Newly elected French President, Emmanuel Macron is in office, even despite having stated in a bombshell admission that he believes “there is no such thing as French culture”.
It shows France as a country distancing itself from being a country – a definable nation state replete with its own values and traditions, France as a self-governing state is drifting into obsolescence, all by consent, albeit manufactured.
Macron does not serve the nation state, he serves Globalism, and to bring Globalism into reality, distinct cultures must be wiped away.
Macron has showed himself disinterested in French identity as a central, progressive force for constitutional Western values.
Instead, he has shown that he gives preferential treatment to ‘diversity’ and the multiculturalism that even Angela Merkel stated was not working.
The Globalist’s have absolutely no intention of ‘integration’ they have just opened the borders to a vastly incompatible group of people to come and live separate from Westerners, and eventually replace them through sheer numbers, such nonintellectual, politically apathetic people will be easy to control, and will work for much, much less – They will also allow trans-nationalism to take place unhindered, voting in socialist candidates that offer ‘free stuff’
I believe that the staging of various terrorist attacks is used to keep Westerners in fear of trying to change Islamic communities. It is used to separate us, keep Westerners blind and secluded from Islamic cultures. Media is then used to constantly reassure us that these people are innocent refugees, the paradigm is fear/acceptance, the result is a paralysis, a state of confusion that cannot act, the Islamic communities are left unintegrated, accepted, but subconsciously feared simultaneously.
Eventually, Islam will have a foothold so strong and be so populous in Western nations, it will not be challenged, and will easily shape the politics and society enough to irreversibly change Western society as a whole — to a Globalist-Marxist society.
This returns us to the French election. Macron has chosen to ignore the past few years of upheaval with the migrant crisis, the rape chaos in Sweden, the rapes in Germany, the numerous horrific terrorist attacks on French soil — and pursue the narrative that all cultures are ‘equal’ and ‘compatible’ with Western values. That is a dangerous illusion to hold, but Macron and his higher-ups are perfectly aware of this. They are using this knowledge to slowly remove a conservative culture that actually has national identity; Western culture.
Islamic people have a much weaker national identity, and are easier to control as a result; they are being allowed into Europe in their masses on purpose, it is cultural engineering at play, they are a socially ‘protected’ group because they are a group that have the correct thoughts, they must not be integrated at all costs.
But Macron insists on this multicultural narrative, branding anyone who dare question the agenda, “hateful” or “fascist”.
The thing is, the West is not even choosing diversity, it is choosing to erase itself, and replace Western identity with the uncivilised cultures of the mid-east and north Africa. Hence, “White guilt”
Macron is disconnected from the common people. He lives in extreme wealth and would not know a lower-class neighbourhood if he saw one. These are the communities that have been struck hardest by the migrant crisis; and incidentally, were the demographic that most voted for French nationalist, Marine Le Pen, those furthest from the front lines cannot possibly understand the true situation.
Western values will be suppressed and dwindle, while the untouched, unintegrated mid-east culture will thrive seperated; especially with such a prolific birth rate and hardline values compared to the low Western birthrate. Western values will be gone, or mortally weakened within a few decades.
Merkel Admits Multiculturalism Doesn’t Work.
Merkel has said in recent years the so-called “multikulti” concept – where people would “live side-by-side” happily – did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate – including learning German. Despite this, Merkel has done nothing to stem the tide, she perpetuates the crisis. The hidden political hand grips Merkel tightly, she is being forced to go against her personal convictions.
“And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.” — Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, 2010
Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether the European people choose to go along with this is, naturally, another matter. When I say that Europe is in the process of killing itself, I do not mean that the burden of European Commission regulation has become overbearing or that the European Convention on Human Rights has not done enough to satisfy the demands of a particular community.
I mean that the civilisation we know as Europe is in the process of committing suicide and that neither Britain nor any other western European country can avoid that fate, because we all appear to suffer from the same symptoms and maladies.
As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.
Europe today has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument. Those in power seem persuaded that it would not matter if the people and culture of Europe were lost to the world.
There is no single cause of the present sickness. The culture produced by the tributaries of Judaeo-Christian culture, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the discoveries of the Enlightenment has not been levelled by nothing. But the final act has come about because of two simultaneous concatenations — sets of linked events — from which it is now all but impossible to recover.
The first is the mass movement of peoples into Europe. In all western European countries this process began after the Second World War due to labour shortages. Soon Europe got hooked on the migration and could not stop the flow even if it had wanted to.
The result was that what had been Europe — the home of the European peoples — gradually became a home for the entire world. The places that had been European gradually became somewhere else.
