[Heuristics]

(04-02-2019 05:53 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 12:05 AM)Heuristics Wrote:  

Why is it the media is quick to embrace some grassroots movements, for example: Occupy Wall street; while others, like Yellow Vests, get confined to coverage in backpages. I'm left to conclude that Yellow Vests are a movement that could actually cause change because of the large undercurrent of populism/ right wing politics within it.

Which reminds me of brexit, the media wrote it off as a joke, so I had to peruse Zerohedge, infowars and the like to get a more balanced perspective.

I remember the night the results of brexit came in. I was drinking, decent drinking. And I was laughing my ass off as the "explainer pieces" started being made... Hackery.

And here we are, 2+ years later. And Brexit still has not happened. The elite have every right-wing movement by the balls. Remember how Macron showed up out of left field? Coincidence? I think not... If brexit has not happened, and May fucked up all these votes in parliament; where is our hard brexit? The answer is it will never come. Likely, there is a decent chance, there will be a second referendum. Rhetorical question: what do you call a government that rejects the will of the people? Un-democratic. Managed democracy (that's one of my favorites). Elitist. Out of touch.

Possibility number one:

I spoke with some of the founders of Occupy Wallstreet - as they put it, they were a bunch of "Weirdo, trans, street anarchists" when they began the movement. As soon as it got popular, they were immediately pushed out by the Progressive Stack.

What, trans being pushed out by the Progressive Stack??? Well, these were the sort of people who knew how to code, and liked being weird. They were Occupying Wallstreet because they hated the corruption and wanted to cause some noise. The Progressive Stack exists to fuel narcissistic supply to the idiots involved with it.

Possibility number two:

This sort of thing was relatively new at the time; the media reported on the novelty. Plus, both it and the liberty movement of the time were easily coopted. Now, things are harder to coop, and they're no longer new and interesting - they're dangerous.

Maybe I compare OWS to Yellow Vests, because they both started out with tremendous potential, and as leaderless movements. There is something very intriguing for people in the modern world when they see a leaderless organic movement. In some way it is like watching a school of fish swim together in unison despite the fact that each fish is a unique entity.

The founders were Canadian actually I believe. Adbusters magazine out of Vancouver. I used to have a subscription to them (just for fun’s sake). They certainly were anarchists that saw the injustice (maybe not the right word) of the Bailouts and the fact that no-one was held to account. I don’t think it’s a left-right thing, it’s a thing that anyone with half a brain should have been questioning. Especially how that redistribution of wealth started during and after the recession…

Very interesting perspective. They were in every sense of the word antiestablishment.

It is very interesting the rise of these leaderless movements, we could also add to the list, the Arab Spring. In a time where things are becoming increasingly centralized and monopolized it is intriguing that these movements were not. Do I think the Arab Spring was a genuine, good-faith leaderless movement? Initially sure. Researching the Arab Spring and it’s beginnings in Tunisia is very, I repeat, Very interesting.

I think occupy was the first big leaderless movement many of us saw or experienced, although maybe there is a good case to be made about the Iraq anti-war protest movement in 03-04 or so. Those people globally were ahead of their time.

It was new, and perhaps media didn’t grasp the ultimate potential for danger these movements could have to their own interests and their symbiotic relationship with the political/ elite class.

I operate under the assumption now that everything is co-opted. My working theory is they have clamped down against dissent and associated organizing on social media, MSM, and the internet, confining these people to the margins. I also must assume social media is much more monitored and finessed than in the past, in other words less anarchic and organic.

@Oberrheiner— I knew Macron would never cave to the movement he would just do meaningless gestures because he has a solid backing (in form of elites) for his power.

[Oberrheiner]

He did worse than meaningless gestures though, he basically insulted everyone involved several times.
Sometimes his absolute lack of tactfulness reminds me of some other people.
It's as if he was trolling us openly ...

Anyway, at some level of physical violence no financial backing can help you out.

[Count Pyotr]

Macron has created a flat tax of 30% on all financial income (incl. dividends, but excl. passive income generated from rental property) ....I find it is one good thing that he did (closer ties with Russia being another), since you can now dissociate your investment income from your earned income (taxed up to 45% !!!!!! - and this after social security contributions have already been deducted) ... also, if you own your own business (like myself), now dividend payment offer a much more tax-efficient alternative to paying yourself a big salary.

I don't know the laws in the US regarding tax savings, but in France, where dividends and financial income were simply treated as ordinary earned income ((was actually a bit more complicated than that for dividends, since they were eligible for a tax allowance, but still were subject to social contributions) its a small revolution and Macron IMO deserves praise for this. Of course, leftists say that the measures are a “historical error” that will fuel economic inequality, but for me, as an entrepreneur and a guy who simply wants to build himself a better life (isn't it a priori what this board is about? -- build yourself a good life, and give yourself the physical, mental and financial means to do so) it's good enough to say that he admittedly did well.

