From the underlying rapid changes sweeping through France then either she has genuinely moved to the centre in which her policies now change and become diluted which is bad, or she turns out to be a lying cunt bag and becomes elected which is simply business as usual.
Either way this feels like the last role of the dice. She polled something like 5 percent of the French Muslim vote with an 80 percent voter turnout. The numbers of Muslims is rapidly increasing, many so called leftists will piss and shit blood before they ever support stopping this madness, so the Islamic centric policies will increase and become more transparent in their implementation.
Let's not overlook that "Islamaphobia" is islamisation through the back door. Perhaps I am being too pessimistic but along with accounts I have heard from other Europeans who have recently been to the likes of Paris, this really feels like the last chance.
So the left rejoice as the global cabal continue their relentless drive to dissolve identity, culture, borders and sovereignty.
It's been a constant theme really ....now given the margin of victory we can say that France is well and truly fucked. There are millions of Muslims who aren't even counted as being Muslim simply "French" due to when they immigrated.
So before someone on here gets triggered Le Pen got 5 percent of the Muslim vote, fast forward 5 years and the demographic changes will be that much greater.
Ultimately the left feel like they won but one day when it's too late they will realise they have been utterly played.
So that's Sweden gone, Germany gone,
Eastern Europe are basically the only ones left standing now
Even the neoliberals at the
Wall St. Journal can see big trouble
ahead for Mr. "Plastique" Macron.
Meet Emmanuel Macron, the French Tony Blair
A British warning to French voters.
By Robert Colvile
May 7, 2017 3:42 p.m. ET wsj.com
Barack Obama’s message to French voters in the run-up to Sunday’s election was less an endorsement than an anointment. Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron, he said, embodies “the values that we care so much about.”
On Mr. Macron’s Twitter page, the accompanying slogan made the parallel explicit: “L’espoir est en marche,” roughly translated to “Hope is on the move.”
Young, handsome, liberal, popular—it’s easy to understand the comparison. But the truth is that the new French president isn’t the new Barack Obama. He’s the new Tony Blair.
Like the former British Prime Minister, Mr. Macron emerged from a traditional left-wing party that prizes ideology above electability. Like Mr. Blair, he argues that old, left-right political divisions are outdated. Like Mr. Blair, he promises a novel combination of market economics and progressive values. And like Mr. Blair, he is startlingly vague about how it will actually work.
There are, of course, differences. Mr. Blair promised not to raise taxes. Mr. Macron says he will cut them and trim spending too. While Mr. Blair rebranded his party as “New Labour,” he never had the arrogance to set up a new one using his own initials.
But New Labour was, like Mr. Macron’s En Marche!, less a political party than a cult of personality. Watching Mr. Macron on the campaign trail is reminiscent of a 1997 election advertisement showing the young Labour leader treated like a boy-band star, feted by adoring fans as he makes his way to the polling booth.
The problem is that, having seen this movie before, we British also know how it ends.
Last year polling company YouGov asked Britain’s voters to rate their former leader. They didn’t merely dislike him: They despised him.
Only 2% viewed him “very favorably,” and 51% per viewed him “very unfavorably.” That trend held across every demographic: age, gender, nationality and political affiliation.
Part of this is the legacy of the Iraq war. But what really curdled public opinion was a sense that we’d been had. Mr. Blair promised a better Britain. Instead he used the proceeds of a banking-driven boom to lavish billions on unreformed public services, leaving the country in a woeful position when the 2008 financial crisis hit.
And Mr. Blair enjoyed advantages that Mr. Macron will not. The Conservatives left him an economy that was purring like a Rolls-Royce . He had a colossal majority in the House of Commons. The only real obstacle was his own Chancellor, Gordon Brown, who spent years blocking Mr. Blair’s reform agenda out of a sense of thwarted entitlement.