All the time Europeans found ways to pretend this influx could work. By pretending, for instance, that such immigration was normal. Or that if integration did not happen with the first generation then it might happen with their children, grandchildren or another generation yet to come. Or that it didn’t matter whether people integrated or not.
All the time we waved away the greater likelihood that it just wouldn’t work. This is a conclusion that the migration crisis of recent years has simply accelerated.
Which brings me to the second concatenation. For even the mass movement of millions of people into Europe would not sound such a final note for the continent were it not for the fact that (coincidentally or otherwise) at the same time Europe lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy.
More than any other continent or culture in the world today, Europe is deeply weighed down with guilt for its past. Alongside this outgoing version of self-distrust runs a more introverted version of the same guilt. For there is also the problem in Europe of an existential tiredness and a feeling that perhaps for Europe the story has run out and a new story must be allowed to begin.
Mass immigration — the replacement of large parts of the European populations by other people — is one way in which this new story has been imagined: a change, we seemed to think, was as good as a rest. Such existential civilisational tiredness is not a uniquely modern European phenomenon, but the fact that a society should feel like it has run out of steam at precisely the moment when a new society has begun to move in cannot help but lead to vast, epochal changes.
Had it been possible to discuss these matters, some solution might have been possible. Looking back, it is remarkable how restricted we made our discussion, even while we opened our home to the world.
A thousand years ago the peoples of Genoa and Florence were not as intermingled as they now are, but today they are all recognisably Italian, and tribal differences have tended to lessen rather than grow with time.
The current thinking appears to be that at some stage in the years ahead the peoples of Eritrea and Afghanistan too will be intermingled within Europe as the Genoans and Florentines are now melded into Italy. The skin colour of individuals from Eritrea and Afghanistan may be different, their ethnic origins may be further afield, but Europe will still be Europe and its people will continue to mingle in the spirit of Voltaire and St Paul, Dante, Goethe and Bach.
As with so many popular delusions, there is something in this. The nature of Europe has always shifted and — as trading cities such as Venice show — has included a grand and uncommon receptiveness to foreign ideas and influence. From the ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, the peoples of Europe sent out ships to scour the world and report back on what they found. Rarely, if ever, did the rest of the world return their curiosity in kind, but nevertheless the ships went out and returned with tales and discoveries that melded into the air of Europe. The receptivity was prodigious: it was not, however, boundless.
The question of where the boundaries of the culture lay is endlessly argued over by anthropologists and cannot be solved. But there were boundaries. Europe was never, for instance, a continent of Islam. Yet the awareness that our culture is constantly, subtly changing has deep European roots. We know that the Greeks today are not the same people as the ancient Greeks. We know that the English are not the same today as they were a millennium ago, nor the French the French. And yet they are recognisably Greek, English and French and all are European.
In these and other identities we recognise a degree of cultural succession: a tradition that remains with certain qualities (positive as well as negative), customs and behaviours. We recognise the great movements of the Normans, Franks and Gauls brought about great changes. And we know from history that some movements affect a culture relatively little in the long term, whereas others can change it irrevocably.
Religion has retreated in Europe, replaced by ‘human rights’
The problem comes not with an acceptance of change, but with the knowledge that when those changes come too fast or are too different we become something else, including something we may never have wanted to be.
At the same time we are confused over how this is meant to work. While generally agreeing that it is possible for an individual to absorb a particular culture (given the right degree of enthusiasm both from the individual and the culture) whatever their skin colour, we know that we Europeans cannot become whatever we like. We cannot become Indian or Chinese, for instance. And yet we are expected to believe that anyone in the world can move to Europe and become European.
If being “European” is not about race, then it is even more imperative that it is about “values”. This is what makes the question “What are European values?” so important. Yet this is another debate about which we are wholly confused.
Are we, for instance, Christian? In the 2000s this debate had a focal point in the row over the wording of the new EU constitution and the absence of any mention of the continent’s Christian heritage. The debate not only divided Europe geographically and politically, it also pointed to a glaring aspiration.
For religion had not only retreated in western Europe. In its wake there arose a desire to demonstrate that in the 21st century Europe had a self-supporting structure of rights, laws and institutions that could exist even without the source that had arguably given them life.
In the place of religion came the ever-inflating language of “human rights” (itself a concept of Christian origin). We left unresolved the question of whether or not our acquired rights were reliant on beliefs that the continent had ceased to hold, or whether they existed of their own accord. This was, at the very least, an extremely big question to have left unresolved while vast new populations were being expected to “integrate”.