I sympathize with hard-working people who can't make ends meet, but when, on their behalf, people torch any car that looks likes a "rich man car" or small business-owned retail stores, I say fuck the YV ......some of them have legit claims ( farmers, pensioners, ect), but also many of them are just angry commies, antifas or far right-wingers living on income support and welfare benefits. Fuck'em.

And I'm not even talking of the arabic/sub-saharian suburb "racaille" (riff-raff in english ?) scum who constitutes maybe 20% of each YV protest and is of course only there to sack, torch and confront the police.

[lookslikeit]

Hot day today?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-jtlJRCphs

[beta_plus]

(04-20-2019 02:09 PM)lookslikeit Wrote:  

Hot day today?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-jtlJRCphs

Is it really true that the Yellow Vests are angry about the money donated to repair Notre Dame?

God, I really hope that's fake news. Some things are more important than class.

[eradicator]

It’s possible some are and some aren’t

[Akwesi]

(04-16-2019 01:42 PM)Count Pyotr Wrote:  

...

The return of banned member Count Pierre, I presume.

[balybary]

The vibe in Paris today

[url=https://twitter.com/GiletsJaunesGo/status/1123639174307942401][/url]

[Transsimian]

Here's an interesting post I found by Kiwi Farms user Azovka.

Quote:

Okay so, our story starts in Northern France, where little Macron was a student at the Lycée La Providence, which is a nation-level famous private Catholic school for wealthy and well-connected kids.
The connections part cannot be understated. Most things in France come with social networking. Simply having money isn't enough. For wealthy kids whose parents are from "new money" or don't know anyone worthy of knowing, there's other money-sink schools like EAB in Paris or the boarding school Les Roches, whose graduates aren't as, how to put it, respected? in French society.

Anyways, little Macron lucked out in having his future waifu as his French teacher at 15. As some of his classmates recall, she took a bit too much of a shine to little Macron, and constantly praised him, read his essays and poems out loud to the class, and urged other students to be more like him. Macron often stayed after class to "talk about literature" with her and, at 15 years old, the relationship turned sexual.

His parents having learned about it later down the line, they instantly transferred little Macron to the Lycée Henri IV in Paris, my own alma matter. It is a public school consistently being ranked among the best of France, and most importantly, it counts among its alumni the sons and daughters of prominent French politicians, businessmen, engineers etc. Hell, the first thing you hear from the headmaster's 'welcome' address at the start of the year is "you are the elite (French expression: "crème de la crème", meaning "the cream of the cream", "top of the pyramid", whatever). Act like it".

And the Lycée Henri IV only accepts 4-5 students tops per year unless it's for Grade 1. So the fact that Macron got in in grade 12 (Terminale in French, last high school year) means that his parents knew people. On top of Macron having himself a brilliant resume.
Just to put things into perspective, H4 gets about 4000 candidatures per year, and all of these are from what you would consider to be good students. I mean, if you visit on an "open doors" day, the headmaster and councillors themselves will tell you "don't bother applying unless you got an average over 16/20, which for France is quite high. So getting selected yourself out of 4000 equally good and deserving students? You or your family needs to know people that would put in a good word for you, and make your dossier stand out.

So yeah, as @Keystone put it, it's a "a finishing school for rich and famous jerkoffs who are born with a silver spoon up their ass."
I mean personally, while my dossier was, without bragging, quite good and I got rewarded at the Concours Général in History (National Contest, a prize for excellence basically), the only reason I got into H4 was because my former headmaster and friend of the family knew the Prefect of Paris - think Minister of the Interior for the city of Paris, who knew the headmaster of Henri IV. Nepotism at its finest. And I sincerely doubt Macron's case was any different.

Anyways, having finished high school at H4, Macron pursued his studies in "prépas", which are the French answer to selective universities.
You see, here universities are forced to accept anyone as long as they have their high school diploma, no matter the grade. The process of undergraduate admission to university is completely available to everyone, and the real selection comes after the First Year, where only about 12-15% of the class pass on (widely depends on the fields, but about 3/4 of the students in every discipline either quit or are forced to repeat a year).

So how do good and intelligent students get the recognition and respect they deserve? They go to "prépas", which are pretty much a continuation of high school - 2 years of 8AM to 6PM classes 5 days per week with 4 hours of mandatory written exams on Saturday morning, and oral exams in the afternoon. All that to prepare you for the "Great Schools" country-wide contest. They're called Grandes Ecoles (Great Schools) and encompass everything from business (HEC, ESSEC, ESCP) to engineering (I'X, ENSI, Centrale) to administration / arts (ENS) to physics, biology etc.

