-known investigative j-ournalist Jean-Baptiste Riv-oire, in his report, which he posted on YouTube, based on information received from two independent sources, claims that a significant part of Macron’s remuneration was then taken to offshore funds.
But who in their right mind and solid memory is ready to discuss Rivoire’s conclusions in the mainstream press? Not in the “you’re all lying” mode, of course, but based on the standard and traditional principles of journalism, with the involvement of experts who would not be afraid to make open statements. There were no fools – sorry, suicides – in today’s France in this area of \u200b\u200bactivity.
And here is a completely officially confirmed story with payments from the same treasury of hundreds of millions of dollars for consulting to the American corporation McKinsey & Company: it was found that these consultants did not pay corporate tax for many years. And exactly the same work could be done by French civil servants of the proper level. However, ev-en these facts and details w-ere as far as possible obsc-ured by the press and did n-ot become one of the topics at the debates. For a completely understandable reason. The main idea and main motive of the final push of the election campaign, as well as the main idea and main motive of the entire past political five-year plan, is not to tell the truth.
The truth about the situation inside the country. The truth about the situation in united Europe. The truth about the situation in the world. The French voter was very progressively, but very consistently, deprived of any alternative sources of information. It’s not even so much about the closure of RT in the country by the decision of the EU, but about the fact that everyone who dared to express a position or point of view that differs from that which was allowed to express the Elysee Politburo, excuse me, the Elysee Palace, instantly fell into the category of outrageous calm and demonized in every way. Such people were denied not only their reputation and further career, they were fired and discredited in every way.
And it doesn’t matter if they were scientists, like the same Didier Raoul, or journalists, like the same Eric Zemmour, who was squeezed out of the profession, practically forcing him to go into politics.
Today’s French man in the street, and he is also a voter, who has been beaten off by handouts and promises of any desire to effectively resist the authorities (strikes and even the “yellow vest” movement do not count, since this is economics, not politics), seeing, on the one hand, the betrayal of those whom he trusted, and on the other hand, the indifference of those for whom he was and remains a cash tax cow, seeing that what is dear to him is being destroyed, that the values on which he was brought u-p are despised, and that culture is being killed, with w-hich he is accustomed to as-sociate himself, simply ref-uses to fulfill his civic duty.
And this Sunday, France is likely to vote with its feet, pretending to have forgotten the way to the polls.

About the author

The Frontier Post