An equally significant question erupted at the time around the position and purpose of the nation state. From the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 up to the late 20th century the nation state in Europe had generally been regarded not only as the best guarantor of constitutional order and liberal rights but the ultimate guarantor of peace.
Yet this certainty also eroded. European figures such as Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany in 1996 insisted that “The nation state . . . cannot solve the great problems of the 21st century.” Disintegration of the nation states of Europe into one large integrated political union was so important, Kohl insisted, that it was in fact “a question of war and peace in the 21st century”.
Others disagreed, and 20 years later just over half of British people who voted in the EU referendum demonstrated that they were unpersuaded by Kohl’s argument. But, once again, whatever one’s views on the matter, this was a huge question to leave unresolved at a time of vast population change.
While unsure of ourselves at home, we made final efforts at extending our values abroad. Yet whenever our governments and armies got involved in anything in the name of these “human rights” — Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 — we seemed to make things worse and ended up in the wrong. When the Syrian civil war began, people cried for western nations to intervene in the name of the human rights that were undoubtedly being violated. But there was no appetite to protect such rights because whether or not we believed in them at home, we had certainly lost faith in an ability to advance them abroad.
At some stage it began to seem possible that what had been called “the last utopia” — the first universal system that divorced the rights of man from the say of gods or tyrants — might comprise a final failed European aspiration. If that is indeed the case, then it leaves Europeans in the 21st century without any unifying idea capable of ordering the present or approaching the future.
Europe has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument
At any time the loss of all unifying stories about our past or ideas about what to do with our present or future would be a serious conundrum. But during a time of momentous societal change and upheaval the results are proving fatal. The world is coming into Europe at precisely the moment that Europe has lost sight of what it is. And while the movement of millions of people from other cultures into a strong and assertive culture might have worked, the movement of millions of people into a guilty, jaded and dying culture cannot.
Even now Europe’s leaders talk of an invigorated effort to incorporate the millions of new arrivals. These efforts too will fail. If Europe is going to become a home for the world, it must search for a definition of itself that is wide enough to encompass the world. This means that in the period before this aspiration collapses our values become so wide as to become meaninglessly shallow.
So whereas European identity in the past could be attributed to highly specific, not to mention philosophically and historically deep foundations (the rule of law, the ethics derived from the continent’s history and philosophy), today the ethics and beliefs of Europe — indeed the identity and ideology of Europe — have become about “respect”, “tolerance” and (most self-abnegating of all) “diversity”.
Such shallow self-definitions may get us through a few more years, but they have no chance at all of being able to call on the deeper loyalties that societies must be able to reach if they are going to survive for long.
This is just one reason why it is likely that our European culture, which has lasted all these centuries and shared with the world such heights of human achievement, will not survive.
As recent elections in Austria and the rise of Alternative for Germany seem to prove, while the likelihood of cultural erosion remains irresistible, the options for cultural defence continue to be unacceptable. Even after the tumultuous years they have just had, the French electorate go to the polls next weekend to choose between more of a disastrous status quo or a member of the Le Pen family.
And all the time the flow into Europe continues. Over the Easter weekend alone European naval vessels collected more than 8,000 African migrants from the seas around Italy and brought them into Europe. Such a flow — which used to be unusual — is now routine, apparently unstoppable and also endless.
In The World of Yesterday, published in 1942, the Austrian writer Stefan Zweig wrote that in the years leading up to the Second World War, “I felt that Europe, in its state of derangement, had passed its own death sentence.” Only his timing was out. It would take several more decades before that death sentence was carried out — by ourselves on ourselves.
The ‘En Marche!’ Presidential candidate, billed ‘outsider’ and centrist Emmanuel Macron, a thorough insider establishment figurehead with strong ties to Rothschild banking and the Bilderberg group, has emerged victorious in the second, final round of the French elections.
Marine Le Pen, the nationalist candidate representing the ‘Front National’, lost the vote with a strong 40% to Macron’s majority of 60%.
Le Pen’s eastern support proves not enough this time around.
However, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage has suggested that Le Pen is set for a 2022 victory as French nationalism is bound to be stoked enough by then, as a further five years under the boot of EU dominion will undoubtedly create an ever stronger appetite for nationalist politics.
One outlet stated before the outcome; “Europe signs its own death warrant”
“With the continent wrestling with mass immigration and losing faith in its traditions and beliefs, its civilisation faces collapse” — Douglas Murray, Sunday Times
Nigel Farage stated that:
“A giant deceit has been voted for today. Macron will be Juncker’s puppet.”