Basically, you spend 2 years of your life labouring day and night and forgoing all social life in order to have a chance at getting in a Great School for four years, and get a Graduate (Masters) diploma at the end of it. But that's all prépas give you - a chance. And Macron failed. Twice, actually. (The usual student policy when you "fail" aka don't get the school you desire at the end of your second year is just to repeat it and try again. It's a pretty common practice. And so, after repeating his 2nd year, Macron failed again).

So Macron decided to change his orientation a bit and went to Science Po (the Paris Institute of Political Science) to do a joint degree with the Nanterre University there, majoring in Philosophy. During his stay here, he interned under a very famous French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, that further connected him with people in the publishing / media world.

After that, he got accepted to the ENA (National Administration School) that is literally known for making Presidents and government officials. Basically, if you get in there, that's it - end of the line; you're set for life.

Following his graduation from the ENA, he started working for the Rothschild investment bank, which is something I personally think is really funny considering he majored in fucking Philosophy. (Keep in mind that a background in mathematics, economy, and finance is rather preferred when applying as a, you know, investment banker).
Anyways, he interned in the US, made his first million in his first year of work, and stayed a valuable asset of the Rothschild group until suddenly going for politics (initially going for the French Socialist Party - PS, now known as "New Left", and then making his own centre-left party called En Marche (LREM)).

Okay, now that I summed up his biography, or what is known at least, time for some theories and remarks.

First, Macron isn't a populist. In fact, he ran on an ANTI-populist platform, opposing the very populist, far-right figure Marine Le Pen. Hell, he didn't even have a list of ideas on how to make the country better.

People weren't so much voting "for" him as "against" Le Pen, since she was way too extreme and hardcore. That's literally the reason he won.

Just for the record, he even stole his promotional campaign ad from Bernie Sanders of all people. Here's a YT link of a French TV channel laughing at him for it. Funnily enough, Macron prefaced his campaign clip by saying he wanted to rule "in a sincere, authentic, and true manner". And then you just got stolen images from US campaigns. Very authentic indeed.

Anyways, people knew he was a rich, well-connected, elitist banker, and a poster boy for the French bourgeoisie, but they voted for him nonetheless because the alternative was way worse (and I say that as a rather conservative-leaning person myself - Marine Le Pen is just way too extreme).

Also an important thing to note is that, there were other candidates that were going for President before Macron even showed up on the political scene, namely Hamon for Socialists (US Democrats equivalent) and Fillon for Republicans (right party). Hamon was way too "left" for most of the French people - making marijuana legal, free money for everyone etc. and not very popular, and the actual prized stallion of the upcoming Presidential race was Fillon.

Only right before the election, it suddenly turned out that Fillon had made up a fake job for his wife within his political party years before. And so a criminal procedure was opened up against him, and he had to retire from the race.

I'm not saying Fillon wasn't guilty. All politicians are, and nepotism is a standard practice. But the fact that it just suddenly happened to be uncovered right before the Presidential election, allowing Macron to step in straight outta nowhere and save the "moderate" France, is really fishy.

The only thing he really has in common with Zelensky is his connection to oligarchs or "powerful figures in the shadows" as you would say.

The theory I personally subscribe to, along with many French people, is that his higher-ups at Rothschild just told him to go into politics to promote their interests and those of corporations there. I mean, he's a charismatic young man sweeping in to save France and "change the establishment" when he himself is literally it.
Hell, Macron even made a former Nestlé executive, famous having promoted the benefits of palm oil and denying climate change to the post of Minister of the Environment / Ecology. Like please.

Another thing it would be a shame to omit is that Brigitte - Macron's current wife and former French teacher, remember from when he was 15? Well, she kept in touch with him during his formative years, despite his family's opposition. And funnily enough, she tried (unsuccessfully) going into politics herself as early as 1989.

Personally I don't think it was just a coincidence. For all we know, she could have influenced and guided Macron, and led him to fulfil her own unrealised expectations of political greatness.

So yeah, Macron isn't some random dude from the street or comedian with no political experience. His entire life and career prepared him for that, right from the cradle. He is the very definition of "political establishment", just like so many Presidents before him.

The only thing he got going on for him were his looks, his "youthful dynamism" as the French media would put it, and the fact that it was either him or worse (though now I think most people do regret not voting Le Pen).

Also, a shit ton of young, barely legal, wealthy "bourgeois socialists" hailed him as a national hero, motivated by his empty speeches, stolen campaign clips, and cult of personality.
But just because his speeches were all smokes and mirrors, doesn't mean Macron himself didn't have a plan. He did alright, and everything he did since he got sworn in has been for the benefit of corporations and rich Frenchmen, for better or worse.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(05-01-2019 03:14 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  

Here's an interesting post I found by Kiwi Farms user Azovka.