Mr. Macron, by contrast, promises to try Blairism in a country that never had Thatcherism. France’s public spending sits at 57% of GDP. Youth unemployment is 24%. The economy creates good jobs, but nowhere near enough of them. Reform efforts, including a 2008 commission set up by Nicolas Sarkozy, on which France’s new president served, have yielded staggeringly little. Mr. Macron’s deregulation efforts under the Hollande government largely failed too.
Even when his personal star started to wane, Mr. Blair could still rely on his party’s institutional strength. En Marche! has no such base, meaning that barring an extraordinary upset in June’s parliamentary elections, Mr. Macron will be reliant on a cobbled-together coalition.
Messrs. Blair and Macron are also both good cosmopolitan liberals, staunchly supportive of immigration and European integration. Millions disagree. Mr. Blair governed in good times, but even then his opening of British borders to Eastern European workers stirred up enormous resentment and anxiety.
Mr. Macron takes power when concerns about immigration are entwined with anxiety about security, Islamist terrorism and Syrian refugees. Yet he promises to double down on Mr. Blair’s approach: more Europe, more globalization, more openness.
If he can deliver growth, it won’t matter that Mr. Macron has nothing to say to French supporters of the National Front’s Marine Le Pen, who blame the euro, migrants or globalization for their troubles. But if he cannot, Mr. Macron’s smiles and promises will soon seem as false as Mr. Blair’s.
The new president may turn out to be the savior of France—the man who finally persuades that prickly country to love, or at least tolerate, the market. But his promises, from this side of the Channel, look wearily familiar: all the gain of reform, with none of the pain.
President Emmanuel Macron: Reversing
Five Decades of Working-Class Power
05.21.2017 :: Analysis
Whatever has been written about President Emmanuel Macron by the
yellow or the respectable press has been mere trivia or total falsehood.
Media lies have a purpose that goes beyond Macron’s election.
Throughout Europe and North America, bankers and manufacturers,
NATO, militarists and EU oligarchs, media moguls and verbal assassins,
academics and journalists, all characterized the election victory of
Macron as a ‘defeat of fascism’ and the ‘triumph of the French people’.
Macron and ‘What People’?
First of all, Macron received only 46% of the actual vote. Over 54% of eligible French voters either abstained, spoiled their ballots or voted for Marine Le Pen, the nationalist populist. In other words, 26 million voters rejected or ignored Macron’s candidacy versus 20.6 million voters who endorsed him. This was despite an unremitting push for Macron from the entire French and European mass media, all of the major political parties and the vast majority of academics, journalists, publishers, undertakers and doormen.
In a word: Emmanuel Macron is a minority President, unpopular to most of the French electorate.
There are some very sound political and socio-economic reasons why Macron’s candidacy would be rejected by most of the French people, while receiving full support from the ruling class.
Secondly, there was a phony image of Macron as the ‘novice, untainted by old-line corrupt politics’. The financial and business press busily painted an image of the virgin Manny Macron bravely prepared to introduce ’sweeping reforms’ and rescue France - a sort of banker-Joan of Arc against the veteran ‘fascist’ Marine Le Pen and her ‘deplorable’ supporters.
Macron’s financial colleagues encouraged him to accept the post of Economic Minister under the decrepit regime of President Francois Hollande. Banker Macron helped the ‘Socialist’ President Hollande shed any of his party’s pro-labor pretensions and embrace a radical anti-worker agenda. As Economic Minister Macron implemented a 40 billion euro tax cut for businesses and proposed far-right legislation designed to weaken workers collective bargaining rights.
The Hollande-Macron proposals faced massive opposition in the streets and parliament. With the government’s popular support falling to the single digits, the anti-labor legislation was withdrawn or diluted …temporarily. This experience inspired Macron to re-invent (or re-virginized) himself: >From hard-assed rightwing hack, he emerged the novice politico claiming to be ‘neither right nor left’.
