Between Two Evils



In a few short words one union boss, Romain Altmann, captured the feelings of millions of French voters immediately after Emmanuel Macron’s victory in the recent election when he stuck his face in front of a TV camera:

It is like voting for your own hangman“, he said.

For many years the EU had ‘enshrined’ within employment law the basic ‘rights’ of people across Europe, projecting the image of a compassionate Brussels in tune with the aspirations of the common worker.  This has been effective, placating trade unions across the continent and confirming in the minds of Europeans that they do indeed benefit from such legislation.  However, little has been done in the mainstream media to discuss the record of the EU and any inconsistencies it may have in applying its own employment laws.

Of course the reality of such grand ideas, the motto synonymous with the French Revolution: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, appears rather different if the EU’s record is viewed objectively; in short, sentiments like this rarely mirror the actual framework in place.  Take the conclusion of the recent French election as an example, where these linguistic symbols of a formerly free and assertive France had already receded into the background of social and political dialogue by the time the result was announced.  Macron ran his campaign on a centrist platform, promising to draw in ‘moderates’ from the left and the right to create a more democratic France, one in service to the people.  So far so good.

Excessive exposure by mainstream media transposed the photogenic image of Macron onto billboards and television screens across the country — saturating every viable mode of advertising in order to present something new.  He was, for all intents and purposes, an ‘outsider’, therefore no sigil would be necessary to get the ‘right man’ into power here.  The magical properties of the media would be enough to imprint on the public’s sub-conscious the inherent goodness of Emmanuel Macron.  After all, his christian name does indeed translate from Hebrew as ‘God is with us’.  Sure enough, as the cameras began to roll, Macron took on the image of saviour. 

That slick machine forged in Brussels had already clicked into overdrive by agreeing a designated script with its associated partners in the French media, including major outlets in Germany and across Europe — churning out a stream of adjectival phrases aimed at persuading the 16 million voters who would eventually decide to throw their lot in with Macron that this was indeed the second coming.   

There were various reasons why the French electorate did this, but few that were relevant: “He’s  a ‘fresh face”, said one.  While another woman, presumably in her late twenties, even saw in Macron a reassuring symbol of “change” to the status-quo — the ongoing programme of austerity and financial cuts that form liberal economic policy — all of which is overseen by queen dowager, Angela Merkel.

Those behind the slogan above, saying Non! to the failed left and its economic policies, as well as the Front National’s distinct brand of racial hatred, were seeking instead someone from the centre in whom they could believe; with a deft slip of the Macron’s hand, Hollande suddenly found the resignation of his economic minister lying on his desk.  The good-looking one duly announced his plans to run for office, carving a niche, an unnatural one for his proclivities, as a moderate and a centrist.  Unfortunately for the electorate they were about to get precisely what they were asking for, in name anyway, and it was going to be wonderful.  Welcome to Macron’s programme of the ‘nouveau left’: ‘la loi Macron’. 

For several months prior to the anointed one formally declaring his candidacy, Macron had enjoyed a ‘spontaneous’ period of good fortune.  Seemingly out of no where, an ‘organic’ movement appeared — benefiting from generous exposure in the French press and on internet media platforms around Europe; this group called themselves, ‘Les Jeunes avec Macron’ — Young People for Macron — espousing the leadership qualities and integrity of the ‘new man’..  By remarkable coincidence, and with perfect timing, this group of ‘activists’ would generate enough energy on social media to build support for him and get the attention of the French public — gradually overwriting the slogan, ‘Neither Macron nor Le Pen‘ in the minds of the electorate with the expediency of a palimpsest.