Quote:

[size=medium]First, Macron isn't a populist. In fact, he ran on an ANTI-populist platform, opposing the very populist, far-right figure Marine Le Pen. Hell, he didn't even have a list of ideas on how to make the country better.

People weren't so much voting "for" him as "against" Le Pen, since she was way too extreme and hardcore. That's literally the reason he won.

Anyways, people knew he was a rich, well-connected, elitist banker, and a poster boy for the French bourgeoisie, but they voted for him nonetheless because the alternative was way worse (and I say that as a rather conservative-leaning person myself - Marine Le Pen is just way too extreme).

The paragraphs above perfectly encapsulate why France won't live to see the 22nd century.

After all, it would be too extreme for any nation to last over 1300 years.

[balybary]

For the record, this is the result of the first round of the 2017 presidential election (percentage of electoral list)

https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Archives/A...emier-tour

24.22% of people on the electoral list hasn't voted

MACRON 18,19% globalist
LE PEN 16,14% "literally Hitler"
FILLON 15,16% right-wing
MÉLENCHON 14,84% "wannabe communist"

To be elected president in the current political system, you need to be at least number 2 in the first round, and if you are not the candidate labelled as a nazi by the media, you are almost guaranteed to win the final round.

This means that with only 16% of the electoral list in the first round, you can win the presidential election.

The French president has a huge power guaranteed by the constitution, so with 16% of the vote you have all the power of the state.

Macron will try go get elected again, and he will need only 16% in the first round if the situation doesn't change.

Next presidential elections are in 2022, who knows what can happen meanwhile.

[Transsimian]

(05-01-2019 04:02 PM)balybary Wrote:  

This means that with only 16% of the electoral list in the first round, you can win the presidential election.

The French president has a huge power guaranteed by the constitution, so with 16% of the vote you have all the power of the state.

Macron will try go get elected again, and he will need only 16% in the first round if the situation doesn't change.

It's bad, but it could be worse. You can vote with your conscience for a viable candidate in the first round, then vote for the least bad in the second round.

Elections to Westminister are first past-the-post, so you are trapped between choosing between two bad options with any deviation helping your least favourite party.

[911]

FYI Marine le Pen today is also a cuckservative, the FN/Nat Rally having been run by globohomo zio-nationalists. They might be paving the way in '22 for her niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, whose father spied for Israel.

That post from Kiwi Farms provided some good background, but the poster is a bit purple pilled, and not that well informed about Macron. His career was set up by Henry Hermand, a bisexual geriatric lefto-globalist millionaire who bought Macron a Paris flat, and with whom he has spent many solo vacations in his Marrakesh estate.



So basically Fillon got nailed to the cross for taking a free watch and a couple of suits as gifts, but the MSM never mentioned anything about Macron's flat, or what he did with the millions he's earned at Rothschild...

[DarkTriad]

(05-01-2019 03:14 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  

Here's an interesting post I found by Kiwi Farms user Azovka.

Quote:

Okay so, our story starts in Northern France, where little Macron was a student at the Lycée La Providence, which is a nation-level famous private Catholic school for wealthy and well-connected kids.
The connections part cannot be understated. Most things in France come with social networking. Simply having money isn't enough. For wealthy kids whose parents are from "new money" or don't know anyone worthy of knowing, there's other money-sink schools like EAB in Paris or the boarding school Les Roches, whose graduates aren't as, how to put it, respected? in French society.

Anyways, little Macron lucked out in having his future waifu as his French teacher at 15. As some of his classmates recall, she took a bit too much of a shine to little Macron, and constantly praised him, read his essays and poems out loud to the class, and urged other students to be more like him. Macron often stayed after class to "talk about literature" with her and, at 15 years old, the relationship turned sexual.

His parents having learned about it later down the line, they instantly transferred little Macron to the Lycée Henri IV in Paris, my own alma matter. It is a public school consistently being ranked among the best of France, and most importantly, it counts among its alumni the sons and daughters of prominent French politicians, businessmen, engineers etc. Hell, the first thing you hear from the headmaster's 'welcome' address at the start of the year is "you are the elite (French expression: "crème de la crème", meaning "the cream of the cream", "top of the pyramid", whatever). Act like it".

