By Ollie Richardson for The Saker Blog
Before diving into the topic of this article I would like to pay a special tribute to the late William Blum. For those who are unaware why, he passed away on December 9th at the age of 85 due to illness. For those who don’t really know who he is, I recommended reading his books – especially “Killing Hope”. It is an encyclopaedia of CIA aggression against humankind. The importance of Blum’s work has an infinite character and serves as an example for us all to follow.
Now onto the core of the matter: the riots in France. I will not go into the chronology of events because it is updated every day and would only involve lots of tweet and video embeds with some personal comments in between (I already wrote something along those lines here). What I will discuss, however, is the different reactions to the riots as seen on the Internet. Although before doing this I want to put forward one disclaimer: even though terms like “globalism” and “elite” don’t really do justice as to how complex geopolitics/international relations is, for the sake of expediency I am obliged to use them. I think that readers will be steered in the right direction nevertheless.
Since the September 11th
false flag attacks social media has become the main driving force behind socio-economic shifts. And things are no different in France today. The “Gilets Jaunes” (Yellow Vests) and the liberal bourgeois opposing “violence” have been coming to blows on both Twitter and Facebook. The mainstream French TV news channels (BFM TV, LCI, France Info, France 24, Euronews, Cnews, etc) are tasked with connecting specific dots and presenting the viewer with an outline (narrative). Of course, the layperson generally accepts the output of the MSM as “God’s truth”, because it is “simply impossible that they would lie like that – journalists are trustworthy”. It goes without saying that absolutely no TV channel is “objective”, since there is always a financial backer, and such a concept as “objectivity” doesn’t “exist” anyway, since wars generally are the product of disagreements (the UN Charter seemingly isn’t enough to bring even regional peace, let alone global peace). Even if God is cited as a reference point, history has shown that it doesn’t prevent conflicts from happening (please refer to what the Vatican is now doing in Ukraine). Science also produces conflicts of paradigms – climate change being a good example. It’s as if war is simply what humans do – a fight for survival. Even the most “pacific” person has buttons that can be pressed. In fact, such CIA programs as MK Ultra and Camp Bucca aimed to find such buttons. But, on the other hand, most humans can agree that dropping bombs on children is wrong, so we can’t really say that hope has been completely killed…
Anyway, according to French mainstream media there are 3 main categories of persons involved in the disorder: peaceful “Gilets Jaunes” protestors, “ultra-left”/“extreme-right”, and “les casseurs” (those who just smash things up). Without wanting to submerge the article too much in the propaganda produced by Macron’s team, let’s just say that those who wear a yellow vest and chant “Macron demission” (Macron resign), occasionally returning a tear gas canister back to the sender (Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité), are the most true to the cause (deporting globalism from France), and the rest who wear balaclavas and/or hold “antifa” posters are pro-system – i.e., liberals. Yes, the concept of “titushki” exists in the West too. The problem is that there sincerely are those who are p*ssed off with the state and society around them, and thus will happily smash things up in order to get “revenge”, at the same time having no interest in politics essentially because they, seemingly, need a university diploma to do so. On the other hand, there are those who were sent by Macron to infiltrate the “Gilets Jaunes” and discredit them. So the group “les casseurs” isn’t a simple concept.
Similarly, the establishment-created “ultra-left”/“extreme-right” paradigm also isn’t simple to summarise. The main essence of this model is to steer the political discourse towards the so-called center – globalism/EU dictatorship – and away from “wild” ideas like a humane standard of living.
There are “anarchists”, “feminists”, “communists”, “socialists”, “anti-fascists”, “white supremacists”, etc. All of these terms essentially describe the same thing – liberals who create social strife. Even the Communist Party in France is “Communist” only by name. In fact, this has become a worldwide trend, where intelligence agencies have successfully undermined “Communist” movements and turned them into a way of grabbing from the poor and giving to the very poor, whilst the rich, super rich, and hidden elites remain untouched. This describes Pavel Grudinin and Gennady Zyuganov in Russia very well, although in this example they have become fully-fledged fifth column, demanding Putin’s removal because he doesn’t drop a nuke on Kiev or reduce taxes.
In France this description applies to Benoît Hamon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who resemble Bernie Sanders (another pseudo-socialist clown) more and more with each passing day. Long story short – they are liberal gatekeepers, who, either consciously or through stupidity, want to preserve the existing “pimps up, hoes down” system, since they see that the feeding trough (replenished with taxes) is up for grabs. Nevertheless, in the meantime Jean-Luc Mélenchon is riding the wave of “Gilets Jaunes” and publically shows himself as their undeclared leader, even though the yellow vests themselves are decentralised and only have local (one for every region or sub-region) leaders (one example – Tristan Lozach).
The truth is that the French establishment is desperately trying to keep the sheep in the pen. The MSM – owned by rich elites (it must be said that many are Zionists, like Patrick Drahi) – create these special categories to keep society divided and to pit people against each other. The “feminist” is set against the “anarchist”, the “ultra-left” is set against the “extreme-right”, Bernard Henri-Levy supporters are set against Dieudonné supporters, etc. The aim is to create a perpetual paradox that keeps the working man and woman shackled to the credit boulder and punished when they try to jar free (the use of the trope “anti-Semitism” is the main weapon here).
