French Elections

There was only a very small  chance that Macron wouldnt go to the second round, even smaller than that Le Pen wouldnt make it - and now they're both there, and Macron is going to win, because he's far more French than Le Pen.

This is what isnt evident to the general Right - Le Pen lacks what the French pride themselves on entirely - artifice and finesse - Frenchness. She's just very blunt and straightforward, German nearly, in her demeanor and her approach.

The French will prefer to drown in violence over giving up their prideful mannerisms. It is the curve of their flower. Without it, they lose claim to their superiority. Imagine the horror over Trump in refined American households, then amplify that by some factors, and you get a typical Frenchmans objection to Le Pen.

Macrons hyper French style of speech and gesture is more than likely going to ease him into the palace. And Im not even sure thats so bad. He seems like a rather ferocious decision maker, he could at least make it a bit more challenging for the Germans.

Since Brexit, EU politics has undergone a tidal shift, it intuitively all immediately looked fundamentally more promising. Weirdly not so much for England as for Europe.

Not so weird - Europe for the first time has leverage over someone. The UKs self induced negotiating subservience now has awakened a selfvaluing in the EU. France feels very strong today.

They are about to choose Frenchness over anti-anti-Frenchness. And it is only Frenchness that can destroy anti-Frenchness. If he opts for a hard course against repressive islam he can take European populism entire as leverage over Germany.

Still I hope Le Pen will win, and I don't mean to suggest I judge her being as non French, it's her style. Her values are French but so far, the French have more or less always been able to be cosmopolitan and sovereign.

The hopes I sketched for Macron are bound to be too optimistic, I dont let myself be bound by that knowledge, normally, but I will condition the case in that way now -

Emotionally I am in favor of Le Pen winning this. I see a lot of merit in Macron too, compared to Hollande but also to Sarkozy. He is simply less of a Dick Cheney. If Le Pen wins, we get the most interesting political narrative. But to be honest I think Macron has a better chance of making life less of a burden for lower classes. He's willing to bite throats and he's most definitely a French nationalist. In a best case scenario Macron has France overtake Germany and take leadership over the diplomatic aspect of finances, and takes position between England and Germany as I hoped for Amsterdam to be able to do a while ago, in another mania.

After looking at his natal chart i have to say Macron. The fuckeur is dangerous in a very good way for anyone on his side. Regulus ♍Saturn is something I want to see in action as it might put some serious challenges to Regulus Mars Trump and Regulus Pluto/Moon Theresa May. ♐SunMercury opposed ♋Jupiter is first rate Jupiter dispositorship. He's sleek and happy in his ways, which are methodically ruthless and far reachingly precise. He can gain France a lot of money, that's for sure. With the resources France owns, a banker of lets say the white lodge is an exciting prospect.

We cant forget how well France abides maniacs on the throne. Or in general for that matter.
That's in a nutshell what I have against Le Pen - she is too sober. I would not normally be inclined to trust a sober Frenchman.

Seems Macron has begun fucking up.
As befits a Jupiter-Sun opposition person, he exaggerated his victory, seemingly believing he was justified in celebrating a done deal. Thats remarkably stupid.
A sign that I may be wrong in estimating him up to the task of battling the Germans.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Seems Macron has begun fucking up.
As befits a Jupiter-Sun opposition person, he exaggerated his victory, seemingly believing he was justified in celebrating a done deal. Thats remarkably stupid.
A sign that I may be wrong in estimating him up to the task of battling the Germans.

What does he actually stand for?

Dionysos from the look of it.

I mean he s always drunk.
Or seems drunk.
I take that as a good sign of sorts

Im not entirely kidding.

Seems like a sufficient reason to vote for president.

Haha

Dionysus for president, no need for a VP, just bring some meneads and give them full reign of the WH. Fun times.

French people should "get used to living with" Islamic terrorism? No thanks.

Thrasymachus wrote:

French people should "get used to living with" Islamic terrorism? No thanks.

"In the French media Le Pen is called Trumpian, which of course is a massive insult in Europe, because, well, they gave up their guns. So you know I read a bunch of this, I sort of threw up a little in my mouth, rinsed it out, and decided to stop. It's important to not end up with brain cavities where your reason should be because you over-consume the soul-irradiating candy floss of mainstream media verbal garbage."


Hahaha.

