Emmanuel Macron – Rothschild’s Choice For President Of France

Originally appeared at Vzglyad; Appeared in Bulgarian at Memoriabg, translated by Valentina Tzoneva exclusively for SouthFront
Emmanuel Macron, the photogenic 39-years-old financier with an amazing career became the leader of the presidential race in France after Francois Fillon and Marine Le Pen faced a wave of discredits. According to opinion polls, he will reach the second round with Marine Le Pen, where he will win 66 percent of the votes.
Emmanuel Macron can be called the most unusual candidate for president of France. He has no real political experience. He has not been elected anywhere before. He is not a member of any of the leading parties and the three years (2006 to 2009) in socialist ranks can be considered a formality; Macron joined them “officially” but did not pay dues and did not attended party events.
By profession, Macron is an investment banker specializing in mergers and acquisitions and was successful in his career. He graduated from the National School of Administration, a leading university for the French elite. He worked for several years as an inspector at the Ministry of Economy. Then in 2007, a crucial year in his career, the promising 29-year-old economist was spotted and invited by Jacques Attali in his Commission for stimulating economic growth.


 

Jacques Attali is a very interesting person. Formally, he is a philosopher-globalist, a writer of color utopias of how all nations and states will disappear from the face of the earth during bloody conflicts, and the survivors of humanity will unite under the banner of democracy and under the control of a World Government. Moreover, for many years Attali was well received at the Elysee Palace and is one of the most influential advisers of generations of French presidents, from François Mitterrand to Francois Hollande. Local media, calling him “the true president of France” is hardly exaggerating.

It is Jacques Attali who created the link between the financial capital and the elite of the ruling Socialist Party, which he supports. He is exceptional in his ability to skillfully wrap the predatory plans of the bankers in beautiful leftist slogans.
In 2008, the Attali commission presented to President Nicolas Sarkozy “300 proposals to change France” – a plan for modernization of the economy meant to save it from the long years of stagnation. The main idea can be formulated as follows: to avoid losing its competitiveness in the global market, the country must drastically reduce the cost of labor. One way for this to happen is to increase immigration to France; low-paid recent immigrants, who will not be able to get organized in trade unions, will displace the local workers from manufacturing and services. Also, the plan is impressive with the proposal to drastically reduce government spending on health, education and pension provision. Sarkozy did not dare to accept this radical plan.

But let’s go back to Macron. During his stay at the Commission, he managed to win the sympathy of Attali, who soon introduced him to his friend, Francois Enron. Enron, in turn, is the best friend and main partner of David de Rothschild and in 2008 Macron was hired by  the Rothschild’s & Co Banque where he made quick career and in four years only he grew from analyst to partner. His commissions exceed more than one million euros per year but much more valuable are the new connections in the business world and the reputation of “financial Mozart.”

The biggest deal for Macron in the bank of Rothschild is his involvement in the purchase of Nestle subsidiary for baby food of the US drug maker Pfizer’s (for $ 11.85 billion, editor’s note). At that time he met for the first time Matthew Pigasse, director of the French branch of the Lazard Brothers bank, who wanted to make the same purchase for his client, Danone, but failed. So Macron found his greatest enemy in the face of Matthew Pigasse.

In 2010, Pigasse who is a leftist banker and a friend and patron of the French socialists, planned to become an economic adviser to Francois Hollande but the ubiquitous Jacques Attali recommended Emmanuel Macron to Hollande.  For several years Macron, perfectly fluent in English and German, facilitated between the top-socialist of France and the foreign financial circles. As the Guardian noted maliciously, while Hollande was shouting at rallies “My main enemy is the financial capital!” the banking officer of Rothschild, Macron, was flying to London City to assure bankers that under President Hollande everything would remain as usual.

In 2012, Hollande became president and Macron left the bank of Rothschild and was appointed deputy secretary general of the Elysee Palace. In 2014, in his position of “young reformer”, he headed the Ministry of Economy and Industry (taking the place of longtime friend and business partner of Pigasse, Arnaud Montebourg). Hollande gives him carte blanche for activities related to the modernization of the economy and Macron presents a bill with more than 300 sections, providing for the liberalization of the French market.  
Experts say that the nature of the law of Macron embodies all the ideas of the Attali commission. In it, embedded and encouraged are the immigration, facilities are provided for the release of employees, increased is the competition within the various professions, indirectly increased is the working day at the expense of Sundays and night shifts.

The working people in France resolutely did not approve this bill. The discussion was accompanied by massive protests. There was no chance to pass the law in parliament. Hollande then exercised his right to adopt certain bills without the approval of parliament and in August 2015 approved the “Law of Macron”. Interestingly, before becoming president, Hollande sharply criticized this presidential law and even called it “fascists”.