The totally discredited ‘Socialist’ Hollande, following the example of France’s financial elite, supported presidential candidate Macron. Of course, whenever Macron spoke of representing ‘all France’, he meant ‘all’ bankers, manufacturers and rentier oligarchs - the entire capitalist sector.
In the first round of presidential voting, Macron’s candidacy divided the elites: Bankers were split between Macron and Fillon, while many social democrats, trade union officials and ‘identitarian’-single issue sectarians would end up voting Macron.
Macron won by default: Fillon, his far right bourgeois rival was snared in a political- swindle involving ‘family’ and his finicky supporters switched to Macron. The Socialists defected from their discredited Hollande to the ‘reconstructed choirboy’ Macron. Meanwhile, the ‘left’ had rediscovered ‘anti-fascism’: They opposed the national-populist Le Pen and slithered under the bankers’ backdoor to vote for Macron.
Almost one-third of French electorate abstained or showed their contempt by spoiling their ballots.
Throughout the election theatrics, the media breathlessly reported every frivolous ‘news’ item to polish the halo of their ‘novice’ Macron. They swooned over the ‘novelty’ of Macron’s teen age ‘love affair’ and subsequent marriage to his former schoolteacher. The media played-up the charmingly ‘amateurish’ nature of his campaign staff, which included upwardly mobile professionals, downwardly mobile social democrat politicos and ‘off the street’ volunteers. The mass media downplayed one critical aspect: Macro’s historic ties to the big bankers!
Behind the carefully crafted image of a ‘political outsider’, the steely eyed Macron was never influenced by the swooning media propaganda: He remained deeply committed to reversing fifty years of working class advances in France in favor of the financial class.
Macron’s Power Grab : En Marche to Defeat the Working Class
Immediately upon his election, Macron presented his first major piece of legislation: The ‘liberalization’ (reversal) of France’s progressive and socially protective labor laws.
President Macron promised to eliminate industry-wide labor-capital negotiations, in favor of factory-by-factory negotiations. Undermining industry-wide collective power means that each monopoly or conglomerate can dominate and isolate workers in their work place. Macron envisions a complete shift of power into the hands of capital in order to slash wages, increase work hours and reduce regulations on workplace safety and worker health. The proposed anti-labor laws represent a return of capitalist power to the golden age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries - precisely why the financial elite anointed Macron as ‘President of all France’.
Even more important, by destroying a unified, labor movement and the power of workers’ solidarity, Macron will be free to radically restructure the entire socio-economic system in favor of capital!
Concentrating all power and profits in the hands of the capitalist class, Macron’s legislative agenda will free him to fire over 150,000 public employees, drastically reduce public spending and investment and privatize critical public financial, energy and industrial sectors.
Macron will shift the balance of power further away from labor in order to increase profits, reduce middle and working class social, health and educational services and to decrease corporate taxes from 33.3% to 25%.
Macron plan will strengthen the role of the French financial elite within the European Union’s oligarchical structure and allow the bankers to impose harsh ‘austerity’ policies throughout Europe.
In the sphere of foreign and military affairs, Macron fervently supports NATO. His regime will back the aggressive US military policies toward Russia and the Middle East - especially the violent breakup of Syria.
President Macron’s reactionary, ‘liberalizing’ agenda will require his party and allies to gain a majority in next month’s parliamentary elections (June 2017). His strategy will consist of ‘diversity in appearance and hard, single-minded reactionary policies in content’.
The ‘diverse’ groups and individuals, allied with Macron, are largely composed of fragmented collections of opportunists and discredited politicos mainly in search of office. Under Macron, the parliament will include everything from old-line rightwing social democrats, as well as single-issue environment and gender opportunists, allied with conservatives looking for a chance to finally savage France’s labor laws.
If successful in the coming elections, Macron’s parliament will legitimize the policies of his far right Prime Minister and Cabinet. If Macron fails to secure an outright majority, he is sure to patch together a coalition with veteran right-wing politicos, which, of course, will be ‘balanced’ with 50% women. Macron’s coalition of dinosaurs and ‘women’ will eagerly smash the rights and living standards of all workers - regardless of gender!
