Publié par Mylene Doublet-O'Kane le 23 juin 2016

ap_684794480276_custom-d28b29bf6f8fba50a9714cc0abd8ac3a0b082882-s900-c85

            France: No fury like a betrayed people

Once upon a time, there was a French candidate who believed he could be elected President thanks to a big lie. Actually, it wasn’t a big lie, but a huge one pretending France would command a renegotiation of the stability and growth pact first adopted by the European Council in June 1997, which had imposed austerity and drastic reforms way too far over the years, leaving some countries bled dry. The big liar’s name was François Hollande, and not only did he lie, but he also made a striking promise during a memorable presidential campaign speech pronounced in January 2012, a few months before the first round, declaring loud and clear : “My personal enemy is the world of finance. (…), a faceless monster who rules the world from the sidelines”. The orator had the mischievous eyes of an old alchemist well trained to the art of rhetoric. However, the jubilant crowd was unable to notice anything except the sumptuous anaphoric formula called “what it takes to govern France with highness” that ended up on those messianic words: “If you, the people of France, accept that my destiny serves our great nation, this will no longer be”. And believe it or not, millions of French hearts and simple-minds put their hopes into the following solemn oath: ” The change is for now”.

Those beautiful dreams that turn into horrific nightmares

Alas, as predictable as the res politica can be, barely seated on the throne, the new king simply forgot to keep his word, preferring rushing into the trap of a million guaranteed jobs offered by a shrewd and obsequious French CAC 40 trades unions’ big boss, Pierre Gattaz, and in the early 2014, Hollande finally felt free to publicly unveil his unconditional love for liberalism and entrepreneurs, announcing a €41 billion tax reduction over the next three remaining years granted to the French companies regardless of their respective sizes, specific concerns or tax situations. This is the moment when the workers, the civil servants, the country’s youth, the minorities, the unemployed and retired persons who had highly contributed to Hollande’s victory began to get angry at a liar who was foolish enough to believe the employers would play fair. Four years later, the unemployment rate has hardly decreased (currently 10% with a governmental prediction of 9.5 % in 2017), despite the combination of this miraculous governmental gift or external factors such as low interest rates on the markets, the fall of the oil barrel price and the ECB operated devaluation of the Euro.

Final act of an unforgivable betrayal

In February 2016, after France had tried to cope with two major Islamic terror attacks led in Paris in January and November 2015, President François Hollande decided a decisive reform of the employment Code that would give the employers the final word over the rules applicable within their own firms, instead of either relevant agreements signed between employees/employers trades unions in each business sector or when appropriate, parliamentary legislations, both currently valid nationwide. Many French workers believe such a power given back to employers would be comparable to the one they use to have in the XIXth century, and they fear the slow implementation of a modern form of sweating system through a massive social dumping. Whether considered necessary or not, this reform called “The El Khomri Bill” after the French Minister of Labour’s name, Myriam El Khomri, has strongly shocked the traditional left-wing political parties as well as 7 over 11 students and trades unions of employees who started episodic strikes and demonstrations all over the country from last March on.

Since then, the tug of war has been tough.

According to many polls, a huge majority (up to 75%) of the French citizen disagreed with the core of the proposed bill, and as the months were passing, no doubt the increasingly unpopular President needed a plan in a moment when more than 85% of the French people were positive they would not vote for him in 2017; an all-time record under the Vth Republic inaugurated by General Charles de Gaulle in 1958. In the Assemblée nationale (the house of commons), the bill had all the chances to fail, so before it was sent to the Senate, Manuel Valls, the chief of the executive used some kind of bullying constitutional article called the 49-3, in other words a presidential veto equivalent, although he and Hollande used to call it an anti-democratic method all through the years they were in the biggest opposition party (Parti socialiste). And as the Senate is mostly liberal, no doubt the bill will come back tougher to the house of Common for a final vote by the beginning of July, where another 49-3 is expected. However, this brutal attempt to pass a law regardless of the majority of both the people and the MP’s will, even if for opposite reasons (the right-wing MPs find no interest in adopting a governmental bill) has contributed to a tremendous escalation of tensions in last April and May. Hollande definitely needed a smart plan, but which one could it be? And why had the President been waiting for 4 years, before initiating this wage revolution that he knew it would coincide with the UEFA cup?

True, the world is evolving towards the digitization of the economy. True, the traditional working class is into a dying process. But individualization isn’t a French word. Although humanism is as old as Judaism, the French continue to believe the French revolution of the eighteen century has invented the Universal man and values such as fraternity or equality. And if you think it’s easy to stop them from being pathological dreamers, keep digging! It was more than obvious the people would not be ready to give them up. Sure, the monarch would play hard, but 70% of the population would play even harder. Then, what do we sort this situation out ? Let’s jump into Hollande’s shoes. 1- He was eager to honor its commitments towards Brussels. This bill had to pass. 2- There’s always a political reason hidden behind any cynical strategist, and the right moment was just after all his right-wing opponents had clearly exposed their liberal or ultra-liberal visions in the context of the opening of the new presidential campaign. Then, the deal was quite simple: “People, If you think my reform is horrific, have a look at what Alain Juppé, Nicolas Sarkozy, Bruno Lemaire ou François Fillon (right-wing “Les Républicains”) propose!”. In other words, Hollande thought he had trapped the leftist electorate.