And the Lycée Henri IV only accepts 4-5 students tops per year unless it's for Grade 1. So the fact that Macron got in in grade 12 (Terminale in French, last high school year) means that his parents knew people. On top of Macron having himself a brilliant resume.
Just to put things into perspective, H4 gets about 4000 candidatures per year, and all of these are from what you would consider to be good students. I mean, if you visit on an "open doors" day, the headmaster and councillors themselves will tell you "don't bother applying unless you got an average over 16/20, which for France is quite high. So getting selected yourself out of 4000 equally good and deserving students? You or your family needs to know people that would put in a good word for you, and make your dossier stand out.

So yeah, as @Keystone put it, it's a "a finishing school for rich and famous jerkoffs who are born with a silver spoon up their ass."
I mean personally, while my dossier was, without bragging, quite good and I got rewarded at the Concours Général in History (National Contest, a prize for excellence basically), the only reason I got into H4 was because my former headmaster and friend of the family knew the Prefect of Paris - think Minister of the Interior for the city of Paris, who knew the headmaster of Henri IV. Nepotism at its finest. And I sincerely doubt Macron's case was any different.

Anyways, having finished high school at H4, Macron pursued his studies in "prépas", which are the French answer to selective universities.
You see, here universities are forced to accept anyone as long as they have their high school diploma, no matter the grade. The process of undergraduate admission to university is completely available to everyone, and the real selection comes after the First Year, where only about 12-15% of the class pass on (widely depends on the fields, but about 3/4 of the students in every discipline either quit or are forced to repeat a year).

So how do good and intelligent students get the recognition and respect they deserve? They go to "prépas", which are pretty much a continuation of high school - 2 years of 8AM to 6PM classes 5 days per week with 4 hours of mandatory written exams on Saturday morning, and oral exams in the afternoon. All that to prepare you for the "Great Schools" country-wide contest. They're called Grandes Ecoles (Great Schools) and encompass everything from business (HEC, ESSEC, ESCP) to engineering (I'X, ENSI, Centrale) to administration / arts (ENS) to physics, biology etc.

Basically, you spend 2 years of your life labouring day and night and forgoing all social life in order to have a chance at getting in a Great School for four years, and get a Graduate (Masters) diploma at the end of it. But that's all prépas give you - a chance. And Macron failed. Twice, actually. (The usual student policy when you "fail" aka don't get the school you desire at the end of your second year is just to repeat it and try again. It's a pretty common practice. And so, after repeating his 2nd year, Macron failed again).

So Macron decided to change his orientation a bit and went to Science Po (the Paris Institute of Political Science) to do a joint degree with the Nanterre University there, majoring in Philosophy. During his stay here, he interned under a very famous French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, that further connected him with people in the publishing / media world.

After that, he got accepted to the ENA (National Administration School) that is literally known for making Presidents and government officials. Basically, if you get in there, that's it - end of the line; you're set for life.

Following his graduation from the ENA, he started working for the Rothschild investment bank, which is something I personally think is really funny considering he majored in fucking Philosophy. (Keep in mind that a background in mathematics, economy, and finance is rather preferred when applying as a, you know, investment banker).
Anyways, he interned in the US, made his first million in his first year of work, and stayed a valuable asset of the Rothschild group until suddenly going for politics (initially going for the French Socialist Party - PS, now known as "New Left", and then making his own centre-left party called En Marche (LREM)).

Okay, now that I summed up his biography, or what is known at least, time for some theories and remarks.

First, Macron isn't a populist. In fact, he ran on an ANTI-populist platform, opposing the very populist, far-right figure Marine Le Pen. Hell, he didn't even have a list of ideas on how to make the country better.

People weren't so much voting "for" him as "against" Le Pen, since she was way too extreme and hardcore. That's literally the reason he won.

Just for the record, he even stole his promotional campaign ad from Bernie Sanders of all people. Here's a YT link of a French TV channel laughing at him for it. Funnily enough, Macron prefaced his campaign clip by saying he wanted to rule "in a sincere, authentic, and true manner". And then you just got stolen images from US campaigns. Very authentic indeed.

Anyways, people knew he was a rich, well-connected, elitist banker, and a poster boy for the French bourgeoisie, but they voted for him nonetheless because the alternative was way worse (and I say that as a rather conservative-leaning person myself - Marine Le Pen is just way too extreme).

Also an important thing to note is that, there were other candidates that were going for President before Macron even showed up on the political scene, namely Hamon for Socialists (US Democrats equivalent) and Fillon for Republicans (right party). Hamon was way too "left" for most of the French people - making marijuana legal, free money for everyone etc. and not very popular, and the actual prized stallion of the upcoming Presidential race was Fillon.

Only right before the election, it suddenly turned out that Fillon had made up a fake job for his wife within his political party years before. And so a criminal procedure was opened up against him, and he had to retire from the race.