In 2016, when the rating of Hollande was embarrassingly low something unusual started to happen around Emmanuel Macron. Thus, out of nowhere a movement, “Youth for Macron” arose. It is difficult to even imagine the youth uniting suddenly around unpopular minister of economy in a country with depressive economy. However, several thousand people turned out to participate in the new movement.

Macron founded his own party with the vague name “Forward!” (En marche!) The rallies began to gather huge crowds and this at a time when the socialists gathered with great effort several hundred people at their events. Macron’s program was also unclear.  Condemning the terrorist attacks, he has no plans to close borders or restrict immigration; promising to increase the country’s military spending he does not distance it from NATO. In fact, Macron remains the same globalist, an exemplary pupil of Jacques Attali, focusing on the slogans of European unity.  
He criticized both the left and right, trying to distract voters who traditionally vote for the Socialists, and also to attract those for whom the National Front of Marine Le Pen is too radical.

With his sudden appearance in politics Macron got off at an incredible rate. Journalists literally carry him in their arms. Women’s magazines call him a new sex symbol and a dream for any French woman. Influential newspapers highlight the advantages of his centrist position. Sociologists predict his victory. And no one reveals something serious to discredit him. In January, when some criticism undermined the chances of his main competitors, Marine Le Pen and Francois Fillon, Macron stayed out of any scandals.

Paradoxically – and thus potentially “lethal” for a French politician – may seem the private life of Macron but the media painted a purely romantic story out of it. The point is that the wife of the favorite in the presidential race (Brigitte Trogneux, editor’s note.) is 24 years older than him. In 2007, on his wedding day he was 29 and she was 53 years old. Macron told reporters that he fell in love with his future wife when he was 15 years old, when she taught French in his school. Meanwhile, he graduated from high school and university, travelled the world, built a career, but during all these 14 years he is faithful to his first love.

Emmanuel Macron and his wife Bridget Trogneux

Despite its implausibility, the story appeals to journalists. Pictures of Macron, walking hand in hand with his wife, or Macron with a bottle of baby food, feeding her grandchildren were published by all the newspapers in the country. Fashion magazines proclaimed his wife for “an icon of style”. In terms of political technologies this was a good move: France is aging, and more ladies in retirement are among voters.  For them now there is an abundance of movies in which young handsome men fall in love with an old lady. The family idyll of Macron is designed for them and projected on them. It is also true that the tabloids periodically run rumors that Macron’s lover is the President of Radio France, Matthew Galle, but there is no evidence.

Overall, the career of the young politician goes so successfully and the media support him so strongly that it is impossible not to become suspicious of any other influence. Once Macron announced that he enters the presidential race, the French gave him the nickname “the candidate of Rothschild.” There is no conspiracy in this: the French branch of the Rothschild family, which controls assets in the tens of billions of euros, quite naturally seeks to have its man at the Elysee Palace.

David de Rothschild

The famous family kept friendly and business relations with generations of French politicians, from Charles de Gaulle to Georges Pompidou, from Edouard Balladur to Nicolas Sarkozy.
Former secretary general of the Elysee Palace, Francois Peron, as well as the Director of the Cabinet of Ministers under Prime Minister Beregovoy, Nikolas Basire have worked directly for Rothschild’s bank. Historians believe that the large-scale privatization in the mid-90s was held by Prime Minister Balladur not without the interference of Rothschild.

The main competitor in the political struggle for Rothschild appears to be the Lazard Brothers’ Bank, whose French branch is led by the biggest enemy of Marcon, Matthew Pigasse. In the Lazard Bank he plays the same role as Jacques Attali played in the bank of Rothschild. Pigasse loves punk rock and reality shows, playing guitar; he buys influential newspapers, quotes interviews with leftist philosophers and is an active companion of leftist politicians. Like the Rothschilds,   Lazard successfully nurtured Socialists in 2007. Matthew Pigasse sponsored the presidential campaign of Segolene Royal while supporting Arnaud Montebourg. After his friend was forced to withdraw from the elections because of the extremely low popularity Pigasse supported Benoit Hamon. The latter promised the French unconditional basic income of 750 euros, but bankers know what is ‘left’ rhetoric in the campaign.

The media of the leftists blames Pigasse for splitting the Socialists. In fact, the banker simply cleared the way for his protégés in the party and at the same time paid back his revenge to Francois Hollande for he did not introduce him at the Elysee Palace. The latest blow on the lowest rating of Hollande is a book, compiled by journalists from Le Monde: “The president should not say this …” where cleverly selected quotations denounce the president as a hypocrite, a racist and a liar. Shortly after the publication Hollande went on television and gave up a nomination for a new term. Most of the shares of Le Monde are owned by Pigasse.