There were key indications during the election itself to suggest he was being groomed for this specific position — and previous form to suggest that he was chosen some time ago by influential power brokers to be installed at the head of the French government.  He had enjoyed discreet financial support in the background, for he is now recognized as a key member of a heavily financed group called ‘les Graces’, of which its core members are made up of disgruntled socialists, all pro-business, who had renounced much of the core socialist principles identified with the old left in favour of ‘tried and trusted’ liberal economic policies.  Furthermore, I suspect the Guardian is correct in identifying Macron’s career trajectory as a planned operation by elements of the deep state:

Many [members of les Graces] are fellow énarques (graduates of ENA) and every step of Macron’s career could have been directed by them… Macron could first have been launched into the prestigious state Finance Inspectorate, then switched into Roschchild to gain business experience (and wealthy support) and then placed like a time bomb in Hollande’s outer office, where he ticked away until he could be moved into the heart of the Valls government. Last August he finally exploded into action at the perfect moment to cause maximum damage to Hollande, Valls and the entire socialist presidential election campaign.  Macron’s rise bears all the hallmarks of a classic ENA undercover operation, a fundamental part of the énarques’ stock-in-trade and one in which the country’s leading bureaucrats are cynically trained.

From this vantage point, it is hard to discount the very real possibility that those powerful influences behind the scenes also played key roles during the run up to the election by initiating what appeared to be several premeditated attacks on the main front runner, François Fillon, who was dealt a fatal and final blow by a smear campaign over alleged payments from the public purse to his wife Penelope. This was particularly damaging to the conservative right, since Fillon had positioned himself as a man of ‘integrity’, impervious to acts of corruption. 

The media quickly took advantage of this by confirming Fillon’s ‘greed’ in the eyes of the public.  What are the chances, then, that Monsieur Fillon, the experienced candidate enjoying a surge in pre-election polls and looking very presidential, was intentionally hobbled by those forces to allow Le Pen in as Macron’s main opponent?  Fillon did claim that there was a campaign aimed at smearing his reputation.  Under attack from the left, and facing a hostile media, his ratings plummeted overnight.  Exasperated, with his presidential bid on the rocks, he snapped back at them all in front of a camera:

  “Il y a quelque chose de méchant sur cette campagne contra moi”.  

Indeed, a nasty campaign of slur and innuendo was afoot in order to remove him from contention.  Knowing very well that the French public had long carried an aversion to Marine Le pen’s father and a fear of the far right, it must have been very satisfying for the establishment to know that the favourite on which it had its money could now be justified as odd on. Up against Le Pen, their runner was a certainty and he would win by a canter.   In spite of of Macron’s inexperience, or his association with Hollande’s disastrous time in office, it was inevitable that the electorate would reject, without question, the far right.  The majority of people, under duress, would vote for the establishment figure.  From the vantage point of the neo-liberals it is in this way that the racist card always generates the right emotional tremors among the public — and the ‘right outcome’. 

In this age of political correctness voters are understandably beguiled into forming the ‘right attitudes’ when the issue of racial hatred is triggered —regardless of how their conscience or their political persuasions guide them at the ballot box.      

However, it should be noted that prior to the big day, a significant portion of the electorate, 11 million, sickened by the neoliberal model, had chosen the unthinkable: they would mark a cross in the box adjacent to the Front National.  This is one of the central issues: if the criminal aspects of a political system compels 11 million people to choose the far right as an alternative, then the system should be, in fact it must be, declared as broken and beyond redemption.  This kind of ‘Machiavellian approach that the key influences within the EU take to electioneering should, alone, precipitate a declaration among the public:

Enough!  We refuse to engage any further with this fraudulent system!

Yet despite the vast array of modern communication we have at our fingertips and the social media platforms available, we rage and we complain (while all of our emotional responses are being monitored) we curse and we condemn, we rage again and again at the injustice of it all — at the impact it has on the planet, the personal consequences this type of fraud has on all of our lives, yet few pertinent questions are asked with a view to long term solutions.  How do we as a global community go about rebuilding our lives while we are dominated by this seemingly impenetrable structure of power? 

What alternatives are available to us that may impact on the politics arena while we are denied a voice that counts at the ballot box?  Caught in the many tentacles of this system, of ‘business as usual’ — even in the face of perpetual war, mass starvation and the commodification of the world’s population — what opportunities do we have that may invoke real change?  For human suffering around the world has reached saturation point. 

It now seems incumbent on us to ask relevant questions and seek solutions.  Is it possible for us as a global community to save ourselves from this small group of families, banks and corporations actively raping the planet and applying social and economic policies that run contrary to fundamental human rights?  If there is still time to extricate ourselves from this, how do we go about it as ordinary citizens?     