However, the El Khomri bill continued to be as unpopular as ever, until the breaking point when tired of trying to persuade his electorate that France was in a better shape, Hollande found it particularly irresistible to leave heteroclite groups made of violent anarchists, antifascists or revolutionary movements repeatedly gather around pacific demonstrators processions, and he went as far as allowing these charming people to raid on cars, shop windows, cash machines and police forces. Since then, everybody knew there would be a major incident, and it occurred when these merry gangs broke several front windows of the Necker children hospital located in central Paris, on June 14th. From abroad, the story made an absolute buzz. How could have such shame happened in a civilized country placed under a state of emergency due to Islamic terror concerns? Where had the police forces been? Actually, what was the cynical plan behind the disaster? The answer is as simple as the presidential temptation of creating an international indignation and a suspicion over a possible confusion between the marchers and those gangs. For months, French Police Forces unions representatives had been denouncing the “unclear orders” repeatedly given by the Minister of the interior, Bernard Cazeneuve, who after the hospital damage was happily able to decide that if the trades unions wanted to organize a new demonstration, it could only be tolerated into a sit-in form in a square, for example “the place of La Nation” in the XIIth area of Paris, where many riots had occurred during the past few weeks. But could he be serious? What did that mean? Was it safe and wise to leave men, women and their children be surrounded by hordes of super violent armed folks? Could the President decently take such a risk? Could he be hoping for more casualties or a fatality in order to get rid of a legal right to demonstrate? Was the bill worth a civil war? Finally, soon after a ban of demonstration was issued, a compromise emerged. The march planned for the 23rd of June would be following a short path between La Bastille circus and the reservoir of the Arsenal ; roughly 1.6 km back and forth.

So dear tourists, here’s the chaotic situation in Paris these days, when the hooliganism phenomenon during the European football cup has heightened the tensions to an international scale. Because, every time you believe nothing can be worse in the French kingdom, there’s always more to learn about a president whose authority has proved itself to be perfectly submitted to the Great big brother Barack Obama. Thus, and quite surprisingly from the French spectators outlook, among all the hordes of hooligans fighting in Marseilles, Nice, Lille, Toulouse or elsewhere, the emphasis has deliberately depicted the Russian citizen as the most furious, while many have been deported and their national team threatened to be disqualified. The truth is that the French saw many English men as drunk as can be, vomiting on the pavements and harassing supporters at random.

What’s the truth behind the Obama/Hollande relationship and common propaganda ?

First of all, let’s make it clear both are linked by a special taste for inaction at the best ; a loud of successive poor decisions as well as a sum of denials at the worst, starting with the Iranian nuclear deal that Obama had never submitted for ratification by the Congress because he knew it would have had no chance of passing. On the other side, the Iranian parliament has never approved it, the Iranian president has never signed it, and the Iranian cabinet has never even discussed it. In other words, President Obama “may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wanted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself,” as the Gatestone Institute’s Amir Taheri had declared soon after this disastrous deal was concluded. Yet, the expert may have been wrong on that one. François Hollande may be the second naïve leader left in a moment when the Islamic threat has never be so high, and both are ready to sacrifice their respective countries on the pyre of wrong profits. Sure, one is eager to leave an indelible mark in contemporary History, but as sad and brutal as it may seem, the man will only succeed in leaving the color of his skin as the best symbol of substantial changes in the American presidential chronology. Had he been less obsessed with trying to hide his lack of judgement when soon after his reelection the insistent warnings of his own administration had brought evidences proving the CIA had actually been financing a bunch of terrorist groups close to Al-Qaida and others as soon as the Syrian spring of April 2011 had begun or even before, he would have initiated a consistent dialogue with Vladimir Poutine in order to spare the Syrian people gassings, bereavements and massive exodus. If it is never easy to endorse a responsibility for a major fault that will probably jeopardize the European ideal as well as destabilize the whole European continent for a long time or forever, it is always be worse to take obstinate and unreasonable positions that turn out to be criminal. The old opposition between the United States and Russia can no longer bring the appropriate solutions to the XXIst century’s Islamic terror issues. Russia is not the enemy anymore, and the next American president would be wise to convince himself of this obviousness.