Yeah, fuck Macron and the brainless elitist media-whored horse he rode in on.


"Because nothing says 'revolutionary' like working for the Rothschilds."

KEK.

Macron: Obozo 2.0.

But don't worry, Google, Facebook and the French media are hard at work manufacturing the lies that will serve as sugar-coating for the fact that the elections will be hacked in favor of Macron. Obviously.

This shit is child's play. Anyone who doesn't see what is going on is either pathologically retarded or secretly part of the "in" crowd.

Revolution vs Capital is not what Im seeing, I see Germany vs England vs France.
I have no stake in this. I've seen that Europe is lost culturally, at least for the coming decades, but that's in the past - now the matter is who of these three nations is going to come out on top. This is Nationalism.

Election rigging isn't something that's possible in France. The US seems to have been built for corruption, France has been built for Systemism. It'll thrive as a technocratic superstate.

I see this in terms of the WtP section IV, as I have structurally been interpreting Europe since 2001 when I first read it. Now, I am beginning to see the outline of a very brilliant strategy of fate.

Fuck Le Pen. I mean she's worth a lot of support, but she's no powerhouse of any sort. She just represents a certain anger, which is justified, but in a way that is conflicting quite starkly with any kind of nobility.

I see nothing of "nobility" in this Obama-2.0 Macron either. At least Le Pen would find a way to reinstate France as an actual nation-state, by that I mean actually have a fucking border. No nation-states exist anymore in Europe thanks to the EU, how could they? The whole point of the EU was to dissolve nation-states so there was never another land war in Europe. And so everything could be pillaged more easily by the ruling internationalist class, of course.

I've seen literally nothing from Macron that inspires anything but dread in me; same as was the case with Obozo, he is just a plant by the establishment banking elite who regurgitates slogans and virtue signaling that are ultimately not only devoid of real content but also contradictory to each other. At least Le Pen has some principles.

I also do not see this as revolution vs capital, but I do see it as true capitalism (centered on the nation-state and -culture) vs globalism (which is the developing world communism of Marx). We need to break the cycle of globalist development, this constant slow march to Marxist world communism wherein the few elites will control the world government-economy while everyone else slaves away under the eternal boot as Orwell called it. This really is easy to understand: Macron like Merkel like Obozo like Clinton like Trudeau like so many others all are part of this slow march to world communism. They are the pretty faces or empty slogans or lies of convenience needed to get the infrastructure gradually in place whereby national sovereignty is replaced by truly internationalist (unelected) institutions. Like the governing bodies of the EU for example.

Le Pen represents what Trump represents, even if she is quite different from him on many policies. Wilders represents this same thing, the impulse to sovereignty and self-determination, to ontic self-valuing coherence against the slow march to ontic disintegration under the boot-heel of Marx. Wilders and Le Pen may not have great policy platforms but that is irrelevant; at this juncture in history the globalist economic model of central banking debt-slavery and loss of national sovereignty and constant warfare and "social justice" all needs to be broken, right now it needs to break. We must break it. We cannot wait for the more perfect candidate to come along with whom we agree on most policy positions. At least Le Pen wants to break the globalist stranglehold on her nation, and that is enough for me.

If we need to break it - if I need to break it - then obviously this will happen on my terms. I cant cooperate with terms diametrically opposed to my own.

As Ive explained in many posts the past months I see no true relation between Trump, Le Pen and Wilders.

You say its very easy for anyone but idiots to understand you are right, and I know better than to take this personally. In my view however, it's all vastly more complex than "sovereignty vs globalism".

If you have read the OP of my VO/GLobalism thread you know that I so not see the two as mutually exclusive, on the contrary.
The question is now which of the nations will come out on top, and that question, that rivalry that has broken loose since Brexit, is the logic Im interested in now.

The Netherlands have been dead, culturally, for over a decade. The idea that a hollow populist like Wilders could lead us is just a symptom of our death.
Rebirth will come from far deeper and more fertile grounds than Wilders could ever grasp. And Im not going to help my enemies by laying out how and when that will happen.
But it will.

Death to all slogans. The destiny of Europe is fixed to its ground.