Whilst we can try to outline the general socio-economic system in France, the fact is that the system isn’t French at all. In reality, it stopped being French in November 1st 1993, when the European Union was founded. Since this moment a toxic hologram has being floating above the entire European continent, injecting into the populace’s grey matter the notion that the EU is some supra-nation, like an Aryan race, where people are chained to each other via “tolerance”. Distinguishing borders – both proverbial and physical – were blurred, cultures became a culture (sorry, “multiculturalism”). Actually, the very notion of “tolerance” implies a pest that must be tolerated. This is a rather pessimistic concept, no? And of course, the more presstitutes blab about “democracy”, “unity”, “equality”, etc the more it proves that the reality consists of the exact opposite – dictatorship, fragmentation, inequality. Which description corresponds to what we are seeing in the Western world most accurately?
However, no one seems to be able to describe what being “European” is. All explanations seem to revolve around one thing – money. One currency, one market, one package of fiscal regulation. It is similar to how a “British” person is unable to describe what being “British” means. The Beatles? Fish and Chips? Rain? Well for a Scot the Beatles are English, not Scottish. Fish and Chips, by all accounts, was the invention of a Jewish immigrant (or at least Wikipedia claims so). And rain – well, this is hardly an exclusivity. It follows from this blurring of the lines that we are supposed to forget how the English invaded territories, enslaved the natives, and then annexed lands. We are supposed to forget how the US ran to Omaha beach and occupied half of Berlin, preventing the “red plague” from spreading further. We are supposed to forget how American nuclear missiles were placed on the European continent and aimed at “evil Russia”, courtesy of the “NATO” simulacrum project (NATO has “borders” apparently).
Without wanting to get carried away with describing how carcinogenic the “EU” is, which is a topic that deserves a separate article (or multiple articles), I advise everyone who wants to know what it TRULY represents to observe what is happening in Ukraine now. And I don’t mean Donbass. I mean in Kiev, Chernigov, Sumy, Zaporozhye, Odessa, Kherson, Kharkov, Cherkassy, Lvov, Dnepropetrovsk, etc. Across the whole country. In every single region of Ukraine the western “civilised” world (Poroshenko refers to them as “international partners”) is forcibly erasing the Soviet legacy – or at least the tangible remnants of it – and replacing it with the EU model:
- Free and qualitative education in multiple native languages (Russian, Ukrainian, Hungarian, etc) = gone. In Kiev a new pilot test is being carried out, whereby pupils must pay for their own primary education (for pens, paper, etc). This will lead to the roll out of nationwide paid-for education. The curriculum itself is almost exclusively based on promoting the “Russian aggression” fairytale.
- Qualitative medicine based on Soviet/Russian research = gone. Now EU/American BigPharma is popping up across the country and primitive diseases that were eliminated in the USSR, such as measles, are now at the stage of a national epidemic. High quality and cheap healthcare = gone. Ukraine is transitioning to the American model of healthcare – the kind where an ambulance won’t come to you if you are poor, and where you have to travel for miles to see the family doctor because the village clinics were shutdown.
- State-owned companies and assets are being massively sold to the highest (although the sale price is normally a fraction of its true value) bidder from either Poroshenko’s or his Western backers’ environment.
- The actual cost of living – utility bills and food – grows exponentially to such an extent that pensioners and even teenagers prefer to jump out of the window than live another day in misery.
And the list can go on and on. In other words, despite the EU explicitly stating more than once that Ukraine will not be joining the bloc anytime soon, the process of westernising the country’s infrastructure continues unabated. And the situation concerning NATO membership is the same – Ukraine will not join the alliance in our lifetime, regardless of the PR coming from Bankova Street. Please read this and this article to gain an insight into what the EU is really doing in Ukraine. Long story short: Ukraine becomes more and more like France, which in turn becomes more and more like Greece.
Reactions to events in France
As I mentioned earlier, social media has become the main driving force behind the current explosive events in France, and the print media simply creates narratives by aggregating from different trends and popular comments and then wraps them accordingly. Indeed, “journalism” today is actually an aggregation competition. Anyway, the reactions to the unrest in France can be divided into 3 categories:
“pro-Russia” Western segment
This category bases its position vis-a-vis this or that socio-economic issue on what the so-called “alternative media” is saying. Most people in this category also read RT and Sputnik and have either simply lost trust in the mainstream media or their views are in one way or another dissonant with the mainstream discourse. They have some notions of what living in Europe (American occupation) is like and understand that life in the West is starting to look a lot like a plantation, where the field negro is subordinated to a house negro, who in turn is subordinated to a Lord. Thus, this category knows that Macron works for the Rothschilds and is the same “merde” as Theresa May and Angela Merkel, and they know that the “Gilets Jaunes” are simply fighting against globalism.