In addition to Le Monde, the French director of Lazard Bank controls several other influential media outlets. The only threat to Macron can come from them. If we see a fabrication aiming to discredit him, the first to publish it will be Matthew Pigasse.
E
mmanuel Macron seems a finished product of political technologies in the presidential race. His image has been thoughtfully created: his looks, the poignant love story and the politically correct program. But in this lies its weakness – French voters may feel the artificial image of the candidate, and the lack of independence as leader of the nation. The problem is not in bankers involved in politics, in general it happens all the time; but a strong president will be able to impose his agenda on the most influential sponsors. However, the pretty face of Macron bears no resemblance to such president. This is a homunculus grown by all the rules for managing public opinion.

Today the sociologists unanimously predict a victory for Macron in the presidential elections. By the way, the sociologists in the US elections likewise unanimously promised victory for Hillary Clinton. Regardless of what the fate of Macron will be, he remains a model of how the agreement between the financial capital and the leftist parties in Europe work as well as the fact that the presidents of France change regularly, but the people who propel them to the Elysee Palace remain the same.
-------------

https://southfront.org/emmanuel-macron-rothschilds-choice-for-president-of-france/

Andrew Anglin : The scourge of male feminism in the WN movement

The scourge of male feminism in the WN movement

by Andrew Anglin

Male feminists refuse to explain why a book—written by a woman for women about BDSM is now the best-selling book of all time. I get a lot of hate from white knights (who should really be called “male feminists”) for my straightforward commentary on the collective behavior of women.
The fact that women are sexually aroused by the idea of rape and abuse is extremely difficult for a lot of men to process. In particular, men have a hard time processing this in relationship to the female obsession with flooding the West with men who are shockingly prone to rape and abuse of women.
However, although I have laid out my arguments for this phenomenon in great detail, as of yet, no male feminist has bothered to give a counter-argument. Instead, they attack me personally, claim I must have some personal problem, or else I wouldn’t even care about the data which supports my claims.
It doesn’t matter what people think of me. If I was concerned about the opinions that random anonymous people on the internet have of me, I would have chosen a different profession. My concern is with the concept itself, that of shaming men who dare question the behavior of women.
By attacking me, these male feminists are sending a message to all men: if you question women, we will turn against you, we will insult and attack your masculinity. This is called “Man-Shaming.” It is the same exact system that the Jews used to silence men opposed to homosexuality: “If you’re against the gays, you must secretly be one yourself.”
The reason that white men will shame other white men with feminist garbage is that they themselves are emotionally incapable of dealing with the fact that their girlfriends and wives (or their objects of romantic interest) are not the princesses they imagine them to be.
This is objectively true. If they simply disagreed based on data, they would present counter-arguments and relevant data. Instead, they personally attack the man making the argument that causes them to feel the uncomfortable emotions.
I am absolutely disgusted by the idea that white men are willing to shame other white men, to question their virility and masculinity, in order to protect their own fragile emotions. This needs to stop. Man-shamers within the white nationalist movement are inhibiting free and open discussion of ideas, which can only be good for our enemies.
Beyond this, they are also creating a narrative that will harm men who are trying to have successful relationships with women. In order to have a successful relationship with a woman, a man must understand that they are fundamentally non-loyal (as opposed to disloyal), amoral (as opposed to immoral) and have a strong need to be dominated and controlled (in the modern system, where this need is not being fulfilled because men have been taught to treat women as “equals” with “valuable input,” their desire to be dominated and controlled expresses itself through pathological sexual desire).

I take criticism well

I am very good with criticism, and am fine with the idea that I might be wrong about certain things. I don’t consider myself infallible, and am always open to discussion and debate. However, because the feminist arguments are emotional and not based on data or logic, they do not engage in constructive criticism or debate, instead resorting to name-calling: woman-hater, MGTOW, etc.
All insults, no data or logic. My point, continually, has been that these concepts have nothing to do with me, and attacking me for presenting the concepts shows that the attacker lacks a rational, data-based defense.
I understand that this is a sensitive issue for many men, and I do my best to understand men where they are. I believe that the bonds between men are what make up the foundation of any society, and so I do my best to remain as sympathetic to the men who are taken in by feminism as the men who are able to acknowledge that they are victims of the Jewish-feminist agenda.
Nevertheless, it is the male feminists who are in the wrong, and who are harming others with their man-shaming agenda. Attack me all you want. It doesn’t matter. I care about my brothers, and sticking up for my brothers. We are all victims of feminism, whether we acknowledge it or not. All you have to do is look around you. In all likelihood, your own mother destroyed your life and the life of your father, for no explainable reason. Your friends have family members [who] have had their lives destroyed by women.
You are told that “somewhere out there” there are women who are different. But you keep looking, and you do not find them.