As for the French monarch, no doubt in these times of needs, any wrongdoing will be good enough for him if it includes fructuous contracts allowing more gifts to pour on the various communitarianisms he fosters, beginning with the Islamic one. And this is precisely, if not the last, the most vicious element the duet shares in common with an exquisite cowardice, as a gangrenous islamo-leftism has slowly converted the European capitals. Despite this most update form of antisemitism, barely a few hours after the Orlando massacre at a local gay club which had left 49 victims dead and although the FBI had already identified the perpetrator as an islamist sympathizer, in other words a sleeping activist once under record and close supervision, Barak Obama made an astonishing address to the nation, deliberately occulting the Islamist dimension of the event. On the contrary, the American president tried his best to stay as vague as possible, speaking of terrorism, but quickly putting the emphasis on gun regulations that should be implemented and diverting the concerns on unfriendly gay ground. In France, the very night after the Florida Islamic terror attack, another was perpetrated in the quiet village of Magnanville located in the western outskirts of Paris, where Jessica Schneider, a 36-year-old state employee and her husband, a 42-year-old super-intendant were being murdered by a French Muslim claiming to be associated with the terrorist Islamic State organization. He had stabbed the Police commissioner 9 times, while his wife had her throat cut in front of their 3-year-old child.

Ne ratez aucun des articles de Dreuz, inscrivez-vous gratuitement à notre Newsletter.

If after the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Kosher’s assassinations of January 2015, François Hollande had cowardly tried to derivate the Islamic motive towards a particular hatred for police forces, the Jewish people and satirist drawers while he should have had the nerves to declare a state of emergency allowing measures that could have had avoided the unfortunate Islamic attacks to come, in front of the deep French dismay on June 13th and the understandable anger of the police corporation, the President and his staff couldn’t do less than blame an odious Islamist crime.

However, as long as the occidental world will hesitate to name the absolute evil which is Islam ; a political vision of an anthropological submission at the human scale disguised under a “pacific” monotheism (and not the opposite), as long as the democracies won’t accept that the platonician values and antagonisms such as Good vs Evil, Right vs Wrong, Truth vs Lie inherited from the Hebrew codex are irrelevant in the world of Islam, even if we do believe there exist Islamic moderates, there is no chance the civilization can fight back with the appropriate weapons in order to provide a sustainable peace to the world. In addition, in the context of a continuous flow of migrants reaching the European soil and considering the absolute lack of a coherent European immigration policy while the necessity for many Islamic countries to diversify their economy offer billions, what is to fear is the fast islamisation of the old continent by pacific means. The process is under way. And whereas IS is currently relocating in Lybia and the Sinai peninsula thanks to neglected Egyptian Bedouins who have no patriotic feeling but an envy to benefit from the billions the Islamic State has to offer, many other terrorists rejoin Europe and melt away into the masses. Then, the possible aggregation of all the social discontents with unsuspected Islamic terror groups disseminated all over Europe could lead to the creation of the modern form of third international of the third Millennium.

Why the civilization needs Russia

If the Russian involvment to the Syrian conflict has dramatically helped to weaken the IS expansion, it is utterly dangerous that Europe keeps following the US reluctant attitude in eradicating the Islamic State or the constant American policy of humiliation. In diplomacy matters, to humiliate a people is always a bad move, especially when the future of civilization is at stake, and especially when more than 20 million Russian have given their own lives in order to allow Europe to remain Europe. The Ukraine crisis cannot jeopardize the security of the world. The continuing debate within the European Union regarding the nature of sanctions on Russia and the timetable and conditions for removing them appear as grotesque as economically criminal. Three days ago, Britain, France, and Slovakia all called for the extension. The next day, President François Hollande warmly welcomed his Slovakian homologue in Paris while Italy, Greece, and Bulgaria had argued for easing sanctions. If Slovakia, which will assume the next EU presidency chair, also noted the need for discussion regarding the future of sanctions as concerns grow that sanctions may affect European energy security, what if it was high time to end the great era of hypocrisy and irrational McCarthyism to focus on the undergoing islamisation of the world ? What if Europe was daring to recover his own irreproductible voice? “Brexit or not Brexit” isn’t the Shakespearian question. “To be or not to be” is. This is precisely what is at stake with an islamo-leftism ruling the old continent from behind the sidelines.

Reproduction autorisée avec la mention suivante : © Mylene Doublet-O’kane pour Dreuz.info.

Inscrivez-vous gratuitement pour recevoir chaque jour notre newsletter dans votre boîte de réception

Si vous êtes chez Orange, Wanadoo, Free etc, ils bloquent notre newsletter. Prenez un compte chez Protonmail, qui protège votre anonymat

Dreuz ne spam pas ! Votre adresse email n'est ni vendue, louée ou confiée à quiconque. L'inscription est gratuite et ouverte à tous

En savoir plus sur Dreuz.info

Abonnez-vous pour poursuivre la lecture et avoir accès à l’ensemble des archives.

Continue reading