Macron hopes to win sufficient parliamentary votes to negotiate alliances with the traditional conservative parties and the rump of the Socialist Party to consolidate the rule of the Troika: the bankers, the EU and NATO.
President Macron: By the Ballot or the Bullet
There is no doubt that the French working class, the salaried public and private employees, the unemployed youth, students and public health workers will take to the streets, with the backing of 60% or more of the public, including the 33% who voted for Marine Le Pen.
Strikes, general and partial, of long and short duration, will confront the Macron regime and its far right, self-styled ‘transformative’ agenda.
Rothschild’s errand boy, Manny Macron cannot mobilize supporters in the streets and will have to rely on the police. Many parliamentary backers are fearful of both the problem (strikes) and the solution (police repression).
The Corporate Elite: President Macron Adopts Napoleonic Decrees
In 2016 when Macron was the Economic Minister in the President Francois Hollande’s regime, he introduced a new regressive labor policy dubbed the ‘El Khomri’ law (named after the reactionary Labor Minister Myriam El Khormi). This led to massive street demonstrations forcing Hollande to withdraw the legislation. Now as President, Macron proposes a far more rigid and destructive labor law, which his corporate colleagues insist he implement by the ‘ballot’ if possible or the ‘billy club’ if necessary. In other words, if he cannot win the support of the National Assembly, he will implement the labor law by presidential decree.
The President of MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France), the employers’ federation, Pierre Gattaz, has demanded immediate implementation of policies to crush labor. Macron will outlaw labor protests via presidential decree and cut parliamentary debate in order to transform the elite’s ‘El Dorado’ of all (labor) reforms (sic) into reality.
The entire leadership of the capitalist class and financial press backs Macron’s bid to govern by decree as a ‘good idea in the circumstances’, (Financial Times, 5/10/17, pg. 2). Macron’s ‘Napoleonic’ pretentions will inevitably deepen class polarization and strengthen ties between the militant trade unions and Le Pen’s industrial working class supporters.
We face an approaching time of open and declared class war in France.
Reality has quickly cut through the lies about the origin of Emmanuel Macron’s electoral victory. Brutal police truncheons, wielded in defense of Macron’s election triumph, will further reveal the real faces of French ‘fascism’ better than any editorial by the French ‘left’. The fascists are not to be found among Le Pen’s working class voters!
The fools within the French academia, who backed the Rothschild candidate in the name of ‘fighting fascism at all cost’, will soon find themselves wandering among the workers’ street barricade, dodging the clouds of teargas, on the way to their cafes and computers.
The ruling class chose Macron because they know he will not back down in the face of street demonstrations or even a general strike!
The intellectuals who backed Macron as ‘the lesser evil’ are now discovering that he is the greater evil. They are not too late to be . . . irrelevant.
Macron’s grandiose vision is to introduce his hyper-capitalist ideology throughout Europe and beyond. He proposes to transform the EU into a ‘competitive capitalist paradise under French leadership’.
Given the historic role of the French worker, it is more likely that Macron will not succeed in implementing his ‘labor reforms’. His decrees will surely provoke powerful resistance from the streets and the public institutions. When he falters, his parliamentary supporters will fracture into little warring clans. Factory owners will bemoan the workers who occupy their plants and bankers will complain that the farmers’ tractors are blocking the roads to their country villas.
The Germans and British elite will urge their ‘little Napoleon’ to hold firm, for fear the ‘French contagion’ might spread to their somnolent workers.
On the one hand, Macron’s successful decree can open the way for a transformation of capital-labor relations into a modern 21st century corporate state.
On the other, a successful general strike can open the door to a Europe-wide revolt. Macron’s enigmatic (and meaningless) slogan ‘neither right nor left’ is now exposed: He is the “Bonaparte of the Bourse”!