France sleepwalks into the abyss.
France has elected a man who has described Brexit as a “crime”; note that Brexit was a completely democratic vote of self-determination.
France has elected a man who calls people who choose to civilly vote for another candidate, “hateful” and “cowardly”.
France has elected a man who deems terrorism a ‘normal’ part of daily life.
France has elected a man endorsed by the Rothschilds and disastrous globalist political figures such as Obama, Hollande, and Juncker’s EU gang.
What does Macron really mean for France?
Macron has gone on record stating that terrorism is a ‘normal’ part of daily life. His open-doors policy approach will mean further Islamisation of France, leaving the doors wide open for further attacks to take place in an already deeply fractious & inflammatory nation.
Macron’s support for EU policies means further cultural Marxism will take place, pushing the already faded Western French identity further and further towards oblivion. This is compounded, as liberal stances continue to push ‘cultural equality’ as a social standard.
Macron’s allegiance to Rothschild & Bilderberger interests means globalism will be firmly on his agenda. His statement claiming his desire to ‘reform’ the EU is folly, and a platitude to snatch some right of centre voters at best, he is vested interest and will never abandon globalist plans to make the EU bloc-superstate a firm reality.
The Macron leaks, proven as legitimate by WikiLeaks, show Macron as a hedonist, tax evader working as a stooge to corporate interests. His sudden & unexpected appearance in politics to run as French President shows how Macron is not a self-made man, he has been catapulted onto the scene with the right backing at the right time to keep nationalism at bay following an extremely unpopular Hollande Presidency.
Macron has stated that “No religion is a problem in France today,” in a shocking demonstration of negligence towards the rise of radical Islamic fundamentalism that has claimed the lives of hundreds. He spouts a desire for secularism in government, but ignores the blatant threat of Islamic aggression in France.
Macron is a socialist, and socialism has historically never worked, wherever he implements socialism, France will wither and die. An example of poor socialist policies include his pledge to give each 18-year-old a £424 (£500) “culture pass” to spend on cinema visits, theatres and concert tickets.
Macron has virtue-signalled his way into power, his vague, centrist lovey-dovey image is a put-on to get into power. From the moment of his inauguration, Macron will backpedal everything and pursue a very different approach in political office.
Marine Le Pen does not appear to be giving up, she seems likely to rerun for election in 2022:
My dear Friends around the World. This battle is not over. Believe me. Stand with me for then next steps to liberate #France ! @MLP_officiel
Ultimately, the descent of western civilisation into ever-greater centralised EU federalism, a cesspool of cultural dilution and socialism will eventually prompt a nationalist movement in France — the question left to us is quite simply, when?
Following the recent, as yet unverified, leaks disclosed by an anonymous source known only as ‘EMLEAKS’ that was given to world-leading leaks platform, Wikileaks; the ‘En Marche!’ centrist candidate for the French Presidency faces an uphill battle against what he termed a ‘massive’ hacking attack in the rapidly closing hours before the round two deciding vote is cast.
“DON’T LOOK INTO THE MACRON LEAKS BECAUSE IT’LL MAKE YOU NOT WANT TO VOTE FOR HIM” — Reddit user
The 9 gigabyte-strong leak appears to provide damning evidence that the ex-Rothschild Banker, Globalist & Bilderberg attendant had engaged in duplicitous tax evasion. Macron’s team admitted that some of the leaks were true, but not all.
You won’t learn about the actual contents of the leak in the mainstream media. Instead, nearly 100% of the reporting is about the fact that Macron was hacked, his victimisation, and how it must be Russia working against the interests of Clinton and Obama.
Macron, 39, with wife, Brigitte Macron, 64.
The material has been subject to a major media super-injunction in France, in a coordinated effort by authorities warning the French media not to publish content from any of the hacked emails “to prevent the outcome of the vote being influenced.” This is backed up by threats of prosecution.
Democracy, however, should be based on informed truth on all accounts, this unapologetic censorship suggests political partisanship is afoot in another bout of self-appointed jurisdiction of what is determinable as “fake news” — and what is not.
Significant efforts are being made to keep the leaks out of the public domain.
Professionals and public alike have already poured over the materials, Macron’s signatures present in the documents have been verified as legitimate.
On Friday night, as news of what has been hashtagged as @MacronLeaks on twitter spread, Florian Philippot, deputy leader of the National Front, tweeted “Will Macronleaks teach us something that investigative journalism has deliberately kept silent?” In a tweeted response, Macron spokesman Sylvain Fort called Philippot’s tweet “vile”.
The Spearhead Journal 