I'm not saying Fillon wasn't guilty. All politicians are, and nepotism is a standard practice. But the fact that it just suddenly happened to be uncovered right before the Presidential election, allowing Macron to step in straight outta nowhere and save the "moderate" France, is really fishy.

The only thing he really has in common with Zelensky is his connection to oligarchs or "powerful figures in the shadows" as you would say.

The theory I personally subscribe to, along with many French people, is that his higher-ups at Rothschild just told him to go into politics to promote their interests and those of corporations there. I mean, he's a charismatic young man sweeping in to save France and "change the establishment" when he himself is literally it.
Hell, Macron even made a former Nestlé executive, famous having promoted the benefits of palm oil and denying climate change to the post of Minister of the Environment / Ecology. Like please.

Another thing it would be a shame to omit is that Brigitte - Macron's current wife and former French teacher, remember from when he was 15? Well, she kept in touch with him during his formative years, despite his family's opposition. And funnily enough, she tried (unsuccessfully) going into politics herself as early as 1989.

Personally I don't think it was just a coincidence. For all we know, she could have influenced and guided Macron, and led him to fulfil her own unrealised expectations of political greatness.

So yeah, Macron isn't some random dude from the street or comedian with no political experience. His entire life and career prepared him for that, right from the cradle. He is the very definition of "political establishment", just like so many Presidents before him.

The only thing he got going on for him were his looks, his "youthful dynamism" as the French media would put it, and the fact that it was either him or worse (though now I think most people do regret not voting Le Pen).

Also, a shit ton of young, barely legal, wealthy "bourgeois socialists" hailed him as a national hero, motivated by his empty speeches, stolen campaign clips, and cult of personality.
But just because his speeches were all smokes and mirrors, doesn't mean Macron himself didn't have a plan. He did alright, and everything he did since he got sworn in has been for the benefit of corporations and rich Frenchmen, for better or worse.

Great post, but I think one major issue a lot of people keep missing is that he didn't

Quote:

come out of nowhere

. First he was invited to a Bilderberg meeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bi...rticipants and then suddenly the water parted for him like Moses, the lefitsts start loving a Rothschild banker and the number one guy in his way had a sudden scandal and had to leave public life. 911's guy might have helped him get there, but it was at Bilderberg he became the Annointed One.

These lists are really useful BTW, a lot of times when someone "comes out of nowhere" you look up the name and he became a Bilderberger right before it happened.

[Oberrheiner]

(05-01-2019 04:02 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:14 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  

Here's an interesting post I found by Kiwi Farms user Azovka.

Quote:

[size=medium]First, Macron isn't a populist. In fact, he ran on an ANTI-populist platform, opposing the very populist, far-right figure Marine Le Pen. Hell, he didn't even have a list of ideas on how to make the country better.

People weren't so much voting "for" him as "against" Le Pen, since she was way too extreme and hardcore. That's literally the reason he won.

Anyways, people knew he was a rich, well-connected, elitist banker, and a poster boy for the French bourgeoisie, but they voted for him nonetheless because the alternative was way worse (and I say that as a rather conservative-leaning person myself - Marine Le Pen is just way too extreme).

The paragraphs above perfectly encapsulate why France won't live to see the 22nd century.

After all, it would be too extreme for any nation to last over 1300 years.

What France needs to survive is basically the natives fetching machetes and mowing down anybody not looking like them rwandan-style.

Yet people think MLP is too extreme ?

Sometimes it is hard to have hope for the future ..

[Leonard D Neubache]

Meh. Machetes en masse sounds crazy but five years ago people would have laughed if you'd foretold the Yellow Vest movement.

There's a powerful agenda to present the idea that people are getting more cucked rather than more angry. At its heart is the desire to demoralise and black-pill people into throwing their hands up or moving to asia or whatever buys the elites more time to put up the last bars on the globo-prison complex.

The same people preaching the death of resistance are the people who claimed 5 years ago that a movement like the Yellow Vest uprising was simply no longer possible. Then they focus on the unelectability of the far right as if democracy is the only road that has ever been taken to victory.

"Path A is a dead end and Path B is worse".

Okay. Prepare for path C, bide your time and when the opportunity presents itself then get froggy (so to speak).

[Oberrheiner]

Look, we have an immigration problem here.
Her father wanted to address it, yet people did not vote for him because we was "too extreme".
Oh yeah, the guy says he wants to fix our problem, no way man this is too extreme, politics is not for that - it's only for the laughs and the drama then I suppose ?
Then this bitch comes and she cucked so hard on immigration she basically admitted she wouldn't do anything at all - yet this is still too extreme ?

Frankly, I don't know anymore.
Without balls we won't win this.
Sometimes I'm afraid we won't win this ..