How do we intercept this web of corruption, vote fixing, stripping of global assets, exploitation of the environment and intentional disenfranchisement of global society?  Of course there is no easy answer, but that does not negate the human duty as citizens of the world to come together and attempt to find answers; to find legal and democratic solutions in an economic, judicial, and environmental context.  This would not be so much as a direct challenge to the system.  Rather it would be an attempt to identify alternatives, viable ways of living which are not defined by — or are derivatives of — the system we understand as capitalism: 

Humanity (in all its senses) jars increasingly with capitalism.  It becomes harder to fit as capital demands more and more… or if we do manage to squeeze ourselves onto capital’s ever-tightening Procrustean bed, we do so at the cost of leaving fragments of ourselves behind, to haunt… We see the powerful on the television and want to scream at them.  And all the time: what can we do, what can we do, what can we do? … 

Serve no more, La Boétie, tells us, and we shall at once be free  The break begins with refusal, with No.  No, we shall not tend your sheep, plough your fields, make your car, do your examinations.  The truth of the relation of power is revealed: the powerful depend on the powerless.  The lord depends on his serfs, the capitalist dependes on the workers who create the capital… Serve no more , and then what? … Nothing more difficult, however.  We can refuse to perform the work that creates the tyrant…And yet, we know that it is not that simple.  If we do not devote our lives to the labour that creates capital, we face poverty, even starvation, and often physical repression.

Just down the road from where I write, the people of Oaxaca asserted their control over the city…against a corrupt  and brutal governor.  Finally the peaceful rebellion was repressed with violence and many were tortured, sexually abused…some simply disappeared.  For me, Oaxaca is just down the road.  But for you, gentle reader, it is not much farther, and there are many other ‘just down the roads”; where atrocities are being committed in your name…and there are many, many more to choose from… It has been said that ‘today it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism’ (Turbulence 2008: 3)  We have reached a stage where it is easier to imagine the total annihilation of humanity than to imagine a change in the organisation of a manifestly unjust and destructive society.  What can we do?  What can we do? –  Crack Capitalism, 1)

Evidence of this terrible bind in which we find ourselves was visible in the French election, and in spite of strong reservations and mistrust of Macron the former banker, sixteen million people went against their better instincts and did precisely what was initially calculated by the powers in Brussels..  The post vote opinion polls support this assertion—demonstrating that approximately 54% of those that voted for Macron made it clear they did so as a tactical option only, to prevent Le pen from gaining power.  The sting was complete. 

If this fixing of elections and the destruction of key European economies was not so serious, it would be tempting to take a slightly humorous view of what is unravelling before us.   This Machiavellian approach to oiling the levers of power and ensuring they get the ‘right man’ in place is on a par with the cunning of the worst fictitious characters. For a moment substitute Macron’s handler — proto-capitalist Jean Claude Juncker —  for the fictitious character, Milo Minderbinder, whose thinly disguised greed underpins his mantra, “what is good for the company, is good for all”.  In the context of greed and the abuse of the public’s trust, both characters are indistinguishable. 

When observing geo-politics this is evident every time the head of the EU speaks in public, dressing up overt corruption, (he’s quite bold about it now) and presenting it as a plausible approach to economics.  For that matter, while we are here, why don’t we swap Milo’s global ‘syndicate, M & M Enterprises’, for what is plain to see what is happening in Brussels and name it for what it is:  E.U. Enterprises.   

As for the French electorate, perhaps the fact that they felt compelled to choose between two evils on an illusory spectrum of left and right would also explain why another four million voters either despoiled or left blank their ballot paper and placed it back in the box.  Think about that.  Four million of the French electorate refusing to go along with this charade called democracy.

By the standards of any type of political protest this many people choosing to reject ‘democracy’ while standing directly in front of the ballot box is staggering.  If we take into account the other ten million who did not attend the polls — including another eleven million who voted for Le Pen — this total of 25 million votes is a clear indictment of a system that is self-serving, corrupt and beyond reform.  As a consequence of this kind of scheming prior to a major European election — juxtaposing two polar opposites as the only choices available to the electorate — the globalists neutralised millions of ‘swing votes’, people still undecided in the crucial month before they went to the polls. 