_________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
CORBYN SET FOR VICTORY AS
YESTERDAY'S WOMAN FALTERS
by Fintan Dunne | 26 May 2017 | 3:00 BST
When the snap election came, there wasn't a chance that Jeremy Corbyn could win. Or so said media elites and chattering classes.
But that was before the cruel downsides of a Tory victory became clearer, and before the Manchester Arena attack.
The British people have a stoic durability to their character. However that stoicism does not extend to them sacrificing their young children on the altar of the Elite's warmongering. At least in World War II, many could send the young and innocent away from the cities to sequester them in relative safety, while parents faced the horrors of gory combat. But not in the Blairite Britain inherited by Theresa May.
There has been 48 hours of quiet, stunned national reflection. It culminated spontaneously on Thursday morning as a grieving Manchester crowd symbolically disavowed hatred to sing a chorus from the Oasis classic 'Don't Look Back in Anger'.
The people of Britain are not prepared to spill the blood of their children. If anger is one of the energies fueling the reciprocal violence which led to this grotesque outcome, then Britain is ready now to cast anger aside. It is also ready now to cast aside the political class which produced this tragic result.
Jeremy Corbyn knows it. Like many in politics and media, he senses that mood.
On Friday, he will will tell a London audience that the 'War on Terror' is an oxymoron, a failed contradiction. To defeat terror, you wage peace and not war. He will say that Britain's wars have fostered terror, and that Government foreign policy must reduce -not increase- the threat to the nation.
In the speech, which is already in the media's hands, he will also say: “Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home... We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism."
His words will come as a new poll shows that the Conservative lead over Corbyn’s Labour has been cut to a mere five points. The mid-week poll puts the Tories on 43 per cent but shows Labour edging much closer on just 38 per cent. Corbyn's personal rating has also narrowed the gap.
Theresa May will be reenacting Thatcher while religiously reiterating the tired security mantras which have dominated the last 15 years. Meanwhile Corbyn will outline a far more savvy and modern vision which tackles the prescient, sickening reality of the scenes in Manchester.
Corbyn will say: "I want the solidarity, humanity and compassion that we have seen on the streets of Manchester this week to be the values that guide our government."
The media will meltdown. The chattering classes will chatter all the more. But yesterday's woman is now set to lose out to a post-election coalition led by today's man for tomorrow's problems.
It took less than 24hrs for Theresa May to run for cover.
Today she dialed security threat level back a notch.
She said: "The public should be clear about what this means
- a threat level of severe means an attack is highly likely.
The country should remain vigilant."
BFN readers should be clear about what this means - the threat to May
from a continued focus on the calamity of Libya, means defeat gets real:
Theresa May, as home secretary, sat through 55 national security council meetings
on Libya between March and November 2011.... It is now reported that
MI5 was facilitating the travel of non-jihadi British Libyans to fight in Tripoli.
The minister responsible for that decision would have been May. Did she
ask about the impact of the Libyan fighting on the terror threat here?
That would be something the newspapers, if they did their job, would
be shouting at her today, instead of hurling insults at Jeremy Corbyn.
The Manchester massacre should be a wake-up call. This is a government
of amateurs; Fox didn’t bother to ask about the terror implications when
we bombed Libya; May lost 19,000 police in the face of reasoned warnings.
Unfortunately the enemy we are fighting are professionals.
May's mix of corruption, spies and incompetence can be political death:
Jeremy Corbyn is perfectly right to relate this week’s Manchester terrorist atrocity to British foreign policy in the Middle East. Whenever Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron struggled to explain why British blood and finance had to go on toppling regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, they were explicit: it was “to prevent terrorism in the streets of Britain”. The reason was given over and over again: to suppress militant Islam.
When that policy clearly leads to an increase in Islamist terrorism, we are entitled to agree with Corbyn that it has “simply failed”. Regimes were indeed toppled. Tens of thousands died, many of them civilians every bit as innocent as Manchester’s victims. Terrorism has not stopped.