[Leonard D Neubache]

It's odd that I really think women are once again the X factor.

The new fun saying in response to clown world insanity is "And then suddenly, for no reason, people voted Hitler into power."

And isn't that the way things happen? Who actually openly works their way up to "man the machine guns and hook up the cattle-cars"? Not many. These things build under the surface and then erupt rather unpleasantly, especially in white nations where people suppress their frustrations until a sort of political damn breaks, and the Yellow Vest movement is an expression of cracks forming in that very dam.

So going back to my first point. Women are going to once again be the X factor. At some point they're going to feel like their future is threatened in an overall sense by this radical change and they're going to start saying things as trivial as "I think French men need to take justice for these rapes into their own hands" and just like that the entire political dialogue is going to be washed aside in a sea of blood.

This is why 90% of propaganda is aimed at women and even then those telltale cracks are beginning to show. Once native men get a green light from native women that resistance = pussy then all hell will break loose.

[[email protected]]

Interesting Leonard, but when was the last time wamen ever talked with such fortitude? No matter how bad it gets they just take it. Either they welcome the invaders as their new masters or walk away and last time I checked the French are citizens of the EU and can freely move to neighbouring countries like Belgium that speak French. The wamen in Venezuela are not doing shit either. They are either prostituting or have left to neighbouring countries. It's not as if they can fight back anyway outside of some doing some shananigans and getting themselves arrested, seriously injured or killed. These are good examples why guns are absolutely needed to keep the government in check.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(05-04-2019 10:45 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  

Interesting Leonard, but when was the last time wamen ever talked with such fortitude? No matter how bad it gets they just take it. Either they welcome the invaders as their new masters or walk away and last time I checked the French are citizens of the EU and can freely move to neighbouring countries like Belgium that speak French. The wamen in Venezuela are not doing shit either. They are either prostituting or have left to neighbouring countries. It's not as if they can fight back anyway outside of some doing some shananigans and getting themselves arrested, seriously injured or killed. These are good examples why guns are absolutely needed to keep the government in check.

All chest thumping aside the magical guns are doing nothing to stop the multi-trillion dollar police state steam-rolling the Bill of Rights all day long in America.

Europeans, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians are not functionally any worse off than Americans in terms of aggregate tyranny suffered. The first amendment is dead. Canadians have more liberal gun laws than the US in some respects. And I can walk into my nearest liberal city and walk through it saying anything I want without being lynched on the spot unlike most Americans.

The guns are irrelevant if nobody has the balls to use them. The first amendment is just words on a peice of paper if nobody is willing to defend their right to exercise it or in any case leaves their rights to be determined by nine fuckwits in black robes or a blue-haired transtard working for a globohomo corporation.

You might be skeptical but personally I'm seeing the beginning of a shift in white female attitudes that began in 2016. Non-whites have been trained to spew anti-white rhetoric and now white women with their endless egos are saying in record numbers "wait, when you're talking about how much you hate white people, you just mean the men, right?"

An minorities are saying "no, Becky, we fucking hate you just as much".

Some time soon white women en-masse quietly walk to the other side of the political aisle, poke the white men to "make it right" and we see Nazi Germany all over again, only this time there will be no allied forces to say "no".

[Easy_C]

The same dynamic exists in the US with the police. The police forces naturally lean authoritarian left but the entire “fuck whitey and fuck da po po” mindset they’ve embraced and openly pushed has caused a backlash that’s caused a lot of them to swing hard towards the whole “truck douchebag” camp of white guys. The racial resentment has caused an equal and opposite reaction that pushed cops to the right.

[[email protected]]

(05-04-2019 11:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(05-04-2019 10:45 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  

Interesting Leonard, but when was the last time wamen ever talked with such fortitude? No matter how bad it gets they just take it. Either they welcome the invaders as their new masters or walk away and last time I checked the French are citizens of the EU and can freely move to neighbouring countries like Belgium that speak French. The wamen in Venezuela are not doing shit either. They are either prostituting or have left to neighbouring countries. It's not as if they can fight back anyway outside of some doing some shananigans and getting themselves arrested, seriously injured or killed. These are good examples why guns are absolutely needed to keep the government in check.

All chest thumping aside the magical guns are doing nothing to stop the multi-trillion dollar police state steam-rolling the Bill of Rights all day long in America.

Europeans, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians are not functionally any worse off than Americans in terms of aggregate tyranny suffered. The first amendment is dead. Canadians have more liberal gun laws than the US in some respects. And I can walk into my nearest liberal city and walk through it saying anything I want without being lynched on the spot unlike most Americans.