However, it is precisely this type of defiance shown by so many French voters — this type of rejection, this emphatic No to the system that is proposed by authors such as John Holloway — as a first step to imagining another way to manifest alternatives to the present system, to look for the potential ‘cracks’ in it which we, as an electorate, may exploit. For the French people this was a bold statement of their intention to look elsewhere for liberty and fraternity.  Indeed democracy and capitalism are incompatible, and we should reject the notion that we have no option but to engage fully with these two systems that remain beneficial only to the political ‘elites’.

In an economic context, one alternative is evident in the example of the ‘co-operative’ principle, where many small groups around the world are pooling their money together and lending it to others (demanding no interest on the loan, and negating usury,) in order to assist with starting up new businesses, or to help maintain one.  This also negates the need of the individual to go cap in hand to the banks and beg them, in times of austerity, for a small loan to keep a fledgling business in the black. 

A good example of how viable this is as an alternative to the ailing capitalist system of production — aided and abetted by the banking system — is evident in the workings of the Mondragon Corporation in the Basque region of Spain. This combines multiple sub-co-operative projects, run by and collectively owned by the people by way of an annual general assembly.  These are categorized into the following key areas: retail, finance, knowledge and industry. 

Over all of these sectors the employment force retains full control —  retaining the power to make key business decisions, which includes employing or laying off managers and directors — reversing the old paradigm of capitalist production whereby this power had always been in the hands of those at the top — executives who remained unaccountable to the employee on the floor.  In short, these co-operatives have looked for the ‘cracks‘ in the system and moved in between them to set up an alternative to the structure of capitalist production, with considerable success.  It is one of the new templates that currently provides some hope.       

Therefore, the despoiling of four million votes at the polls in France was, it can be argued, not wasteful, but should be perceived as a beginning, the assertive right of the people to say no!  I will not take part in a system that is designed to disenfranchise me!  And this beginning is one that should be commended rather than condemned.  If those four million French voters had marked a cross on the ballot paper it would have been — as that part of the electorate perceived it to be —  a collusion, one which enables this crucial tool of the system to propagate and spread what is now an uncontainable virus. 

Unchecked and dangerously out of control, the machine replicates itself in everything we do — on a social, cultural, economic and political level.  The many elements of this machine affect us physically and psychologically — when we ingest products that are genetically modified (altering our own DNA) and when we are manipulated by the media and pushed around the board like pawns in the much larger game of geo-politics.  There is the 1% and then there is us.  They have even commodified the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the food that we eat.  It was only ever a matter of time, and inevitable, before they tried the unthinkable: to commodify the human genome.  There appears to be no conceivable limit to the appetite and reach of neoliberalism.

As human beings we remain expendable.  Our lives are marked up as units of profit or loss.  We are just as expendable as the huge losses the ‘elites’ incur annually through their insane gambling on the world’s resources and on various stock market ventures.  It is in this vein that the self-replicating products of this machine are manifest; continuity of profit is paramount, and also the succession of  its leaders: voilà Monsieur Macron.  The machine is active day and night.  It will never cease on its own accord. For it is programmed for two things: consumption and commodification of all things — including you and I.

In times like this, the old adage that people should always exercise their right to vote due to those who sacrificed their lives for such freedoms, is no longer a privilege that can be justified in circumstances like those that brought Macron to power.  Some observers argue that we are simply enabling the system by participation, believing that we, while engaging with ‘democracy’, are deluding ourselves if we think we are somehow affecting the possibility for real change.  It has even been argued — in the context of the choice that faced French voters — that neoliberalism is as much, if not more, of a cancer than fascism;  I take this to mean that as repugnant as Le Pen’s own brand of fascism is, it does not have the global capacity or reach that liberal economics has in its destructive impact on the economies and environments of every country around the world, an ideology driven by the common denominator of  greed.   

So what is it in Macron’s record that drove approximately fifteen million of the French electorate to reject the platform on which he stood?  While in Hollande’s cabinet as minister for the economy, Macron angered many on the left by criticising the socialist tax on the wealthy, one of the cornerstones of their economic policy since the late eighties.  This was a sure indication of his future intent and caused significant division and much resentment within the Socialist Party.