The idea that goodness and logical, sound government must come through revolution is a distinctly plebeian and Communist idea, it is the principle of slave-revolt. It leads to Robespierre, not to Montesquieu. Why, for example, the alt right doesnt care to think international politics through - that requires master-morality, i.e. selfvaluing ethics, rather than moral commandments that are supposed to apply unto individuals from some metaphysical firmament which magically gives useless consumers right to selfdetermination.

That right is earned, ontically, by Being.

When Europeans manage to Be, to Exist, they'll begin preparing for a power grab and they'll very easily dethrone the corrupt bureaucrats. But the Millennials are too weak of a generation.

"Ain't quite time yet. Lets hang back." - Jules

You'll have to forgive me, but I do not understand your position here. One of the primary reasons for the weakness of 'the people' (useless consumers) right now is due to this globalist (Marxist) model. I am most interested in breaking that model any way I can. Only good can come from that, as more individual and locally-oriented self-valuing would be freed through the cracks back into more properly lived existence. Yes it would include some violence, the old guard establishment powers are not going to just roll over and die, as we see with how they are manipulating Trump and tightening their control over media and the political correctness of 'acceptable' culture.

I am more worried that the swamp will drain Trump, and that it will drain the impetus out of the rational national impetus. Why precisely do you object to Le Pen? Because she is not noble? I am not sure what that means.

I am not an aristocrat; if I were then I would simply side with the globalists and look down on humanity as mere pests to be controlled or exterminated. I do not hold to such a paradigm, at all. Therefore I would prefer a real human over a clone/tool human such as Macron seems to represent. Did you check out that Molyneux video on Macron? There are a ton of very important facts in there. From where I sit, pushing Macron is no different from pushing Obama. But again, I am not French, maybe there are other factors here to consider.

And yes, do not take my comments personally, they are not directed at you, but at the unthinking defenders of the globalist apathetic status quo, which I know you are not a part of. Thus my desire to understand where you are coming from with statements like "fuck Le Pen" and that you support Macron. Again, to me that is like saying "fuck Trump, go for Clinton". Clinton and Macron are part of the same globalist system of "insider" control, debt-slavery, anti-sovereignty, open borders, media lies, and war. Remember that Macron said to France people they need to get used to Islamic terrorism. Can we assume Macron as president would not go along with the NATO/banker incursions into the Middle East, for example? France under Hollande was instrumental in removing Gaddafi for example. Once you look into the reasons why "they" wanted Libya to fall, it is easy to understand why it happened. Also this exacerbated the migrant crisis in Europe. So I can't see it as good by any means.

Trump initially wanted to end US imperialism around the globe, since the US military is basically just the enforcement arm of global capitalism, which of course is the antithesis of real capitalism. I oppose all of this. So you can probably see why I have a hard time grasping your position here. Maybe you can elaborate some more to help me get there.

Let me address it for now in one simple idea:
I am not capable of equating two humans under one Idea.
I do not see Le Pen as Trump nor Macron as Clont nor as Hollande. I see all of them as distinctly differing value-carriers. But radically different.
Macron to me represents something vastly more powerful than Hollande and Sarkozy (whose idea the Lybia invasion was in part)
but certainly by no means perfect.
Fuck Le Pen means Fuck Le Pen. It doesnt mean Fuck Trump. And it also doesnt mean go with Macron. (nor does Le Pens ignobility signify Marcons nobility. My mind does not operate in dualities)
I now go with Macron because of Macron. Not because he is the antithesis of Le Pen - there are no such things as human antitheses.
Yes, we see it differently.
That terror quote was radically taken out of context. He means: we have to be ready for a long fight.


I was writing this as you responded:

There is only one way in which the future of Europe. The world, and human freedom can be calculated - through selfvaluing logic.
One svl unit applies to all value paradigms in the equation.

In my very carefully calibrated estimation, Macron touches on more paradigms.
I can see we will disagree.


PS - I am an aristocrat by taste, but I have no genocidal inclinations.

Yes I understand each of these people are quite different. But you have to also examine through the lens of who owns (funds, manages, brings up) the candidates. To whom does the candidate owe favors? For example, we need to ask why the French media is pushing Macron so heavily? Same question was obviously asked of US media and its push for Clinton.