The guns are irrelevant if nobody has the balls to use them. The first amendment is just words on a peice of paper if nobody is willing to defend their right to exercise it or in any case leaves their rights to be determined by nine fuckwits in black robes or a blue-haired transtard working for a globohomo corporation.

You might be skeptical but personally I'm seeing the beginning of a shift in white female attitudes that began in 2016. Non-whites have been trained to spew anti-white rhetoric and now white women with their endless egos are saying in record numbers "wait, when you're talking about how much you hate white people, you just mean the men, right?"

An minorities are saying "no, Becky, we fucking hate you just as much".

Some time soon white women en-masse quietly walk to the other side of the political aisle, poke the white men to "make it right" and we see Nazi Germany all over again, only this time there will be no allied forces to say "no".

Outside of the US none of those countries have "gun rights". None of the countries outside the US have self defence laws that let you defend your life with guns or even let you carry/conseal carry. Having "liberal gun laws" for sport hunting, collecting, target shooting are not real gun rights where you can defend your life and home against tyranny and criminals. Do you actually believe you have gun rights simply because you can purchase guns and leave them inside a bolted safe in your home until the moment you decide to go to your local gun club? How in the world can you say Canadians have more gun rights than Americans? Explain this to me, I'm really curious.

[Oberrheiner]

(05-04-2019 08:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It's odd that I really think women are once again the X factor.

I don't know.
In my experience it seems that women can survive rape yet they can't survive being banished from their social circle.
So I'm not expecting anything from them, I'm afraid they will just submit to the strongest whoever that turns out to be in the end.

[Lino]

(04-16-2019 01:42 PM)Count Pyotr Wrote:  

Macron has created a flat tax of 30% on all financial income (incl. dividends, but excl. passive income generated from rental property) ....I find it is one good thing that he did (closer ties with Russia being another), since you can now dissociate your investment income from your earned income (taxed up to 45% !!!!!! - and this after social security contributions have already been deducted) ... also, if you own your own business (like myself), now dividend payment offer a much more tax-efficient alternative to paying yourself a big salary.

The problem is that you still have to pay 28% corporate tax before the 30% flat tax on the dividends so at the end pf the day you’re still being raped.

[scotian]

(05-05-2019 02:32 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  

(05-04-2019 11:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(05-04-2019 10:45 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  

Interesting Leonard, but when was the last time wamen ever talked with such fortitude? No matter how bad it gets they just take it. Either they welcome the invaders as their new masters or walk away and last time I checked the French are citizens of the EU and can freely move to neighbouring countries like Belgium that speak French. The wamen in Venezuela are not doing shit either. They are either prostituting or have left to neighbouring countries. It's not as if they can fight back anyway outside of some doing some shananigans and getting themselves arrested, seriously injured or killed. These are good examples why guns are absolutely needed to keep the government in check.

All chest thumping aside the magical guns are doing nothing to stop the multi-trillion dollar police state steam-rolling the Bill of Rights all day long in America.

Europeans, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians are not functionally any worse off than Americans in terms of aggregate tyranny suffered. The first amendment is dead. Canadians have more liberal gun laws than the US in some respects. And I can walk into my nearest liberal city and walk through it saying anything I want without being lynched on the spot unlike most Americans.

The guns are irrelevant if nobody has the balls to use them. The first amendment is just words on a peice of paper if nobody is willing to defend their right to exercise it or in any case leaves their rights to be determined by nine fuckwits in black robes or a blue-haired transtard working for a globohomo corporation.

You might be skeptical but personally I'm seeing the beginning of a shift in white female attitudes that began in 2016. Non-whites have been trained to spew anti-white rhetoric and now white women with their endless egos are saying in record numbers "wait, when you're talking about how much you hate white people, you just mean the men, right?"

An minorities are saying "no, Becky, we fucking hate you just as much".

Some time soon white women en-masse quietly walk to the other side of the political aisle, poke the white men to "make it right" and we see Nazi Germany all over again, only this time there will be no allied forces to say "no".

Outside of the US none of those countries have "gun rights". None of the countries outside the US have self defence laws that let you defend your life with guns or even let you carry/conseal carry. Having "liberal gun laws" for sport hunting, collecting, target shooting are not real gun rights where you can defend your life and home against tyranny and criminals. Do you actually believe you have gun rights simply because you can purchase guns and leave them inside a bolted safe in your home until the moment you decide to go to your local gun club? How in the world can you say Canadians have more gun rights than Americans? Explain this to me, I'm really curious.

There have been many cases in Canada where home owners have used guns to defend themselves and gotten away with it, sometimes even killing the intruder. I know that it doesn’t fit the NRA gun narrative of only the Yanks having gun rights but if you look into it, you’ll find such stories, this one being one of the more well known recent ones:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/thestarphoen...oushie/amp