Macron was aggressive in further ‘reforms’ he pushed through, essentially part of an austerity package to placate his superiors in Berlin and Brussels — and in all likelihood, to prepare the ground for his eventual passage into the Élysée Palace.  This led to months of consecutive riots and mass social upheaval, to which we were all witness on our TV screens through 2015-16.  As a former banker, and an obvious instrument of the EU neo-liberal programme, Macron’s instinct was to do as he promised, hit both the working and middle class hard to alleviate the financial deficit, while dispensing with the ‘wealth tax’ and offering generous tax breaks to big business. 

One of the first things he did was remove union restrictions on working hours by resorting to a form of ‘executive order’ — pushing through new legislation by decree, now an increasingly familiar strategy of the globalists who advocate policies that are unacceptable to the electorate.  Invoking Article 49.3 of the French Constitution — a very rare occurrence — these measures by-passed parliament.  Now it much easier to fire native French employees and hire much cheaper labour from the African continent — of which there is a continuous supply while the gates of Europe remain porous to millions of migrants as they flood into Europe seeking work.   

Corporations in France know very well that French workers will never agree to work below the level of the minimum wage, or toil for excessive hours without adequate overtime and set conditions.  This is where millions of young people from the African and Indian continents come into the equation.  Most of the migrants have lived a life of poverty and possess nothing but the shoes on their feet.   Drifting in from the Asian and African continents like flotsam, they arrive on European shores broken and essentially dehumanized after decades of drought, starvation and civil war.

In this context, if they are lucky enough to survive the perilous journey by sea and arrive on the streets of Europe, they require the very basics on the hierarchy of needs.  They are grateful for any crumbs thrown to them by an employer; a job, any job, with any salary, will suffice.  From the vantage point of the globalists, a self-replenishing pool of cheap labour is at their disposal, hundreds of thousands of desperate people hoping to find a place of work.  Once they are here, trapped between borders, they are subject to exploitation by the corporations who are, due to Macron’s kindness, free from prior legal restraints and protections that were once enshrined within EU employment laws.  In this way they become the prime resource of which dreams and profits are made in neo-liberal Europe.

Fast forward to Macron’s campaign.  He made it clear that once in power he would pursue a similar programme to the one he pushed while minister for the economy in Hollande’s cabinet.  However, there would be one difference: it would be even more aggressive — one of severe cuts which would affect key sectors of the French economy.  Macron intends to initiate a programme of deregulation, yet this is the very thing which precipitated the global economic crisis.

It has been said that to make a genuine mistake should be considered only that — merely human error — unless the same mistake is repeated again and again while expecting a positive outcome.  How should it be categorised then?  Perhaps a different noun should be chosen, or an adjective, to categorise this type of repetitive and damaging behaviour by the political elite.  For it is compulsive.  The only conclusion to be drawn from those like Macron who would willingly make the same failed choices — knowing that it will produce the same failed outcomes — is that those who advocate for liberal economics have been completely possessed and remain terminally sick; clearly there is no cure that will reverse this condition.

Unfortunately the ‘liberal condition’ is infectious, and it has infected us all in one way or another.  In this present age when ‘greed is good’, when politicians lead by the worst examples, indoctrinated to venerate the self only — a particularly malignant form of narcissism — Macron, the ‘god [that] is with us‘, represents this culture literally and metaphorically.  The prognosis for this illness is not good, and it promises a terrible future for the human race.

Now that Macron is settled in his palace it does not bode well for France either; and he is clear about what awaits the French people.  He intends to cut 120,000 jobs in the civil service.  He has promised his handlers in Brussels to reduce spending by 60 billion over the course of the next five years of his tenure — Merkel’s avowed position of austerity.  Meanwhile he has helped out the corporations with reductions in their taxes by almost £40 billion.   All of this while three million French citizens cannot find work and remain unemployed — a social breakdown now exacerbated by hundreds of thousands of migrants taking up ‘Mama’ Merkel’s invitation to come to Europe — under the false pretence of placing them in work.  

The continent of Europe is in crisis.  The children of refugees are drowning at sea.  Their father and mothers are pitching up tents in the streets of Sweden, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain and France, seeing out the most inhospitable winters in appalling conditions.  Yet the EU have not formed a single long term plan, not one acceptable policy, to accommodate millions of unfortunate migrants flooding in.  No framework to ensure law and order within the migrant communities exists — where the black market sells everything from cigarettes to children.  Europe is imploding.