From what I understand about Macron: he was groomed in elite universities, went to work for internationalist banks, was given quick deals to make a lot of money despite his lack of experience, worked as a key advisor for Hollande, and then left to start a presidential campaign which is supported by the establishment in France along with basically all of their media. He went out and conducted a lot of polling of French people to see what issues and catch-phrases are important to them, and then he basically created his campaign messaging around that. Obama did the same thing. Obama came almost from nowhere, he was also groomed up in elite schools, buddied around with radical Leftists, was elected as a state senator very briefly before starting his presidential campaign, and also repeated the focus-grouped slogans and "told people what they want to hear" when in fact he ended up doing almost the exact opposite of all those things.

Obama had unending media support in the US from the moment he launched his campaign. Why is that? Why does it matter what the establishment media pushes in the US or in France? It matters because this is a barometer of sorts. The media is going to push the candidate who will not rock the boat, who will take orders, who will be a smiling face of comfort able to lie with ease to reassure people while their country is sold out piece by piece into debt-slavery and communism. Basically whichever candidate will sell globalism to the people.


As far as I can tell Macron is supposed to be the "reasonable centrist", that is how people see him. People are scared to endorse someone who is labeled "extreme" by the newspapers and pundits. But "centrism" (weakness, compromise, lying with a smile, sucking up to global capitalism) so called is precisely what has gotten the world into the fucked up place it is at right now.

Why, precisely, do you think Le Pen would be bad for France, or for the rest of Europe?

I base my judgments entirely on the words of the candidates themselves as I see and hear them speak.
The media mean nothing to me, I dont care whom they back and it doesnt concern philosophy, I think.
My fear with sovereignty vs globalism narrative is that it is logically similar to the idea of class struggle. Two predefined, non human "camps" are pitted against each other in the mind, but the human entities involved are made conditional to that. Thats not a way in which I can trust my thinking. I dont generalize individuals to movements or groups - that is to negate their particular substance.

Similarly I dont see Obonko or Cloont as the same - Cloont is far worse. They represent different movements - each their own, even if they might align in many cases with similar others.

I will hardly mourn if she wins, but I simply dont see great merit in Le Pen. I also dont like the bluntly racist background of her party. Her father who founded FN is scum. The French reel from the thought of such crude leadership.

Macron is no solution to Bankerism, naturally. But I dont expect such solutions before a new Culture is born.

Trump prevented total global annihilation and worse. I will always love him for that. Le Pen is irrelevant in such terms.

Interesting to find similarity between the distinction "nationalism vs globalism" and the class struggle of communism. Definitely the latter subordinates individuals to groups. I've never thought of nationalism vs globalism in those terms before. I prioritize individuals qua individual over any groups of which individuals are supposedly members. To me, nationalism means the value and priority of individualism (therefore in my use of the word nationalism I do not include movements such as Nazism which are also technically "nationalist" but not at all individualist), whereas globalism means the value and priority of groups. I see globalism as the continuation of Marx's plan for world communism, which is why I think the whole social justice political correctness censorship fascism thing and globalism go so well hand in hand.

Naturally humans are always part of groups. Individuals are always involved in multiple group-relationships. I have no problem with that, but what I do have a problem with is elevating that group status over the individual in question; such a move represents a gross irrationality, putting the cart before the horse as it were. Similarly it is the Marxists who never ask the question, "how should we define the various classes?" They don't care for definitions because they would quickly realize it is impossible to define "lower class" and "upper class" in any meaningful way. The closest they come is the barely functional "lower class is oppressed and has no money! upper class is oppressor and has all the money!", which is obviously such an affront to reason and reality that it can scarcely even be mentioned.

I would say that nationalism vs globalism can define its terms more clearly than can the Marxists with their class struggle. I can offer simple definitions here: nationalism means 1) having a border around your nation, 2) having control over who comes into your nation, 3) having sovereignty of the people who live in that nation in some way or another (democracy or republic or monarchy or whatever). Sovereignty also includes financial sovereignty, since if a nation is entirely owned financially or monetarily by another nation or outside group then it cannot be said that the nation actually exists with any degree of ontic independence.

Globalism I would define as follows: the current platform of undermining national sovereignty including lack of borders and border control and by increasing the debt-slavery of people and nations to internationalist banks and financial institutions which are themselves not subject to the control, physical or legal, of that nation or people who own the debts. Based on these definitions, then, I do not think that the idea of nationalism vs globalism need be understood as anything like the de-prioritizing of the category of the individual in the class warfare of Marxism.