Liberal zombie Western segment
One key example of why this category is different from the “pro-Russia” one is the topic of migration. The average liberal who screams about Sentsov or “gay gulags” in Chechnya veils their own racism (inherited at the genetic level from their colonising ancestors) by pretending to be sympathetic with ethnic minorities, as if they are inferior and need help from the superior race. They also shed crocodile tears for the “children gassed by Assad”, but don’t want to talk about Sykes-Picot or the nuclear bombings in Japan. They are always a “victim” of something and need social strife in order to reduce everyone to their level so they don’t feel as insecure. For this category the riots in Paris are funded by Putin and are a threat to “democracy”. They are oblivious to the fact that the government has a list of terrorists – called “Fiche S” – but does nothing to keep them in jail or deport them if they don’t have French citizenship, whilst at the same time thousands of peaceful “Gilets Jaunes” are detained across the country for defending their constitutional rights. Russia doesn’t need to interfere in France; France will lie in the bed it made for itself when it pillaged the Middle East. Unfortunately for the French, the Syrian boomerang did a U-turn rather quickly.
Those who live in Russia and generally don’t have much of an idea of what life in the EU is like think that what is happening in France is “Maidan”, which is probably funded by Trump because “Macron wants to create a EU army”. They see scenes in Paris that are similar to scenes from Kiev in 2014 – pianos being played in front of riot police, things on fire, paving stones being thrown around, a large gathering of people on the Champs d’Elysee, etc. I.e., they rely on visual cues and are unable to detach themselves from what happened, and is happening, in Ukraine enough in order to see the wider picture. This isn’t their fault, of course, because we cannot be omnipresent. But we can do our own primary research and form conclusions by triangulation. Whilst its true that colour revolutions entail external influence, what is happening in France is not a colour revolution.
Firstly, France is the most taxed country in Europe. The increasing cost of living has resulted in over 120 million people being served by food banks in recent years. 50% of wages go to the state. Anyone who has the chance can come to France and see the financial facts for themselves. And whilst it might be said that America hijacked existing discontent in society (like the “electric Yerevan” protests in Armenia), this statement will be addressed shortly.
Secondly, because Russia has run circles around the US military-industrial complex and its attached foreign lobbies, placed the S-400 in Syria, and annulated project Bandera in Ukraine courtesy of two well-designed cauldrons (Debaltsevo and Ilovaisk) – all without violating international law or any treaties, America now wants to tear up the INF treaty and bring mid-range missiles back into the mix in an attempt to exit the geopolitical impasse it finds itself in. Of course, this move will invoke Moscow (and China) to make reciprocal steps, so in reality it is a zero-sum manoeuvre. But in this scenario the EU becomes a sacrificial lamb. Whilst Germany (where Trump’s roots are, incidentally) is aware that it needs Nord-Stream 2 in order to fend off Trump’s attempts to cripple German business, it is also aware that the situation can develop in such a way where Germany will be obliged to actively oppose America and go along the imperialistic route. I.e., the doggy completely breaks free from the chain.
Thirdly and lastly, Bernard Henri-Levy says that the “Gilets Jaunes” are bad, so it means that they are in reality good and have the interests of the people at heart (sometimes things can be this simple).
In summary, Trump gains nothing by staging “Maidan” in France because empowering the working French people won’t bring France back to heel at all – it will do the exact opposite and reverse the results of the past 70+ years. Unless, of course, Trump is some revolutionary genius and has a plan to crush globalism and the CIA (which, based on what America is doing in other parts of the world, I very much doubt).
As we watch on a TV screen or witness with our own eyes how the police attack their own people and defend the “1%”, we may often see article writers or commenters ask the question “where are we going, what comes next?”. Apparently we are running around like headless chickens whilst a big war – sometimes referred to as “World War III” – is on the horizon. Some websites will tell you that “WW3” will come tomorrow at 5pm, and then 24 hours later will tell you that it is in fact tomorrow, but at 9am. Then after another 24 hours has passed they will say that it’s actually tomorrow at 00:01. But if to approach this question seriously, we must first of all understand that the planet was rotating before we were born, and it will most likely continue to rotate after we are gone. I.e., our lives represent on average 80 orbits around the sun. Secondly, we must acknowledge that the cliché “Rome wasn’t built in a day” does have some truth to it. Actually, it factually wasn’t built in a day, in the same way that Lenin’s and then Stalin’s USSR wasn’t built in one day. Both examples involved a level of self-sacrifice that seems unimaginable in today’s “me first” Instagram reality. 27+ million Soviet people sacrificed themselves so that the Soviet Union stood a chance of existing after June 1941. They didn’t have the time to naval gaze or to even permit themselves to indulge in masochistic Hollywood scenarios of a nuclear apocalypse. They took a uniform position in relation to any challenge; regardless of how large or small it may have seemed. They just put their head down and worked – for the nation; народ.
We want change, but we don’t yet know what it is that we want to build. Or do we?
“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state”