From the vantage point of those in power, those who instigated the project of a multicultural Europe — the multiple bombings, knifings and shootings of innocent Europeans is, unfortunately, collateral damage caused by ‘radicalised muslims’. However, I should note at this juncture that I believe this to be completely untrue and misleading to the point of deception.  It is clear that muslims are are being used as scapegoats.  It would appear that the ‘jihadis’ are either paid agents (recall the blatant weaknesses in the Charlie Hebdo narrative, and other similar incidents) — or merely pawns groomed and manipulated by an imbedded deep state across the countries of England, France and Germany.  The answer is most likely to be both of the above.  In short, both migrants and indigenous Europeans are being used to serve an agenda.

The key to understanding this is the opening of European borders.  For the prevailing state narrative of ‘jihadi terrorism’ could never have been offered to any European public as a plausible explanation without porous borders remaining open to so-called ‘insurgents’.  Otherwise how would the security forces explain the penetration of Europe’s strictly tight borders by ‘terrorists’, historically controlled by checkpoints

Essentially the migrant crisis serves a specific long term agenda.  The plan to trigger forced mass immigration into Europe, first initiated by Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-European project — generally viewed as the founding father of full integration — is serving two purposes: first, it carries forward Kalergi’s initial plan to homogenise all European peoples with the aim of breaking down their right to self-determination, and preventing Europeans from preserving social, cultural and linguistic traditions.  Every two years the Coundenhove-Kalergi Prize is awarded to politicians and those of influence who can help to develop this ‘vision’.  Angela Merkel — no one should be surprised — has already benefited from the award in opening European borders without limit, bringing Kalergi’s project to fruition, the first major step in creating a ‘world government’:

The man of the future will be of mixed race.  The races and classes of [Europe] today will gradually disappear [and] the Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples, and the diversity of individuals…

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.

Second, as I alluded to before, this provides an indefinite pool of cheap labour from which the globalists can further increase their profits.  This concept of open borders and continuous migration is promoted by them as a policy which derives only from a liberal humanist impulse — a narrative that is presented as ‘progressivism’.  This is the deception.  Therefore, the open door policy continues apace (one of the main policies announced by Macron immediately after his victory at the polls — which allows anyone claiming migrant status to enter Europe without passports or screening.  Everyone, international migrants and European alike, are suffering as a direct result of this EU plan. 

The politicians on whom we are dependent are paralysed by the consequences of their own project and their own mistakes.  Social services are immobilised, and in countries like Sweden, they are on the verge of collapse.  Yet Juncker, Tusk, Merkel and all the rest of them refuses to listen, constrained by their own sense of self-importance, arrogance and unadulterated greed, in believing that such a ‘project’ is not only viable but also necessary.  These ‘leaders’ fit perfectly into the mould of modern culture.     

Regardless of the pain shared by us all, Macron has made it clear that ‘integration’ must continue.  Yet many immigrants and refugees arriving in Europe have not even experienced the benefits of a job, never mind possessing the common wherewithal to differentiate between a lawful salary that is fair — and the wages of slavery.  They remain at the mercy of the globalists.   Few of these migrants have any experience of human rights, never mind civil rights, or an understanding of how imperative union influence is in this era of globalisation.  For the migrants, ripe for exploitation, any conditions will be acceptable.  This globalist strategy is nothing new, and the bottom line is profit margin, as Kelvin Hopkins affirmed recently:

The EU is not at its core about employment rights, not even is it about human rights.  The EU accepted employment rights to give the illusion that it is on the side of workers and trade unions — and at least slightly — to keep trade unions passive.   The millions of unemployed [across Europe current figure stands at 18 million] in Spain, Greece, and increasingly elsewhere, have seen no benefit from alleged worker and trade union rights.  In the cases of the Viking Line and Laval [my italics], workers tried to contest their employers replacing them with lower paid workers from another EU country.  But the European Court of Justice found in favour of employers rather than workers…

Another of the great shibboleths of the EU is ‘free movement’, and especially free movement of labour.  This is simply a means of driving down wages in pursuit of profit.  It is a component of laissez-faire capitalist ideology designed to weaken worker bargaining power.

Here is the tangible outcome that makes a mockery of the claims made prior to the UK referendum last year.  The argument that workers would lose valuable protections if they came out of the European Union.  With the knowledge of similar cases to the one above,  this claim is erroneous. This is a key point.  One of the prevailing myths that the people of Europe associate with membership of the EU is that key egalitarian principles are at the centre of its legislation and they protect its citizens, particularly in employment law.  For many who still retain a positive view of centralised power in Brussels, they continue to cite the ‘protection’ of workers and their employment conditions, and continue to argue that in the unlikely case that workers are discriminated against by their employers, they will always have legal recourse to the courts of justice, which in all likelihood, will find in favour of the employee.  In light of the the EU’s record, this positivity can only be viewed in terms of cognitive dissonance. 

Yet, this is how the myth of the EU perpetuates itself as a force for good — by word of mouth, distortion of the truth in mainstream media, and by the ignorance of those who generally absorb such information without question or research of the facts.  European leaders like Macron, consumed by ambition, wilfully exploit this lack of awareness among the public — of how the EU machine actually works — perpetuating myths about its egalitarian nature and its sense of equality.  Indeed, for much of the electorate, the real truth is unpalatable.  Too many people would rather live with the fantasy than accept they had been duped. 

Macron is anything but a ‘new man’.  He is now an integral part of this system and is in place to ensure continuity of liberal policies, and now he has decided it is prudent that France should continue to reinforce the following measures:

First, scrap the agreement on the 35 hour week, a condition of employment once though by the left to be sacrosanct and not up for negotiation.  This allows corporations to ‘negotiate’ on the amount of hours — less or more — that people should work.  Employees are now expected , if called upon, to work Sundays; (it’s fairly straightforward to see what all of this will mean for employees given the latitude that all companies now have post ‘reform’).  

Second, corporations will be given extended capacity by law to reduce wages if ‘economic conditions’ deem such a measure necessary.

Third, these so-called reforms allow companies — free from prior legal restraints — to make French workers redundant without fear of litigation.  The issue of lay offs has been an employment taboo in France for decades, one that protected the rights of workers by strict regulation.  The reasoning behind this is also a familiar globalist narrative.  Macron argues that it will increase employment opportunities for many because it should encourage employers to hire extra people — with the assurance that they can dispense with as many employees as they see fit if there is an economic downturn in the future.

Fourth, employers will be given more latitude to negotiate requests for maternity/paternity leave, general holidays, bereavement and special events such as weddings.  It is not difficult to see how this will end up for the employee either.  For only one thing matters here: the perpetuation of corporate profit. The juggernaut of liberal economics is moving in only one direction, and the erosions of workers’ rights appear to be just the beginning.

Contrast these so-called reforms with Macron’s statements immediately after his victory was confirmed on election night, and the cynicism with which he told to a flag-waving rally: 

“I will fight for you.  I will serve you with true humility.  I will improve the lives of everyone”.    

To the audience the outsider presented his credentials.  He was running against the grain of the establishment.  With impressive doublespeak, he demonstrated his innate capacity to win the trust of strangers.  Macron quietened the crowd, holding them in the palm of his hand and steering their every thought toward the new France.  This adoring mass — who knew with absolute certainty that ‘real change’ was coming — hung on to his every word.   Something different was in the wind.  You could sense it.  It was inspirational.

More than that, for many people ‘it was a privilege to be here”.  A historic moment.  For one young girl, Macron appeared under the lights like a pop star:

“Il suffit de regarder ce beau visage gros”, she cried.

The new man did, indeed, look handsome.  A contented sigh hushed the crowd.  A faint grin, just perceptible, began to spread across Macron’s face.  At this point it was difficult to evade the feeling that he was secretly thinking at this precise moment how appalling it would be if the roles were reversed, that it was he who stood down there in the pit — lobotomised by the media — helplessly carried along this cul-de-sac by the energy of the hive mind. 

“We carry new hope!”, he shouted from the platform.

Le Pen was gone. The audience happily applauded, reassured by the knowledge that they had, indeed, been spared a government of fascists.  It was something more than relief; the people had been saved by the power of reason.  It was clear to everyone present that Monsieur Macron was a man of the people — just the type of leader Jean Jacques Rousseau had in mind when he wrote Du Contrat Social in 1762, arguing that only the people, who are sovereign beings, have the right to legislate.      

“We carry a new humanism!”, Macron cried, waving to the crowd, apparently in tune with the great philosopher.

A wave of energy rippled through the massed ranks — cries and laughter merged with the music playing in the background; and for a moment, gazing at the TV screen, I almost fell under the same spell too.  A family of three stood leaning into the camera. 

C’est un homme de compassion”, the woman said. 

But her husband sensed something more.  Something extraordinary was evident in the new man:

Il est unique!”. “Il est un véritable chef de fille'”, her husband said. 

Indeed, up on the platform stood the real thing.  A leader.  Here was the alchemist the French people had been waiting for — a  man who will convert the fortunes of a nation, create new wealth, returning the profits of a neo-liberal state — or at least a fraction of them — back to the people.  He will transform a troubled France and change the very fabric of the République. 

Political optimism had replaced religion as the ‘opium of the masses’.  All dream were possible now. The family held each other’s hands.  With a joyful look on his face, the husband turned to his wife: 

“Maintenant, je suis heureux, he smiled, and kissed her full on the lips.

Everyone was overjoyed.  By now the knowledge of Macron’s political trajectory had been forgotten.  The numerous reincarnations of his career, the fortune he made while a protégé in the the Rothschild banking cartel, his other life as a socialist, his personal transformation as the béte noir of the left, the hammer blows he struck against the unions  — all of it began to fade like a distant and tacky memory in the minds of the faithful.  There was little point in recalling such anomalies.  Memories such as this would only smear the reputation of the new man.  The future is all that matters now.

On the platform Macron set out his vision:

“I do believe that the EU is important for the French people… We need a new EU to protect our people, and to regulate our globalization”. 

Just at this point, in the spirit of Pinocchio, I do believe that Macron’s nose got even bigger.  The new man was trying to project that hint of conviction he had demonstrated earlier in his campaign.  But why worry about image now.  There was no need to convince them. The people had cast their vote. They had chosen one of their own.

“Vive la France”! Macron cried.  “Vive la France”!

A wave of euphoria swept through the audience, and they began to dance and sing.  This was a special night which deserved a special musical score.  As Macron finished his address to his people there would be no room for sentimentality.  There would be no room for the French national anthem.

In its place the first notes of ‘Ode to Joy’, the EU national anthem, were struck.  Yet no one in the audience appeared to notice the irony playing out before them.  Their focus was on the handsome young politician above preparing to transform their future.  

But for one commentator, it all felt a little too much like déjà-vu.  He watched the people of France willingly slip into another state of lethargy, and although his words jarred with the mood, he did put it appropriately when he told the French people and their European neighbours:   

“You can all go back to sleep now”


4 thoughts on “Between Two Evils

  1. The only item I would take issue with is the connection between migration and terrorism. I don’t think there is one. At all. I think these murderous terrorist events are made to happen by the European governments in question. In fact, I know it’s the case.

    • CC Cairns says:

      Hi James, thanks for mentioning this. That was not intentional. But it made me realise that when we write, we do so for a global audience now. I had phrased the “connection between migration and terrorism” like that for a British audience, knowing full well that they mostly accept the official narrative of migration as the cause of ‘so-called terrorism’, yet continue to support open borders. I was trying to compel them to look at the contradictions of such a policy. However, I forgot that this will be viewed very differently by a north American audience, and perceived as a false conflation. So, my apologies for any offence that may have been taken. Of course migration is not responsible for ‘terrorism’. I’ve always known this (see my changes to the article). The bombings and shootings are almost impossible to differentiate between what is happening here and what has happened in the US. Sandy Hook, Charlie Hebdo, and many others in the US, and here, are prime examples of darker agendas being carried out. Unfortunately innocent muslims are being used as scapegoats, and Europeans as collateral damage to further the long term agenda (see my other addition to the article); although related in context, i did not wish to get into that in this article until a few weeks down the road in another essay.

  2. Superb analysis. Sadly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s