For the sake of the movement

It is very important to our personal lives that we understand women and their behavior. But our personal lives, individually, are irrelevant in the face of our agenda. And our agenda suffers very greatly if we do not take a realistic approach to the female issue. For one, if we allow women to assert influence on the movement, it will never go anywhere.
Perhaps even more importantly, we want this movement to expand, and we are not going to do that by being a movement of a bunch of losers who can’t get women. As such, it is important to me to teach men to be the kind of men who are successful with women, and the kind of man who fantasizes about women as princesses is not the kind of man who is successful with women.
The ironic thing about all of this is that while I am accused by the male feminists of “alienating women” and “limiting our movement to men only,” I am in fact doing the opposite of this. The only women who are ever going to truly feel adamantly about right-wing politics are women who do so because they have a boyfriend or a husband who is involved in the movement.
Women do not have moral convictions and do not have ideologies. These are masculine concepts. All philosophers understood this fact (literally, all of them, so there is no need to cite an individual philosopher here).
Given that women do not naturally possess their own beliefs, they adopt the beliefs of who they view as their natural physical protector. So in our modern situation, women adopt the beliefs of the state. The way we will get women “into the movement” is by getting girlfriends for the men already in the movement. Not by trying to cater an ideological message to women.
Single women who get involved in the movement do it either to find a man, or for attention whoring/funding purposes (in certain cases, they may also find it fashionable). Not because they were moved by a logical or ideological argument. As the woman exists for the sole purpose of producing children, her entire orientation is geared towards gathering resources and/or acquiring a man/men who will gather resources for her.
As such, the way to get women involved in the movement is very simple: Create a movement of men who are desirable to women. The female partners of those men will then, by default, be involved in the movement.
Male feminists are inhibiting our ability to do this, by attempting to shame men who take on a character that is attractive to women. Men who “respect women” are not attractive to women. They are viewed as weak and pathetic. That is not the kind of movement we want.

You cannot compare this to leftism

One cannot say “we have to follow the pattern of the leftists and recruit single women into our movement ” because the concepts are totally different. Women are naturally drawn to leftism, for innumerable reasons. In part, it is because they are natural communists.
One should read the ancient Greek play Assemblywomen by Aristophanes, about women taking over the government (or at least the Wikipedia synopsis of it). In 391 BC, this man was able to predict that women, if given the chance create a government, would institute communism. This is because women do not have the ability to gather their own resources, so they prefer that they are distributed based on “equality” rather than merit.
In the play, the women also dissolve the family, and require that the most attractive men be forced to have sex with all of the women in the city, so that unattractive women are also able to have a chance to mate with attractive men. It has always been understood that the sexuality of women is deranged by any male, moral standard.
Modern leftism is also satisfying the sexual desires of women by importing men whom they find sexually desirable. They manipulate weak, beta males (the type of males who are drawn to leftism to begin with) into helping them import brown people who they view as sexually dominant.

 

Blaming Jews for the behavior of women isn’t helping anything

There is a saying: “the only thing worse than a white knight is a white knight who blames Jews for the behavior of women.”
This is accurate. Of course, Jews should be blamed for the liberation of women. It was, on the whole, their idea. However, the behavior of women is the behavior of women. As I mentioned above, men in the 4th century BC understood that women, if given the chance, would do exactly what they are doing now.
If Jews released thousands of tigers out onto the streets of New York City, and they started mauling people, you would say “Jews are responsible for the fact that these tigers are mauling people on the street,” but you would not say “Jews are responsible for the fact that tigers are natural predators.” Claiming that Jews are responsible for the behavior of modern women simply confuses the issue.
Jews are responsible for creating a culture in which the worst, primitive instincts of women are celebrated as virtue, and the natural male desire to protect women is redirected into protecting her ability to indulge in these destructive, primitive behavior patterns.

Man-Up

It is time to act like men, and to take responsibility for the situation we are in, which includes taking responsibility for our women. Claiming that women are not a problem is simply a way of passing off male responsibility.
Our movement needs to be sexy. We want men to look at us, and say “that’s something I want to be a part of.” A huge part of that is being something that is attractive to women. And women are not attracted to men who “respect women.”
Call out the man-shamers for what they are: subversives who are harming this movement in order to fulfill a sad emotional need to believe in the virtue of women.

https://chechar.wordpress.com/