May is now on incredibly thin ice. For two reasons. One is this:
“I want to make something clear to Jeremy Corbyn and to you:
there can never be an excuse for terrorism, there can be no
excuse for what happened in Manchester.”
But it happened on her watch and is rooted in her party's policies.
The danger is that the "no excuse" logic could rebound on herself.
That's reason two: a terror attack before voting and May is toast.
Neil lobbed Corbyn a gentle loosener to start with by sounding incredulous that the Labour leader was making a link between terrorism and British foreign policy.
Corbyn couldn’t believe his luck and used the opportunity to point out that he wasn’t alone in thinking this. Boris Johnson, two heads of MI5 and the foreign affairs select committee had come to pretty much the same conclusion. Who was he to disagree with such collective wisdom?
But let's finish with the big story I mentioned in passing earlier:
'Sorted' by MI5:
How UK government sent British-Libyans to fight Gaddafi
Fighters say government operated 'open door' policy allowing them to
join rebels, as authorities investigate background of Manchester bomber
Amandla Thomas-Johnson and Simon Hooper Thursday 25 May 2017 07:20
The British government operated an "open door" policy that allowed Libyan exiles and British-Libyan citizens to join the 2011 uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi even though some had been subject to counter-terrorism control orders, Middle East Eye can reveal.
Several former rebel fighters now back in the UK told MEE that they had been able to travel to Libya with "no questions asked" as authorities continued to investigate the background of a British-Libyan suicide bomber who killed 22 people in Monday's attack in Manchester.
Sources spoken to by MEE suggest that the government facilitated the travel of Libyan exiles and British-Libyan residents and citizens keen to fight against Gaddafi including some who it deemed to pose a potential security threat.
'No questions asked'
One British citizen with a Libyan background who was placed on a control order – effectively house arrest – because of fears that he would join militant groups in Iraq said he was "shocked" that he was able to travel to Libya in 2011 shortly after his control order was lifted.
"I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said the source, who wished to remain anonymous.
He said he had met several other British-Libyans in London who also had control orders lifted in 2011 as the war against Gaddafi intensified, with the UK, France and the US carrying out air strikes and deploying special forces soldiers in support of the rebels.
"They didn't have passports, they were looking for fakes or a way to smuggle themselves across," said the source.
But within days of their control orders being lifted, British authorities returned their passports, he said.....
Belal Younis, another British citizen who went to Libya, described how he was stopped under 'Schedule 7' counter-terrorism powers on his return to the UK after a visit to the country in early 2011. Schedule 7 allows police and immigration officials to detain and question any person passing through border controls at ports and airports to determine whether they are involved in terrorism.
He said he was subsequently asked by an intelligence officer from MI5, the UK's domestic security agency: "Are you willing to go into battle?"
Travel 'sorted' by MI5
As he was travelling back to Libya in May 2011 he was approached by two counter-terrorism police officers in the departure lounge who told him that if he was going to fight he would be committing a crime.
But after providing them with the name and phone number of the MI5 officer he had spoken to previously, and following a quick phone call to him, he was waved through.
As he waited to board the plane, he said the same MI5 officer called him to tell him that he had "sorted it out".
"The government didn't put any obstacles in the way of people going to Libya," he told MEE.
"The vast majority of UK guys were in their late twenties. There were some 18 and 19. The majority who went from here were from Manchester."
'Elite SAS training'
One of the British-Libyans spoken to by MEE described how he had carried out "PR work" for the rebels in the months before Gaddafi was overthrown and eventually killed in October 2011.
He said he was employed to edit videos showing Libyan rebels being trained by former British SAS and Irish special forces mercenaries in Benghazi, the eastern city from where the uprising against Gaddafi was launched.
"They weren't cheap videos with Arabic nasheeds [songs], they were slick, professional glossy films which we were showing Qataris and Emiratis to support troops who were getting elite SAS training."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum